Loading...
1f. Minutes i. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. 1 COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn 1 STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations: Councilman Mason wanted to discuss Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition; Councilman Senn wanted to discuss the gambling ordinance amendment, the State response on TH 101, and response on Bill Hickey's Visitor Presentation from the previous meeting; and ' Councilman Wing wanted to discuss the Highway 5 Task Force. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: A. PRESENTATION OF PAYMENT TO THE GIRL SCOUTS FOR PAINTING NOTICES ON CATCH BASINS FOR THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe if I could, I'd like to have the Girl Scouts come forward and stand right around that podium. I'd like to recognize them as well as their leaders. Look at all those nice smiles. Isn't it fun to be here tonight? With this, many things have taken place where the city has gone through some processing with the Surface Water Management program and we know that in doing that there was many things that had to be taken care of in regard to markings of these locations and what could go and what couldn't go. It was the Girl Scouts that grabbed onto the project and moved forward with it. This saved the public works department a lot of time. A lot of money and we certainly appreciate the fact of extending your time in helping us in the city and making it a little more environmentally safe. And that's really great because it's something that we look forward to. We try to cover and we try to have help and we certainly got it. And I'd like to say thanks to the leaders that are here this evening. Vicky Goers, we found that local girl scout troops were willing to help. Troops #1134 under the leadership of Sally Johnson. #1101 under Nancy Everson. #936 under Linda Mady and #1594 under Katie Trent. And #2146 under Judy Sones and #965 under Vicky Goers. They completed much of that work.What I'd like to do now at this time, on behalf of the city of Chanhassen, I would like to give you a check of 5250.00 for assisting us in this particular program. Thank you. Is there anyone of the leaders that would like 1 to say something or any of the scouts? Scout Leader: We just appreciate being able to help out the city. That's part of our organization is doing 1 service for the city, which is our city as well. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much. Let's give them another round of applause. These are some of the fun 1 things that we get to do here at the Council. Some of the other decision makings isn't quite as much fun but it's something we have to come up with. B. ACCEPT $1,000.00 DONATION FROM THE CHANHASSEN LIONS CLUB, SEPTEMBERFEST 1 PROCEEDS, ED GINSBACH. Mayor Chmiel: I see Gary is reaching into the pocket. 1 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Gary: I'm really not Don. I thought you were going to give us a check right now...On behalf of the Lions Club of Chanhassen, we'd like to award you with a check for $1,000.00 to assist in covering expenses for Septemberfest. It kind of comes and goes. Mayor Chmiel: I just wanted to read something. I think it's something should be noted in regard to them. That although their gross proceeds were $1,600.00, and were down from the previous year, the Lions elected to pledge $1,000.00 back to the city to help cover expenses of the festival and I think it's really a great effort on their part to provide us back these dollars and we certainly appreciate it. I can't hold onto that too long. I'll pass it onto Don. 1 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #93 -109: Accept Utility Improvements in Willow Ridge 2nd Addition, Project 93-4. b. Resolution #93 -110: Accept Utility Improvements in Bluff Creek Estates 3rd Addition, Project 93 -13. d. City Council Minutes dated October 25, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes dated October 20, 1993 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 28, 1993 h. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code, Section 20 -57, Regarding Expiration of Platting Variances, First Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: With that number would you consider a motion to move this to item 12(a)? Mayor Chmiel: All except, is there anyone else that had any of these items that are pulled that would like 1 discussion at this time, other than Mr. Klingelhutz? Councilman Mason: Well I think item (i) maybe. That's going to take 30 seconds. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Wing: The same with mine. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Should we just breeze through them? Councilman Wing: Yeah, let's just go through them. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. 1 C. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS. Councilman Senn: I wanted to pull one item over on page 7. Second item. $1,500.00 to Hammel Green. Service fees for something referenced to City Hall expansion. 1 2 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: My understanding of our new procedure is we don't do that. You just pull the item and we'll follow up on it afterwards? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we can follow up on the back part of that. Unless someone else had some particular concerns. Councihnan Wing: No. Unless staff knows exactly what it is and can give us a good explanation. Councilman Senn: Well Don, if you're going to do that I'll tell you what my problem is I guess. I see here $1,500.00 item for City Hall expansion. I'm not aware that this Council's ever addressed a discussion or authorized a study or any city hall expansion yet all of a sudden I see we have a consultant. We're paying one and that disturbs me. And likewise it distribs me in light of the State Auditor's recent report about cities and consulting contracts which don't go out for competitive bids and all of a sudden here we have another consulting contract and never seen it before. Don Ashworth: You'll see that as part of your work session this next Monday night and I'll follow that with a formal response as well. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other items? Councilman Senn: No. That was the only one. Mayor Chmiel: With that, we'll move. Councihnan Senn: Move approval. 1 Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn: Except that item. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll see that back on our agenda for Monday at the work session. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Accounts Payable with the exception of Check #053146 in the amount of $1,500.00 to Hammel Green. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 E. FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2, BLOCK 1, OUTLOTS C AND D, BLOOMBERG ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS, LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES AND BLOOMBERG COMPANIES. Councilman Senn: This didn't really get referenced last meeting when this came up for preliminary but if I'm understanding the drawing which we now have, it would appear as though we're replatting property that the applicant doesn't own. Is that correct or incorrect? 3 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Kate Aanenson: ...would be Outlot E, Outlot D and C and parts of Block 1...northerly portions. This is where the hotel exists now. What we're replatting is right in this area here. This would be, we'd recommend approval of the variances to, where we don't have the 100 foot width. So it's just this area right in here that we're replatting. Councilman Senn: ...the solid line along the bottom appears to go into the bowling center property and the other neighboring property. Kate Aanenson: Right. That was one of the conditions we brought up. That in the...property line through an existing building, and put a condition on it that they must meet the current building codes in order to do that. But yes, it was put through a building. 1 Councilman Senn: Okay, and that's where you lose me. Doesn't the bowling center people own the property? Kate Aanenson: No. This is still Bloomberg's property. 1 Councilman Senn: Okay, so part of the bowling center is on Bloomberg's property and part of it's on their own property? 1 Kate Aanenson: No, this is all Bloomberg's property. It's the Instant Webb building that we're talking about. Councilman Senn: Isn't that the bowling here? I mean otherwise this graphic's...so maybe that's the problem. Maybe the graphic's in error. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, this is the correct subdivision lot right here. 1 Councilman Senn: But that doesn't have the buildings on it. I understood from our packet this is the document we're being asked to approve. Kate Aanenson: These are the two lots right here. This is the hotel expansion. Councilman Senn: Can you outline where we're replatting then? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, one other thing just to piggy back on that Mark is that, what we have is a preliminary plat as labeled. That should be shown as a final plat. Get that correction on it Kate. Councilman Senn: Okay. Then the only other comment I had is I'm still not comfortable with the parking situation on this, as I stated last time. So that will probably take into my vote at least. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you want to move that? Councilman Senn: No, I don't want to move it. Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of item 1(e). Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. 1 4 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Final Plat to replat Lot 2, Block 1, Outlots C and D, Bloomberg Addition into 3 lots for Lotus Realty Services and Bloomberg Companies as proposed. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. F. AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XXV OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, FINAL READING, AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES. Councilman Wing: With all the good questions Mark's bringing up, this is really mundane. I almost wish I hadn't said anything here. Just on the ordinance that we're passing, I pulled it the week before and if the Council went to page 3 of the ordinance itself. If Kate will just bear with me. What we're trying to do here is make sure that we cut down on the heat island effect. The pollution. Just landscape parking lots and I guess whenever staff gives us these things, especially on the consent agenda, that there'd be a lot of graphics with it and I thought we should have had some graphics. And they did bring in some graphics. But I would just challenege the Council on page 3, as it refers to parking lots, to explain to me what we're passing. So before I embarrass you and go any further, you reach a point where you have to trust staff, and in this case I trust staff because I was in on the writing of this. But it's confusing and I really think this ordinance ought to have graphics with it to kind of have a pictorial view of what we're trying to say here. Basically this says that a parking lot has to have trees and landscaping and so many parking lots have to have so much of this and so much of square feet has to have this and on the Tree Board that did this, we had all the pictorials and the overlays and so on and so forth. It was really easy to see what we're doing. So staff has done a good job on this but I thought we should have included the graphics and I wish the graphics had gone a little bit more than the pencil graph we had here. That's my only comment. I would move approval of this with that comment. 1 Councilman Senn: Kate, before you do. Councilman Wing: Oh excuse me Mark. You had this one also. 1 Councilman Senn: On page, well basically the first page of the ordinance, item 2. I called to Paul's attention at the last meeting about that 2 does not conform to the remaining city, or other city ordinances and he was going to bring it into compliance with the city ordinances. But I think with the busy week that's kind of fallen through the cracks so I'd like to propose a change to 2 before we pass this which does bring it into compliance with city ordinances. And if you would go to the last part of 2, which following the word or, which says within 8 feet. Just strike the rest of that and substitute instead of or, utilize. Or how would you say it. Or utility and drainage easements or sight distance triangles. More or less what that does is it keeps, treats these the same as fences and keeps them out of utility and drainage easements and out of sight distances which we've set up through our sign ordinance. Or not our sign ordinance but our fence ordinance. And the 8 foot is incorrect anyway because the ordinance requires 10. So that change, and I talked to Kate about it here and that's going to bring it into compliance. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. What you're saying, basically within 10 feet or utilize utility sight and drainage easements? Councilman Senn: Well Kate and I were talking about and we didn't feel that mentioning the 10 feet was really necessary as long as we just said, or utility and drainage easements or sight distance triangles. 1 5 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: Is that easy to deal with? There'd be no question to that wording? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Wing: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Roger, would that put a clarification on it? Roger Knutson: Just fine, sure. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that, you made the motion. Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the Amendment to Article XXV of the Zoning Ordinance, Landscaping and Tree Removal, Final Reading as amended to include the wording " or utility and drainage easements or sight distance triangles "; and approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 G. AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR LYMAN BOULEVARD STREET, STORM SEWER AND TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 93 -32. Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Klingelhutz wanted to discuss this a little bit. Al. Al Klingelhutz: Al Klingelhutz. I live at 8600 Great Plains Blvd. I guess I have some questions and I talked to the City Engineer this morning...this evening. In looking at the feasibility study I guess I would have to agree with Mark in that I know that people that planning on hiring are a very respected firm and everything so I don't have a big problem with giving him the project without it going out to bids. I think after reading in the paper some of Mark Dayton's statements about bidding all projects in the city and thinking...follow that rule. I don't want to give you any information but I probably wouldn't have brought this up if Mark hadn't mentioned it. I guess my concern was the feasibility study is for the total improvement of Lyman Blvd and it looks like everybody in the area is going to be assessed according to the number of acres they have in their property for that feasibility study on that road. Well Lyman Blvd. is a quarter section away from any land that I own and I just don't feel that being assessed for that portion of the feasibility study is quite proper because it is not a benefit to my property. I can understand that TH 101 or 86th Street...feasibility study. I guess I would...that it does benefit my property but Lyman Blvd which is completely a quarter, over a quarter section away from any 1 of my property I don't feel I would benefit, or my land would benefit from it. You've also got 17.18 of acre on here which belongs to Keith Parks who lives down in Kentucky and I do represent him on his property. We have never signed a statement about going into any sort of feasibility study for his property. Keith called me and talked to me about that today and he said be sure and bring that up. It could cause problems in the future to go ahead with this and slap an assessment on his property and I think his property is included in my assessment of $8,300.00 for this feasibility study. I don't know. It's shaded in dark here but there's nothing in the study showing that there's anything against his property. That's another thing I wanted to make you aware of. Now ' you get a northwest corner of my property, I have had sewer to my farmhouse for many years and I see that's included in the feasibility study. The sewer line comes across Highway 101 and already services that property in the northwest corner. And the fact that...little white area on the north side of TH 101, that's not an acre of land in there but the sewer line, I did get an easement there for a dollar to bring it across the road. So I think when 1 6 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 you come to the assessment hearings, I want...that some of these things should not be included in the assessment on my property. I don't know if anyone is here from Mission Hills tonight but that property is still pretty much in abeyance as far as the purchase of it. I do have a purchase agreement on it. It was supposed to close August 1st and there's never been an extension granted or anything on it at this time. So beware. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there any way you can add anything to that David? Dave Hempel: Maybe I can shed a little more light on it. The area that's shaded on the report is where improvements, water main as well as sewer are going to...Lyman Blvd. The map on the report is strictly showing the land owners that signed a petition the city received. The exact assessment methodology and so forth will be spelled out in the feasibility study which would be brought back to the City Council. Al Klingelhutz: Could I ask a question? Did you get a signed statement from Keith Parks? 1 Dave Hempel: The report would indicate that no, we have not. According to this report. Councilman Senn: Don, I have a question. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: Dave, as I talk to a number, or got several calls from people out in this area, there appears to be still quite a great deal of controversy over road alignments and exactly how this is going to lay out and from what I understood there's still a good number of meetings going on about that. Isn't it in that case kind of premature for a feasibility study for public improvements which are going to be pretty much dependent upon where those roads and that sort of thing go? Or do we get into a situation here where we do a feasibility study and it's going to address a whole ton of alternatives or it's not going to address a ton of alternatives and we end up back with upteem change orders or whatever because we haven't got street alignment set or what? Dave Hempel: Councilmember Senn, we've had the concept plan approval from Mission Hills development which is over Mr. Klingelhutz' property. With that concept we've had a corridor of about 200 foot wide set 1 aside for the future alignment of Trunk Highway101 through these properties. There's been significant studies with the Fred Hoisington Group with the alignments of Trunk Highway 101 and then staff believes that the right - of -way or the area being left set aside for future TH 101 is sufficient to address different alternative alignments which are being pursued. Councilman Senn: I thought there were some real questions over what streets were going to hook through. Not hook through. Cul -de -sac. Not cul -de -sac. Not pertaining to the Klingelhutz property necessarily but pertaining to some of the other properties mentioned here. I think the Roger's property and it's effect on the street. The existing street system that exists over on Lake Riley Blvd and how that connects through. Dave Hempel was over at the overheads and not speaking directly into a microphone. Therefore his comments were not picked up on the tape. Councilman Senn: So this feasibility study wouldn't have anything to do with...is that what you're saying? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 1 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Senn: So it ties only in with the TH 101 part of it and that's it. Dave Hempel: Again, this is strictly for the extension of trunk utility improvements through this area... Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? I guess I was just sort of curious to know, normally at the beginning of the year we go through the process of putting out and getting several different bidders to come in for projects as such. Looking for feasibility studies. And of course this has come back into the back part of the year right now but we did go through that process and I'm not sure, was Orr - Schelen the ones that had that original one? Dave Hempel: That's correct Mr. Mayor. OSM, Orr - Schelen did have the previous feasibility study when this was first reviewed... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and they were the successful bidder for that part of it? 1 Dave Hempel: I'm not sure of that Mayor. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, if I may? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: One of the things that the City has tried to do is diversify the number of firms that we use on different projects. The actual choosing of like a consulting engineering firm, it's not mandatory that you go with the low bid. Generally we try to keep them in a certain range. 5% to 6% area and again this past year we used Engelhardt and Associates on Minnewashta Parkway. Strgar - Roscoe on 78th Street. OSM previous did this feasibility study and it's the reason we're going back to them at this point in time. I'm trying to think of some of the other firms that we have used. But again, we felt that one of the ways we can protect dollars associated with the city is to ensure that we didn't just keep giving projects to one particular firm. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was part of our concern back at that particular time as well. Don Ashworth: Right. Mayor Chmiel: So I just wanted to just address that part of it. Is there any other discussion? ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'm concerned that we're, I understand we're not assessing the property as is now but aren't we assessing the feasibility study? And if Mr. Klingelhutz disagrees with that assessment, and in fact says that someone else owns part of the land that he's being assessed for, I'm not sure that we're ready to approve this. I'm not sure I'm ready to approve this. Roger Knutson: If I can just address that for a second. This is not, nothing in here assesses the cost of the feasibility report. You're asking to come up with the cash and to voluntarily pay for it. If they don't sign, the 1 agreement doesn't happen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. 1 1 8 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Councilman Senn: So this doesn't proceed if they don't sign? Roger Knutson: That's right. 1 Councilman Wing: I think Al was just waving a red flag stating that, use caution. Al Klingelhutz: I was just kind of warning you that one person has not signed it. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's a good thing to bring out. Okay, with that is there a motion to proceed? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll move approval. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? 1 Councilman Mason: Sure. Second. Resolution #93 -111: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize a feasibility study for Lyman Boulevard street, storm sewer and trunk utility improvements, Project 93 -32. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I. INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE FOR SITE PREPARATION (IN EXCESS OF 1,000 CUBIC YARDS), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN KERBER BOULEVARD AND POWERS BOULEVARD, T.F. JAMES COMPANY. r Councilman Mason: My only concern is I noticed that for the trucks will be going down West 78th and Kerber when they're hauling soil and hauling what not in and out. I'm wondering if Powers does in fact, and we're all going to be nice to whatever powers that be so the weather will cooperate so Powers will in fact be done in a week. If most of that can be done on Powers. Dave Hempel: One of the conditions in the report was to approve a haul route... 1 Councihnan Mason: Right, and it was Powers and Kerber and I'm wondering, just because of all the stress that's been on Kerber because Powers has been shut, if most of that will end up going down Powers or we have no control over that or? Dave Hempel: I guess it depends on where it's location would be going to. Which route...We'd certainly direct it to Powers if it's available... Mayor Chmiel: One of the other questions on this is when is this going to start? What's their anticipated start date? 1 Dave Hempel: I don't know if the applicant is here tonight. Maybe he could address that. Don Ashworth: I think Mr. James is present. �. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a start date on this that you're going to start the grading and moving out the, if you'd like to come up here Charlie. We'd like to see you on television. Being that you're all dressed up with a tie 1 1 I City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 and shirt. I Charlie James: I was Todd's date for lunch today. He wouldn't take me unless I dressed... We would like to start ASAP. We have a contractor who has use for the dirt to build levies down in Chaska. So I believe in the original application there was a provision for stockpiling the dirt and if we're able to, we've got somebody to 1 step forward and say look it, if you can give us this dirt right away, we have a huge contract to build storm levies in Chaska and this is exactly the material we need. So it will all be going down TH 41 to Chaska. So everything's lined up. The money's lined up. Everything's ready to go. All we have to do is...so I would anticipate we'd begin... I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? I Councilman Senn: Dave, what I was trying to figure out from the staff report. You talk about 100,000 yards excavation and 40,000 of stockpiling. Does that mean 60,000's being removed from the site or does that mean that they're simply excavating 100,000 or stockpiling 40 on the site? 1 Dave Hempel: Those numbers were to us by the applicant. I can only assume they were going to export. Charlie James: They're the cut and fill so the total volume that's being cut is 100,000 yards and then there's • 1 60,000 yards of fill. So basically what we're going to do is from Kerber to Powers we're going to grade the entire site in conformity with the surrounding roads and right now the west end of the site needs to come up and the east end needs to come down. 1 Councilman Senn: So you're only removing 40,000? I Charlie James: Yes. Councilman Senn: Total. Okay, and that's what was going to be stockpiled or whatever on the site? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's what it says on the interim use permit. On the summary. Councilman Senn: Dave, I saw back under the conditions here that the applicant may be required to stick the II retaining wall in. I mean how can you cut that hill away, as is being suggestion, and just leave it the way it is? I don't understand that. Dave Hempel: Well it depends on their end use I guess. The final site plan will dictate how that. I Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but what happens in the meantime when you have a big, you know basically. I Dave Hempel: I think the timing on this site, the applicant is ready for site plan approval and developing the site with the grading operation. Most likely there will be retaining walls built... 1 Councilman Senn: But if not, you have the power to require the retaining wall? 111 Dave Hempel: With the site plan and the review process... 1 10 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Senn: Shouldn't we ? c S u make that part of this in case the site plan doesn't proceed. Dave Hempel: We could amend it to, in case...finished off no deeper than 2:1 slopes or something like that. 1 The site plan... Councilman Senn: I'd really like to see some protection in there. That if it doesn't proceed, then we have some basis to require the condition not to continue so to speak. Dave Hempel: If I recall, there are retaining walls proposed on this grading plan... Even if nothing did proceed 1 with the site development. Councilman Senn: Well that's where I got confused because in your approvals it says you may require those. It's not requiring. 1 Dave Hempel: It requires building permits for those retaining walls. I think that's what the condition refers to. Condition number 7. The applicant will be required to apply and possibly obtain building permits for the retaining walls proposed along the north slope of the property... Councilman Senn: Okay. So the walls themselves will be required, okay. Last question was, on the bond level I was really curious. You know it just seemed like a really low bond level at $32,000.00. I mean if there's 40,000 yards of dirt on that pile and you're talking about a number many, many times that to remove the dirt should that situation arise, I mean it just seems to me that the bonding's not even coming close to covering anything. 1 Dave Hempel: The bond...security is demanded to insure erosion control measures are maintained on the site and the site is restored with topsoil and seed. It's not for the actual trucking of material. If they wanted to stockpile material there on the site, as long as it was topsoiled and seeded...erosion, that's basically our requirements at this time. Councilman Senn: So we could allow the cut of the hill. They could pile up to 40,000 and just leave it there permanently? Dave Hempel: In the stockpile area, that's correct. That happens when you have phase type projects when you have need for dirt later on... Mayor Chmiel: I think if there's more discussion needed to be done with this, I think we should address it probably prior to this because there are a lot of questions here that you have that probably could have been answered before hand. Michael, would you like to move this? Councilman Mason: Sure. I'd move approval of item i. 1 Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Interim Use Permit to grade for site preparation (in excess of 1,000 cubic yards), located on the north side of West 78th Street between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, T.F. James Company as proposed. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 11 1 1 1 I City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Councilman Wing: What's the reason for your abstention? I Councilman Senn: I didn't abstain. I voted no. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Who abstained? 1 Mayor Chmiel: I meant, I corrected myself. I said abstention instead of no. Councilman Wing: What was your reason for the no? 1 Councilman Senn: Not comfortable with all the basically the cutting into the hill and stockpiling of 40,000 on the site and actually no provisions to deal with it later. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and I think all those were probably addressed. We'll move on visitor presentation. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. 1 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A WINE AND BEER LICENSE, PRAIRIE HOUSE RESTAURANT, 501 WEST 79TH STREET, TED KORZENOWSKI. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Don, are you going to do this? Don Ashworth: I had anticipated that probably Scott would but that's fine. The application has been made. We I have gone through the typical background checks. Karen has noted the items that he has submitted or will be required to submit prior to the issuance of that license and staff is recommending approval. I Mayor Chmiel: As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. If there's any comments that you'd like to make at this time, is your opportunity. Is there anyone wishing to address this issue? If seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? 1 Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion for acceptance or is there any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move approval. 1 Councilman Mason: Second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the request for an on -sale I beer and wine license, Prairie House Restaurant, 501 West 79th Street with contingent upon the following conditions: 1 1. Submittal of a $5,000.00 surety bond that expires on April 30, 1994. 2. Submittal of a Certificate of Liquor Liability Insurance meeting the minimum State requirements that expires I on April 30, 1994. 1 12 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 3.. Submittal of the $270.00 license fee. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF EASEMENT OF NATOLE PROPERTY ON TETON LANE. Dave Hempel: We're putting forward the vacation of an easement granted a couple of years ago when there 1 were city barricades placed on Teton Lane just north of the Curry Farms development. The city obtained a 12 foot by 20 foot wide easement over a driveway at 6251 Teton Lane, the Natole residence. The purpose of this easement was to allow the city snow removal equipment to be able to turn around when plowing roads when it was a dead end segment. Recent roadway and utility improvements to Teton Lane has removed the barricade on Teton Lane and the city no longer needs this easement for turn around purposes. As such the property owners have requested that the city vacate this easement. With that, we recommend approval. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time? This is a public hearing. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in , favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? If not, can I have a motion for the vacation of easement? 1 Resolution #93 -112: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt a resolution vacating the public easement over the Natole driveway as contained in Easement Document No. 100505 and described in the attachment. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND PUD FOR A 232 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 21 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 8, 10, OR 12 UNITS EACH, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY. Public Present: Name Address Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Way Dan Blake Centex Real Estate Corporation Kate Aanenson: ...located on the southwest corner of TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard. The property is approximately 90 acres in size. 2/3 of this is wetland which makes it a very unique site to develop. The comprehensive plan guides this for low density development and we're putting a collector road...connect to the school site on the other side of Galpin and bring it all the way across into the Opus property...There's a very narrow window of getting this road across between Galpin into the Gateway property based on the fact that there is a large DNR protected wetland. It slices the property, therefore...As you can see it's laid out, we're making it very small. The largest one being only 12 acres. Staff supports the recommendation for the PUD and the multi- family. There are several issues that need to be looked at. One is the Park Commission was looking at putting a park on this site or on the Gateway property but upon investigation and walking the site, it was determined that 13 1 1 1 I City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 part of this roe is maybe unbuildable or unsuitable for development...where the road is going property rty Y P g 8 to cross so further investigation needs to be made of that issue. As far as a larger issue, this is one of the first projects I going through the city that we've looked at under the new Highway 5 guidelines and we certainly want to give it critical review of the standards that we put together for that Highway 5. We asked, this is conceptual and I think at this point what they're looking at is getting some direction, a feeling as far as... This lot is similar to the one I that they have in Eden Prairie...what the view would be from Highway 5. There will be garage doors facing, a lot of garage doors facing that view and they are proposing some berming and some retaining walls. The information that we don't have at this time and...would be the amount of impervious surface and parking appears I to meet the standards but we want more detail on lighting and also the environmental issues. As far as wetlands, there will be some mitigation of the wetlands. That probably can all be worked out as far as mitigation. Again as we stated, we do have some questions as far as what the buildable area is on that so they may not be able to get that number of units as proposed, 232 units. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else Kate? I Kate Aanenson: Well, I was going to mention that the Planning Commission did have some concerns similar to...as far as...up against the new Highway 5 standards so at this point what we'd recommend is that you do give them conceptual approval. At least that they come forward with more specifics in respect to building materials and...Highway 5 development standards...recommend conditions in the staff report. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here? Is there anything you'd like to address regarding this? Maybe if you could just put that directly in front of the podium. The camera can pick it up then. I Dan Blake: Mr. Mayor and members of Council. My name is Dan Blake. I work for Centex Real Estate Corporation. We're here before you to, as Kate said, get a little direction. This project's had a lot of unknowns I with the park and the road connection across to the Opus parcel. We felt it was important to get a concept plan and get that direction from the city. That was the only way I could fum it up. Just quickly, a little bit of the information about the site again. This being north to Highway 5. There's 4 parcels generally...through the middle. There's a piece of high ground down here that the Park Commission has, I believe pretty much I committed to acquiring for part of their passive park area. And then this area what's being called the questionable area. We have done a soils investigation at that location and it's our opinion that it's buildable. It's a question of what cost and we're not sure yet. We're not even really ready to make that decision but we think it makes sense. There's so little of the site that's really useable. Just quickly again...picture what the building looks like. It's a 12, 10 or 8 unit building. This is one side of the 12 unit building. It shows 6 units. We do have garage doors but they are broken up. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Can I ask you to just put that in front of the podium? The camera's not picking that up. Sorry, we lose it. I guess maybe if you could just hold that in front of the podium there so we can. Turn it around. However, so it can be televised as well. I Dan Blake: So generally a two story building. Each unit is two stories. We've got brick on the lower areas and the...roof line which I think should generally meet some of the concerns of the Highway 5 corridor study. I Quickly again I'm going to show you, if you can see this on the camera. Kind of a cross section coming to the site standing on Highway 5. Generally, you can see Galpin and a building. Then an open space, then a building and a space and a building and then the wide open space is the wetland. Trying to give you an idea of the 1 percentage of the site covered with buildings. And this is to scale. It becomes out of scale because of it's smallness but that's generally the percentage of the site...obviously it's representing the landscaping... Really I 1 14 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 guess other than that I can answer any questions anybody would have. Again, we're just looking for some direction here as far as the general density. The clarification of the guide plan. What was medium density. What was low density and what direct do we need to go to go towards medium...as far as the Council's concerned. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address this at this time? Okay. I see some of the things that concern me in just looking at that particular parcel. There's 232 units. I think it just doesn't fit in to that particular area. I have some concerns because of all the wetland that is there. I think we have other concerns as far as our Highway 5 development, and you're right. With some of the designs as you have them, landscaping may do some of the things but I'm not going to say it's going to totally take care of it. I did a few calculations here and I had come up with a lot less than 232 units. I have some real concerns. What's the spacing? Do you have any idea what your spacing's going to be between those buildings? Dan Blake: The spacing in the front situation like this. We use about a 64 foot minimum, which would be 20 feet from the building to the curb. 24 foot roadway and then another 20 feet from the building to the curb on these courtyard areas. Spacing end to end vary from 20 to 30 feet to more, 100 and more feet depending on the orientation. Generally that 64 feet is the minimum which allows for the driveways to be...set back a little bit so the unit driveway length is between 22 and 26 feet long in front of the garage providing full parking space in front of each individual garage. Mayor Chmiel: Dave. In looking at that. Is there, what is our, for our collector road, what are we looking at for width? Dave Hempel: Right -of -way width. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Dave Hempel: Or street width? Right -of -way width, 80 feet. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And you're looking at what size road then? 1 Dave Hempel: Anywhere from a 36 foot wide to 44 foot wide. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Well, I don't want to sit here and just keep talking. I'm going to go to Richard. Councilman Wing: I guess I...wanted to address this tonight...I think the Council made it real clear some months ago that we had a priority in the city and the decision there was the Highway 5 corridor. The task force. The completion of that issue and get that on line and staff was told that they may have to take a moratorium on some of these developments and...Highway 5 corridor study has been to the Planning Commission at least twice that I'm aware of and both times has been shoved to the back of the meeting and just hasn't been dealt with. And there's an enormous educational process that has to occur at the Planning Commission before it even gets to the Council with...so on and so forth. The Highway 5 task force has their report...with another group of developers out on the southeast corner there. They can't come back until we get this complete...we'll have issues of roads and architectural standards and setbacks and...Highway 5 guidelines but we don't know what they are. They're not established yet. We haven't gone through the process...and it's a stand over situation...becomes the priority here. That these developments are put on hold and every time this comes up we talk moratorium and every time we say we don't want a moratorium but we're not...Clearly the Planning Commission has not addressed it. 15 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Clearly staff has not pushed it and we've lost site of our priorities. They have been buried in all the Y P P Y developments and we're looking at one or two of them tonight and...staff could not possibly have had time to look at these and have completed that study so that's my position. So I'd like to ask the Council's backing on instructing staff once again to give the Highway 5 corridor study top priority. That development be put behind us temporarily and if a moratorium is necessary, then we ought to move on it tonight to get the pressure off staff's back. They have a right to develop their property. We have to react, what is it 120 days I believe? Roger Knutson: Correct. • ' Councilman Wing: Well, staff has to react...Highway 5 is off limits to development until this study is completed. And then I understand that the developers will come in and help get this thing going. The Planning Commission has only one job to do, in my opinion, and that's to deal with the Highway 5 corridor study and get it complete. They have a lot of work to do and a lot of education ahead of them and it's been sluffed off so I guess I'll leave it at that. I'm not willing to address this tonight. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I full support Richard in all of his comments. I realize that this is just concept approval but I think, if we're at that stage yet, I still have many, many questions about what this is going to look 1 like. Whether it's even appropriate for this area. Realizing that it is highway frontage, it may be an appropriate use but there are too many outstanding issues here to even give it concept approval this evening. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Where does this stand with, not this in particular but Kate, with the Highway 5 plan. Stand ' with the Planning Commission right now. Kate Aanenson: We have a Saturday meeting, a special meeting scheduled for December 5th. We tentatively set the second Planning Commission meeting in January as a public hearing. So we're hoping to hold the 1 second meeting... Councilman Mason: I support what Councilman Wing is saying. Conceptually I think this probably will end up fitting in on that comer but I do concur that this is perhaps putting, I can never remember, is it the horse before the cart or the cart before the horse? Whichever one of those...I see something like this defmitely fitting in there but I'm worried that some of the other pieces of the puzzle aren't in place yet. So I guess I would ' support what Councilman Wing is saying. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Councilman Senn: I asked for I guess such a consideration almost 9 months ago. I guess my only question Dick is this. What portion of Highway 5 are we talking about, because in the past it's been very selective. I mean we don't want to talk about a moratorium or you don't want to talk about the Highway 5 study and how it relates to on certain parts of Highway 5. Now we do want to talk about a moratorium on other parts of Highway 5 and that just, that really bugs me. What it really comes down to is it seems like everybody really cares about what's going to happen on the west part of Highway 5 but absolutely nobody cares what's going to happen on the east part of Highway 5. 1 16 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Councilman Mason: I need some clarification there. What did you just say? Councilman Senn: What I'm saying, what I just said was that it seemed like nobody cared much about what was happening on the east end of Highway 5 when we had all these auto related uses with garage doors and everything else facing the highway. Right there in front of us before us and nobody cared about it and now all of a sudden we're out on the west side of Highway 5 and geez, we're all concerned about it in a conceptual plan level. Councilman Mason: Well, I very strongly disagree with the fact that nobody on this Council cared about- what's going on on the east end of Highway 5. Councilman Senn: I'll let the Minutes and the voting record show that. Councilman Mason: That sounds very good to me. I guess I'd like to see that. To say the Council doesn't care what's going on on Highway 5 I think is a disservice to the rest of us here. Councilman Senn: I didn't say that. Councilman Mason: Well, that's what I heard. Councilman Senn: On the east end. Councilman Mason: East end, fine. 1 Councilman Wing; But let's clarify, the corridor study isn't selective. It runs from the east bonier to the west border and there's going to be a bicycle ride in December. What's the date? Satuday the 4th? Or the 5th. And you talk about lack of interest and lack of people getting on the band wagon. Nobody showed up for the last ' one. They had to cancel it. Well I'm going to be there on the 5th. I'm going to make everybody that's in this process that isn't there accountable so we can go out and look at this. But it runs from Eden Prairie to Victoria. The Highway 5 corridor task force and study, it envelopes the entire city but the downtown is specialized and Mark has...points and I think we have dealt with those but it was very clear by the attorney that those proposals were again, the cart ahead of the horse. They were there. They existed. We couldn't stop them or change them. None of us liked them. The issue with Mark maybe was the moratorium and if this is going to continue in this direction, that's not a dirty word anymore. We're just simply not getting this done. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I agree with that. With that position as well because there was nothing we could do as far as the eastern portion was concerned and I don't like disseminating one from the other. I think it's all that we have to be concerned with and I think we should address that accordingly. So with that. Councilman Wing: Who has the floor right now? I cut somebody out here. Who was speaking? I just wanted 1 to know if it's appropriate at this time, if it's the right under Robert's Rules, if I could make a resolution instructing staff to once again, from the City Manager down, to prioritize the completion of the task force study. The Highway 5 corridor overlay. The PUD districting, if that's what occurs. Which is all encompassing Highway 5, and Mark's issues are equally as valid and are going to be discussed in it. Land use and what we're going to do with whatever's left there. Clearly those are issues. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but just a motion rather than a ... 17 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: Okay, the problem with the...resolution is that we still have State law that requires us to react to people that want to develop. A moratorium puts stop on it and staff no longer has to deal with the phone. They simply can go 100% on this corridor study and get it completed once and for all and then let development come but then we have the rules and the overlay and the PUD in place. I'm not so sure that staff can do both, and I'll leave that up to Mr. Ashworth to make that decision. But I would like to make a motion prioritizing this. Mayor Chmiel: Prior to that, let's get a, give us a little input Don. ' Don Ashworth: Well it should be responded to by Roger but I might say that, if you want to give a priority, a motion would accomplish that. If you want to ensure that our hands are freed up and that we're really not working on other development proposals, then the motion should be one of directing the City Attorney's office to prepare a moratorium resolution, or? Roger Knutson: It'd be an ordinance. Don Ashworth: Ordinance. Councilman Senn: Well we already did that once I thought and I thought you came back and said we could do a moratorium and then I thought staff spoke against the moratorium. Paul specifically. I don't see what's different then than what's now. I mean if that issue needs to be revisited, then I think we ought to revisit the entire issue. But again, I was real concerend about that 9 months ago. I continue to be concerned. We should have put a moratorium on it 9 months ago but you know, I don't see the big difference between tonight. Councilman Wing: The reason I didn't support you then is because staff said we can get this done and we're rolling. We'll clean it up. Well, I see that not happening. Councilman Mason: Aren't we just hearing that they're hoping for public hearings in January on this? So there clearly is direction and it clearly is moving. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And there's no doubt about that but it will take time once it goes through Planning Commission. Even on Council's going to take some time to discuss it so we're really looking at spring before we get anything said and done. So I think it's time to really look at it again. Can we dispense with this one and then maybe discuss that issue? Or should we do it within the context of. Mayor Chmiel: Well, whatever Council's pleasure is. What would you like? Would you like to dispense with this now? Councilman Senn: We do have a motion on the table. Mayor Chmiel: There was a motion on the table. It wasn't seconded. Councilman Wing: The motion was that the City Manager, working with staff, make this top priority of the 1 planning department and city staff and I would go along with that tonight but then I would like the moratorium issue on the next agenda for formal discussion and action. Councilman Senn: Second. 1 18 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Roger, do we have to, since Centex has come through the door with this, do 1 we have to deal with it within a certain time period? Roger Knutson: This is for. 1, Councilwoman Dockendorf: Concept approval. Roger Knutson: Right. This does not include a preliminary plat with it? 1 Kate Aanenson: Not at this point. It's a rezoning. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's rezoning from A2 to PUD. Roger Knutson: ...plats. Not the rezonings. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Roger Knutson: So, not to put words in your mouth. But if the direction you're going is to adopt a moratorium 1 and you want to put this on hold and you're going to consider the moratorium with your next meeting, then the direction you want to do is table this until that time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Table it at this particular time and then discuss it with... 111 Roger Knutson: ...pass the moratorium, then it will be tabled for however the moratorium goes. 1 Councilman Wing: Well, the motion is to instruct staff in their priorities but I would add to that then, at the same time to table this in one motion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that acceptable? Councilman Senn: Sure. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Then I'd further comment to the applicant that, not speaking for Council but I certainly agree with Mr. Mason that conceptually this is probably what will happen in that corner. We're just not ready to say you know...tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? Councilman Senn: One thing Don, if I could, for whatever it's worth. Kate, as far as under your recommendations go. I just wanted to see that one changed on the, let's see number 4. Changed so it was required, not should be considered. That maybe just eliminates the question in the future. 1 Mayor ChmieI: Okay. Any other discussion? 1 19 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make it clear. Councilman Senn I'm not...react like Mike did initially but I support Mark's comments and concerns strongly and I think I intend to look at the east end every bit as heavily as the west end. I think it's synonymous. I don't think they're independent. Mayor Chmiel: I think we clarified that in earlier discussions as well. So with that I'll call the question. 1 Councilman Mason: What exactly is the motion now? There are two things going on here? Mayor Chmiel: The motion is to basically table and also to direct staff to go through the process as Richard has 1 indicated and then to bring this back for a moratorium in 2 weeks, is my understanding. Is that correct Roger? Roger Knutson: Yeah. Actually it's a two part motion as I understand it. One, table this request and put it on your next agenda. And two, preceding this item will be consideration of a moratorium on all development activity or all preliminary plats and rezonings within the Highway 5. Councilman Wing: ...but the initial discussion of the motion was, that staff be instructed that this will become a 1 priority item and get that back on the agenda. That was the motion originally. Mayor Chmiel: Is that clear? Councilman Mason: No. ' Councilman Wing: It also will instruct staff to prioritize this. Table and bring back a moratorium for the next agenda. Mark, are you still with me? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: In 2 weeks what we're bringing back is a discussion for consideration. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council instruct stag' to put theHighway 5 corridor plan as a top priority and to draft a moratorium ordinance to be brought back to the next City Council meeting, and to table action on the concept plan for a PUD at the southwest corner of the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard for Centex Homes until the next meeting. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. ' Mayor Chmiel: And I think you've, would you like to clarify? Councilman Mason: Well, because I think we're going to talk about a moratorium again in 2 weeks and I think we'll decide that's not the best way to go because the process that's in place now seems to be working fairly well and I see it as something we don't need to deal with right now. Councilman Wing: So the priority is okay. 1 20 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Mason: Oh I don't have any trouble with the priority at all. It's the moratorium that I. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Because we have controls with PUD's and others? 1 Councilman Mason: That's my feeling exactly. Councilman Wing: And if I could take just a quick second. My opinion, in talking to staff today, that they're 1 buried and the only way they're going to be freed up is if we put a stop on the Highway 5 activity. But we'll leave that to staff. Councilman Mason: Sounds good. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have moved on. 1 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 36,023 SQ. FT. LOT TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND AN OUTLOT TO BE COMBINED WITH A LOT LOCATED IN SHOREWOOD, JEAN ADDITION, 6200 CHASKA ROAD, FRANK REESE. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, we tabled it at the last meeting. Kate Aanenson: What you did is ask us to look at alternatives. Staff still supports the recommendation as we proposed last time with...outlot. Again, Mr. Reese who owns this property here wanted to split this off in order to provide one building lot and keep this as part of his buffer so to speak. There is a large wetland here. It probably wouldn't be buildable. In addition Mr. Reese has a driveway going across that property. It's kind of unlikely, he's lived there for 20 some years, that he would give that property up. It could happen. So the other option would be to require that he get a subdivision approval with the lot here and make that one lot. I guess the thing there would be that he'd have to go to the city of Shorewood and get approval of that to be Lot 2 of that plat. The Jean Addition. So we'd have two lots in the addition. This as an outlot. We'd have Lot 1, which would be this lot. And then Lot 2 would be this portion provided with his existing lot would be the other option. So whatever proposal you would recommend, the original would be an outlot. Or maybe with two lots, we would still have the same condition of approval as provided in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Has staff had any discussion with the city of Shorewood regarding this? Kate Aanenson: We sent them a copy of the report and haven't heard anything. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any discussion in regard to this? Michael. 1 Councilman Mason: I'll still support Alternative #1. I don't deny that Alternative #2 gives us ultimate protection. I think that the chances of anything going wrong with Alternative #1 are so minimal that I don't think we need to put Mr. Reese through the hassle of Alternative #2. So I support Alternative #1. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Mark. Councilman Senn: Question. Basically if you do your alternatives and you have a lot that's in Chanhassen and I guess this is an outcrop of some questioning last week. Or I shouldn't say last week but at the last meeting but I mean, does the Shorewood property owner, because part of his Iot is in Chanhassen and fronts on a 21 1 1 1 III City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Chanhassen street, is he then required, I mean does he have an obligation to pay assessments or anything like that towards the street improvements or anything like that? I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 1 Kate Aanenson: He has a separate tax ID number for...Chanhassen and one for Hennepin County in Shorewood. They're split based on the parcel size and the .assessment. He's doing that now. Councilman Senn: So even though the dwelling isn't there, it doesn't make any difference? • I Kate Aanenson: Right. 1 Councilman Senn: Because some people had asked about that on the Minnewashta when I saw them. Kate Aanenson: He currently has two different jurisdictions right now. He's taxed separately. 1 Councilman Wing: Kate, where's the house? Kate Aanenson: Mr. Reese's home? It's right here. I Councilman Wing: Is that the 6200 number? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Wing: Yeah, I was out there today and. 1 Kate Aanenson: It looks closer. Councilman Wing: Yeah, okay. So the house is sitting, okay. I understand. 1 Kate Aanenson: And his driveway does come across from the Chanhassen point. 1 Councilman Wing: Alright. I got it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And based on the topography of that outlot there's really nothing you can do with it. I Kate Aanenson: It's wet. It's only 8,000 square feet and at least 1/3 of it's wetland. ...that did come up last time...Mr. Swearingen had an issue about the trees and most of the trees were again on a portion adjacent to I this...to ensure that the most possible trees get saved. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the Council won't see that, is that correct? 1 Kate Aanenson: Correct... Mayor Chmiel: And I think I agree with Michael that Alternative #1 is I think the way to go and it does 1 eliminate all that hassel as far as it's concerned with Mr. Reese and I don't see any real given problem with it. 1 22 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Councilman Senn: I guess I'm the one who raised a lot of questions over it and I guess I still have problems creating that kind of a splinter parcel. I agree, I mean #1 is a solution. #2 is the right solution that solves it for all time and makes it a non -issue in the future. But I know that's a little more work for somebody to go through but I think it will save the city a lot of work later if somebody comes in when Mr. Reese is not there anymore. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion? Councilman Mason: I'll make the motion to approve Jean Addition SUB #93 -19, Atlernative #1. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. 1 Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the request for Preliminary and Final Plat for Subdivision #93.19 to create a 27,750 square foot lot and an 8,750 square foot outlot for Jean Addition as shown on the plans dated September 8, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. A driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch area in conjunction with constructing a house on this 1 lot. 2. A tree removal plan shall be required with the building permit to ensure minimal tree loss. 3. A buffer strip of 5 to 10 feet down from the house is required since this will be the area of greatest runoff along with the area of greatest potential of runoff from lawn area fertilizers and chemicals. Silt fencing will be required around the perimeter of the lot. 4. The house type may be limited to a split -entry type home due to the sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home would most likely require an ejector pump for the lower level. 5. The applicant is responsible for the appropriate connection hook-up charges at the time of b uilding permit issuance for connection to city sewer and water. 6. The applicant convey a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered on the common lot line between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm sewer considerations. 7. Park and trail fees will be required at the rate in force at the time of building permit application. These fees 1 are currently $600.00 and park and $200.00 for trail. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 1 1 23 i 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF ORGANIZED COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE IN THE CITY. Public Present: ' Name Address Dale Lewis 1020 Lake Susan Hills Drive Gary Lano 731 Victoria Drive, Chaska Paul Smith Metro Council, St. Paul Mike Berkopec Waste Management Uli Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle Dean Johnson Resource Strategies Steve Midthun 6510 Fox Path Ed Battani 6547 Gray Fox Curve Chris Boatwright Aagard West Nancy Lee Admiral Waste Mgmt Patrick Blood Admiral Waste Mgmt Kate Aanenson: ...needs to be is clear is why the study was initiated by the city. It came out of a discussion when we looked at road restrictions in the spring. The weight. At that time the Council decided to...the • Recycling Committee to look at that issue. What's been done so far is look at Phase 1 and what they're ' asking... look at the needing for Phase 2. I did pass out to you a letter...There was a lot of discussion about it at the last meeting... Mayor Chmiel: Prior to that I would just like to address something that was sent out by, I believe Aagard West and I'd like to just read it. It says last chance for Chanhassen residents. In a packed public hearing on October 25th, Chanhassen residents voiced overwhelming opposition to the proposed organized hauling plan. I don't know if he was sitting at the same meeting that I was. I believe we had the haulers do the discussion. We had about 4 or 5 citizens do the discussion. Of it being packed wasn't for this particular reason. It entailed other items on the agenda that were public hearings as well. So I'd just like to just make a clarification here. The City Council ignored their concerns and tried to approve the second phase of the process and another $15,000.00 of your money spent on something you said you don't want. The one that we have here is one that was sent back from one of the residents that have Aagard West as their hauler. He doesn't feel that that's the particular case. This says don't let the organized garbage lobby bully you. He said what's here is not right. I tabled this ' item because I thought there were some other reasoning that we could come up with in regard to this. Some of the concerns that we had were of course the heavy trucks and there are a lot of concerns by the Sheriff's Department as well as the city in trying to determine where these people are at. All we'd have to do is increase next spring and have the Sheriff all over the city, and we'd have to hire that done but I think we could probably pick up those fees with the overloads as what they had. The main concern the city had was the fact that if in the event we were to have to replace those streets within the city, and as I mentioned before. We have roughly about 106 miles of streets and 93 miles that being also city streets but the other balance of that is State Aid. ' The cost to replace those streets would run roughly $10 million. That bothers me because of the fact that we will have to go back to the constituents within the city and have them pay for that additional amount. Another thing, if you take one of the garbage trucks and in talking with the Sheriff's Department, unloaded they're over weight and when they start filling they are way over weight. And that's what really breaks up the streets. There's no question in my mind. Some this past spring had taken the position of taking smaller trucks within 1 24 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 I 1 the city streets and alleviated that problem. And I'd almost like to go back to the haulers right now and say, you take the problem. You come back to us and give us a solution then if you don't think we're going in the right direction. Michael...agree or disagree. That's your position...but that's at least where I'm coming from. 1 Councilman Mason: I'd also like to comment on this notice from Aagard. I believe the sense is the Mayor tabled the decision until the November 8th Council meeting, not a public hearing. The public hearing, if I'm not I mistaken, was never closed on this. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Mason: And I'm, you know we have other haulers like Mr. Loma and Mr. Berkopec that are talking about, they certainly have their very strong opinions and I don't blame them for that but I'm also hearing from some of the haulers a willingness to work and see if we can come up with a solution as opposed to some of this rhetoric that's been discussed from other haulers. And I quite honestly, those are the people I want to work with and, this notice that came out quite honestly, well I was very disappointed. There's so much misinformation in here, it's almost to laugh. Unfortunately when residents read something like this, they take it for face value. So my comment to that is, I think the other haulers that I've already mentioned are showing the willingness to work with the city on this and I guess if Aagard West doesn't want to work with the city, they don't have to and maybe we should just concern ourselves with the haulers that are trying to stay open minded 1 about this, like I'm assuming all the Council members are staying open minded about it. Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right. I don't think we've come to any conclusions. It's still a discussionary thing and I'm not sure myself where this is going to go. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, and I don't want to say we don't like this hauler and we only want to deal with the other ones. This is a very important issue to the haulers obviously, it's their business. But let's be cooperative with one another and that's what I found on the Recycling committee is that the majority of the haulers are very cooperative. Very helpful with their information and I'd like to keep it along that tone if we choose to continue with the study. Councilman Senn: I got. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Just one other thing Mark, I was just going to mention. There is a video that we have 111 here on the affects of streets with hauling of garbage and I'd like to have us show that as soon as Mark has a comment to make. When he gets done with that, maybe we can show it at that time. Councilman Senn: I had about 20 calls...not because of the Aagard letter but because of the BFI letter. It also 1 arrived I guess at numerous households today and all the calls were that they wanted to keep an open system and there's no way they wanted one trash hauler for the city, which is the BFI letter stated is what we were going to do. To me there's a lot of rumor going around and an awful lot of misinformation. I tried to call back every 1 one of these people and maybe got a little over halfway there in the short time to come before tonight but when you simply explain to them what the city is considering. Underline considering. In some form. Underline some form of collection or organized collections of the city, and we're doing that for what I think, and I think most of I the Council shares in that feeling, several good reasons and those good reasons are safety on our neighborhood streets, because if you only have trucks coming in one day a week, that's a lot better than neighborhoods, especially with a lot of these young children, than trucks coming in 6 days or 5 days a week and multiple I haulers on some days even. And as Don mentioned earlier, the savings in terms of road maintenance and this 25 1 1 1 II City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 has been an issue every spring with road and road restrictions, etc. As soon as you bring those issues up, they say well geez, those sounds like real valid issues. And we haven't defined the level that we're talking about in I terms of organized collection. Then we're going to have collection level maybe by neighborhood for all we know. Or it may be by full city. I kind of doubt that but you know. Everybody just kind of turns around says you know, yeah. We should really look at that. We should really do that. And so I'm getting real tired of, you I know whether it's BFI's letter or Aagard's letter or I think last week it was I think a couple of other letters. The haulers just seem to, or I should say, some of the haulers seem to just really be bent on putting out the misinformation in some kind of an effort to even kill discussion on it or looking at the issue. I would like to, I guess I'd back up a sec because I do agree with one thing. I guess the people that called and said they thought I it was ridiculous that we're spending $30,000.00 to study this, I guess I kind of have to half agree with them on that and I'd really like to see Council at this point, you know we've taken a fair amount of input on this. I mean we had a public hearing last week. We're kind of at a half stage right now of kind of deciding where ' we're going to go and how we're going to go and to me it really makes sense to me at this point for Council to really sit back. Look at this in a work session and establish some direction rather than go out and ask a consultant to establish direction for us. Or rather than ask haulers to go out and establish direction for us. They seem to be willing to do that in letters anyway and stuff and I think a majority of the haulers would welcome at I least some specifics and a little bit out of fairness to the haulers and I don't want to chit too long on this but you know, you look at the report that's come out of the committee and I mean there's a lot of conclusions you can jump to as a result of that. But at the same time most of the conclusions that are being jumped to are a little far I fetched or ridiculous and that's why I think it really would help at this point if Council really looked at this and provided some more definitive direction on it before it went anywhere forward or even into, you know maybe there isn't a Phase 2 study that's needed. Maybe what there is is some direction needed and then some direction I to implement something. I don't know but I mean I think we should really take a hard look at that and go forward. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor, could I speak before you get to your film as well? I don't want...and I I find myself in the unique position of defending haulers tonight, that they spread all the misinformation. Unfortunately the way the last meeting worked, we took public comment and we didn't have a chance to respond to those issues and the article in the newspaper came out and it did seem, only because that was the only side of I the issue addressed that evening, that's what the newspaper article presented and that formed opinions in a lot of people's mind so I won't say it's just the haulers that spread misinformation. The second thing you said about the Council providing direction. I'm not sure if we need a work session. I guess that was my intention tonight was to give some parameters for what the Recycling Committee should look at next. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's why I was trying to hold off until once we saw what the film was and then proceed with that particular direction. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: I know. I Mayor Chmiel: But Richard, go ahead. Councilman Wing: I've just got to make a mundane comment here because, as I've listened to all these I comments and the people with all their anger, we're not unusual. We're not up here sitting here as little penguins that are going to cram it down their throat again. I'm a resident of Chanhassen. I have the same problems, the same questions, the same concerns. I like my hauler. I'm worried about this. I'm worried about that. I want my choice. The only difference between me and everybody else that's been putting the pressure on 1 is I've got the vote but I'm trying with my vote to be very cautious. Look very long term and be visionary way 1 26 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 down the road for the city and if in that process my opinion doesn't agree with some others, like Mike often says, we've got to do our job. But we're here as residents and that's what I want to remind everybody is we're dealing with the same issues and we're just trying to do what's best long term. Short term is going to be painful. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. And now the movie. 1 Don Ashworth: I would agree with all the comments that have been made. We really don't know the solution. Under State law we have to go through this process to come back with a solution but one thing we do know, I there is a problem and I think that this video really does show what that problem is. (A short video was shown at this point on the affects of truck traffic on roadways.) Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I'm sure everyone was paying real good attention to the sound. Anyway, I Colleen we'll get back now to you for additional discussion that you have. Or that you'd like to have. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I just thought, I mean the purpose tonight is to say let's look at it. We agree 1 that they have some problems and let's go ahead and look at some possible solutions and those will run the gammet from well I think we're going to exclude having one hauler do the city or have it city organized. But it can run the gammet from just facilitating neighborhoods to organized all the way to splitting up the city into zones and I think what Mark said was correct in that we need to provide some direction tonight as opposed to just saying, okay let's go ahead and look at some other issues. Let's say okay, let's go ahead and look at some solutions and these are the criteria for those solutions. I'm prepared to do that tonight. I don't know if the rest I of the Council wants to do that tonight or in a work session. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other council have any comments? To that suggestion. I Councilman Mason: Can we stop the, if we go the work session route, we could just stop the process now if we wanted to? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. No reason why we couldn't. There's no final decision being made. Is that correct? I Roger Knutson: Correct. 1 Councilman Mason: Whatever we choose tonight, I am in strong support of anything we do for the haulers to be able to remain competitive in this city. And that's, I see that as a paramount issue. I personally thing some changes need to occur but I would really look long and hard at changes if the Council determined that the competitive edge would be lost. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that's the kind of parameters I'm looking for. I mean issue number one, let's 1 make sure that there's some form of customer feedback and that there is competition maintained. If I could just suggest a few others. From the surveys, 64% of the people felt that the service level was very important so we'd have to determine a schedule where people can still have their 30 gallon can. They can still get garage pick up. Things like that. One of my issues is to have minimal city involvement. That is that the city will not be doing the billing. The city will not be handling customer complaints. That'd still be handled through the haulers. Issues like that that we can kind of set the parameters so the Recycling committee can go back and I know what we're looking for in specific recommendations. 27 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. Councilman Wing: I think all the phone calls I have received have all, well even I think most the public comment dealt with choice. Everybody wants choice. I think that's all I really, the feedback I really had was we want choice. The only humorous element that one fellow today was adamant that the city doesn't get involved. He doesn't want a bunch of city paid G -men running around. He kept referring to the word G -men. I think he's got some validity there. He's worried about the bureaucracy and of course I think we all are. But the only issue that I guess I'm really concerned about is choice. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think that's an interesting issue because when you ask people if they've ever switched haulers, the vast majority, they've never switched a hauler unless they've moved. So people want that option and yet they never exercise that option. Or very rarely exercise that option. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's true. I had...on Saturday and had a few people in to talk about that. But one of the reasons this individual indicated that he wanted to keep his hauler was for the mere fact that he does go to ' the garage and take it out for them. As he's not able to do that because of his back and a back problem. There's a lot of pros and cons to the issues and people wanting and then you get some people who say, maybe this is the best way to go as well. I'm not sure this is the best way to go and trying to eliminate the major problem that we have is back to the roads you know. Who's going to pay for this? The constituency in the city. How can we eliminate it? Maybe smaller trucks like was implemented before could be one of the things. Whatever. There's a whole host of different things that can be done. Mark? ' Councilman Senn: ...the place we got out of the gates here on a bad footing I think is, I think was referred to in the last meeting, this term that's been attached to this report called Managed Competition. And I have, personally I have a real problem with that and I think whatever system we set up is going to need to rely on free enterprise and hoping competition. Not managed competition. I'm against city collection. I'm against one ' contract. I'm against governing how many haulers, except I think they should all be licensed. I'm against the city managing it. I'm against more staff to manage it. I'm against organizing commercial hauling. Underlining commercial meaning if you're talking about business, downtown area. That type of thing. I don't think that's an area that's a major concern because that has a road system in place that's built to handle it and that sort of thing and the safety issues aren't as paramount. I'm going to say, given today now, I mean I've talked to probably you know well over I'm not going to say in the short period of time over the last month, you know ' probably with 20 a day has to be over 120 people on this issue and it really comes back to, you know again understanding the issues and understanding safety is an issue and understanding road repair and maintenance is an issue and I think there's ways to organize a system and I think there's a role for the city in helping to lay the framework for that but personally I'd really like to see us lean towards very small neighborhood or small service ' districts and I think every hauler should have the right to bid every one of those and every hauler should have the right to be held accountable for the service in that area. And if they're not, that area should be able to get a new hauler. I think things like that can be accomplished within an established framework and I'd really like to see us work towards developing that type of a framework and I just think it'd be a lot easier to do that. I thin we kind of sit back and throw some ideas up on the board in a less formal setting and you know. I think there's a lot of good ideas that could probably come out of the group but maybe we could start focusing on something that would make some sense to proceed with from the Council's standpoint and, you know I think that's basically where we could get as far as providing some direction. Again, I really don't think we need more study of this thing. I think we need more direction. ' 28 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So we're talking potentially having a work session to come up with some of the conclusions as Colleen had indicated and giving the committee a sense of direction as to what we're really looking at and then proceeding from there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can we move approval of the findings and recommendations this evening and then plan a work schedule, or work session? And if so, I'd like to pull recommendation number 2. 1 • Mayor Chmiel: Well we have two things here. This is an unfinished business. The hearing was still left open. So we have not yet closed the public hearing. Councilman Senn: Don, could I make the same suggestion I made last week and Colleen, in deference to what you're saying but couldn't we simply close the public hearing. Vote to receive the report. I think if we get into a discussion over the recommendations tonight, I think we're going to end up in a lot of debate. I'm not sure I'm in agreement with a lot of them. But receive the report and agree that basically what we're going to do is set up a work session to discuss where we go from here and provide some direction on if there is going to be a Phase 2 or if there's some steps we're going to take towards either implementation or not implementation of any organized collection. Mayor Chmiel: Roger. A legal interpretation. Roger Knutson: One...to that. You can do that Councilmember but what you should do, or what I would recommend doing. If you don't want to adopt the findings or the resolution that's been prepared, you should table that item to a specific Council meeting because under the Statutory process you have to adopt this kind of resolution if you want to end up with any organized collection. So for example tonight, if the motion was made to adopt this and the motion were to fail, then you went to your work session and you decided huh. On reflection we want to do something with organized collection. You'd have to start the whole darn process over again. Councilman Senn: Okay, I don't have a problem with the resolution except in the last paragraph it says, adopt the findings of the recommendation. Is that a requirement? I mean otherwise the resolution kind of just like you 1 say, keeps the process going. I think by sticking that in there you're kind of asking Council to make some decisions right now as it relates to those findings and recommendations and I'm not sure if I'm prepared to do that. 1 Roger Knutson: I'm not asking. Councilman Senn: No, but I'm just saying. 1 Roger Knutson: You need some factual findings to support your resolution. Whether these are appropriate or 1 not, I'll leave that up to your judgment. Mayor Chmiel: Right. And I think that's, I agree with that. Councilman Senn: So then tabling becomes the thing? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 29 ' 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Senn: Could we vote to accept the report, table the item pending a Council work session? Roger Knutson: Certainly. Councilman Senn: And then bring it back on a Council agenda following the work session? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Senn: Or do we need to set a date certain? Roger Knutson: No, you can do that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think we can do that but I think what we'd like to do is try to set up a work session date first and then once that work session date is done, we may want to have an additional one. And I don't want to establish a date...so. Could I have a motion to table and accept the findings as indicated with the setting 1 up of a work session for, and I have to try to fmd one of those. It would be rather difficult. Maybe Monday, November 29th? That'd be the following meeting after our Council meeting. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Don't we have, our off Mondays are all budget discussions? Mayor Chmiel: No, I think we're. ' Councilman Mason: We're done hopefully by then. Mayor Chmiel: Hopefully after this coming Monday, we should be done until probably sometime in December ' correct? Don Ashworth: Well, December 2nd is the hearing itself and that's the reason that. We did, left November 29th as an alternative but it's not really one since it's so close to the hearing itself that you can't. 1 Councilman Mason: The hearing's the 30th right? Don Ashworth: I thought it was December 2nd. It's an off night. It's not a Monday night. Mayor Chmiel: It would have to be a Thursday evening, December 2nd. Don Ashworth: Well it surely isn't a Friday so I think that is correct. Councilman Senn: So the 29th? ' Mayor Chmiel: So the 29th would be an available work session time frame. Councilman Senn: Okay I'll move, oh go ahead. Councilman Mason: Before we get a motion on that. Where do we stand with the public hearing tonight? 1 Mayor Chmiel: We don't close it yet. We're just tabling it. ' 30 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Councilman Mason: Okay. And is it worth getting any more comment tonight or not? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so because nothing has really changed until once we come up with some kind of 1 an idea and concept. Councilman Senn: Roger, can we close the public hearing and simply table the action? 1 Roger Knutson: You can do that if you wish. Mayor Chmiel: You can. You can do that but. Councilman Mason: But we'll want to reopen it. Mayor Chmiel: But I would just as soon keep it open. I would just as soon keep it open with the tabling because then if there is additional input that they have, they can provide that at that time. Councilman Senn: Doesn't the process still allow for numerous points of public input? Roger Knutson: You can allow anyone to talk whether it's a public hearing or not. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but I like with a public hearing to still keep it open. Councilman Senn: So then basically we move, okay. We make a motion to table the item and receive the 1 report from the committee and schedule a Council work session on the 29th of November to further discuss. Mayor Chmiel: 5:00 or 5:00 p.m.? Let's get a time frame. Is 5:30 better? Councilwoman Dockendorf: 5 :30's better. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 1 Councilman Wing: In the history of the world this is not going to get honorable mention. If I cannot make that meeting, can I just say that if you choose to go with somebody that's not my present hauler, I will survive and I will get used to it. So don't let me interfere. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But I think the point is that. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I think everything you've said, everybody on the Council feels the same way Richard. There's no question. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well people resist change and I think we need to be innovators here and we need to lead the city and let's not back away from it because we're going to get public flack over it. Councihnan Mason: Has a motion been made yet? Mayor Chmiel: A motion has been made. We're looking for a second. 1 31 1 • 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Mason: I'll second it. ' Councilman Senn moved, Councihnan Mason seconded to receive the report from the Recycling Committee and to table action concering a resolution of intent for the proposed establishment of organized collection of solid waste in the city until after the City Council discusses the issue at a work session on November 29, 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: That meeting will be held upstairs I would imagine in the. Don Ashworth: Probably the courtyard as a work session. Councilman Mason: Anyone's invited right? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Anyone who'd like to come, be my guest. RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY. Councilman Senn: I think I pulled that last week. Last time, or whatever. It's hard to differentiate the weeks anymore. Don isn't, 1 think in last month's there was an Exhibit A attached. Or at last meeting there was an Exhibit A attached. ' Mayor Chmiel: I don't recall. Don Ashworth: I don't recall either. Do you think you know what that may have been? Councilman Senn: Well all through, I mean if you read basically through the resolution. The resolution continually keeps referring to Exhibit A. Don Ashworth: Okay, why don't you go ahead and table again. Remember this is the one that MacGillavray had brought out during the sale basically. We're going to have to follow this by a thing that requires federal. ' This is mandated by the federal government. It's really stupid but it's required. So if you'd like to table and I'll find out whether or not there was an Exhibit A. Councilman Senn: Well there was. I mean you don't have to table. There was an Exhibit A attached which ' effectively was the $5.630 general obligation tax increment bond series information. And then the actual statement of the refmancing that occurred. ' Don Ashworth: That should have been on the GO. That should have spelled out the three. Councilman Senn: Yeah, the general obligation. Don Ashworth: The three GO projects that we did which was 78th Street realignment, the Lilac and Upper Bluff Creek. ' Councilman Senn: Okay, that's one of the problems. It didn't. It doesn't lay any of that out. It basically just 32 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 says that there's a 5.630 and those three projects are part of the 5.630? Y Pr J P Don Ashworth: Right. It was the ones, as we sat in the conference mom, I showed you the one sheet that encompassed the GO projects. If the Council would like to pass this with the idea that staff would in fact attach that, which will show those 3 or 4 specific projects, we can do that. Or we can bring it back. Either way. Councilman Senn: No, no. I don't care if you bring it back. I just want to make clear that all we're dealing 1 with is the 5.630. I mean that night we dealt with a number of bond issues other than that, okay. And but when this action came in last week, I mean it refers to that but then there's no attachment on Exhibit A that backs that up. And all I'm trying to do is clarify or make sure that we're dealing with the GO bond issue at the 5.630 and I don't have a problem with that. But if it deals with all the other bond issues we dealt with that night, which were I think 2 or 3. Well, 3 other bond issues, then I think those need to be, how would I say, made part of this and specifically called out. 111 Don Ashworth: In that instance I would prefer tabling because I, what this resolution says is that any cost associated with any of the projects. We knew in advance that we were going to do those projects and that as a part of the bonding, we're going to try to recoup any costs that we had incurred prior to the time we actually sold the bonds as a part of that project. And very truthfully, I'm trying to go through in my own mind. We sold 5 bond issues that night and I can't sit here tonight and tell you that it only deal with the GO one. I'm just not sure. 1 Councihnan Senn: Well the 5.630 that's attached here as Exhibit A is only the GO one? If that's all it is, then as far as I'm concerned, we can go ahead and pass on it. But like you say, that's what I just wanted to check. Don Ashworth: Then if that's the case, I would suggest that the Council approves this with a condition that the only thing this is applying to is the $5.6 million unless staff finds that that is not correct, in which case we will bring it back to you. Councilman Senn: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councihnan Mason: Yes. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the resolution declaring the official intent of the city of Chanhassen to reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of bonds issued to 1 the city in the amount of $5.6 million. If staff determines that this is not correct, the matter will be brought back before the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. (The Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) 1 1 1 33 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 ' REZONING FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 112 ACRES INTO 115 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, ONE -HALF MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, SONG - CARLSON PROPERTY; LUNDGREN BROTHERS. Public Present: • 1 Name Address Terry Forbord 935 East Wayzata Blvd. Jerome Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd. David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd. ' Ron Roeser Fred Berg 222 Chan View 6910 Chaparral Lane Jim Manders 6791 Chaparral Lane 1 Kate Aanenson: As you see, Lundgren Bros is requesting preliminary PUD approval and as a part of that there's also a wetland alteration permit. Just to get your bearings on this. It's adjacent to Galpin, just south of Lake Lucy Road and north of Highway 5. As you recall the applicant's also have preliminary plat approval to what I was called the Rogers Dolejsi property. This site is developed. There will be a collector that ties those two so between TH 41 and Galpin there will be a collector road that ties that together. The staff did support the. PUD based on the fact that there's substantial wetlands on the site...This is a very beautiful site. It's got varied ' topography with 60 feet difference in elevation. As we mentioned before there's wetlands...identified. There's also heavily forested areas. We're recommending the PUD and they meet the standards of the PUD as we put together on the residential and minimum lot sizes being 11,000 for the smallest. These lots averaged over 27,000 square feet. We did recommend some variation from the PUD standards as far as setbacks from front ' yards and side yards...One of the big issues between the staff and the developer was, for the Planning Commission...spent numerous hours as you can see by the Minutes that were attached trying to resolve some of these issues. One of the major ones was right -of -way for that collector road. Staff wanted 60 feet and that's ' what we're still recommending. Some of the other issues as far as trees, the three recommendations that the staff had as far as the tree issues and...PUD that we feel that the tree...The tree conservation as proposed by the applicant, we wanted to...lot by lot basis and that's why we recommended that there be a flexibility as far as the ' side yard and not hold them hard and fast to 10 feet on either side but allowing to have some flexibility. And again as proposed in the PUD ordinance that there be 2 trees per lot. One of the big issues, other big issues as far as...of this proposed PUD was the park recommendation. It was before the Park Board numerous times. As you can see through the staff report there was updates numerous times of recommendations from the applicant. ' The fmal resolution from the Park Board is that the applicant will provide a private park. The Park Commission did recommend that...a larger field in the park. In addition, they're requiring park fees and trail fees. There will be approximately 115 lots on the site again. They range within the PUD standards...the staff would recommend approval based on the conditions that are outlined in the staff report. There are several alterations as you can see that from the Planning Commission. The motion starts actually on page 37. Final conditions of approval... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Todd. Do you have anything to add? 1 34 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Todd Hoffman: Mayor and members of the City Council. Kate had indicated the Park and Recreation Y Y Commission's conditions of approval in regards to parks. In regards to trails we talked extensively about the trail on Galpin Boulevard and how that would be accommodated. It was concluded through negotiations with 1 Carver County and then back...engineering department, that that trail could be constructed in the right -of -way at a future date. It will certainly be an important link in the very near future with the proximity of this site to the new elementary school south of Highway 5 once that...That was the trails. Issue number a. Number b, that the applicant shall dedicate land to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson - Dolejsi -Turner property. That Kate referenced earlier, and again this condition is a direct result of an offer made by the applicant to construct that trail along there as an additional park amenity. When this was first before the Park and Recreation Commission they were uncomfortable with the private park. That was back in August of this year at a Park and Recreation Commission meeting. So at that meeting, at the applicant's request, the item was tabled...idea. That idea was the development of this trail corridor. An initial offer was made at that time to identify the corridor and build the trail. Subsequently I received a call from the applicant saying they would not build the trail due to financial implications. However through discussions...that trail construction as a part of the construction...Conversations at that time included the fact, as we call know, if the trail does not go in, when you're dealing with a trail which goes in the rear yards...in everybody's interest to see that happen. However that is where the problems begin to arise between what was intended by the offer by the applicant and what was interpretted by the Park and Recreation Commission and I don't think that's the last... Furthermore, that a connection should be made between the street plan of Johnson - Dolejsi- Turner. You want to get the residents who are in that neighborhood down onto this nature trail which will develop in the future into something that I think will be very nice for the city and for the residents in that area. Staff identified that between Lot 16 and 17, Block 2 where there can be another similar suitable location...All of these recommendations that came forth from the Park and Recreation Commission are contingent upon the city requiring a portion of the Stockdale property for park purposes. Again that was based out of the concern, very sincere concern by the Park Commission, that the association, the private park does take care of the park needs of the...itself enabling residents over in neighborhood that will not have access to it...cross boundaries to play. The Park Commission really wanted to see some public park space in that area. I was uncomfortable making that type of contingent arrangement. However at the applicant's consent, that part of the condition was made. Mr. Stockdale is in the audience this evening. Per approval by the Council, we have forwarded the negotiations for purchase of just over 6 acres of Mr. Stockdale's property and those negotiations are underway at this time. An offer...Mr. Stockdale. Currently, after the last review by the Park Commission, it was at the October meeting, there was kind of an update of the status of the project in regards to parks and trails. Points which... which I still recognized is this in regards to parks. The city is requiring a 250 x 250 open playfield with a maximum of 4% slope. I had recommended to the Park and Recreation Commission to compromise at 180 x 250. They did not see that compromise as a wise decision for the city so they want to stand pat at 250 x 250. The applicant would like to see that size reduced to 180 x 180. The other point of contention as I mentioned earlier, is in regards to trails. That would be the construction of the trail along the Johnson - Dolejsi- Turner property on the southern border. It is now the request of the applicant that they be paid dollar for dollar for that. I said we would certainly like to work with them and make it both economically sound for their company to make that investment in their neighborhood but not to hinder their development. My offer entailed, it was always thought that that trail would be bituminous, which is obviously more expensive. I believe...gravel surface which would be very conducive to the type of trail...Those are my comments. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Just one quick question. What I had read was on page 33 that the change dimension of that open playfield was to be constructed in the association park from 250 x 250 and you said to 180 rather than it is shown here as 250, 180 x 250? , 35 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Todd Hoffman: That was my recommendation to the Park Commission. They did not see that that change needed to be made so they wanted to stand firm at 250 x 250. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But is it correct, 180 x 250 or 180 x 180? Todd Hoffman: The applicant is at 180 x 180. My compromise position was 180 x 250. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And the records on page 33 it shows it, okay. Let's see. Dave, do you have anything too? 1 Dave Hempel: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Staff has worked with the applicant in resolving a few of the issues stated in the staff report starting at page 33...One of the conditions that is still in contention I guess is the private driveway access to the future Song residence that is on Lot 9...couldn't find any viable reason why... subdivide down further f rom the County Road. Street right -of -way widths throughout the development. The city has made an exception on the street width on cul -de -sacs H and I. The area which is heavily wooded and has steep terrain. A compromise by allowing retaining walls to be built...to help limit the width of destruction and grading...retaining wall will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. We reduced the normal standard street width...right -of -way down to 50 feet in this area. However the remaining street section...further discussions on that. The street width itself, as far as the collector road, Street A. Staff has decided that a 7 ton design at this stage would be acceptable due to the localized residential traffic. It's not being considered a heavy truck traffic route. And if in the future we review...State Aid standards to a 9 ton road design simiply by adding • an overlay of about an inch, inch and a half paved section to utilize State Aid dollars for that. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I looked at that meeting that was there, there were approximately 36,000 words on the Planning Commission which was a long time and a lot to read and a lot to go on. So what I'd like to do is ask the applicant to come forward and if there's something new and different than what was already discussed or said, I would appreciate that position. So at that time, is there anyone wishing to address some of the concerns that you may still have that have not been discussion. Is there something new or something different? 1 Terry Forbord: Excuse me you Honor. Were you asking if we had anything to say? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Terry Forbord: Sony, I'm hard of hearing. 1 Mayor Chmiel: That was my question. Terry Forbord: There's really, actually I think everything has been covered and the only two points I think that we would like to discuss with the Council this evening are clarification on the park issues and the item that was already mentioned by Mr. Hempel, and I'd like to just very briefly just explain both of those to you. Here's a couple of exhibits. I apologize that I can't...This is a rendering of that illustrates what the Song neighborhood ' community will look like. It's approximately 112 acres. 100 acres of which is part of the Lundgren Bros neighborhood community and the remainder of that would be this exception parcel which is in fact from 10 to 12 acres that's being retained by Mr. and Mrs. Song for their future home. They presently live in a home right here right now. They have an estate driveway and they enjoy this entire parcel solely to themselves at this time. And their dream has always been that at some point in time in the future, they would sell their land and subdivide it 1 36 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 and build a new home and let development occur on the balance of that. Just to give you a very quick overview P g Y rY q of where it is and adjacent to...that you've seen before. North being up. Galpin Blvd and Highway 41. This is what is commonly known as the Johnson - Dolejsi -Turner property, which was before you last year. And final plats are being prepared to be submitted to the city in the very near future. And then the Song property would be immediately to the east of that. As part of this proposal, Lundgren Bros is, and also on the Johnson- Dolejsi- Turner property but as well as on the Song property, I've proposed something that really is somewhat unique or new to Chanhassen. It wouldn't be fair to say that...out in the metropolitan area. What we've found through our travels. We travel every year, 3 or 4 times a year to various parts of the United States to fmd out what is new and exciting for home buyers and what cities and developers that are bigger and better at what they do than we are, what are they doing. And one of the things that we've discovered, due to some of the pressures being put on municipalities and their budgets, and from the demands of home buyers, is that they would like to see some amenities within their neighborhood that often times city budgets don't allow anymore. Those are things like tennis courts, children playground equipment, heavily landscaped areas, gazebo sitting areas, etc. And so we, over the last 4 years have built 3 neighborhood communities like that and we have 2 in the works. 3 being called the Song property. And it becomes the focal point of the neighborhood community and we have found through surveys that buyer profile, the home buyers by Lundgren homes, the type of amenities that they would really like to have are things like these totlots and you've seen this high tech playground equipment in many of the schools now. Some of them are plastic. Heavy PVC type of material. Some of them happen to be a timber type. The plastic variety or PVC type seem to be the most popular because they last longer. And then the tennis courts, etc. And as you folks know, all municipalities are wrestling with those types of amenities in small neighborhood parks. They're having a hard time providing those types of things. So what we have found is that many cities are realizing that really the way to provide these services today and certainly in the future is more of a public/private cooperative effort with the developer. They come forth. They provide the land. They put in the improvements at their expense and try to do the things that the cities unfortunately aren't able to provide at that level any more. Our initial proposal to the city was to do that and to also provide a full park and trail fees. There's been some confusion. Misunderstanding. I won't get into any of that tonight, unless somebody would like me to, because I think at this point in time the most important thing is the project and what benefit it will be to the city. So our proposal is that along the collector road, Street A. In this general area, there will be an association park. And there are a number of reasons why we have located it there. One of the terms in selling this property for the people who own the land, the Song's, was they had this dream of this future home. Also, there was a neighboring property owner, Mr. Carlson who became a third party to the contract because he lives here. He was very concerned what type of development was going to occur in this area. What imposition would it pose on him and he was prepared to buy the property himself if it was going to be a negative impact to him. In working with the Song's, Mr. Carlson and Mr. Song, they found a developer that could meet all of their needs and develop something that they would all be proud of and not be fearful of. That development could occur and we were blessed that they selected our firm to be the developer and we entered into an agreement. And we worked very closely in designing a neighborhood community that would not have a imposition on either one of those people but hopefully would still meet the needs of the city and the future residents that live here and be economically feasible. We spent a lot of time getting to that point. So the park was decided to put here in order to buffer the development from the future home of the Song's and from the Carlson residence. In addition to that we're building berms and landscaping to additionally screen that because the topography, we have to do certain things to make sure that the impact of the development is not felt by them in a negative manner. Those became the driving forces of why we ended up designing it the way we did around that particular area. As I said, our proposal was to build this association park. It's going to cost us somewhere between $225,000.00 to $350,000.00 to do that. And as I said, we had offered to pay park and trail fees. For various reasons that proposal did not fly and we set about trying to find another opportunity to provide the city that the Parks Commission and the Planning Commission and the City Council ultimately would say well, this is something we 37 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 I can live with. So the idea was, and it just came to me while I was sitting in a meeting. Because the debate seemed to be centering around providing some public opportunity is that there's a very large wetland complex I that separates the Johnson - Dolejsi- Turner property from what is called the 1995 study area. You can see that here in this kind of beigish coloring. And I thought well what if somehow there could be some kind of, I was thinking along a public trail that would allow the general public to connect with what I knew already was I planned a public trail along TH 41 and I knew there was a plan for a public trail along Galpin Blvd. And I talked to the Parks Director and he said he was wiling to consider that and we decided to go out and look out in the field what that would be like. And I hadn't been out there in probably 3 years from the time I had...but it didn't take either one of us very long in walking out there we recognized this would really be a neat place for a I public trail. So it was agreed that we would submit that as a proposal to the city. To the Parks Commission to see if that would be enough that they would say okay. In consideration for that...association park. And at that time I said to Todd, and I've always qualified everything that I've said in relation to this, every statement that if :1 it's economically feasible. Because when you're just dealing with things on a preliminary basis like this and they're just ideas, it's not unlike the ideas that any of you have as Councilmembers. You have an idea but you always want to make sure that it's going to be economically feasible...concept stages and we're throwing out . ideas, obviously none of us have any idea how much it's going to cost or what the reality of that is going to be. But I was open to any suggestion as long as it was economically feasible and as long as the city would fmd some benefit and it wouldn't...the development. Well, it certainly was agreed upon that that would be a benefit to the general public. The only concern that I had was how would it be paid for. We were willing to grant the easements and we are willing to do the construction. We always have been willing to do the construction and we would do it as the road was built. The lot adjacent to it and we've never been opposed to that. The only issue here is cost. And so I also knew, after we took that to the Parks Commission, without getting into all the I details because again I think that those details may be irrelevant at this point in time, a trail corridor was planned to be graded here and there was the suggestion that if the city did acquire this portion of the Stockdale property, that Lundgren would grade that. So Lundgren was to grade this corridor. They were to grade this park. We were to build the association park and we were to build this trail and dedicate the land for the easements. And to this day I still don't have a hard time or a bad time with any of those ideas. I think they're great ideas. The bottom line though is it economically feasible and what is fair for us to pay. If you're willing to build this park and dedicate the land to the homeowners association, and build that park at the numbers that I was suggesting I earlier and we were willing to pay the park and trail dedication fee, I believe that around the first of the year the trail fee goes to $600.00? Excuse me, the parks fee is at $600.00? I Todd Hoffman: It's currently $600.00 for park fees and $200.00 for trail fees. Terry Forbord: Okay, so there's $800.00 per unit. By unit I mean house. And there's 234 homes here so the way I look at it, we'll build this at our expense...we'll donate the land for this public trail and we'll donate the land or the easement for this public trail and we'll agree to pay $800.00 x 234 units. That's the dollar amount that can be spent to either grade this or build this, build this, whatever. I'm open with whatever the Parks Commission deems that is the highest and the best use of those dollars. And what I can't do, and I wish I could I accommodate it because a lot of controversy would not have ensued. What I can't afford to do is to do this and pay for this and pay for this and pay for this. There's just not enough money. It's not economically feasible. So I think that's the bottom line issue when it comes to the park and the amount of money that's available for I park fees. And then our proposal. And the last issue about the parks, John maybe if you could just use the overhead. Todd had a really good idea. I can't remember if it was the first or second...I can't remember which park commission meeting it was but in the staff report he recommended that we should provide an area for some, I'm not quoting him but I would describe as some low intensity active play area. Kite flying. Frisbee 1 throwing. Those type of things could take place. I thought that was a good idea and I think in our original 1 38 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 we had like a 100 x 100 or 80 foot x 80 foot area where that could occur. And when he brought that proposal 8 up and after we looked at it, we thought that's a good idea. Now on the other hand, one of the things we don't want to have happen in here, is we don't want them to be an area where there is organized, planned organized intense activities. Where a lot of people might show up. There might be a fairly intense pick -up game of either football or baseball or softball or whatever. And the reason is, and if you look at other communities where we've done this. This is really kind of geared for the family. This is hopefully where you'll go for a walk and take your kids down there. Maybe you'll play some tennis and they'll be playing on the play structures and there will be some other architectural features built here. Lots of landscaping and benches and it's more, it's intended to be more of a low intensity use. And exactly what we don't want to occur here, where there's . planned organized activities or even like the possibility of somebody bringing a keg or some beer and hang out. They want to...more of an intense use. That is exactly what we don't want to happen. And if you provide too big of an area, we think it's going to be encouraging. So what we decided to, staff came back with an idea of 250 x 250 and 250 x 250 is actually larger than a National Football League playing field. I mean that is a big, John maybe you can put up. I mean here's an NFL football field and the actual square footage, including the end zones of a National Football League is 57,600 square feet. Now that's a big area and again, I think it's a good idea to be able to throw the frisbee and fly a kite. Even if you have half a dozen guys and you want to play a little quick game of touch football and mess around, 1 think that's a great idea. But having something that's bigger than a professional football field goes way beyond what we would like to see as a low intense family use of it. So we had proposed and to be honest with you, we'd like to see it even smaller than 180 x 180. 180 x 180 is 56% of the size of an NFL football field. So it's even half the size. If you took half of a football field. How many families, I mean how many of any of us if we just wanted to get together and play touch football game, I'm sure a half of a football field, we'd be able to have a pretty good time and accommodate all of you. Now to kind of put this in some other perspective. We measured the parking lot out here...most of you park out here all the time and come to City Hall and on the overhead here you'll see what the parking lot is. Now I...and in just one of those parking lots you could have a pick -up touch football game. But if you take both of them, which we did to show the illustration, that's kind of about the area of what we're proposing and that's a big area. You could easily have a low intensity active area at this... game in this area. We would really hate to see it get much bigger than that. Some of the other things that happens if it does. To make that area bigger, then you're putting the focus on that area and taking it away from the landscaping. You're talking it away from the berming. I mean something's got to give and you want to just expand the flat, open area and then what do we do with the berm. That we were trying to screen and do some of this buffering. I mean something's got to go and so we ask that you look at from the perspective of a more low intensity neighborhood park. If you were going down there yourselves and you wanted to relax and enjoy yourself and you were fearful of a more intense, organized activity and then also decide well geez, 180 x 180. That's half of a football field as far as square footage. Is that enough to accommodate that? We think it really is. It's not going to be a place where you can have a lot of, a lot of activity. That isn't what our intent is and that's why we proposed it. The last issue has to do again with the Song's driveway. This is an aerial photograph of the Song property and this area right in here represents the exception parcel that Mr. and Mrs. Song have always dreamed of someday being able to build their dream home. They did build a very nice home when they built this home down here but they always had in the back of their mind that someday, if economic situations worked out, that they would build their dream home. And if any of you have lived in the country or on an estate of any kind, one of the things that sets the tone for that from the very rust thing is the entrance. The entrance to your home, which in other words would be the driveway. Now as you can see, this area where they have planned for their dream home is probably about halfway. The location where they would put their home would be generally right in this vicinity. As you can see, right here actually what's taking place on this day, this is a ground breaking ceremony I think on Mr. Carlson's property. That's the date that this photo happened to be taken. The Song's would like to have their entrance come in right around this edge of this wetland. This is upland area and 39 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 come in and follow the slope through these trees to the residence. It would certainly give them the feeling of Pe g Y 8 B their estate. Sets the tone. A point of arrival. A point of entry. And what is being proposed was suggested by, and the Planning Commission approved the Song's request on a 3 -2 vote. It was controversial. The staff is proposing that the Song's would enter through this cul -de -sac and run down one of these lot lines to their home, which would certainly take away their ambience and the feel of what certainly they've always have attempted to do. Now the Song's could have, if they would have known that this was going to be a problem, they could have just come in without a developer...subdivide their land. They could have just come in and said, we want to subdivide our land. Just this 10 acre parcel here and I'm going to build a home on it and have the driveway ' here. And really the city, they meet all the tests of the city ordinances. They could have done that and this driveway, private driveway already is down there on their other home. And the County, in our conversation with them and staff's conversation with them, is not opposed to that entrance. So what's really happening here is that through our proposal the one private driveway that goes to their present home is being eliminated from Galpin. From now on this will access on a city street. So all we're doing is taking one private driveway here and we're putting up on the new home here. And those are really the only points that we have...this evening. The rest of everything else, we've worked a long time with staff on. Our consultants are here if you have any questions related to engineering or planning... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Terry, before you sit down I have a question about whether the two items, the two first items you addressed are related. Are you saying if we reduce the private park to 180 x 180, then you would be able to afford to do the trails and the park as well? I mean is that. 1 Terry Forbord: The 180 x 180 we are suggesting purely as a practical matter and aesthetics. It's not, it will really take away from the feeling of that park if you put a playfield in this area. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. So it's not related to whether you can afford to do the. Terry Forbord: That's correct. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thanks. Terry Forbord: I don't know if I would be able to provide, I don't think that we'll be able to do the berming that is required of me, what we promised all along from the very beginning with the Song's and the Carlson's when we expand that area because there's only so much room. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael, do you have anything? Councilman Mason: I'd like to know what the rationale is for, we've heard what the rationale is for 180 x 180. What's Park and Rec rationale for 250 x 250? Todd Hoffman: We have three of our Park Commissioners here that will be able to answer questions as we go ' along as well as far as what was represented at the Park and Recreation Commission. The 250 x 250 was originally arrived at as to allow a large enough open play area for some pick up games. Now I'm not insinnuating that the applicant that this would encourage organized league games. It was never intended to do that. We just wanted sufficient open fields to allow for...Again, I recommended a compromise position and the 1 Park and Recreation Commission did not see fit in going along with that so I would defer to them for further 1 40 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 clarification. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Does Park and Rec have anything to address that with? Any members. Okay. Jerome. 1 Jerome Carlson: Thank you. On that specific subject I have 3 points I'd like to touch on. Mayor Chmiel: If you could just, for the record so. Jerome Carlson: Oh, Jerome Carlson. 6950 Galpin Blvd, Excelsior. Mayor Chmiel: Soon to be Chanhassen. Jerome Carlson: I hope so. The park. When we spent 6 months working, I'm here representing Charles and Irene Song as well as Linda and myself. That's the way it has been from the beginning. Charles and Irene have relied upon me to assist them in the process of the document which was executed with the Lundgren Bros sometime ago now but that was about 6 months in the making. One of the concerns that we had expressed and is in our document. We are very much opposed at having a park that encourages a lot of folks, particularly if the size of that is going to create a lack of berming. We were concerned about the noise. We were concerned about the privacy issue and that's when we, we negotiated with Lundgren Bros it was to keep that neighborhood park small. Sufficient. We understood the need for it. We understood their explanation and their marketing but we absolutely are opposed to a large park in that location. To further my request of the city to build a smaller park it seems to me that if in fact the contingency of the Stockdale property, 6+ acres being converted into a public park, remains as a part of the approval, then is that not enough? Why is the 250 so important at that point? And I think that, I would ask on behalf of the Song's, and on behalf of the Carlson's, and appeal to you for our original agreement which still is in effect. To keep that to a minimum, particularly if in fact there's going to be an adjacent park on the other side of the same property, which clearly would have the acreage 111 sufficient for a lot of organized or pick -up games. I believe that's fair. That is our feeling on the park. The • 180 x 180 for those reasons. May I touch on the other two subjects or would you like to finish this one Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: I think we'd probably like to just fmish the one that we're on right now, thanks. Okay. Michael, did you have anything more? Councilman Mason: On this particular issue? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Mason: I kind of like Todd's idea to tell you the truth. It sounds like a compromise. And I, 1 maybe this, I don't know if this is the time to go into my personal feelings about neighborhood association parks or not. Is now the time for that or not? Mayor Chmiel: You can mention it right now if you care. Councilman Mason: Well I don't like them. I think they tend to be elitist. And I'm not saying that's the intent of anybody but you know, are there signs that go up that say this is for this neighborhood only? Are there signs? How are they maintained? Who maintains them? I know if anything ever happens and it comes back to the city, then the city maintains them, which we need parks. I don't deny that but I, my personal feeling is, is that that situation tends to internalize the neighborhoods and maybe we want that. I don't know. But I see 41 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 neighborhoods in in m own hil n I' turn g in then instead of turning out and I basically, that's my philosophical bent. I'm not saying I'm bent on destroying this concept or anything like that. I'm not. But that's what my feeling is on that. So I guess at this point I support Todd's compromise but I'm not saying that's defmite yet. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. 1 Councilman Senn: I'd have to say this was one of the more interesting puzzles in our packet. I wish we could have had the presentation first because it took me about 2 hours to figure what he just told us in 30 minutes. I guess I, personally I'd like to really applaud the developer because I think this is one of the best plans I've ever seen in terms of a neighborhood. I think, I can even go back to my old city planning days and I've never seen anything to parallel this. I think it's fantastic. Very responsible in just about every way, shape and form. I don't see any real issues. Major planning issues coming out of it. I think mainly what it came down to was some economic issues, predominantly related to the parks and trails. I guess I have to say that after reading through all the developer's discussion, reading through all the commission stuff and everything, that I started to, I guess have to say sympathize a little bit with the developer because I kept adding this up in my head and started to figure, I don't think anybody on this earth could afford it but. You know looking at the park and the trail issues, I don't have any problem at all with these neighborhood or association parks. Maybe my bias is there because I come from a neighborhood with one and I think they're fantastic. It provides a focal point to the neighborhood. It takes a lot of pressure off the city operated and maintained parks. At the same time it serves really in my mind a whole different function you know than a city park does. If more neighborhoods of this size throughout the city had these parks, then I think we could concentrate on larger scaled activity or youth athletics and bigger types of parks within the city. I have no problems with the 180 x 180 playing field that the developer has suggested. I think it's very adequate for what's being suggested. Looking at the park and the trail issues, I think the idea of the trail around the wetland is just great. I mean that's something that probably normally we could never hope to achieve and I look at that and I say I know there's a cost to that and it seems to me that if the developer's willing to grade the trail along Galpin and also provide the, what I guess I call the internal trail, it seems to me that beyond that there shouldn't really be any trail fees. And it also seems to me in looking through all of these numbers and that sort of thing, I mean there's got to be some cost protection there to the developer because if I calculated this right, there's trail fees coming on this close to $50,000.00. And to me the developer should have to spend that $50,000.00 on those, both that internal and that Galpin trail and then beyond that I think, then I think part of it becomes our responsibility. But at the same time I turn around and I say, I think the developer should pay the park fees. So I don't like to kind of mix those two or balance them out. To me they're doing a great job on trails and if we decide to go ahead on the trails and the trails cost $75,000.00 instead of $50,000.00, I think we should pick up the $25,000.00. But at the same time I think the developer should be contributing the $600.00 per household for park fees because again, going back to the concept where I think this neighborhood park services one function and there's still another function and I think if the people who live here are going to be putting pressure in other fashions on city parks, ballfields, soccer fields, you know a lot of other uses so I think that's still appropriate that that charge go in there and that the developer pay it. The other issue I became over hearing was this, oh I forget the, what was it. Stockdale. The Stockdale property. After reading through this stuff I didn't really feel it was really appropriate or fair to be requiring this developer to really do anything with that property. It's not his and he's not buying it. I don't really see his role in it. As far as the driveway issue goes, I didn't see any problem with that one at all. I think the Song's should be able to have that driveway and I think that'd be a real amenity to that property and I think the development and the Song property then end up both to be better off as a result of that driveway and entrance. I think the driveway coming in through the development itself, I don't think we lose a plus to the overall plan. I think it's a negative instead so I guess that pretty much covers all the issues that. 42 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: And just one quick question I have. Is this, in your opinion, still benefitting the city or would this be benefitting the developer? Councilman Senn: In terms of? Mayor Chmiel: Of your positioning on the different things that you had said. 1 Councilman Senn: Well Don if you look at it purely economically. Mayor Chmiel: And the other point being, are we establishing some kind of precedent with this and I don't 1 know that either, and I can ask Todd that when you get done. Councilman Senn: You know, that's something that I was going to come around to at the end because I don't 1 know if we've ever done this type of, excuse me, balancing act before but at the same time I don't think we've looked at a development before that comes in with this extensive a trail system for example within it. And that sort of thing. One of the problem is here, at this early point you don't have any dollar amounts or numbers attached to most of these things. All you can do is look at it and say, from an income standpoint we know what our park fees are and we know what our trail fees are and I look at this and say, well. We're expecting roughly $50,000.00 in trail fees and we're expecting roughly $150,000.00 in park fees. So I start with that as the base economics and I go into this and say, well geez. The developer should then, between the internal trail and the external trail, provide $50,000.00 worth of trails. I think that's his responsibility. Beyond that, I don't think it's his responsibility. So I mean that's kind of like one ledger sheet over here. The other ledger sheet I pull out and say, geez. They're providing this wonderful neighborhood park but again I look at the use of that neighborhood park as being self serving in a way but I still think it's great to see. In looking at the overall project and the plan, I think it fits great and it's beautiful and it will be a big amenity to the city and the neighborhood. But then at the same time I sit there and say, but I don't think that should impact them paying $600.00 per household in park fees because we still have that pressure going on overall city parks and the neighborhood park I look at as being as much a benefit to the neighborhood as it is to us. Well more of a benefit to the neighborhood than it is to us. I think there's some benefit to us because again it takes some pressure off of city parks. So I look at this not really as just one big balance sheet but I think each one of them becomes a balance sheet and I can't tell you where the numbers come out because I don't know what the heck the trails cost. There's nothing in here to tell us that one way or the other. I don't know if we're talking about 100 grand in trails. You know 70 grand. 50 grand. Less than 50 grand. I mean I have no idea. I'm just assuming since you're bordering a wetland and Galpin with the topography along Galpin there, my guess is you're not looking at inexpensive trails to develop but that's just purely a guess. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. 1 Councilman Wing: I guess I'm going to...here because I just, I agree with Mark. Everything he was saying I had written down here. I guess I'd just to quote Colleen, I'll say ditto. I'd like to...this neighborhood park concept for these type of closed neighborhoods and in regards to that park, I'd like to have Lundgren Bros and Terry simply go ahead and develop their neighborhood park the way they want to do it to meet their needs and then separate that issue out. I don't want to hear about it. I don't want to discuss it. I could care less. That 180 x 180 is fine with me. My thoughts are not on their neighborhood park. I'm willing to give Terry total control and direction on that. It's not a city park. So I...Mark's discussion of the trail fees and the park fees and that's the money we have to spend. Now what are we going to do with it. And this Stockdale property. Now it's my understanding that these park and trail fees to buy that property would be totally used up, is that 43 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 correct? Todd Hoffman: Correct. On the park fees to purchase the Stockdale property. Councilman Wing: Every dime would go? Todd Hoffman: Every dime for both the Song and the Johnson - Dolejsi- Turner. Councilman Wing: Okay. I guess I would set a priority here and with that wetland and the amenities out there, having walked that area. I'd like to get that trail as my personal priority here. Is that we get that trail and how can we realize this issue. How can we go for this trail and drop the other issues? I mean Lundgren Bros can take their neighborhood park. I don't want to talk about it any more. So we've got the...park fees that are going to go to pick up the 6 acres and now you've got roughly $50,000.00 for trail fees and is a trail going to be doable for $50,000.00? Now what can we do to work with Lundgren Bros to realize that trail and what will they participate maybe above and beyond so I guess my feeling is to go along with Mark's comments totally to prioritize the trail and that trail issue. I mean to go out and buy a chunk of land and pay the money, that's an obvious thing but this trail, we don't have the dollar amounts and I think the greatest asset to this community long term is going to be that trail going around that wetland. We'll never get it if we don't do it now. So that would be my priority for this project on the park issue. Is to establish that trail and realize that trail being built. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Jerome. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can I say something? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, go ahead. Y g Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks. I haven't had a chance to address this yet and just sticking to the trail issue. I guess I see the neighborhood park as a purely marketing asset to the development and since we're getting park fees in lieu of. Well, since we are getting park fees, it's a non issue. As far as the trails, I concur completely that they need to be done and whatever we can work out with Lundgren to get them built is a priority. I've got some other issues but they're not park and trail related so. Councilman Wing: I think at this point, if we've discussed the park issue, I think we all have on the record and have our opinions and the Mayor will be back very shortly. In the meanwhile, maybe if Jerome could come up and address the other two issues that you had. At least subject wise for this project. Jerome Carlson: I'd be happy to. The driveway for the Song's, since I'm representing the Song's. They would greatly appreciate their own driveway. That came to somewhat of a shock to them when they heard that there was a possibility they wouldn't have their own driveway. They frankly had never thought of that possibility and so providing that for them on a 10 acre piece does not seem unreasonable. I hope you will agree. The road width that was altered, H and I, I think it was. I want to support that as strongly as I can because of the size of the maple and oak trees up there and the steep grades. Let's not take any more trees than we really have to. I related this to the Planning Commission. Cedar Lake Parkway. Linda and I actually went down and measured it. We were driving around Cedar Lake enjoying Minneapolis with a friend and Linda carries tape measurers in her purse. So we stopped the car and we measured Cedar Lake Parkway in Minneapolis. From the outside of the curb to the outside of the curb is 26 feet. Perfectly fine parkway. Handles more cars on a Sunday afternoon than that little road up there will handle in a decade and it does just fine. What's being proposed here on a 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 smaller basis is somewhat larger than that... Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor...Song's had their own driveway and the width of...which is item 11 remaining at 50 feet. Councilman Senn: Which staff is supporting? 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Councilman Wing: And if I still was chairing this temporarily, I guess the question I would have. I'd turn it 1 back to you. The question I would have on the trail is, if Terry Forbord could discuss that trail issue around that wetland or what they might, what they can or can't do or will or won't do. Assuming that Mark Senn and myself prevailed on allowing you to have your neighborhood park to your own design. No city interference on that, how would we best realize the trail that's been discussed and what role might you play in that? Terry Forbord: Your Honor, do you want me to address that right now? Mayor Chmiel: Right now. Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros. The trail that you're speaking of is this trail? 1 Councilman Wing: That's correct. Terry Forbord: One thing that I neglected to point out is there also is a trail along this collector road as a condition of approval I believe, is that correct? Dave Hempel: A sidewalk. 1 Terry Forbord: There is a sidewalk that goes from here to here that we also are putting in. I did not tell you that but I thought now would be a good time to do that. Again, this is purely an economic issue for me. 1 Believe me. I would much rather...just said we will do whatever you want and there'd be no controversy. The trail fees. There is generated $52,800.00 I believe in trail fees for both of these communities. The trails that are being asked of us are this trail. The grading of this trail. The road bed. The trail bed. And then a link somewhere between one of these lot lines from this neighborhood down to here. And the only problem that I have with any of it is the dollar amount. And staff has always recommended that at least, I think it's always been recommended that they recommended a waiver of trail fees as our participation in that. One of the things, and I think Counciler Senn eluded to it is, is nobody knows what the cost is right now. And the condition of approval actually states that the trail will be designed per staff's specification period. I don't even know what that means. So what happens if we have $52,800.00 to spend on trails, and we're willing to do the construction as a part of our phasing. Our guys are there. We'll get more bang for the buck and the staff report actually 1 eludes to that too. That the city will get more bang for their buck if the trail is built while the developer's subcontractors are there doing the work rather than doing them separately. But what happens if this turns out to be $80,000.00? Or if it's $100,000.00? I mean there's an increment there that I can't afford to make up and I'm willing to work with the city staff to whatever degree is necessary to try to help get to that point. Now, Counciler Wing suggested that the park fees would go exclusively to buying the park, and I don't know if that's always been the plan but if in it's wisdom if the city decided that they rather would have this trail complete and have it blacktopped so people could rollerblade on it or whatever, and they have decided to take trail and park 45 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 fees in order to accomplish that, that would be fine with me as well. I think the city should decide how they want to spend those total sum of those fees. But I hope I'm answering the question. We're willing to work ' with the city in any way we can to help bring that in cheaper. One of the things that we need to recognize. I know Todd knows this because we were down there. Because this is on the edge of a wetland, is what really makes it neat but it's also what's going to make it expensive. We're at the toe of the slope. It's wooded down there. We're going to have to be very careful in the construction of it and erosion control and all the kind of things that add to the construction costs. It still can be done but I think I agree with what everyone says so far about that trail. The experience of this type of trail is entirely different than the experience of a trail along Galpin Boulevard. I mean this is a utilitarian type trail. This is an experience and I think all of you recognize 1 that so we think it's a good idea and... Councilman Senn: I just had a question. In terms of the trail fees we were talking about. I mean this is really I think a different situation I think than normal because I mean there's another factor I think we're not considering. The other factor we're not considering is, we're going to say if you put the full $50,000.00 in trails fees that you in, at the same time they're donating all the land for the trails. I mean isn't that normally part of that whole equation of what goes into a trail? I mean isn't land dedication part of in lieu of or whatever 1 usually? Todd Hoffman: The applicant would have to clarify but at this point I'm assuming there would be a trail easement along the back side. So it's not a, easements are not credit for trail fees. Easements are taken as part of the responsibility of the particular development... Mayor Chmiel: That's what it's been right along. Todd Hoffman: The applicant has made one clarification in that the Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that trail fee credit be given for that construction and we are at the conceptual stage but if these 1 type of deals have been struck up before, the PUD at Lake Susan Hills, which is now probably 7, 8 years old. They agreed to build a whole lot of trails because they saw a value in those trail systems to their development to the city. Plus they agreed to pay 50% of their trail fees as part of that development. So sometimes you take a run at the dark like that and it's a benefit to the community. It's a benefit to the neighborhood. That trail is going to sell houses to those people. I've always said, I'm going to start a scrapbook one day because people say, trails devalue households. They devalue neighborhoods but everytime I see a real estate ad, trails nearby. Trails close by. Parks close by. So I'm hearing two things. The other clarification we need to relate is that both, it was stated that trail grading would be taking place up and down Galpin. That was originally put in as a condition when a full 20 foot easement would have been taken up and down Galpin. That is no longer the case. The condition now reads that within 200 feet of street intersections there would be additional easements so you ' can get these turn lanes in. And as the condition now reads, those would be the only areas under the jurisdiction of the applicant which would be graded. So not the entire land is being graded. And in speaking to Mr. Hempel, at the point when Galpin is upgraded and he's got the road project going on, then we would go ahead 1 and grade the trail bed and put the trail in at that time. So that's just a clarification. Councilman Wing: I sure hope I don't run into any of the Park and Rec members in the dark. Or actually even during the day...mentioned to Todd and I'd like to pursue here is the rethinking of the fees used. It's nice to have park dedication fees and trail dedication fees but I get tired of taking the dedication fees and they always go to buy ballfields and put in a tennis court and that's wonderful and that's great but what's...more into the passive type parks. I'd like to see those dedication fees go someplace else and in lieu of the Stockdale property and the park, I'd like to see us rethink the use of this to complete the trail around that wetland and establish that 1 46 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 once and for all for the city because that's what I'm going to use and that's what my interest and what my family's interested in. It gives me access to that property. We're not going to come from anywhere to come over here and use that 6 acres. That's wonderful for the group but the neighborhood's got it's park. I'm not going to deny the use of a park in that area or that we want it or need it. But I think this is a case that there's such an environmentally sensitive piece of land that we can rethink the use of those fees and perhaps put it to go to insure that this trail goes in at this point...trail around the entire wetland. What I'm seeing on the map. Terry's only talking about the north. Todd Hoffman: ...concept sure. The other part currently is being used and this is the conceptual and would have to be incorporated into the City's comprehensive trail plan for future development. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: I'm hearing economically feasible, and I certainly don't dispute that. Terry, how many 1 acres or home many homes will Lundgren Bros have in the city of Chanhassen? I mean all totalled. In the whole city. I mean just real ballpark. Terry Forbord: You mean since we first came to the city? Councilman Mason: Yeah. 1 Terry Forbord: Oh, I'm going to guess over 10 years it's probably been 200. Councilman Mason: Yeah, and that's obviously continuing to grow. 1 Terry Forbord: Well our company is growing. Councilman Mason: Right. Okay. And I hear this economically feasible and I hear that and I do understand that but I'm also a little curious to know just how much money Lundgren Bros has made working in Chanhassen too. And I know you folks have your bottom. line. I mean I don't know that I ever need to get into that argument but if this is a matter of give and take here, I think the city does have a very good relationship with Lundgren Bros and obviously I think they're a quality product but, I guess I get, I'm a little concerned when I keep hearing economically feasible. Yet they can spend a quarter of a million dollars on a park for their development but these other things seem to be a major problem for them. And maybe that's something to think about. I may in fact be out of line. Mayor Chmiel: I guess what you're trying to say is it gets lumped into the cost of the house and it's part of the total value. Councilman Mason: Well, yeah. So I don't know where that stands in this whole picture either I guess. This is a real complicated one, I don't deny it. Terry Forbord: You know a lot of focus keeps being on what this park does for Lundgren Bros. I think that's a natural thing for anybody to do and if I was in your position I'd be saying, well what is the city getting, is this just for Lundgren Bros. And one thing that nobody has ever heard from at any of these kind of meetings are the people who aren't there yet. People who will be your constituents and will be paying the taxes in the community. And when you have a chance to visit those people in 5 or 10 years, they'll be saying. Boy, this is 1 47 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 a great community. I'm really glad that the city has worked to allow these type of...I mean those people aren't here now and they can't speak for themselves but those people will be citizens and Counciler Senn is absolutely ' correct. This does take the impact off some of the other city facilities and to be honest with you, every city we've ever proposed these to, they have never, ever had the controversy that we've had here. And I think mainly it's because those cities are a little more developed too and this is new. Usually they're saying, you're ' willing to do this and pay for park and trail fees, and that's always been our position. I mean there is a provision in the city ordinance of Chanhassen that if we propose an association park, you have the right, it's a provision in the ordinance, to waive the park and trail fees if we agree to build an association park but we've never asked for that. So I think it's also fair to say, it's our attempt to, and I can't prove this to you until I'm done but I feel very confident that it will be proven. That this will be one of the nicest neighborhoods in Chanhassen because of the things that we're going to do and that is a benefit to the city. That is a direct benefit to the community as a whole. 1 Councilman Mason: Well, that raises a whole nother issue Terry and I don't know if we want to get into what's nicest. I mean is that dollar value? Is that affordable? Is that upper level? I mean, you just opened a whole nother can of worms as far as I'm concerned and I'd be happy to get into that one too tonight. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, please don't. ' Councilman Mason: Well, it's coming up. One way or the other, affordable housing is an issue here but I think Fred wanted to say something. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Fred, would you like to come up? One of the other thing before you come here Fred. Kate, with the total number of homes that we're putting on this 112 acres, have we looked at what we're taking back out of there for roads and everything else and what are those lot sizes eventually going to be with the size 1 of homes that are going to be on them? Kate Aanenson: Yes. When we do the PUD for the density, we take out roads right-of-way and...So if you look at the gross and the net, that would be reflected as part of the wetlands...So 1.7 is pretty accurate... 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Fred. Fred Berg: Thank you. Fred Berg, Park and Rec Commission. I just had a couple of things I wanted to say and hearing about benefits to the city sort of caught my attention a little bit more. I'm hard pressed to see a lot of benefit to the city as a whole. Number one, this is a nice neighborhood park yet it's going to have signs on both sides saying it's exclusively for this neighborhood. Period. As far as helping the other people in that area, it's not going to be an accessible park at all. The second thing is, while these people are coming in and they have the right to do that certainly, they are going to be using the other city parks as well. They're not going to be able to play softball in this park. They're not going to be playing hockey. They're not going to be doing any of the other activities that require larger play areas. To be perfectly honest with you, as far as the 250 x 250 and some of the other issues, I haven't felt comfortable coming up and talking to you about them because I'm so confused about what's going on and I've been sitting on the commission listening to the presentations for 2 or 3 times anyway and it seems every time things are changing that I'm not aware of. All of a sudden I'm coming to another meeting and things have changed again because there was a misunderstanding as to what one person meant and what one person said. It's a very confusing issue. I know you see that when you're looking at your own packet but as fax as the benefit to the city, I guess I don't see it as being as strong as the applicant might be 1 saying 1 48 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Okay. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have one comment. We have to keep in mind that this is a PUD and that , does allow you know some, a lot of leeway on the Council's part to request things from the applicant that normally we don't have to. Or we can't. Mayor Chmiel: And you can also look for the other things that were discussed and are indicated. That those things are probably unaffordable and I don't like getting hung out on a line on that part either. Just not knowing whether this would be done or whether it won't be done. But the PUD does give us that leeway of saying these are the areas that we want and they're the areas that we basically need and we go either with that position or another position that has been brought up. Does Council feel comfortable with this particular project and with that are you at a point where you feel you would like to move on this? Councilman Wing: Are we still on park and trails or are we digressing now? Mayor Chmiel: To anything or everything that's involved with it. , Councilman Wing: Well I'll support the private driveway. I definitely want to support the road width remaining at the 50 feet. I have no problem with this neighborhood. But there I have 2 other additions that I mentioned to Terry that I wanted to add that I think Planning missed or stated they wished they had added. There's a draft ordinance for boulevard planting in the city coming from the Tree Board. I think today is the time to start. We have a collector road. Road A going from TH 41 to Galpin, and although it is in a way kind of a neighborhood street. There's two additional conditions we'd like to add. The planting of boulevard trees on that particular road. Road Number A...staff's specifications and I know what those are. We had x feet within the easement area. X trees per footage. I don't know if it was 60 feet or 100 feet. Anyway the trees, there is a definition of boulevard trees and boulevard plantings so I'd like to add that. And there would be...tree preservation landscaping, item f. They're requiring tree, or boulevard trees per the draft ordinance in the staff recommendation. And then under item number 31, the addition of street lights. Decorative street lights. Minnewashta Parkway is a good example. Very non - obtrusive. Low light levels but some lighting. Scenic lighting. Appropriate lighting along that same road. Collector Road A so item number 31 would be the addition of street lights. Take that Council. Councilman Mason: With the selling, the Song's get their road, and I certainly don't fault them for wanting that. What's to prevent any other home along Galpin Blvd to having a direct access to Galpin Blvd? Mayor Chmiel: I think there's a provision within the Council as to total distances from one driveway to the next. But if it meets that criteria, then of course they probably would have that. Dave Hempel: Mr. Mayor, maybe I could address that a little bit. Actually our city ordinance has provisions for spacing driveway accesses along collector and arterial streets...That would restrict the interior lot from having 1 that and that is a condition which is in the staff report. We're not disputing that extra driveway through the collector for the 10 acre parcel for the Song residence... We've had this come up in other instances where the Planning Commission wanted us to justify whether to allow it or not to allow it. Each situation is...so to set a policy would be really kind of difficult to apply...The County has jurisdiction on all the access points along their right -of -way here and...If it did subdivide in the future...tie into the Carlson parcel at some future date. Not to say that the cul -de- sac... , 49 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: We've got one of those driveways in our neighborhood where they ran a driveway down the lot lines. What a nuisance. Maintenance and who plows what and where does the snow they plow go and it's ' really unsightly. I'd hate to see a neighborhood that's being developed at this level to suddenly have those type of interferences. Purely aesthetic. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Councilman Senn: It's getting late and I guess this is complicated but I guess I'd like to attempt a motion. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I've got just a couple issues if I could before you do Mark. Councilman Senn: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And more of them are just questions or issues. I have some concerns about the landscaping around Galpin, and I don't see clearly what's going on there. Todd, if you could just give me an explanation, or Kate, to what exactly that's going to look like. Or the developer. Somebody give me an explanation of what's going to go on there. John Uban: My name is John Uban. Landscape architect and planner for the city. Or for the applicant. Also a 1 consultant to other communities. Wear too many hats sometimes. We've provided a landscape plan along Galpin that indicates a variety of plants and it will consist of overstory, some understory or ornamental trees and some evergreens. And right now they'll generally be mixed with a variety of things to take on a more rural, natural look rather than a regimented sort of urban street planting. And it's to be planted in combination with berming. On the grading plan which we don't have, we're trying to get berming where we have the homes the closest and in some areas where we have a wetland, there's actually a depression so it drops away and we don't want to build a berm and fill wetlands so there will be some areas where there will actually be some views into the site itself. So that way it's broken up a little bit and then it's more intense where the homes are close and ' we can do some berming and then there's some open pockets where we're protecting the natural wetland and the view into the wetland. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thank you. And my other question or issue is for Dave. You know we've got Stone Creek and Trotters Ridge and maybe the townhouses and the school site and we've got the Rottlund subdivision up there and now we've got this. What are we going to do and when are we going to put traffic lights on TH 5 and CR 117? Mayor Chmiel: That's coming eventually. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well eventually is here. It has to be now. Mayor Chmiel: That's with the Highway Department to make that fmal determination. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it's the Highway Department that determines that? 1 Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we don't order traffic studies or? 1 1 50 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: No. Well, go ahead Don. Don Ashworth: On your agenda, and in fact I hoped to have it on this one but the County has proceeded in making an application for traffic signals. You will have on your agenda 2 weeks from today a resolution supporting that application. Hopefully we'll be able to take the signals, the temporary signals that currently exist down here by the clock tower, because those are on loan, and actually move those out there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Good answer. Thank you. Councilman Mason: Somebody's day was just made. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Hey, it is suicidal taking a left turn there. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's right but unfortunately you know how the Highway judges when a stop and go light is put in. After so many deaths and that's a shame but that's the way it goes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well there have been several there so. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Mark, you were going to. Councilman Senn: Give it a try. Mayor Chmiel: Give it a shot. Councilman Senn: Let's see here. I would move approval according to staff's recommendations with the following additions and changes and deletions. How's that? The neighborhood park field area be approved at 180 x 180. That the applicant be required to pay full park and trail fees, as well as provide the neighborhood park and as well as providing appropriate easements for all trail systems occurring within the development. And let's see here. And that the applicant would not have any direct responsibility in relationship to the Stockdale property. And that Song's be able to have the driveway off of Galpin. And that we add these additional conditions. Installation of boulevard trees and the decorative street lights that Dick suggested. And I think that covered everything because staff's recommendation already had the trail along the wetland and all that other stuff in there. So that was fine. Councilman Wing: I'll second that for discussion. Mayor Chmiel: Could we clarify that 60 to 50? Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's in there. Mayor Chmiel: It's there but it has a 60 foot wide on 11. Councilman Senn: Oh yeah. Staff's recommendation was 50 there so I didn't address that. I assumed that was 1 okay. Mayor Chmiel: Just a clarification. Okay, is there a second? , 51 1 1 I City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 I Councilman Wing: I seconded that. I Todd Hoffman: Clarification on whether the motion was made to accept full park and trail fees and trail easements. There's no mention of construction of the trail. 1 Councilman Senn: That was in your recommendation that they should do the construction. I assumed that meant the construction. I'm saying their cost xesponsibility is limited to our policy which is full parks and dedication fees. So what I'm saying is, they pay what they're supposed to pay on park fees and they pay what they're supposed to pay on trail fees. Plus they're supplying the neighborhood park plus they're providing the 1 easements. Todd Hoffman: Do you want the applicant then to bill us for what their material costs would be for our review I and then we reduce those fees accordingly? Councilman Senn: Well I would assume you do that how you would normally do it. I don't know if that's your normal way of doing it but. 1 Todd Hoffman: Sure. U Councilman Senn: You know and I would assume that you guys would probably keep a pretty close eye on what those overall costs were and bids and all that sort of thing. Or at least subcontractor bids and stuff. Is that fair? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I seconded that but this trail issue's still haunting me then. .The $300,000.00 for the 1 neighborhood park, God bless Lundgren Bros. That's their problem. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and that's basically what the motion says. We're out of it other than that. 1 Councihnan Wing: Okay but now, how can we, it's a PUD and as part of approving this whole process how can we get this trail and how can they contribute and we talked about phases. I don't want to drop the trail issue. I Councilman Senn: But Dick, in the motion. If I'm hearing wrong, but in the motion we're taking in effect, as I understand it, approximately $200,000.00 from them to turn around and pump back in to those trails and to me that ought to be a pretty accomplishable number. Again, without numbers in front of me I can't tell you but I'm I saying there's $200,000.00 coming in that can go back to those trails. I'm agreeing with what you said earlier. I don't think the Stockdale property is their problem and I think we should capture whatever, if it's $100,000.00 hopefully for the trails, then $100,000.00 goes into doing those trails and the other $100,000.00 goes over to help pay towards other things or whatever. Or the Stockdale property if that's what you still want to do or whatever. Councilman Wing: The question is, what will you do with the dedication fees. Will they go into the trail or 1 will they go to buy the 6 acres of the Stockdale. Todd Hoffman: The Park Commission and City Council have authorized negotiations to purchase the Stockdale 1 property. We're moving forward in good faith with that. Total dollars generated for park fees are about I 52 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 I 1 $120,000.00 and total dollars for trail are approximately $45,000.00 so we're at about $165,000.00. And again, the motion put forth by the Park Commission which is included in your recommendation tonight is to have Lundgren build the trail which again as both the applicant and staff have stated tonight, has not been. Originally it was identified as a standard city trail which is 6 inches of crushed and 3 inches of blacktop. But again, if you diminish the cost to make this thing maybe a little bit more conducive to the natural, passive type park...crushed rock. I think if you waived $45,000.00 worth of park fees, or excuse me, trail fees and asked the applicant to I build that segment of trail in a crushed rock manner, I don't have the dollar figures either but it sounds like...equitable to me. Councilman Wing: That would be my friendly amendment. That would resolve my problem that he be given 1 credit for that but be charged with building that trail as described. And it may or may not cost more. It's true, it may but we are going with the crushed rock too so that's clearly lifting a burden and a compromise. Councilman Senn: So what you're asking is that he be required to build and pay for the entire trail through plus I pay the trail fees? Councilman Wing: No, no. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, waive the trail fees. Councilman Wing: Waive the trail fees. Councilman Senn: Waive the trail fees. Build the trail through. Pay the park fees. 1 Councilman Wing: And then have his way with the city park which I think we agree on. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I don't have a problem with that but I mean at the same time, until we know that . 1 number I guess I'd like to. Well I guess let's go with it that way but I want to leave the door open because if that trail number comes in at something that's just, $300,000.00 or something, I think the developer ought to have the right to come back in and say whoops. You know this number. We can't afford this because again I 1 get real uneasy when you're talking about projects that have absolutely no dollar amount attached to them. So I have no problem with that going forward but leaving the door open for the developer to come back if that cost is proven to be prohibitive. Todd, is that fair? 1 Mayor Chmiel: The project could be unacceptable then. Councilman Senn: I think the city staff, our consultant and the developer I think should work very quickly to 1 establish a cost. Todd Hoffman: ...cost is grubbing, clearing and grubbing and for installation of rock. Restoration. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that acceptable with that as a second? To the motion. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: So, you're asking me to say I don't care about that neighborhood park so we can get that 1 trail in there? Councilman Wing: I'm offering my opinion. I heard you loud and clear. I don't necessarily disagree with you 1 53 1 1 1 I City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 I Mike. I'm personally discounting it. We're picking up the Stockdale park and we're picking up the trail and that to me is a big issue. What Terry does with his neighborhood is not a big issue. 1 Councilman Mason: Well but, that neighborhood is in our city so I do see it as an issue and I don't like the idea of having signs up saying, you don't live here. You can't come in here. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Well they're going to be there. Councilman Senn: We've got them all over the city already. I Councilman Wing: I'm going to sneak in there anyway. I wait until Jerome and his wife leave and then I go pheasant hunting in his back yard. 1 Jerome Carlson: I count them every morning. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? I Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the preliminary PUD #93 -3 of 111.77 acres of property to create 115 single family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit I approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet. I 2. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that I improved tree preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks. 1 3. Each lot must be provided with two trees when they do not contain at least this number of trees 21/2" or larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be placed in the lot in question or clustered as I appropriate based upon an approved landscaping plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to buffering requirements along Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots." Trees to be selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 2 diameter at time of installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee I installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans for internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for city approval. I 4. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels. I 5. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat. 1 6. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are predicated upon the 1 54 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs, financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The association park will be built concurrent with street "A" as listed on the preliminary plat." 1 7. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on the "A" street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final approval, the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be employed. This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is to be covered by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans to mitigate wetland damage caused by the sanitary sewer crossing between A and E streets should be provided and incorporated into the development contract. Provide protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mitigation meets 1:1 ratio. At this time we are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the applicant's failure to identify Wetland I as identified by staff. The applicant is responsible for providing wetland mitigation for impacts stemming from the ultimate improvement of Galpin and trail construction adjacent to the site. The City will assume responsibility for obtaining the necessary permits for this activity." 8. Tree Preservation/Landscaping: 1 a. Detailed plans with the final plat for landscaping the cul -de -sac islands be developed for approval. b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped buffer (and berming where feasible). This feature must 1 be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees. 1 e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise satisfactorily marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and approved by the city before undertaking any grading of construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas as recommended by staff. 1 f. Planting of boulevard trees on Street A per city specifications. 9. Park and Trails: 1 Parks 1 55 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 a. The private /association park be approved with the addition of an open field with a minimum size of 180 feet by 180 feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private /association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. Such a provision must be drafted into association documents. b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. c. If in the future there is a dissolution or any type of breakdown in this neighborhood association, that the city will be deeded this park as a park and not subdivided into lots. Trails 1 a. It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right -of -way except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement up to 20' in width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, ' but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer ' and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be waived. ' This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. ' 10. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12' deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat. 11. The final plat shall be amended to include revised street right -of -ways on Streets B, D and G to a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with Streets H and I to be 50 feet wide with the standard street section. The applicant was granted a 25' front yard setback. Staff also agreed to allow for the construction of retaining walls in ' the ROW of streets H and I to save trees so long as they are maintained by the Association 12. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public right -of -ways including drainage basins. The minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. Access may be covered with sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff. 1 ' 56 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 I I 13. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers. 14. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a I 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting. 1 15. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard when Street A and/or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer, Carver County Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street. 1 16. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation. 1 17. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or provided with a wood -fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before Nov. 15 each construction season. Areas where street and/or utility construction will occur throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home sites when building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant an extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All disturbed areas shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 1 18. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City I staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and water improvements which is considered anything over an 8 -inch pipe diameter, a credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements which will I be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will be determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement. 19. As a condition of final plat approval the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with ' the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. 20. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The Song homestead shall 1 gain access via a direct connection to "B" Street. 21. Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval. 1 22. The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with the future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard right -of -way. 23. Wetland basin G shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the development to avoid its being I impacted by street and trail construction. 24. A private driveway easement should be conveyed for access to Lot 9, Block 1 between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 off of B Street. 1 57 1 r 1 I City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 r 25. The street grades shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between 0.50% and 7% except on H and E streets. A street shall be constructed to a 7 ton design. I 26. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension may be through either H Street or another Street location within the Johnson /Dolejsi/Turner property immediately to the west. 1 27. The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A and E streets, and the proposed cul -de -sac islands, are to be allowed subject to incorporation of modifications requested by staff I and to meet State Aid requirements. 28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. I 29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a temporary turnaround and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain -of -title of all lots in the vicinity. 1 30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal. 1 31. Decorative street lighting be installed along the collector Street A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 Terry Forbord: Your Honor. Council. I'd like to thank all of you. I'd like...just a couple closing comments. This has been a real difficult process for me personally working with staff...If it wasn't for the Mayor and Don I Ashworth, Todd Hoffman, Paul Krauss being resilient and me trying to be resilient, we wouldn't have gotten to this point. But I want to thank all of you. This has been the hardest project on me personally that I've ever had to work on. Not because people didn't care but just because it's been a sensitive issue. And all the people... deserve a lot of credit because they put a lot more work in here than meets the eye. And I forgot to mention 1 Dave. Mayor Chmiel: We appreciate that. 1 Terry Forbord: ...and I haven't been the easiest fellow to work with. I apologize for that and I appreciate all... Thank you very much. 1 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Mike. I Councilman Mason: Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. Fences are being moved. They're grading at 1:00 in the morning. Trees are getting cut down that aren't supposed to be. Do we know what's going on there Kate? I I know Paul isn't here tonight. I think it's been his. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There was a meeting held with them...with the developer... 1 58 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Dave Hempel: Staff has...applicant's tree landscaper that's doing the trimming and so forth and apparently there Pe 8 g aPP y were additional trees that were removed...The City's contention is, staff should have been notified...That is yet to be resolved with the applicant. We are meeting with him...individual water services that extend into the property...some of them were not put back up immediately. However we've been out to get those areas re- established and it's my understanding that as of today this whole area has been...so we are working with the applicant. His contention is that it's extremely difficult, the volume of grading and filling and the magnitude of the project... Kate Aanenson: ...there were some mots that were damaged and...some things that we're going to try to do to restore that. But you have to remember, this is the first tree preservation you've done of this type and we put a lot of stuff down on paper that we thought would work and we're finding out in the field, our expectations far exceeded what really works in the field. And while we're having a lot of problems, it's also a good learning experience. We put a condition on there that said 1 1/2 times the drip line and when you get out there, basically we've made lots unbuildable. I think our expectations were really somewhat unrealistic. And we've tried to draw some conclusions on how we can resolve this. While he is, there's problems out there. Tthink some of it is our problem in the fact that we need to be out there on top of it a little bit more and I think our expectations just can't be met so. We're trying to resolve that in the next project you're going to see with tree conservation easements. I think that's why...stay with the clustering...This, Lake Susan #9 and Trotters Ridge were the two that we did uniquely with specific tree preservations and we found that we made some lots basically unbuildable... , Councilman Mason: Well I'm not knocking, I want to make it clear. I'm not knocking anything the city's doing on this. That's not my intent but how is Joe Miller Homes being held accountable? I mean if. Kate Aanenson: We are documenting all the trees that are out there and we've got a letter documenting... It's being documented. Dave Hempel: We're also looking at extending the warranty period for the resulting loss of these trees 2 to 3 years down the road. The developer's contention is...if damage is done now, it won't show up until 2 to 3 years but if damage is not done now and the homeowner during construction...so there's some different scenarios that are being... Councilman Mason: Well and that's, I mean the learning curve, you know. That's fine. I mean I can live with that and as long as we're learning from it and the next process will be better, I think that's good. I guess my immediate concern is, I mean it sounds to me like Joe Miller has been flagrantly violating some conditions we have set forth. And that's something I think we need to address. Mayor Chmiel: Is it Joe himself or is it his subcontractors? Dave Hempel: That's what I want to clarify. It's his subcontractors which he's ultimately responsible for. 1 Councilman Mason: Yeah. Dave Hempel: As part of the construction process...temporary basis. The problem with the contractor is it's , rush, rush, rush. Low priority. Without us being out there policing it 8 to 10 hours a day and watching it. Councilman Mason: You know right, and that, you know, did we talk? And I know it was just talk stage but 1 59 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 didn't we talk at some point about having, particularly with large development, some kind of contractor, subcontractor meetings with city conditions and things like that. Kate Aanenson: We do. ' Dave Hempel: We've had periodic meetings with the applicant and involvement on the tree issue. And site grading. And construction hours because they have been violating. A warning's a warning and it doesn't do it for the contractor unless the ordinance...but our restriction is we put a development contract basically to shut them down for that...so he starts complying but then Saturday he works late and Monday he doesn't work late. Mayor Chmiel: Then the next one shut him down. ' Dave Hempel: Well how long do you shut him down for is the question...slap on the hand or how far do we go? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Well the only way they understand is when they are shut down, unfortunately. Councilman Mason: Yeah, and that is too bad but it seems to me if they're playing that kind of game with us, then we have to play that kind of game with them, and I know that puts you folks in a real hard spot too. But come on. Dave Hempel: We've set the stage. We've set the rules up front and the same old story. Once they get their approval they try to manipulate staff. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could we get a report back in several weeks or several months, whenever they're done grading and find out and just discuss what the city is getting back for their. Like what they're going to 1 replace on caliper inch. Kate Aanenson: ...so far on... 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Being you waited this long, I'll give you that opportunity. If you'd just state your name and your address. 1 Robert Smithburg: Okay. Robert Smithburg. 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. I've been involved in the Lake Susan Hills project as you know and I've talked with a few of you about this. I've been able to make a light accusation, where you're hedging on a number I know. There's 17 trees that have been taken down illegally and all along the proposed park trail it's an atrocity. They have hacked and it's about 15 -20 feet wide. I guess as a citizen of Chanhassen and my taxes are going for your salaries and contractual work, I want the contract upheld. I can't break my contracts. Northwest Airlines can't go out and say, break contracts. I'm sorry I'm addressing you. I get angry in these situations but I feel that the contract has to be upheld. Everyone here, the Planning Commission, everyone...went through hours of...hard work to make this thing restrictive and "the best ", how can I say this. Environmental project say for construction and be a leader and this guy comes in. ' I live right across from the project. I watch. I see it. They drive over the fences. They have heavy equipment and they're not supposed to do it. They flagrantly violate it all the time. So I'm asking as a citizen that, I mean maybe the city should take a stand for once and you wouldn't have these problems in the future. Possibly. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Maybe it would be well worth while to call Joe Miller in and let him know where we're at and ' 60 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 the position that we will be taking. If he doesn't straighten out his contractors, then we do what we have to do. Councilman Mason: I'd be happy to be there. Robert Smithburg: ...and I understand that but there are enough attorneys around and there are enough engineers that they can look at this and say, hey. If it was bad, why didn't...You don't have to sign things that are bad. I mean for years I've fought for contracts that are worst. Sometimes you take it in the nose and sometimes we don't. You have to abide by what you sign. That's the rules of the game so. Mayor Chmiel: Good. We'll address it. Thanks for coming in. 1 Dave Hempel: I'd like to address two issues that he spoke of. The disruption to the trail area down by the lake, the 15 to 20 foot wide area there. That is where the sanitary sewer was brought in to the development. It's virtually impossible to go in there with a backhoe and dozer equipment to dig in a sewer line and back fill and to disrupt less area than that. The applicant was proposing initially to wipe out all the trees and to grade those back yards...The trees there are oak and ash and a variety of significant trees. We did save, preserve that whole area of the tree conservation easement so we did go a little bit beyond some of the areas that. There is some havoc. There is some disruption as a result of the sewer line but that's also... We view the tree removal and the grading limits on paper and actually when it comes down to staking it in the field, the construction...might be off 5 or 10 feet which throws a wrench into saving the trees at 1 1/2 times the drip line. Some of these trees... A good example of what we need to use as... Kate Aanenson: ...basically what we have to do, every time...we physically have to go out to the site with them 1 and we just don't have the...Unfortunately what happened on this one, it was our first one and we were learning. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks Kate. Mark. Rather quickly. Can you hit each one that you want to talk about. Councilman Senn: Yeah, quickly Don. The gaming ordinance. I'd really like to see that put back on Council as an action item for consideration. Gaming ordinance amendment. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just to let you know, I don't know if you've spoken with Scott. You did? Okay. 1 He is looking into it this week but I think it's appropriate to bring it back. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd like to bring it back. And let's see here. 1 Mayor Chmiel: State responsibility on TH 101. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Where are we? I mean we met almost 6 months ago and absolutely nothing's 1 happened. I mean the State was supposed to come back to us with some simple answers and go from there. Where are we? I mean it's...going absolutely nowhere again. Don Ashworth: I met with Roger Gustafson on Friday. If you recall, he was the one who was going to take a lead role in this thing. He promised me he'd pick the ball back up. He would give me a call the first part of this week as to when we would be looking to a next meeting. And I guess that's all I can respond to. The ball has been dropped. Councilman Senn: Well I thought, Gustafson said he was going to take the lead role if we decided to address all 61 , 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 of TH 101 and stuff. I mean in the meeting. The State said they were going to go back and look definitively at the north section of TH 101 and tell us how a trail you know design could potentially impact long term, or if long term construction could potential impact the trail even though they sat in the meeting and said it was going to be outside of 30 years before they ever thought of doing something with TH 101. I mean that's a separate element from what the County is talking about. I mean if we have to wait 6 months you know to take minor 1 steps in this thing, I mean we may as well go back and tell the people they're never going to have a trail. This is ridiculous. Don Ashworth: Well. ' Councihnan Senn: I mean wouldn't you agree that 6 months of absolutely nothing happening is kind of silly on this issue? Don Ashworth: But I'm not sure that's the case. My recollection was, is Roger was going to take the lead agency role but MnDot would take the plans that had been prepared by BRW and tell us how much of that trail system would in fact be destroyed if we just built the trail outside of the right -of -way limits as currently 1 proposed. Councilman Senn: Or within. I mean they were going to look at it both ways and give us back an answer. 1 Just north of TH 101. Don Ashworth: And to the best of my knowledge, well I do not know if anyone has recontacted the State and ' said, where are you. And that was the reason for me meeting with Roger on Friday was to, let's get this group back in and let's find out what has or hasn't been done and I really had hoped that by, well in fact today because he promised me he'd call me back. Although he said early part of the week. I guess Tuesday is still an early part of the week but. Councilman Senn: Well, I'd like to see us take more of the interest on it. Gustafson made it real clear in the meeting he had no interest or desire to do anything on TH 101 from a county level unless it was going to be TH 101 from 212 up to Wayzata or whatever it was, and that we're looking at an upgrade or whatever to the road and that's not the issue we're dealing with in the meeting. The issue was, can we do something on a trail system and what's the State's future plan for TH 101, which they clearly said in the meeting there were none for 30 years. And they offered the services back to us in terms of design and everything else. I mean to me again, 1 I mean zap. It's now 6 months later. It's absolutely nowhere. Don Ashworth: Why don't I put this item onto our next agenda and hopefully by that point in time we will have at least set a meeting date, etc. Councilman Senn: Okay, last one real quick. Bill Hickey called today. Councilman Wing: Before we get on that. Todd Hoffman: Clarify. We've gone 3 months since that meeting and Charles Folch just sent out, he sent a 1 letter to MnDot that day asking for a determination on what portion of the trail would be destroyed if they came in and updated TH 101. We have not heard a response back. I've asked Charles for the past couple of weeks where that's at and... 1 1 62 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Councilman Senn: It was 3 months since the MnDot meeting and 6 months since we met with the neighborhood out there. Yeah. Last one was Bill Hickey had called today and just said he hadn't received a response back yet on his request and I had asked that a report come back to Council on it. Nothing was therein the agenda so I assume we just don't have the answer yet or? Don Ashworth: No. I just got through passing it out to you. Mark and I talked mid -week and I had a fax at that time of this document. For whatever reason, I didn't get the original until Friday and the letter will be sent out to Hickey tomorrow with this as an enclosure and again I apologize for not getting it into your packet but again I didn't get it until Friday. Councilman Senn: Okay. I'll read it later. Mayor Chmiel: Well basically it says that it's permitted under State law. Okay, Richard Councilman Wing: That was resolved on the Centex issue. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Don. How fast can you talk on cable television? 1 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: 1 CABLE TELEVISION UPDATE, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: What I started to do is include in the Administrative Section. We have started a meeting, the Mayor and I are meeting on a regular basis now with the cable company and with an attorney basically specializing in that area who represents us. As you have issues presented to you, if you would pass those back along to the Mayor and I and we will address those in those meetings that we're having with the cable company. 1 Councilman Senn: Who is the cable committee... Don Ashworth: Don and I. Todd usually sits in on that. Our attorney. Their attorney and the cable operators. 1 Councilman Senn: How was that established or whatever? Don Ashworth: We just established the thing as means by which we could start to address some of these issues that have been brought up to Council members. I'm handling it in a similar fashion as I would any other type of area that I saw we were having a particular problem in. 1 Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I guess I'd like to be involved in that more. I'd really like to look at us maybe even getting some citizen involvement on, if we're going to have a cable committee. I'd like to get some of the people involved that seem to care a lot about cable and I think it would be nice to have that kind of input. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think that's something we can talk about and see if that's a necessary requirement and 1 proceed from there. Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. 1 63 1 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 64 1 1 inteLi CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1993 1 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeff Farmakes, Joe Scott, Brian Batzli, Nancy Mancino, Ladd Conrad and Matt Ledvina • MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner, and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 80.8 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE 80.8 ACRES INTO 134 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS 1 AND 7 OUTLOTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND WEST OF LAKE RILEY BLVD, DOLE.TSI AND ROGERS PROPERTY, LUNDGREN BROS. Public Present: 1 Name Address • ' Mike & Brigid Keifer 532 Lyman Blvd. Mary Lou & Bailey Janssen 500 Lyman Blvd. Gary Skalberg 510 Lyman Blvd. Jim Dolejsi 9260 Kiowa Trail Richard D. Oliver 9125 Lake Riley Blvd. • Vencil & Cathi Prewitt 421 Lyman Blvd. ' Dennis & Ada Baker 9219 Lake Riley Blvd. Barry & Hallie Bershow 9271 Koiwa Trail Craig & Kate Halverson 9283 Kiowa Trail ' Jamie Heilicher 9280 Kiowa Trail Fred & Judy Ann Hein 9350 Kiowa Trail Roger H. Peterson 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. 1 Del & Nancy Smith 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. Jack & Lydia Ardoyno 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Bev and Jack Bell 9371 Kiowa Trail Jill and Dick Blumeister 9361 Kiowa Trail Eldon & RaeJean Berkland 9261 Kiowa Trail 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Name Address 1 Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros 1 Pete Molinaro John Uban Pioneer Engineering DSU, Inc. Paul Zakariasen 600 West 94th Street Don & Kitty Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Peter Pemrick 9251 Kiowa Trail Bill Lang 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. 1 Eunice Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. Ronald Ytzen 9227 Lake Riley Blvd. Norm Grant 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. Marilyn and John Goulett 9119 Lake Riley Blvd. Jim Hendrickson 9131 Lake Riley Blvd. Stan Sekley 341 Deerfoot Trail Kris Rebertus 320 Deerfoot Trail Robert L. Eickholt 9390 Kiowa Trail Paul Terry 400 Deerfoot Trail Alan Dirks 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. Jeff P. Nelson 300 Deerfoot Trail Greg & Kelly Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. Bob Generous gave the staff presentation on this item. Batzli: Dave, could you talk a little bit about why another access is needed onto Lake Riley Boulevard. 1 Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. Good evening. My name is Dave Hempel. We believe another access is warranted to Lake Riley Boulevard due to the circumstances that exist out ' there today. Lake Riley Boulevard is essentially a 2,300 foot long dead end cul -de -sac. No future availability to loop the street back making the connection either to Kiowa Trail, which is to the west, or north back into the subdivision due to grading constraints as well as existing ' homes in those wooded areas. By providing a secondary access from the cul -de -sac there located in the southeast corner of the site, you will essentially reduce the dead end street by half approximately. I do have a memo from the city's public safety Fire Marshal with ' regards to the public safety concerns that they've had on Lake Riley Blvd in the past. The street is fairly narrow. It's 21 foot wide. It does not have municipal water service. There is a well as well and there is sewer availability for the homesites. With this extension to Lake Riley Boulevard we're...upgrade Lake Riley Boulevard in any fashion. It will give the 1 2 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 property owners the opportunity with the feasibility study for bringing trunk utilities into the area... see if they're be interested in participating in the development to have water extended down Lake Riley Boulevard. Water could be extended down the boulevard area and...segment of roadway. In the past the city has had on occasion...contact them to see when water may be available for the area and basically without this type of development, we then say it may be 5 -10 years, depending on development pressures. Mancino: So each individual resident can decide whether they want to hook up to water or 1 not? Hempel: That's correct. We'll send out a survey and if there's enough interest to extend water down and we've probably have to have over 50% of the neighborhood requesting this water service before the City Council would decide whether or not... 1 Mancino: So if 60% decide to, that they want water but the other 40% don't, do the other 40% still have to hook -up? 1 Hempel: City ordinance states that they have 12 months to hook onto city water. That's something that could be left up to City Council to modify or give a variance to the existing 1 homes if they do not want to hook up to city water. Scott: Dave, do all the property owners get assessed? 1 Hempel: All the property owners would be, that... Scott: Whether or not they hook u ? Y P Hempel: Whether they hook up or not, that's correct...during the assessment hearing the City - Council decides...connection charge so they pay for it at the time of connection. However, it's essentially deferred with interest accruing during that time. Scott: What if people decide not to hook up, would they still have the opportunity. The City Council would determine whether or not they are forced to do that within 12 months based upon the existing ordinance? Hempel: That's correct. 1 Scott: Okay. Krauss: Just to clear that up a little bit. There is no proposal tied into this development to 3 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 extend water down either Lake Riley or Kiowa. We have the ability to do it with this 1 development because water's being brought into the area. As Dave points out, people have contacted us from time to time about the possibility. We're not proposing to do it and won't do it until we're asked to do it basically is the way it sits. But now we have the ability to do it if we're asked. Scott: Okay. ' Batzli: Dave, do ou want to address the issue of the roadway width? In the past we have Y Y F from time to time given the 50 foot setback. ' Hempel: Certainly. We have deviated on some occasions, deviated from the...60 foot wide right -of -way where we feel we're gaining something or we're preserving a wetland or a stand of trees or reducing grading...essentially an agricultural use right now. We're not preserving anything on a 50 foot right -of -way. The street width, the utility excavation all will utilize up ' to 60 feet of the area anyway. So the city looks at in the future if we ever had to go back and do repairs on utilities down the road, we need additional width to be able to re- excavate to do repairs on utilities. 1 Batzli: Is there an inordinate amount of land being dedicated for right -of -ways in this project? 1 Hempel: The applicant will say so in this situation. He is dedicating a lot of right -of -way for future Trunk Highway 101 on the west side. He has met staff's recommendations as far as Lyman Boulevard right -of -way dedication due to the wetland located approximately, just on the north side of Lyman Boulevard about midway through the plat and will require the roadway alignment be shifted farther to the south. However, the city's design for the upgrade ' of Lyman Boulevard has been reduced somewhat over the last year since the Eden Prairie with the golf course and that. It will not make it necessary to make a 4 lane wide road as we originally thought. We're envisioning more of a 36 foot wide type street. Therefore, the 1 additional right -of -way may not be required in the future. However, it's nice to have the flexibility at this time both for storm water ponding purposes in the future and roadway alignments. Any additional right -of -way not used can be vacated back to the applicant. The 1 initial right -of -way along Lake Riley Boulevard. Currently we have 40 feet of right -of -way except for the northeast corner of the site. The right -of -way does meander back and forth. The City would like to maintain the 60 foot wide right -of -way, which is our standard which is also along Kiowa to the south is a 60 foot right -of -way. As Bob previously mentioned, the previous subdivision along Lake Riley Boulevard, Shore Acres, did dedicate 33 feet at that ' time which is one -half the normal 66 foot wide right -of -way at that time so the city did acquire another 7 feet when the sewer line was put in... 1 ., 4 1 1` Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 g g 1 Scott: Dave, if the right -of -way for Lake Riley Boulevard is expanded to 60 feet, what happens to the property on both sides? Is it going to be taken, is it 10 feet from one side and 10 feet from the other? Is that how it works? Hempel: At this time the property owners on the east side have dedicated the necessary 1 right -of -way with their plat. We would be looking for the additional right -of -way that would be dedicated with the plat before us this evening. They're currently proposing 10 feet. We are requesting an additional 7 feet to...60 foot wide right -of -way. Scott: Okay. 1 Batzli: Let me ask you one more question. The pipeline easement. Did the State recently change it's rules regarding construction or anything for pipeline safety in view of the accident in St. Paul? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I'm not very familiar with any rules that may have changed. I know that the current policy is they don't want to see any kind of grading disruption in their easement area generally. They want to keep their 3 to 4 foot of cover over the pipe... The applicant's plan here does a good job of that. They're proposing one crossing basically the storm sewer in the southwest comer of the development. Batzli: What about location of housing pads and things like that? Is that taken care of when they come in for the construction permit then? You look for the location of the pipeline and the pad? Hempel: That is shown on the preliminary grading plan. The relationship to the proposed 1 house plans and there does appear to be sufficient room between the pipeline easement and the house pads for additional decks that may be added on in the future. One particular lot up 1 here that may be fairly close would be Lot 9 of Block 1 there. Otherwise the remaining lots... Batzli: Let me ask ou one final question Paul. I assume that, and forgive me if I'm in error Y q � g here. But we have not seen, have we seen this as a conceptual kind of thing or is this kind of dual tracking so that this is going to be it? Krauss: Yes, it is dual tracking. The conceptual stage of the PUD is optional. Batzli: Right. 1 ., s 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November g ovember 3, 1993 1 Krauss: We typically recommend it but it's not required. This is, it's a complex 1 subdivision but it's not a very complex PUD and there really didn't seem to be all that much to be gained by going through a... 1 Batzli: Okay. Farmakes: We have a reading of the intent statement of a PUD. I'm not sure I, is that something we can ask staff to do? Is that a page long or? Batzli: The intent section of our current PUD. The various findings or the rezoning to PUD starting on page 4 of our staff report. Are those the factors? I mean we have an additional intent statement do we not? Intent paragraph for PUD. Paul, do you recollect off the top of 1 you head? Krauss: No, I don't recollect. 1 Mancino: There is one at the beginning. 1 Krauss: You mean a general intent? Batzli: Yeah. 1 Krauss: Yeah. 1 Batzli: Okay. There is a general intent paragraph that's not set forth in our report right? Krauss: If so, that was an omission but yes, there is a general one and a specific one. ' Batzli: Right. Well these are the specific ones that are listed. You don't happen to have the P PP general one handy on you? Krauss: No. I didn't bring m g Y... 1 Batzli: Unless there's any other questions, does the applicant have a presentation? ' John Uban: Good evening. My name is John Uban. I'm a consultant planner here representing Lundgren Bros. We do want to make a short presentation and we feel that you probably really want to discuss some of the attributes of the proposal and maybe specifically some of the issues on the roads. But here with us, Terry Forbord of course who you know from Lundgren Bros. Pete Molinaro with Pioneer Engineering is here to answer any 1 6 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 engineering type questions you might have. The first thing I'd like to go through is why a PUD and what is happening on this particular site that is sort of driving our design and what are we taking into account that we worked over many months, especially this summer with parks and city staff. This first board I'd like to show you is the subject property. Of course Lyman Blvd on the north side. Highway 101 on the far west side. On the east is actually Lake Riley and then Lake Riley Boulevard which is single loaded meaning that the lots are just on the lakeshore side. And then on the south, Kiowa and Bandimere Park over in this area...On this development we have about 80 acres and the first thing you need to look at is that we have added additional right -of -way which we believe is usually beyond the character of a normal subdivision. 4.7 acres has been added for Lyman Blvd along the north. Now that includes, if you look at this drawing, a fairly irregular pattern. We've been adding extra to that alignment so that the alignment can curve around wetlands to the north. So we are trying to change the pattern absorbing on our perimeter a greater burden to make an environmental setting more protected. Also on Highway 101, this is State right -of -way. We're dedicating, we're showing here. We're not proposing at this point to charge the State or anyone else for this right -of -way but it's part of our dedication to significantly widen that 111 right -of -way so that TH 101 can move towards this property. So once again we have a large amount of right -of -way, 3.1 acres that we're dedicating. And then on Lake Riley Boulevard, although we have proposed no access to it, basically the lots that we have, had their own road system and look out over this roadway, it is about a 40 foot right -of -way today and we have proposed to put it to a 50 foot right -of -way which is similar to the street level that we have inside the subdivision. In addition, for other platting reasons, a variety of odd shapes along 1 Lake Riley Boulevard that we're dedicating in addition to that. So we have in total all dedication of right -of -way, I think it's 17.8 acres out of 80 acres. And what we found when we kind of compared all of this, is on the Song property, which you have seen recently, 11.6% of that subdivision was for right -of -way both on the adjacent county road and with the collector inside and the local road system. On Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner, which was the project directly to the west of the Song project, it was about 17 %. Here on the Roger/Dolejsi property it's 22% and so that percentage has really gotten to be a very large part of the development on this property and we saw here that what we were really trying to do then is develop our largest lots around the perimeter to protect the development from those very busy roads. We're dedicating additional right -of -way and we're making perimeter lots as large as possible. Also, many of the lots that overlook Bandimere Park on the north side of it are larger also. These large lots on the perimeter combined with that right -of -way is absorbing a great amount of this project so we're trying to tighten up the interior and this is the flexibility we're looking for in the PUD. The other thing that has happened, and I'll show it a little bit, is the Williams Pipeline. And what has happened is not only that you don't want to build a house on top of it, which is pretty obvious. But the pattern of it is such that if we didn't have to dedicate TH 101 right -of -way, we could have put a roadway on the alignment for instance of the pipeline and have moved our subdivision over all the way to the west. And 7 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 this would have worked out as a good pattern. But since we're dedicating this amount, and with the slopes in that area, we had to really move our homes all the way to the east side of that pipeline. So that's why those lots have ended up being very large and that's the general impact that that pipeline has on us. We also have worked with the parks department to enlarge Bandimere and so this park has enlarged by 5.3 acres and this, on the south side Bandimere Park has experienced some problems with trying to develop that park because they have the pipeline. They can't grade heavily where that pipeline exists. It's a parcel that's 1 oddly shaped. It appeared at first that that would be very good for single family housing. We could work around it. When we tested it, working with the parks department, it didn't look like we could really use that piece very well because we may have wanted to swap 1 pieces. So instead we're dedicating 5.3 acres. This allows their park to expand without heavy grading and will be a significant cost savings to the city. All of these then combined gave us the pressure, the need for flexibility within the subdivision for PUD and that is specifically why we are asking for a 50 foot right -of -way. What does that 50 foot right -of- way do? One, it was our understanding as we worked with staff in the past that this type of flexibility is the kind of flexibility you would look for in the PUD so it does several things. ' Number one, it keeps us from one, absorbing even more land as right -of -way but it increases our interior road system right -of -way by 20% in addition to the amount that we're already giving and we're up to 22% of the whole subdivision is road. So it saves that amount a burden. Batzli: Does your 22% include your internal roadways? John Uban: Yes. 1 Batzli: Okay. John Uban: In addition to that, it allows us to compact our grading a little bit so that we can keep our grading in a little more compacted to the street and the pads. It shortens driveways by 5 feet to each home. It shortens the stub for all the utilities by that amount so it allows some cost savings and some economy within the subdivision itself. So it's grading, utilities and pavement, all of which less pavement means less runoff. All of this helps a great deal in our subdivision and it's really this extreme burden of right -of -way that we look for and ' needed the flexibility on the interior to condense it as much as we possibly could. Now in looking at a PUD, and this is perhaps a frightful board to be showing but the PUD is really to create a pattern that is very delightful. This is a typical grid. When you have a subdivision 1 ordinance that says so many feet of right -of -way. So many feet for setbacks, you typically are describing a grid system. This is not what we want to do and so the PUD is to encourage this much more natural flowing type of subdivision. In this we'd gain more lots but that's not our goal either. What we're proposing is a development that has a road system that's 1 8 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 very curvalinear. Creates very attractive neighborhoods. It uses the topography, the ponding system to really create a variety of lots. Walkout lots. Lots that move up and down the street and once again using our strategy of curving the street to create varied andinteresting settings for the homes so the neighborhood is not boring. The interior road system is designed to include...lot in the middle. We include the Bandimere Park and we have proposed a connection to the south. This is in our discussions with staff that it was good, in their opinion, to connect to the south and we have done that. The large lot right next to Kiowa is the Dolejsi homestead and they will be there on that large lot, that they could subdivide that in the future. The other issue that we want to talk about is whether or not this cul -de -sac should extend to Lake Riley Blvd. We don't think there's a real need for it. We're dedicating additional right -of -way for Lake Riley. We obviously don't need to access that road. The parks department has asked for a trail connection and although we would rather now, that's a possibility through that portion of the site. We've been cooperating with them whenever we can on this. That connection through is something that we don't think that we need as a subdivision. We think our subdivision works a lot better without it because it creates it's own perimeter. All those lots are looking out over Lake Riley and we'd rather keep them in that configuration rather than turning them back in a different direction to actually access off the street that goes down to Lake Riley. So it has some very definite impacts for us to put that through. In addition, there's more right -of -way again that comes out of the subdivision. We would like to then really ask that you review the two issues. One of 60 foot right -of -way. That request. We strongly want to keep it 50 feet. We think it's very important in this specific subdivision that we're adjusting all the perimeter edges to save wetlands or give more right -of -way where it's needed and we need the flexibility on the inside. The option is, if it is to be 60, we would like then to have a 25 foot front yard setback instead of the 30. That way the house pad, utilities, driveways can all stay as we had 1 designed and it's really sort of technically saying, should we make the right -of -way 60 with a 25 foot setback or make the right -of -way 50 with a 30 foot setback on each front yard. And so we believe we have a very good physical situation and one of those two combinations would be okay with us. But we would prefer the 50 foot right -of -way. Also we would prefer to keep our dedication for Lake Riley Blvd to be for a full compliment of right -of -way to equal 50 feet. And we would prefer not to connect our cul -de -sac to Lake Riley because we don't believe we really need that. So those are the three basic issues and we would turn it back to you for discussion. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Does anyone have a question for the applicant before we open it up for public comment? Did you have more? I'm sorry, was that it? Okay. 1 Farmakes: I have something. Batzli: Go ahead. 1 9 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Farmakes: I have a request. Can we see the original roman grid that you showed? I just want to review it if I could. I don't have any general questions. I just haven't seen that. John Uban: If you find it displeasurable, that's understandable. Farmakes: I'm sure I'll find it delightful. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Scott: Paul, I've got a question for you. I heard the comments on the dedication for Lyman Blvd and TH 101 right -of -ways. Is that optional or is that a requirement by the city that they dedicate that much because of ordinance? Because of future plans to upgrade. Because it sounded like it was, well we're doing this because we're great guys. Are they doing that 1 because they're great guys or is it something that's required by ordinance? Krauss: Well, it may be fair to say that...but Lyman Blvd is a city street that clearly needs to ' be improved. We've had people from the neighborhood telling us for several years that's a problem that they'd like to see addressed even before any developments. The TH 101 right - of -way issue is less clear. Under court rulings and the state, they're not in a rush to lock up 1 or require that right -of -way be locked up for MnDot. It's nice that they're willing to do it. We could require them to place it in an outlot that would be required by MnDot or whoever improved TH 101 at some point in the future but it's also land that they have a very tough time accessing because of the location of the pipeline. So I think it's fair that it's kind of a little of both. 1 Mancino: If another development came in let's say across the street, on the other side. On the west side of TH 101. Wouldnt we also ask for right -of -way? 1 Krauss: For TH 101? We can't. Mancino: We absolutely can't? Krauss: Well I think you just saw that when we had the townhome development that was ' built on a highway. They platted it as an outlot but the owner fully intends to be in a position to sell it to MnDot at some point in the future. Batzli: Well let's put it this way then. What keeps them from building in the right -of -way for a State trunk highway? 1 I 10 1 1 Planning M in - m g Meeting November 3, 1993 Krauss: Well, there's a couple of programs that we can use with...I am not as clear, I mean the law clearly says we can't take it for free. I mean if it's offered we can accept it. Because it's not a city road, it's part of a regional roadway system, we can't obligate an individual property owner to pay for it...by the right -of -way. What we have done though is, again we've done it in Lake Susan Hills. We've done it other places. We've set aside these areas that are going to be impacted as outlots. That the developer holds onto it until such time as the Highway Department is in a position to acquire it...fair market value for it. Batzli: Terry, did you want to say something? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, Terry Forbord. Let me try 1 to clarify why the right -of -way along TH 101 is shown as it is. We've met with staff over probably more than a year on this and the first thing you try to do is you sit down and try to smoke out all the issues. There may be physical constraints on the site. We did talk about the right -of -way for TH 101 and we raised the question because if you look on half section maps of the city, it is shown the diagram of TH 101 is much broader than what actually exists now. And we contacted the state to get a clarification from them because we wanted to know what is planned for here because we assumed that we brought in a proposal to the city that showed us platting this large lot, the city would probably raise the question. Well wait a minute. What's going to happen to it someday. In the future we thought we should be prepared to address that. So MnDot came back to us and said, well here is what our future plans for right -of -way acquisition in this area is. And we need to respond...212 where it's planned to be someday if it ever gets built. This is pretty far away from this general intersection in this area. MnDot has fairly large schemes for TH 101 just south of that area where it intersections with Lyman Blvd. So it became more of a common sense situation. 1 Rather than us bringing in plans to show where we could put a bunch of houses in here, I think I interpreted there was a consensus with staff and with Lundgren Bros that in reality someday this highway is going to be wider here and rather than submit a proposal to the city , that would cause somebody at that point in time to say, well wait a minute. What's going to happen with this area. We thought it should be addressed at this point. MnDot indicated to us this is the right -of -way that we're going to want and so we thought, this was the best way that the city would want to pursue this. Maybe we were wrong. Maybe we should have come forward and shown this as part of the development but I guess we looked at it from a practical standpoint. That was my understanding of how we proceeded with it, as it relates to TH 101. Batzli: Thank you. I'd like to open it up for public comments now. If you'll please give us 1 your name and address for the record before you begin speaking, I would appreciate it. Would anyone like to address the commission. ,) 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Jamie Heilicher: My name is Jamie Heilicher and I live at 9280 Kiowa -Trail which is ' directly south of this proposed development. My biggest concern which has not been addressed with the developer is two fold. One, obviously the grading to make sure that we don't have additional storm water runoff that we currently have because of the current 1 grading. The second is the access to Kiowa Trail by this development. There's a number of major issues there. One being that the streets here are designed to be 31 feet where Kiowa Trail currently is 18 feet wide. You've got a lot of additional traffic that obviously will flow 1 south out of this development through a very narrow street that currently exists south of this development. The second and the most concerning is obviously the access to the new proposed regional park for walking traffic will be at the intersection where this development ' meets up with Kiowa Trail. There's currently land that the city owns a short strip in connection to this park. And I assume that the city is intending to use that as it's walking access because based on this development there is no walking access to that park for this, for the people who live here as well as in the Lake Riley Blvd area. Obviously access to this park is going to be directed at walking traffic. So the concern there is if they get the traffic flow is south from this development, at some point to access TH 101 at a point south or to go south, there will be additional traffic tapping that point which obviously is an additional burden on walking traffic and a danger to pedestrians walking to town. 1 Batzli: Excuse me one moment. Bob, do you have an overhead, a map, location map of the surrounding? 1 Scott: Yeah becauses in my mind I'm thinking that you have Bandimere and the slope is pretty extreme from this section down to TH 101. 1 Generous: Not really. It shows... Krauss: If I understand what Todd Hoffman, the Recreation Director was telling me, there's some accuracy to what you're saying. This is, what he termed a secondary access into Bandimere would come off from the Kiowa area so people could walk in there. It may have a small parking area for people that may drive up from Lake Riley or whatever. The major entrance for Bandimere would be off of TH 101 with a major parking lot over on that side. It's clear that they don't want to turn their backs on people from the neighborhood that just 1 want to walk into there and that's probably... Jamie Heilicher: I guess the concern we have obviously is those of us who live in this Kiowa 1 street area is the additional traffic which would obviously move south...and would go down our street...is the city prepared to widen our street to give it appropriate access or the other 1 option obviously is what is termed a greenway which allows the appropriate access for emergency vehicles but limits the traffic through that area. Obviously the key there is that 1 12 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 anyone that lives up in the northern part of this development would have no reason to travel south if there was no access. So there will be a lot of children moving south along the development to access the park because obviously their parents aren't going to want them to access it through the TH 101 access so they're going to be moving south to this development to access the park where Kiowa Trail and this development meet. Obviously the intent there would be to limit traffic flow south of the development to reduce potential traffic accidents. Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. Do you want to address the erosion issue in any event? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. Storm water return, the developer here has recommended a fairly well laid out storm, comprehensive storm water management plan for that entire development. If I can use his exhibit. Basically looking at 5 storm water retention ponds... the development in all 6 phases. First phase is up in this area here. You currently have a drain system that drains through the wetland on the north side of the road. South underneath Lyman Blvd to a proposed enhancement or enlargement of the existing low lying area that's acting as a storm retention area now. With that storm sewer network would be extended 1 along the boulevard either...when this phase is developed or when the upgrade of Lyman Blvd. They have another storm water retention pond which will take street runoff from the street, and those front yard areas into the pond. This chain of ponds eventually will line up down in the northeast corner where a low quality wetland at this time exists. We'll look at enlarging that sometime down the road with the upgrade of Lyman Blvd. Modify that... retention ponds for water quality prior to discharging the wetland. The major wetland area that we're trying to protect is actually on the north side of Lyman Blvd. It's a fairly large wetland area which then discharges underneath Lake Riley Blvd into Lake Riley. There currently exists right now, there's a culvert underneath Lyman Blvd to take the runoff from the agricultural fields and the landscape stock area and it's creating quite an erosion problem downstream. This project will actually remedy some of that problem and possibly pretreat the water prior to discharging into the wetlands. Another problem area of the city has experienced over the last few years is the storm water runoff from the agricultural field as well as the landscape stock area in this location which drains through the Sunny Slope Addition. It's a private street system off of Lake Riley Blvd and it continues on through Sunny Slope, underneath Lake Riley Blvd and discharges into Lake Riley. There's a very, very small storm water sediment trap essentially down here located on the north side of Lake Riley Blvd. ...too small for the overall drainage area that's going into it over all these years so with this development will remedy that problem as well. The situation there however is a little more complicated. We would like to see the storm water piped eventually between the houses through Sunny Slope Addition all the way down to Lake Riley Blvd and tap into that little storm water basin will pick up that runoff which comes from Lake Riley Blvd and the Sunny Slope Addition...this new pipe which would then directly discharge into Lake Riley. 1 All that water would be pre - treated prior to discharging into the lake so...water quality there. 13 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Another area of concern is down here. There's a resident by the name of Kevin Finger that this small wetland lies just south of the development here which flows westerly along the ditch. They've been using culverts on TH 101. This flows into a large wetland basin to the west. During the agricultural practices over the last number of years, sediments have washed ' out and filled in a lot of the wetland area as well as the ditch that outlets this and...culvert underneath TH 101 and MnDot...maintenance on that. With this development again they're going to be creating a couple of water quality retention ponds on the site to pre -treat runoff ' prior to discharging into the ditch section underneath TH 101 to the wetland. It will also eliminate the current sediment, the water problem that's been going down to the Finger property. So the overall development we see correction of a couple water problems, storm ' water problems we've had in the area at really very low cost to the city overall. A couple other issues that were raised was the access to Kiowa. Kiowa, according to our storm water street management program. We went out and inventoried all the streets in the city. Kiowa Trail is a 24 foot wide section of rural type roads. It does not have gravel shoulders. It's like bitumious curb within a 60 foot wide right -of -way. It's approximately 1,800 feet long with no secondary access. Basically there's a turn around at the south property line of this ' development. Access from the Lundgren's development through Kiowa...major traffic patterns for the area. It is our belief that most of them will exit Lyman Blvd to TH 101 and head north to TH 5 and ultimately when 212 is developed, that will be the major traffic flow. There will of course be some traffic from TH 101 to Pioneer Trail. That's a favorite route of some people. They believe it will have less traffic but we don't believe that you're going to have 133 households traveling south along Kiowa Blvd. As part of this project we're not envisioning any necessity to widen or upgrade Kiowa Trail because of this development. At some future date when the residents wish to petition to have the street system brought up to i standards with storm water and curb and gutter and watermain installation, that would be the time that this should be upgraded. As far as pedestrian traffic to the park, it is a very valid concern. I would envision a pedestrian crossing at the T intersection in this location here to ' provide a safe access for pedestrian traffic down to Bandimere Park. The city does have a small piece of right -of -way here, I think that's West 92nd Street is what it's called on the plat. That will gain access for the park. The engineering department believes that this is ' another reason we need to have a 60 foot wide right -of -way is the implementation of sidewalks basically...pedestrian traffic will have safe access, off street access to gain the route down to the Bandimere Park. I believe that's all the concerns that were raised at this time. Batzli: Okay, thank you. ' Mancino: Can I ask you one thing? Do the residents on Kiowa Trail right now have sewer or water service? ' Hempel: They currently have sanitary sewer service. No water. They're on wells. 14 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Batzli: Okay. Yes sir. You in the red plaid will be next. 1 Eldon Berkland: My name is Eldon Berkland, 9261 Kiowa Trail and just to elaborate on Jaimie's comments and to argue a little bit with Dave Hempel. We feel there'd be quite a bit of traffic. If you look on your maps, you can see where it's illustrated here. TH 101 takes a big turn...of Bandimere Park and then goes south to Pioneer Trail. Most of these homes here when they would be going southbound, would use Kiowa Trail. Your facts when you say that the road is 24 feet wide. When we measured, it measured 18 to 20. It's a very narrow road. It's very curvy. It's hilly. I invite you to go out and take a look at the area. Get familiar with the area. We think it would be a very hazardous situation to have that amount 1 of traffic on the road. We have a neighborhood park on our property. On our street. Our children enjoy walking to the park currently and that would be hazardous thing to do to allow them to go out...very busy. I do have a letter if I could distribute to you also. We asked 1 why this connection. Why is everybody so upset that we have an 1,800 foot road without an exit. We were told by Terry Forbord that they prefer not to do this connection also. That it was a public safety concern with the city. So I called up Scott Harr and asked him what the public safety concern was and he said basically that Mark Littfin, the Fire Marshal had expressed some concern about egress from the property and things. So I had a meeting with Mark Littfin and asked him and he said he really didn't have a lot of concern about Kiowa Trail having the secondary egress or way out of the area. He said that the driveways are long. That they didn't envision they would have a lot of problems with fire trucks. Even if, so it didn't appear that there would be a lot of public safety concern about this. Even if you feel that there needs to be this connection, and again what it seems in other communities...in Chaska. I'm a paramedic. I drive an ambulance service for St. Francis in Shakopee and in Chaska between Tuskeny Hills off of Jonathan Boulevard and the Eitel Court, Eitel Circle area off Hundertmark Road, Tuskeny Hills is a new development. They had similar issues being expressed and they settled on a compromise. Having an area, basically two cul -de -sacs come to an end. They graded it out to allow emergency vehicle traffic or city traffic but prevent the public from using this area unless it's needed by an emergency situation or for city vehicles and that's what we'd like to propose for this area. That also would solve the problems about that access to the Bandimere Park area and that's what we'd like you to consider. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Just to respond to your comment a little bit. We constantly tried to maintain secondary accesses to long cul -de -sac streets. In other words, we try to avoid them. We do have a rule on our books that your street wouldn't be able to be built today and it 1 surprises me that our Public Safety and Fire people didn't express the public safety concern a little bit more strongly because they certainly show up at the City Council meetings and profess that these are valid concerns and they tell us repeatedly that they are. So I don't 1 know what the circumstances were with your conversation with them but obviously they've 15 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 been telling our city engineering and planning staffs that this is a concern. And for good 1 planning purposes, we'd rather not have it be a concern and we do try to link up streets because it's safer. So I understand what you're saying though and obviously you've gone and talked to the right people and for some reason or another they put us between a rock and a 1 hard place because they're telling you directly that it's not such a big deal but we hear from them every other day of the week, it's a big deal. So I don't know what to say. 1 Krauss: If I could touch on that a little bit. What you say Chairman Batzli is accurate. I mean there is always an intent to connect these streets...at some point in the past and it always raises similar issues. I don't want to launch into my speech. You've heard it too ' often so...but there are legitimate public safety concerns being raised. In this particular instance the Fire Marshal and Public Safety did not actively ask us to pursue the Kiowa ' connection. They did however empathically ask us to pursue the Lake Riley connection and there was a letter sent out to the people on Lake Riley Blvd that copied the Fire Marshal on that where he points out that they've had 3 major fires on Lake Riley Blvd and they don't have the room to maneuver equipment on Lake Riley Blvd to adequately fight the fires. Relative to the idea of dancing cul -de -sacs where they come up to each other but don't join. We've had experiences with that in this community. We've had experiences with it in other 1 communities. The unfortunate fact is they really don't work very well. We saw that up in the northern part of the community where we had an artificial barrier that was placed across the street for several years. People would try to knock it down. You'd have to build it bigger. They'd go around on somebody's lawn. They'd still do it. School buses wouldn't come up the streets because there was a dead end. We had people petitioning the City Council to make the connection because school buses wouldn't come up. And the fire trucks ' got caught on the wrong side of a fire. They're difficult to maintain. They work fine in the summer when you can drive across it. In the winter when snow gets piled up through it, you're pretty unlikely to be able to drive an emergency vehicle through that. We've looked ' at those in several instances. We ultimately tore that one out. That is now a thru street. Whether or not this connection is made, I would not encourage anybody to think that that kind of situation accomplishes a whole lot because in our point of fact it doesn't, from our 1 experience. Mancino: ...the traffic that's going south. Hempel: That could be done through our traffic study program that we do. We actually do it bi- annually. Once every 2 years. The State Safety Council counts cars. ' Krauss: Yeah, but ou know you shouldn't mislead anybody either. Unless the extensions Y Y made, it's unlikely to be severed at that point in time. What you can do is try to structure a 1 subdivision so that there's disincentives to using the street. By the way, in the case of Lake 1 , 16 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Riley Blvd, there's absolutely no reason why anybody from this development would ever go down Lake Riley Blvd. It doesn't go anywhere. The issue that's being raised with the Kiowa Pioneer Trail connection has potentially a little more validity because a lot of people do use that connection to get on out of there. I'm not certain how much that's going to occur. Well since TH 5's been upgraded...212 is going to happen sometime but I wouldn't pin your hopes on that. That's right now planned for 1998 and it slides every time a gas tax is vetoed. But there are ways to build in disincentives to use local streets. , Batzli: Okay, yes sir. Jack Ardoyno: My name is Jack Ardoyno and I live on 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. It's about 5 homes from the very end of Lake Riley Blvd and the cul -de -sac. Ray Lewis, one of my neighbors, is going to bring a petition up tonight and address the reasons why many of the ' homeowners along that strip don't want the access from the subdivision to Lake Riley Blvd and I would like to sort of get a jump on it a little bit and add it from a little bit different perspective. I'm opposed to that thru street from the development to Lake Riley Blvd from 1 this point of view. I was present at the last fire that the Fire Chief mentioned in his letter. For most of the time I distributed coffee to the fire fighters about all the time that that fire was going and I don't believe another access from this subdivision would have any impacts whatsoever on the access from the first fire tank to get to a fire on that street. And so the subsequent difficulty that they may have would be in getting additional trucks in. One of their trucks broke down and blocked the road for part of the time. So I think utility for Lake Riley Blvd in case of a fire and the access for fire trucks is limited first of all to a small number of lots there that would actually benefit. For getting a tank truck through this subdivision would actually take longer than coming down Lake Riley Blvd in the first case. So I don't think it would do very much benefit for that and having built subdivisions in the southern suburbs myself, I think it's a little bit cavalier to say the developer can lose the lot and it won't be a big concern to them. I think they've engineered some good subdivisions here and I think in addition to perhaps losing a lot here, they would also have to build and pay for that street. You'd have additional rain water runoff that none of us want and so I'm opposed to it for those reasons. I also wasn't very much concerned that the Kiowa Trail because it doesn't directly affect me but having listened to some of the comments tonight, to me it seems an absurb idea to have a cut through to Kiowa Trail from there. First of all you've got a very narrow road and I've had experience with a number of subdivisions in the past and it's guaranteed that the people here will use this for southern egress. Guaranteed. Probably 60% or 80% of them will do that when they've coming from the south and I know , that all those people on Kiowa Trail don't want that to happen so, those are my objections. Batzli: Thank you. Okay, so there are several supporters for those comments. Would 1 anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir. -1 17 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting o eeting - November 3, 1993 1 I Barry Bershow: Barry Bershow at 9271 Kiowa Trail. Two points made. One is to reinforce with a little different perspective on why we fear the traffic so much, especially in light of the possibility of a cut being made to the Lake Riley Blvd. If in fact the Fire Marshal feels that I that is the more important cut to be made in order to protect the homes on Lake Riley Blvd, what you're going to create is not only egress for the homes in the development south into Shakopee and onto Pioneer Trail, but you'll also create a very convenient shortcut for the I apartment complex. A very large apartment complex up here to come right down Lake Riley Blvd, cut over through this development here and then south rather than come all the way over here and wrap around. So we'll be seeing traffic not from 130 homes, and I don't know I how many apartments are there. I didn't research that before tonight but probably a couple of hundred or 300 cars driving through our 18 to 20 foot road. So that was one thing I wanted to say. Reinforce the no cut and connection onto Kiowa Trail. Although it's true that you I like to make those connections. Those of us who moved to Chanhassen 17 years ago and moved particularly onto a dead end cul -de -sac road because that's what we wanted, you should at least take those things into consideration before changing around. And the last I thing I wanted to say which hasn't been brought up tonight, but I remember when Mr. Wing and Mr. Mason were running for office. They pledged at one meeting that as this park was developed, that they would provide bike and walking access from the downtown area into the I park. And we're concerned because Kiowa, excuse me, because TH 101 which is a trail many of us run or bicycle on trying to get up to the city itself, is windy. It's curvy. It's hilly and has about 4 inches of shoulder and frequently I've almost died walking or running I or biking with my child on that road and so we feel that a walkway, bikeway path along the west edge of this development from Bandimere Park north towards the city would be a very important first step in development the entire walk, bike pathway system that the city really 1 needs to do if they're going to develop a regional park down in this area. And I know that there's nothing north of this right now to connect it to but this is really the time to start developing that pathway like Eden Prairie has done all along and if you do it before those 1 homes get in, you won't have to worry about making a hard sell later to the houses that are already there and cutting through their lot. 1 Batzli: Kind of like tonight? I Jack Ardoyno: Yeah. Right. With the Williams Pipeline across the back of those properties, and those properties already being some of the largest in the development, it wouldn't hurt really to put along the extreme western edge...pathway. And I have a letter in support of that 1 that I'd like to enter in. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Yes sir. 1 1 18 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Bill Bernhjelm: My name is Bill Bernhjelm. I live at 9380 Kiowa Trail. I'm here to oppose the connection of Kiowa to this development. I'm also a member of the Public Safety Commission. I understand the arguments of Mr. Littfin regarding the instances that occured on Lake Riley Blvd. I am concerned about the traffic. When I attended last week's presentation by Mr. Forbord, he laid out the development and talked about the sensitive neighborhood and so on and so forth that would be created in this development but by making the connection I think it will destroy the sense of neighborhood that already exists on Kiowa Trail. I'm a career police officer. I've been in law enforcement over 25 years and the cul -de -sac that you see here are essentially a community's way of creating a sense of neighborhood and those kind of things that we hear about now, they say when they talk about community oriented policing and so forth, that's the essence of this. Is to create a neighborhood feeling for folks so they look out for each other and they don't have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars in taxes to have the police kind of try to watch out for them. We have a dead end street now. We have essentially a long cul -de -sac. We look out for each other. We do have a fair amount of traffic on that street already due to Chanhassen's most famous resident and his former abode there and this would I think only exaccerbate that situation. So I would really oppose the idea of making the connection. I would like to say also that I do support the idea of a trail access. I am a runner and I do run on TH 101 and I think I'd probably be better off just sitting at home and having a heart attack on the couch... I would prefer to have some place to go other than out on that highway and would support that. Batzli: Who else would like to address the Commission? One of the two of you, come on up. Bob Peterson: Good evening. My name is Bob Peterson. I live at 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. I'm here to speak in opposition of the access of the Lundgren development to the Lake Riley Blvd also and would like to say that for one thing, I thought Lundgren did a nice job last 1 week inviting us to the informational meeting. We learned a lot. I think it maybe deflected a lot of the concerns that many of us had about the development, and I got to give them credit that they did that. I thought that was very informational but it was also disappointing I guess that they didn't have apparently all the information to talk about the fact that the Lake Riley Blvd. I felt that was very unfortunate. Batzli: To be fair to Lundgren, I don't know that they knew about it at the time they had your meeting. , Bob Peterson: No, I understand that they did not know about it. That's a big problem. Unfortunately the city staff hadn't talked to them about this possibility. The other thing that I wanted to talk about, I got the letter yesterday also from the Assistant Fire Marshal or Fire 19 , 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Marshal and admittedly it was very disquieting to learn that we live in a fair to poor fire ' service area. That's very discomforting but I'm not convinced that opening up this access will do anything for it. In my estimation I think we'd be trading one public safety issue for another and that would be increased traffic on Lake Riley Blvd. I believe that there would be additional traffic on Lake Riley Blvd. I know a lot of people, the mud isn't too bad and the dust isn't too heavy that they'll drive around Lake Riley and then catch TH 101 that way. I think a lot of people would do that from this development area. It's my belief that there would be additional traffic and I think it would be very poor on that road. It's a very narrow road. ' Batzli: I'm sorry but, I know there was muttering when Paul said that there would be no additional traffic and I was afraid for his life. And you just indicated that you, where's the traffic going to come from and where are they going to be going so that we understand that. ' Bob Peterson: From the Lundgren development onto Lake Riley Blvd. 1 Batzli: Through the proposed access. And then which way are they going to turn when they hit Lake Riley Blvd? 1 Bob Peterson: To the left. 1 Batzli: They're going to turn left. Otherwise they're going down a dead end. Okay. North around the lake. ' Krauss: You can't go around the lake through Eden Prairie. It's...gravel road. Eden Prairie wants to upgrade in a little bit. It goes behind the golf area and comes back down to Pioneer Trail. It's certainly not a direct route. 1 Farmakes: That would be the scenic route. 1 Batzli: Yeah, okay. I understand now. I didn't know where. Bob Peterson: It's faster for me to go that way up to Highway 5. The other thing I just ' wanted to comment on is reflecting on the Bearpath that Eden Prairie, the golf course. That's an area of 425 acres I believe, which is about 5+ times bigger than the Lundgren development. It's going to have 425 homes. It has one access. So they're addressing the 1 issue there...but those are my concerns. I'm concerned about it and I would oppose the additional of that access. Thank you. 1 Batzli: Thank you. There's another gentleman. Yes sir. 1 20 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Don Sitter: Good evening. My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. We're the last house at the end of the dead end down there and I had just a bunch of rambling comments here so bear with me. Batzli: Can you make them short rambling comments? 1 Don Sitter: I try to make them short. I agree with the subdivision. The way it's laid out. I think they've done a pretty good job. I just as soon it'd stay farmfields but that's not going to happen. But I also want to strongly emphasize that I agree with the staff recommendations to take exceptions to the side setback variances. I agree with them. I hope you stand strong with the 60 foot right -of -way and I especially want to agree with them on the relocation of the drain of this finger and go through the Sunny Slope area. We're the adjoining property owner there and that would be a major headache for us. We've lived with drainage problems for a long time. I want to say that I agree with the staff's recommendation on moving that drain to the Sunny Slope area. I assume that all the NURP ponds are in line with our city plans so I think that's in great shape. I'm also in favor of running the survey to the neighborhood for these water stubs. If we could add fire hydrants to that survey and avoid the big major road upgrades but at least put fire hydrants as part of that, I think that's not part of this sub development but I think it's a good idea. I'd also like to question the tree count. In this little finger down here there is quite a number of trees and on the back of that and I'm wondering if those will be preserved. In the staff report it says that there were really only 2 trees of value and there's some other trees and they would be preserved and I want to 1 make sure that the trees in that low area are also preserved. I'm not sure if they got counted in the tree count or not. And then my last but not least is the access point and I'm going to come at it from a little different comment and maybe a suggestion. At one time I heard that 1 you wanted the access to come through here on what, I don't know what the lots area. 15 and 16 or something and then another trail to come on another one. Would it be possible to have that bike trail be the access point and make it just wide enough for a bike trail with a couple of these break away barriers so we don't end up with traffic going on it. In other words, don't end up with a bike trail on one lot line and a road access on another. Combine the two together and make it just a bike trail but access for safety vehicles only. And the reason that I say that is I'm concerned about the traffic around the lake also. We, on the end of the dead end get a lot of sightseers that like to drive around lakes. And all of the other cities in the metropolitan area have done a lot of work to avoid roads that loop around lakes because there's a ton of traffic. People like to drive on Sunday afternoons and loop around lakes and if we provide access points both here and at Kiowa, there's going to be a steady flow of traffic. People just trying to drive around the lakes on Sunday afternoons. And we get a lot of traffic now and I don't want to see that increased. That's the end. Otherwise I guess I'm basically in favor of the development. I think it's fairly well laid out and I think we should stand strong on staff's recommendations. Thank you. 21 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Batzli: Don, let me ask you a silly question. Why do you want to see us hold firm on ' setbacks and right -of -way, because those things are really done for, in large part, for safety reasons. How can we rationalize not trying to make Lake Riley Blvd safer while holder the developer to strict standards? Don Sitter: I believe that the standards were set with a lot of thought and planning ahead of time and I basically think we give up on variances too easy sometimes and I'm just in favor ' of keeping them to the letter of the law so that we don't create situations where because you grant the variance the next guy gets a variance a little farther and the next guy gets a variance a little farther and we just end up continuing to break the rules that I think were carefully laid out in the beginning. Batzli: But you understand that our current standard for a cul -de -sac is much shorter than 1 Lake Riley Blvd and /or Kiowa? Which also had a lot of thought put into it. Don Sitter: I'm sorry, I'm missing the point. Batzli: Okay. I was just seeing, I'm trying to rationalize and justify doing things and not ' doing things. So my only point was that we ought to have rules in place granted. We could consider these two streets grandfathered in but we're looking for a rationalization as to why we shouldn't connect these. Don Sitter: I'm not saying you shouldn't connect them and I think there's some logic to the safety concerns. But I think if you combine the bike trail with an access that's only for service vehicles and if we can get water stubbed down the road to get fire hydrants, I think we've covered more than what the Fire Marshal's concerns would be. That's my suggestion. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Yes ma'am. Lydia Ardoyno: I'm Lydia Ardoyno, 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. I haven't built a lot of ' subdivisions but I've certainly lived in a lot of them and I do know that it's human nature to take the short and most scenic route to anywhere and I think that your concerns are valid for the safety of Lake Riley Blvd and for the other streets but I think you might start looking at ' some different perspectives and you're trading a bit of safety for a few homes in your opinion which the homeowners don't necessarily share, and trading it off for a lot of less safe conditions for a lot of people living not only on Lake Riley and the other areas but also for 1 the subdivision itself. You're going to have emergency vehicles going through there. You're going to have a lot of traffic going through there and it's all family type neighborhoods on Lake Riley and the whole park area, the whole lake area. And this whole subdivision is a I 22 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 family area. And your concerns for safety I think are just a little misplaced. So if you would think about it in a little different light. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Yes sir. 1 Ray Lewis: My name is Ray Lewis. I live at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. I have some copies of a letter here. First of all I'd like to say that, well first of all we live on the west side of, on the east side of the development. Just about 2 blocks south of Lyman Blvd on Lake Riley Blvd. We are, after going to the meeting last week and reviewing the subdivision plans, I'd have to say that we think that the subdivision is well thought out in general and we are basically in favor of it, although from my standpoint I would just as soon not see that land developed but if it has to be developed, I think the proposed subdivision is a very good one. The first issue I'd like to address though is the issue of screening. I think that there should be a corridor of screening or visual barriers that extends from Lyman Blvd on the west side, Lake Riley Blvd south such that the current residents that live on Lake Riley Blvd do not have to view the back sides of the new subdivision resident's homes. This could be, currently we have across the street from our house a dense stand of small trees which, although they're deciduous trees, provide a good visual barrier and I would like to suggest that, or I think it's reasonable that this type of barrier be maintained or that it be replaced , with plantings and berms such that they stand level and visual screening is maintained. Second of all I'd like to address the issue of the access to Lake Riley Blvd. I think that I certainly appreciate the public safety department taking consideration of fire access to our 1 homes but I really think that with the increased traffic patterns that we see on Lake Riley Blvd, that we would be trading one improved safety fire protectcion for potential traffic hazards. As it is right now, pedestrians and runners and children walk in the street and there's really no place off street to walk and there is quite a bit of exposure. Additional traffic is found to create just increased hazard. I think that there is substitute ways to improve the fire protection of that area rather than trying to create ths connection. One way that would be possible is just water connections were made to the subdivision putting fire hydrants along Lake Riley Blvd. Since most of the suggestions involved in fire fighting, at least in that area has to do with trucking the large lines of water in and out so if you could eliminate that part of the fire fighting process, you would eliminate much of the congestion. Second of all, I think that by creating a no parking zone along the west side of Lake Riley Blvd, we would be able to eliminate any potential blockages, barriers, to access. Since in the period of time that we've lived there, the only real major blockage that has occurred has been when vehicles or trailers have been parked on both sides of the street. And on the west side of the street there is really a wide shoulder over most of the length of the street that has...and so an emergency vehicle could gain an additional 4 feet or so, at least 4 feet of right -of -way if it was absolutely necessary to steer around some other object. Lastly I'd like to bring to your attention the petition that was signed by approximately 80% of the residents on Deerfoot 23 1 t 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Trail and Lake Riley Blvd. It was presented to Paul today by Nancy Smith, my neighbor. Indicating that opposition to the connection between Lake Riley Blvd and the subdivision. And I think that certainly in this case the citizens should have some say so in the, what access is made to their existing road. So thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I appreciated your comments. I seem to remember you from some Lake Riley beachlot issue meetings. Your comments are appreciated. Does anyone else have 1 something, in particular if you have new issues that haven't already been described. And maybe before I do that. How many people are here in opposition of the connection to the Lake Riley Blvd? Can I just have a showing of hands. I was going to do Kiowa Trail separately. Just the Lake Riley. ' Resident: Do them all together. Batzli: Okay, why not. Is there anybody here that wants to see the connections made? Okay. Let the record show that there's no one here in support of connections. Does anyone else have any new issues that haven't been discussed? What the Planning Commission normally does is we try to flush out the issues. We're very aware that all of you are here to ' try and make your feelings known. That you really don't want to see these connections. What we normally would do is we would close the public hearing if there aren't any comments. We would then go around the commissioners one by one to discuss their feelings ' on the project and the connection and then we would take a vote. What we decide tonight isn't binding. Really it is a recommendation to the City Council and so regardless of how we end up voting, we encourage you to take your concerns and issues up to the City Council. ' Both whether we decide in your favor or against because a showing of force in front of the City Council in support of something we do or against something we do may have a much different impact on the City Council. We like to try and do good, a job of good planning and ' that's not always necessarily politically expediant but they may have a much stronger concern that way. That you people directly vote for them and they may feel the pressure a little bit more than, we tend to be a little bit more insulated and we try to go by our codes. I'm not saying that's the way we're going to go tonight but understand the issue that the decision isn't cast in stone by what we decide here tonight. It does go to the City Council and you will have an impact on what they decide as well. Are there any new issues that haven't been brought up yet. I don't want to cut anybody off so if there is something new, please come forward. Otherwise, I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 24 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Conrad: Two or three issues. Obviously access is a major one for the neighbors and I think we've already told you that basically the city standards are significantly different than what you currently live on today. Significantly. We're not talking about percentage. 20 %. We're talking about major, major difference than what you're wanting to maintain. Saying that, I typically am one of the few that don't mind long cul -de -sacs because of the neighborhood and I think I would probably on this issue, because of the significant neighborhood interest. On one hand I look at myself and I say, well should I protect you from yourselves in terms of fire access. That is a major issue. You have some streets that are, have some problems. And I'm thinking, well in a couple years if there's a fire and the fire engine can't get there, did I do my job. So that's a concern I have. But I think in this particular case, I would be opting for some back to back cul -de -sacs. I'd want safety. Some way of rationalizing access to those long cul -de -sacs without encouraging traffic. Could be back to back cul -de -sacs. Could be the combo trail going over to Lake Riley. That's where I stand on that. Generally I'm not real wild about this PUD. As I went and tried to justify it, there's at least 63 lots that are below our city standard of 15,000 square feet. Mancino: 46 1/4 %. 1 Conrad: It's a lot and I can't justify that. Now I think the developer has, I think our TH 101 right -of -way issue is something that's nice and maybe the dedication of land for TH 101, I'm not sure what to think about Highway 101. Nobody wants it. State, County, City. It's a problem. It does mean we should address it sometime but in terms of influencing me that 1 we're getting something in exchange for a major shift in down sizing lots, I'm not persuaded yet. I would not accept this PUD. As I went through their justifications on all the points, I found one of the, contrary to staff report, I found one of the points that may have validated a PUD. Batzli: Which one was that? Conrad: I'd have to go back through them but most of them I couldn't. Most of them didn't do it for me. I haven't excluded the PUD yet. This is not it. That's all. 1 Batzli: I thought you had three. Conrad: I skipped. The trail access. Maybe somebody else might. Somebody brought up trails. I'm not sure, Paul. Where's our trail connecting downtown to this area? Do we have one? I should have done some homework to know where it is. Krauss: I don't know if we notified these people but we are working on a plan for the ultimate design of TH 101 from Highway 5 where we kind of a...crossing where we took it 25 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 up to last year down to the future 212. That's going to be a 4 lane section with heavy landscaping incorporating a trail. South of that point, and the MnDot improvements, when they occur, would come up Lyman Blvd just a little bit beyond. So presumably the trail kind of terminates there. You eluded to the problem with TH 101. This is not a new thing for us. ' The fact is that nobody is taking responsibility for TH 101. The State stopped taking responsibility for it in 1934 but it is a State highway and they won't put a penny into it. The only improvements that have occurred on TH 101 are those that have been paid for by the City of Chanhassen and we simply do not have the money to improve it much more than we already have. So we tried to get together a coalition of county and city governments and MnDot to figure out to push a decision on what should happen to TH 101. I don't know ' what happened. Right now nothing is probably going to happen until 212 is built and the last, as I said, the last I heard on that was instead of 1995 -96, it's now 1998 and climbing rapidly. Conrad: Yeah, it's almost like I've given up Paul. You see so many problems. It's like, - why should I start fixing them because I see so many others that I just don't know that are ever going to be economically solved. Maybe that's a bad attitude but again, that's not, I don't think that a key reason for me to accept this as a PUD if we wanted the land donated. I think it's a nice reason. I think Lundgren could probably, and staff. I think staff could probably persuade me that we're getting something back but when I go below the 15,000 square foot lot size, that is pretty sacred in Chanhassen and I really have to know what we're getting back for it and because of my concern for TH 101, or because of my fears that TH 101 is never going to be solved, I don't know that we're getting a great deal in return for a PUD. Batzli: Okay. Matt. ' Ledvina: I guess I generally I share some of Ladd's concerns as it relates to the lot sizes. I saw a lot of lots in the 9,000 to 12,000 square foot range and that certainly makes me nervous when I see that. But on the other hand, as it relates to that, those lots that a ' developer's responsible for developing those lots, as they platted them here or as you will plat them, and it appears to me that they can make it work. And you've seen Lundgren developments and they've done a nice job with that. I'm confident that they'll be able to do ' that. I think as a PUD, the plat going in that direction, or the subdivision going in that direction but I'm not real convinced that the smaller lots and a large number of smaller lots justify the situation. So I think those are some big concerns. Let's see. ' Batzli: Before I forget to ask you. What are your thoughts on the connection? Ledvina: I was getting to that. That's a real tough issue and I guess I'm concerned about the t 26 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 possibility of this creating a short cut and a lot of cars coming through there. Could you comment on that Paul or Bob? Or perhaps Dave. I mean that's something that I wasn't aware of a possibility there and if we do open up the connection to Lake Riley Blvd, and also Kiowa, does that represent a concern then for short circuiting? Hempel: Whether or not you have the connections to Lake Riley Blvd, even from Lyman Blvd wanting to go south. To use the Kiowa one. If you cut that one off...Bandimere Park from TH 101 or through the back side. The issue I think is the long dead end cul -de -sac I guess. The curvalinear streets and the subdivision that's being proposed is a deterrent to traffic. They're not going to be able to go 30 mph through most of the streets. There'd likely be stop signs, a 3 way stop intersection when the traffic warrants meet for installation of stop signs. Just the general layout of that is not conducive for thru street movement. I think Lake Riley Boulevard would be a little higher speed, 35 -40 mph. 1 Batzli: Well it may not be conducive but for the development moving south on Kiowa, I mean that's quicker than going out to TH 101 and turning south. I think that's their concern is that, see however many houses. I don't recall the exact number in this development. 100 and whatever. I mean I think that's the concern and not that somebody's going to come down Lyman and go through the development. I don't think that's something we can avoid by doing that connection. Hempel: That's true but I guess we still feel that the general traffic patterns for employment and everything else is going to be to the north. Not to the south to Pioneer Trail or Shakopee. Mancino: Paul had said somethin g about disincentives and what are those that we can use so if we did put in these? Krauss: Well, Dave touched on one. I think eve time you introduce a right hand h or ry y g ado a left hand turn or stop signs, it takes time to slow down. You've got to go through...it's a disincentive. It takes more time to go through something. The trend here is to make it, facilitate a movement where you want it to be and provide enough disincentives so it doesn't go where you don't want it to be. We've done that in other ones. I mean we clearly, I know we're often painted like that but we truly don't sit here trying to run thru traffic down streets kids are going to play on. If you think that that's going to happen...we say so and bring that up. One of the areas where a change might be able to be made, if I can get my bearings, is to run this road up to here so that the thru movement wants to go this way and make the traffic that will go to Kiowa come through a stop sign and turn left. That's a disincentive. There are ways those things can be done. Whether or not it's going to fully eliminate the situation. What we have here too is a transitional situation. There are people using Pioneer. 27 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Significant numbers of people. You saw that on the Eastern Carver County Transportation ' Study a few years ago. However that transportation study was done before Highway 5 was upgraded so I'm not certain exactly how valid the results remain in terms of the numbers. When we get to that same issue though and take it Lake Riley Blvd, that one I fail to see the merit on. I mean if you're right...we'll give you a map to show you how convoluted that route is around the lake. It is an interesting way to go. I go down there every so often when I'm checking out a site that way but it certainly is not a high...through there. At one time ' Lake Riley Blvd was supposed to run straight east to Dell Road. That was the long term plan. Now when Bearpath subdivision came through, Bearpath is a private community, it's a gated community which is why there's one entrance. And it's...those folks over to Dell Road so now, as a result Lake Riley Blvd is going to maintain a very circuitous path around the lake, through Eden Prairie Park and back out to Pioneer. It's quite a ways around. And by the way, I could add that I know that the city of Eden Prairie staff had a lot of problems with the one entrance into Bearpath and there are knock down gates I believe that are supposed to be maintained by the homeowners association so there are other means in and out of there... 1 Batzli: Matt, go ahead. ' Ledvina: Okay. Well, I think that if we can go ahead and put those impediments in there for the thru traffic movement. I guess I can see the need for the Kiowa connection. I think that represents an important part of this development. I don't know that both of them should be ' made. Both of the connections should be made but I don't know specifically which one would be better to make. But I think one of them should be made. On some of the other issues, with this, as far as the 60 foot right -of -way. I would propose that we keep the 60 foot ' right -of -way. I guess I would be amenable to looking at a 25 foot roadway house setback throughout the subdivision. I think we did that with the Song subdivision and I think that that can help to do some of the things that help with the aesthetics and the reducing surface ' water runoff, etc. Let's see. Just one note on the recommendations. On recommendation number 27. I see this as a somewhat repeated on condition number 11. You've identified that you want a PUD agreement and in addition to the development contract by the city so I think you probably want to keep 11 in and strike 27. One of the residents in the vicinity mentioned the possibility of providing a pedestrian crossing into Bandimere Park from the Kiowa extension right along the southern boundary of the subdivision and I would support 1 that the applicant provide that. I think that works out well. That's the extent of my comments. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Jeff. Farmakes: We're going random? 1 Batzli: We're going random. This is random. Trying to get you guys on your toes. ' 28 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Farmakes: I'm going to start out here and talk a little bit more about Ladd's comments. I also am uncomfortable. That's why I asked at the beginning of this meeting to hear the mission statement and the intent paragraph in regards to PUD's. In looking at this, I don't understand the criteria that we're using to initiate this as a PUD. I understand it from a design standpoint but I don't understand what the motivation is. Clearly in the packet it says that this is, the property is being farmed. There is little, if any, natural features to be protected. It seems to me that what it's being used for here is to achieve other objectives, one of which is listed in here as being the lot layout protects existing and proposed residents. I guess I'm sitting back and waiting to see more convincing of what the city's gaining here. I don't see that. I'd like to see that spelled out more clearly. I'm looking at the general philosophy of the design which is to expand larger lots and basically encompass a higher percentage, I think it was 46 %? Of sub lot size versus the 15,000 that we used. And 1 typically in other issues of PUD's that I've supported we have had a pretty clear indication that it was either the lot itself or some geographic feature. Stand of trees or something that we were trying to achieve in the design. I don't see that here. So given that, and looking at 1 this and talking about the connectivity and so on, I'm a little uncomfortable with looking at some of these lots and looking at the layouts and looking at the amount of 11,000 square foot sites for homes. I'm a bit surprised I guess. That must have been a good meeting that you had with the developer because nothing in regards to this issue, at least that I've heard of, and what has Ladd has said, has been brought up here tonight. A PUD is, I'm sure the City can show you, is an issue that we use when it's in the community's best interest perhaps to look at what I would describe as a variance in some issues, for want of a better word. Paul maybe could elaborate a little bit more on that but I think that you should look at that clearly. What's being offered here. I'm going through my packet in the findings and I'm not utterly convinced that that story is being made. I'm surprised if we spent a year on this internally that perhaps that got placed on the wayside. Batzli: Can I interrupt just one second? Farmakes: Sure. 1 Batzli: Paul, in something like this, wouldn't we normally see the proposed home styles or if there was additional landscaping? I mean it doesn't seem to me that we've asked for plans and berming and things like that and I don't believe we have any of that. Do we have that here? This plant key. The planting key. So this is the landscaping? What did we ask for in addition in the conditions? Generous: They've provided us with a detailed planting. The landscaping berm and 1 screening requirements, especially what some of the people brought up to the east. - I 29 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Additional trees and landscaping. Not that we'd want to have a complete separation between 1 these two properties because they are residential but some type of natural transition. Batzli: So the landscaping plan that they've submitted, I mean does this go above and 1 beyond what we normally require in a PUD? This is kind of bare bones sort of PUD? Krauss: It does go above what you would require, or be able to require in a subdivision. 1 The subdivision ordinance only allows us the 1 tree in the front yard and... Batzli: I'm sorry, go ahead. Farmakes: Anyway, I'll leave that as a big question mark for me. And I think that that, g q when I said big question mark, that I think is the building block or the philosophy of how this is designed. And I'm uncomfortable that it's not spelled out more what we're getting versus if this is the traditional single family. It may well be that the city is gaining something but I readily don't see that. It doesn't knock me over. Lundgren in the past has been a good developer for our community and I'm sure that they have worked a year on this. I don't want to discourage that fact. I just, in the presentation would have liked to have seen ' more detail in what we're gaining. I'm also, once again we are dealing with a difficult issue with citizens who have been living in neighborhoods here for quite some time. When the city comes knocking on the door, or what they see a city density is a difficult issue. As Brian has ' said, we get into the position of do we follow what the professionals tell us is the correct thing to do or do we listen to sometimes emotional dissent against that. And I've been in that position and I quantify, I've done this once before and have supported neighborhoods on this issue. I think that older neighborhoods should be given .consideration under the same general philosophy that we use as grandfathering. It depends on how many people are involved. How many homes we're looking at. At how much that would effect the change in ' their existing life style. Now I have been a proponent of connectivity and I disagree with many of the comments that were made here tonight. I think that again, when we try to isolate our neighborhoods, that may be fine for our own terms in thinking of 3 or 4 houses. What we see is our next door neighbors and our friends but it is the connectivity and the interconnection of neighborhoods that make a community and we're to some extent seeing over and over again neighbors that come in here, it doesn't make any difference whether it's 1 your development or any one of the last 30 or 40 that have come in here. They see a lot of scary things on TV every night and they think in terms of what's called the bunker mentality. They think that if you keep a long narrow driveway and it's just them that drives on it, that 1 they'll know their friends and they'll be able to tell their enemy. Whether we choose to admit that or not, there's a lot of that involved here. I look at the issues as not just safety issues of connecting neighborhoods. It's also the general issue, a very boring thing. It's just a general infrastructure that makes up a community. You have the connectivity of the mail 1 30 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 111 being delivered. You have buses coming and picking up your children and taking them to school. When we create all these 300, 400 neighborhoods that we have in the city and we only have one way into them, we have a city that's basically made up of a bunch of bunkers. And I think that there's significant evidence to planners in other communities, this doesn't 1 make for a healthy community. And it makes for really a narrow view. However, as I said before there are a few occasions where I think the neighborhoods that have been established and been here for a long time should be given consideration. And in this issue, the 1 connection on Kiowa, I would not support and that is the reason that I would not support that. I think again, I fall back. This is a quandry for me because I think you have to give consideration for established neighborhoods that have been here for many years and in some 1 cases almost 2 decades. And this does effect quality of their life. I really am uncomfortable with that because there are also issues of safety here and I heard the comment that we should put that aside here tonight and I don't think we should. It's not a clear cut choice here and I know that some of you want to hear what you want to hear and others, they want me to stop talking about this but it is a difficult thing for your neighbors to sit up here and take those considerations into mind because some other people have sat up here or got up to the podium and have asked us, if we don't care, you shouldn't care and I don't think that that's the correct response. The issue of the walkway along Highway 101. I support that connecting. I realize that we're not quite sure where TH 101 is so that's probably a future cost. If that's brought on line. It seems like some type of provision, if there's not a connection to Kiowa. Some type of provision will have to be made perhaps through the existing lots that are shown on the layout for some neighborhood connection to the Parkway. There seems like there's room in there somewhere to look at that. The other issue, one other issue in the recommendations on staff as far as the setbacks go. I support those. Staff recommendation. And there is a comment in the recommendations that says that a 60 x 40 homesite and the other part refers to a building paid. Is that 60 x 40 the building pad ?...that's the end of my comments? 1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Joe. Scott: Well I too question the use of PUD for this particular development. I don't see what we're gaining. As far as the references were made to the Song property and for those of you who aren't familiar with that particular property, it's heavily wooded. Extreme variations in 1 terrain and we allowed it to be a PUD so we could preserve trees and preserve natural features. Well in this particular instance we don't really have that same situation so drawing an analogy between this particular piece of property and the Song property really is 1 meaningless. So therefore I don't see us gaining anything so I do not support this as a PUD. With questions on connectivity. For public safety reasons I would support the connecting with Lake Riley Blvd off the cul -de -sac or some area there. I'm torn on the Kiowa because I can see, I think that apartment complex is several hundred units. But then again I don't see a 31 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 tremendous amount of traffic going south into Shakopee. I think that a majority of the people ' from the development will be going up to Highway 5. I'm still torn on Kiowa, as to whether that needs to be connected or not. I don't think there's a way of restricting traffic by using knock down barriers or so forth. I mean it's got to be something that has to be plowed, ' which obviously you can't do with barriers so I don't know. I think if I had to make my choice, I would go with both of the connections. And I think everything else has been covered so I don't have any further comments. Batzli: Did you, I didn't hear you but I'm sure you did comment on the 60 foot right -of -way on internal streets, you were in favor of keeping it at that? 1 Scott: Yes. 1 Batzli: Okay. Thanks. Nancy. Mancino: I agree, concur with Jeff, Ladd and Joe on the PUD. I was quite concerned about 1 coming up with the 46% of under sized lots. I also support the 60 foot right -of -way which would also add to this percent of under sized lots. I would not like to see this replicated in the future meaning that if we took this property and put it on the other side of TH 101, on the west side, I wouldn't want to see another development like this come in where there are no natural characteristics of the land that we are trying to preserve. In fact I think on page 11 of the report is says that the entire plat would be graded. The entire site will eventually 1 be graded with a condition of the...so that to me says right away that...and what are we getting from it. On access to the established neighborhoods. Well, I'm very much for public ' safety but more importantly to me is preserving neighborhoods that have been existing so I would be in support for not having a connection for either roadway. I said I supported the 60 foot. I think that's it. 1 Batzli: Okay. Do you want to talk before I get my shot at it? No, go ahead. Please. I'm just, go ahead. 1 Terry Forbord: I wanted to embellish upon all the issues about the PUD. Batzli: Please, go ahead. Terry Forbord: Clearly I miscalculated the wishes or the desires of the Planning Commission. ' I thought that the issues were incredibly clear and I've been before many of you for so long and actually I'm thrilled to talk about PUD's. I think every subdivision there is anywhere in any city should be a PUD because it gives the city more than it could ever get under a 1 standard subdivision so I'd like to talk about that briefly. The intent of the PUD ordinance 1 32 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 doesn't specifically protect natural features. Every city adopts different critieria for their PUD. Chanhassen went through a lengthy process over probably years to develop the one they had. Before that I think they went through a lengthy process before for the previous one. But a PUD, it's purpose is to allow flexibility under a number of different conditions. It would not be fair to say that that flexibility and it's purpose is to solely protect the natural resources of a community but there's a number of other things. I think what's in it for the city. I think I heard everybody here basically say that in their mind that was the criteria that they were searching for the most. And apparently us, as the applicant did not do a good enough job within our narrative and certainly we made the election tonight to not bring in a slide show. To now bring in a lot of overheads of all of our product. To show you the things that we're doing in various communities that are very similar to it because I didn't want to take 2 hours of additional time tonight embellishing upon all these things. Clearly I miscalculated and being that I don't have all of those audio visual items here with me this evening, I ask you to keep an open mind. I'll do the best I can to ticket your creative imagination. What's in it for the city? I guess then is the city be concerned what's in it for the residents. The citizens of the community. What, when they're done and they drive down TH 101 and Lyman Blvd and they look to their left or right, whichever way they're going, they look off on a piece of land that could be developed as a neighborhood, what are they going to see? What are the options? Would they prefer to see community x or would they prefer to see community y? Now, as a developer I could take the subdivision ordinance and I could look at it purely from a statistical standpoint. I could say well here's a piece of featureless land. There may be a dozen, maybe 30 trees. It's flatter than a pancake. It's a cornfield. I could make a lot of money here. There's no wetland. I don't have to worry about trees. I can just go in there and plan a grid system. I can get as many lots as the ordinance will allow me. I can make a vanilla subdivision that has no streetscape. Sure, I can meet the landscape ordinance and I can do all those things but when you're done, what's it going to feel like when you go into it or when you drive by? Now most of you who know me long enough, and know Lundgren Bros, we don't typically look for those types of qualities. But we could. We certainly could, and I'm going to show this to everybody else here. This is for illustrative purposes. We could develop something similar to this. We could take the subdivision ordinance and the codes and we could prepare a grid system. There'd be no turns. Straight streets. Very similar to what you see in an urbanized area that's quite old. Minneapolis, Richfield. When you drive down those streets, you don't take many curves. You don't see the sides of the houses. You don't see the rears. You don't see the roof lines. You see the front of the buildings. Okay, we could do that. Now, we've taken a look at the site. This site in particular is unique. It may be characterless for the untrained eye but how many of you remember the workhouse property? That piece of property we developed. It was as flat as this. It had one sole tree on over 300 -400 acres. We put in ponds and created contour where there was none. So what we're doing here is we're going in and we're mass grading this site to create contours because how many people 33 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 want to live on a flat site and there's no trees to protect anyway so we'd better go in and do ' something to create some character to this streetscape so people, when they look out across their lawns, that they see some movement to it. Yes there is going to be a lot of grading but there's nothing there to really protect. So, should we go ahead and do this featureless 1 neighborhood? Or should we attempt to make, for lack of a better term, a silk purse out of a cow's ear. Should we try to create some movement in the streets? Most of our homes have architectural details on the side elevations. The rear elevations and certainly on the front elevations but when you're winding down that street that goes up and down as well as side to side, you're going to see these different architectural details. There are physical constraints on this site. There's roads on 3 sides. There's a park that will be a community park. An ' intensely used community park on the southern border. Okay, so on four sides I've got uses that in my mind are really not conducive to "typical" quality of life that many of these people enjoy in their quiet little neighborhoods so I'm going to take this site with all these problems ' and how can I create a sense of community in there. An environment that will be pleasant and have some streetscape. The only way I can do it is to try and be a little creative about it. And from the looks of the ordinance, the standard subdivision ordinance certainly does not ' encourage creativity. It asks me to deliver to you, and to the citizens, a vanilla subdivision that looks like the one that I was showing you. That's what the subdivision code tells me. But if you look to the PUD, it says hey. Use some creativity here. Most of the people who live in our community would rather have a neighborhood community that has some character to it. And if you're willing to do that, we'll allow you a little bit of flexibility to do these things. Now in every community I've ever worked in, that's really the intent of the PUD. 1 It's to make it, it's to encourage people to do something above and beyond what the subdivision ordinance tells them they should do. Now I think that's what everybody here wants. I don't think any of you say oh Lundgren, go on back there and make this something less. How do you do that? How do you do what I'm trying to tell you on a site like this? First of all you have to have some variety. You have to have some diversity. We don't want all the houses to look alike. We certainly don't want them all to be the same size. We don't want them all to cost the exact same dollar amount. We don't want all the walks to look alike. If we wanted that, then we should go to this. So we are cognizant and sensitive to the ' things around the perameter. We are cognizant and sensitive to the intense use of Lyman Blvd or TH 101. Of the park and for trying to have some feel for the people who live off the site that are close to it that may be impacted by it. Okay the way that I have to do that is through lot size, street configurations, and we've attempted to do that. Now I think that's a lot for the city. That certainly is better than going this way. I think. If the city is telling me that they prefer to do the other way, than that's what we will do. But what happens, and I'm not faulting anybody here for this. What happens, and I remember when the PUD ordinance was being prepared before it was adopted. I came here before you and talked about these very issues for those of you who were on the Planning Commission at that time. And we 1 talked about, should you always have to have some incredibly tangible thing that you can ' 34 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 hang your hat on to say well this is why it was a PUD and there's some of us that don't think you just have to do that. I think you have to say, is this what we want in our city or is it 1 something other than this. Is it something more creative and so that's what we're attempting to do. We could get more lots going the other way. I mean a lot of people say well why don't you do that. Well because most people I mean that I've ever met and that we build houses for, would rather not live in a neighborhood like that. So what we're asking for is to allow us to be a little bit creative. And you also have to realize, even though 46 or 43, whatever percent of the lots are below the "standard" subdivision requirements, this is not a standard subdivision. The PUD ordinance says that they can go down to 11,000 square feet as long as the average lot size is 15. Well the average lot size here I believe is. Batzli: 17.8. Terry Forbord: Is 17,814. That's what the ordinance tells me I'm supposed to do. It doesn't 1 say in the ordinance, the PUD ordinance that 10% have to be this size. 40% have to be this size and 50% have to this size. In a PUD you can turn me down though if you're happy with it because the PUD gives you really the ultimate authority of approval. That's why I think PUD's are great for cities. You have the ultimate authority. If you don't like it, throw it out. But what's the density here? There were issues about geez, the lots are awfully small but what is the density. The density, gross is 1.7 dwelling units per acre. Net is 2.5. That's not a lot of density on 80 acres of land, especially when 22% of it is roads so really what the PUD, this is a perfect. I mean I've said this before and you may be saying Terry, you always say this but this is true. This is a great site for a PUD. This is the kind of zoning tool that should utilize on this type of site because of 22% of it happens to be roads. It's featureless. We're not going there and we're going to try to do something with this that when we're done, I know when we're done you might not all want to live there yourselves but you'll probably go through there and say, boy that's a nice neighborhood. I feel entirely confident of that. Farmakes: Can I ask you a question Terry? Terry Forbord: Yes sir. 1 Farmakes: The thing that I asked to see up here, the back side of that particular piece there. That we're referring to showing the grid. The Roman grid on the back. The lots that we're looking at there, is the smallest lot we're looking at there 15,000 square feet? Terry Forbord: Average lot size here is 15,880. The minimum lot size is 12,000. 1 Farmakes: Okay. So in fact then that's not a traditional single family. 35 • 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Terry Forbord: I didn't say that this was a standard subdivision. - 1 Farmakes: I just wanted to clarify that Terry Forbord: ...for illustrative purposes. If I changed this and make this 15,000 square foot, I could hold this up here and nobody would be able to tell because of the scale of this drawing. I mean it's such a small scale, nobody'd be able to tell whether it was 3,000 off. ' But it's just for illustrative purposes. It's not meant to say that we've measured and incremized everything here so it's exactly perfect to follow the subdivision ordinance. Farmakes: In your opinion, if they went with the standard development, do you feel that the roman grid roads are the only way to develop that piece of property? 1 Terry Forbord: Pardon me? Farmakes: If we went with the standard development. Not go with PUD. We're looking at 1 roman grid roads here. Straight up and down and across. With that particular piece of property, we see other developments that are not PUD here that do not have either horizontal or vertical roads. My question is, do you feel that particular piece of property, if developed as a standard development and not a PUD, will resemble that only slightly bigger lots? ' Terry Forbord: Would it resemble this? Farmakes: That's correct. 1 Terry Forbord: It depends on who the developer is. There's a lot of reasons that I believe why a lot of developers don't pursue PUD's. Number one, it's too complicated. They go ' through these kinds of exercises and Planning Commissions and Councils...it's a lot more work. A lot more hassles. And most developers will always take the simple path. This is what's going to be easiest. Obviously you all know, unfortunately sometimes I wonder ' myself, why doesn't Lundgren Bros take the simplest path on some of these meetings of tensions that happen between staff and the applicant because we're working so hard to try to get something that will be a good neighborhood. Sometimes I wonder myself. Maybe I should just not keep pursuing most things. We should just go the vanilla route. Maybe that's what I should do. But I think that this site is a classic PUD site. It's featureless and it took, I get into it over and over again but the other thing that this allows, and this may not be the... ' criteria of PUD's and well wait a minute. Maybe there is a criteria that eludes to it. There's affordability. This property is not going to be "high amenity land" where people are going to be building $250,000.00 homes. Or $350. I mean it isn't like that. It doesn't have 1 lakeshore. It doesn't have trees. It doesn't have those type of things. A PUD allows a little 1 36 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 111 1 bit of diversity in lot size. For a couple things. One, that lot may be a - little more affordable. Two, that lot may be bought by the young professionals where both of them work maybe 50- 60 hours a week and they don't want a great big yard. We're seeing a lot of our customers could care less about mowing their lawn. They want as small a lawn as they can have. So we're getting them some variety. If they would like they could have a 17,000 square foot lot and if they don't want that one, then move down the street. Here are some 11,000 square foot lots over here or here's 13,000. There's some choice there for the consumer. You want to have a variety of product type. The PUD literally really allows for that. 1 Farmakes: I think that the intent, as I recall the intent statement of our PUD also says that the higher percentage of the lots that are undersized, the city will look at that application closer. I'm not sure if I got the verbage exactly right but that is the intent of this statement. And I think the issue and concern that's brought up here is a viable one. It does have a high percentage of undersized lots and I think that certainly the city should look closely at that. In that development. I'm not saying that at least in my comments. I'm not speaking for the rest of the commission. I have nothing, as I said, philosophically with how you were developing the property by skirting the larger lots and smaller ones in the interior. But I thought that in the presentation that there was not sufficient back -up to me to show versus a traditional development, which not all are like what's being proposed here on the yellow version. Certainly not, as I said, other developments that we've seen developed traditionally with 15,000 square foot lots as a minimum do not have horizontal /vertical roads only. However this particular piece of property has some problems to it but I think certainly that there has to be some convincing reason for that other than just philosophical. That when we say what is the city getting out of this. I hear some of what you're saying but I think also that there's some concern on my part anyway, the issue of the amount of smaller lots in the center of this versus the percentage. There are some large lots, I think up to 45,000 square feet. The question is, of the developer, some of those square footages be. But due to the pipeline and so on. I think that those are really viable concerns. It struck me as soon as I saw this plan and the presentation and I realized that I think perhaps the last presentation we had, we had some complaints of how long it went. Maybe you're reacting to that but in this particular case I think everytime we have asked, when we see a PUD, that's a viable question. And we 1 should ask that question. What are we getting for it because it is a trade off. It is a, to me, it is a variance. And to be responsible about that we should be getting something in return and there are some design qualities to this that I like. And I'm not totally negative on it. But 1 again I think that the density issue of subsized lots is a major, is my major concern of this development. z is Terry. My comments on whether this Bat li. Okay, thank you. Thank you erry. y comme is o whethe th s should be a PUD were more directed toward trying to figure out the whole package here. What kind of architectural styles would we be looking at. What kind of additional landscaping are we 37 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 I getting and do those things, along with the increased right-of-way and some of the other, and g Y making features out of a featureless field, are those the kind of things that would support a 1 PUD? And I don't know that we've been educated enough. Either by the applicant or by city staff to make that determination tonight. It may be that you know Lundgren is going to put homes that are exceptional in some manner or have additional features or they're going to I be providing low income. They're going to be doing something and we don't know. I don't know. You know. Clearly they're not clustering. They're not earth sheltering. They're not I putting in, they're not putting in creative things like that I would imagine or they'd be telling us about it but they're going to put in a quality Lundgren Bros homes on this piece of property, which is what I would expect anyway. But I think that type of information along I with some of the features or some of the other things, regardless of whether city staff tells us about that and tells us that that's a good thing and that's something we should be looking for, or whether Lundgren tells us, I think we need to be told somehow. I'm not sure that that can I be done tonight. Having said that, I remain kind of unconvinced on the, on reducing the right -of -way from 60 to 50 feet. I think we've relaxed the 30 feet to 25 feet in the past. I - think we usually have done that to pull the houses forward to get them out of trees and things I like that. I don't know. I think the Song property was eluded to and I'm not sure if I was here for that particular discussion. So I don't know whether that would be proper in this particular instance or not but it sure sounds like it wouldn't be. I think Jeff is right on the I point when he says that the more pieces of property that fall below our standard lot size, the harder we're supposed to look at it so I think we're doing our job. I don't think we're trying unfairly to single this out for some reason. I think we've instructed ourselves in drafting the I ordinance to do exactly what we're doing tonight. I don't know that I'd characterize it as what, this is my own personal opinion and I've said this several times and I've never seen a nod from anybody yet but I'll say it one more time. You know to me it's not what the city is `' getting. It's what the people that move in. It's the future residents of these homes. It's really what are they going to be living in and what amenities are they getting and it's almost like what is the developer offering those future residents of the city, and they will be • ' residents and taxpaying citizens of the city and they're the ones that are going to most directly benefit or be harmed by what we do here tonight. They're going to be living in it and you can say buyer beware and if they don't like it, move in. But the minute you start I putting in some of these smaller, lower income and I don't know if Lundgren is really low income housing. I can't even get a rise out of Terry. He's busy writing something I think but I think that I don't agree with that philosophy and I'd like to be big brother a little bit on I some of those issues. As far as the connection. I lived at the end of a cul -de -sac. Bought it for that exact purpose. I came to the meeting to have the city not put it through. They put it I through anyway. I've been there. And it's interesting because of course I lived through the 100 year storm where one end of our, the only entrance and exit from our development was blocked off. And it began to dawn on me that you can't foresee all contingencies and that 1 these things make sense. So I would like to see us look at this and I know we've looked at 1 38 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 the break away fences and everything else and the city staff hates them. But the one thing that differs between my situation and these are that these are long established neighborhoods. They have a character about them and I moved in. I was there for 6 months to a year. Granted I moved in because it was a cul -de -sac, or so I thought. But here this will change the character of at least Kiowa I'm convinced and perhaps Lake Riley, because there will be 1 additional traffic on Kiowa. You can't get around that fact.and that will change the character of that neighborhood. And I hate to see that done. I really don't want to see that done. I remain less convinced for Lake Riley Blvd, but on the other hand it is a long, well 1 established neighborhood and we may be changing the character of it and I don't want to do that without a darn good reason. And if our people are telling. Our, meaning city. If city safety and fire are telling these people that well geez, we really don't want it. Well I'm 1 going to sit up here and...We need to get our story straight one way or another on that particular issue before I'm willing to vote and force these people to change the character of their neighborhood. Even though I've been pretty consistent for the last 4 or 5 years in saying that we can't have long cul -de -sacs. Having said those things, I think we have some issues that probably still need to be fine tuned. We've heard about some tree count on the little finger sticking south there. We've heard about the berming. I think that's taken care of in the conditions. We have a park access trail/and a trail along TH 101 that needs to be looked at. I would prefer review of all these various issues and perhaps Lundgren and city staff wants to take a second shot at us for why this is a good subdivision and if they get the general gist that we're concerned about the number of small lots, they may even take a look at rearranging something for us. I guess I would prefer to see this tabled personally. I don't know how the applicant feels about that. There was one other thing I was going to say. Oh yeah. The barricade with the temporary turn around. The sign. It should say, this street shall be extended in the future, and we really mean it. We're not kidding. So having said that, is there a motion? Mancino: I move that we table this. The Preliminary PUD of 80.8 acres of property to create 134 single family lots...and rezoning of the property from A2, Agricultural Estates to PUD, Planned Unit Development Residential. Batzli: Is there a second? Farmakes: I'll second. 1 Batzli: Discussion. Conrad: Terry, is that what you want to do? Do you want to come back and give us a shot Y Y Y g at justifying? Seriously, I'm not sure you're close. I'm really not sure. You've come in here with subdivisions or PUD's in the past and they're just obvious to us. This one is not. 1 39 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 You're saying some things to us that we've never heard another developer say. I haven't seen a typical subdivision in Chanhassen for a long time so I'm not sure this is an alternative. 1 I guess I would like to see you back telling us why we should. You know Chanhassen. You know 15,000 square feet is really something that we hold near and dear and you're going below that and there was really not a very consistent way of telling us what the city, or what the community in general was getting. Yet on the other hand there are a few of us here that feel you're way off. I don't think you're close Terry right now. So if he comes back and justifies. You know right now I think he's going to go back and come back in and justify to 1 us why. Without a clear consensus that we're ready. That if he justifies it, we'll go for it. The current configuration but with these, we'll take a look at the connectivity to the properties that surround. You know for sure we're going to do that but I want to send Terry a good signal here so that when he comes back, he's meeting our needs and I'm just personally saying, 60 some lots that are below 15,000 square feet, I didn't see it in the plans with environmental features. I didn't see it there so what I'm saying is I don't know that he can persuade me if he comes back. 1 Mancino: I agree. Farmakes: I can say what I'd like to see. One of the things I'd like to see on average size, ' when we look at when we average out these issues is buildable lot size and in some cases, the largest lots on this particular development, because of the pipeline, are not buildable. And I think that certainly the 46 %, or whatever it is, is a major stumbling block with me. 1 Batzli: Well I suggested tabling and we got the motion in part because I think, I don't know that the applicant or the city really concentrated on what we were looking for. And they've ' heard our comments tonight and I think they know what our concerns are and if they want to rework something to try to take care of those concerns, I mean they're free to do that before, they don't have to just come back and sell us on this plan. ' Conrad: I guess I'm just maybe trying to get a nose count here for, I think Matt felt that it's close. ' Scott: We need a separate bar. 1 Conrad: And I'm just trying to give Terry some kind of, and he's keeping track. He's taking notes of what we're saying. But I really want him to have a sense of what we're saying and there's some specific issues that we brought up but do we feel lot size. The number of small ' lots, are we close or are we far away from that? From justifying the 60+ lots that are between 11,000 and 15,000 square feet. Maybe I'm asking. 1 40 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Farmakes: No, I think it's a real good question. I'm trying to think in my mind what that should be as a guide. Is it 20 %. 1 Conrad: I don't know that I have an answer to the number, and there is none. You know if Terry could come back and say the 63 lots are justified because we're putting, we're doing the following things. Batzli: Yeah but it's not quantifiable but I think clearly you heard from the, whatever was 1 said that I think, at least in my own mind and I'll characterize your comments and you can disagree with me but Ladd and Joe, Jeff and Nancy probably had a harder time than Matt and I. And those, you four are the ones that he's going to have to sell harder because I, I'm ' looking at it maybe a little bit differently than the four of you but I think he's got a long way to go with the four of you, from your comments. Ledvina: Well I don't want it to be a situation where it's adjusting lot lines and I don't think g that's where it's at, and I think that's what you were saying. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, if I could qualify a couple things because I want to make sure... I thought I did understand that until Matt's last comment. I thought that the issue was lot size 1 and adjusting lot lines may allow me to adjust lot size. So I want to make sure. Farmakes: That was my understanding and the issue I think is the percentage of subsized lots. Scott: It could mean fewer lots. Terry Forbord: What if in the pursuit of larger lots...whatever that number is, that I brought that in and we say well geez, now I don't like the way it looks. Would you rather that I go back. I'm just trying to, it will change the way this looks to achieve what it is you're telling me you want and from a design standpoint, I mean I'm going to work on that because I want to bring it back in looking the same but if it doesn't, I'm just trying to get some direction. ' Scott: Terry, how many homes do you want to sell? Batzli: How many lots are on there? Terry Forbord: 134 home sites. 1 Conrad: You know what you've got to do, you've told us this and it's the thing that I'm struggling with the most is the fact that this land is not very pretty. And somehow you have, ' 41 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 you didn't embellish the plantings. In fact the number of units per acre -is higher than a ' typical subdivision. Chanhassen is averaging 2 units per acre net. You're at 2.4. You just didn't tell me that we're going to take a real boring piece of property and turn it into something. Now maybe your buildings are always top quality Terry but that's part of the ' thing but you really didn't do anything to this land and I always look for what are you doing for the land. What are you doing for the people. Boy I've got, you've got to take me a ways to sell me on that. You haven't done that. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair? 1 Batzli: Yes sir. Terry Forbord: ...to do, and I guess I'd like, I think I'm hearing everybody say the same 1 thing. I have another site that was very similar to this in Plymouth. That we're just finishing the final details on. I would be happy to take the Planning Commission there and I can show them the before shots. Aerial shots and then they can see what's there now. I can either do that or I could just do slides. But it's almost an identical situation. Roads on 3 sides. Flatter than a pancake. Actually that one maybe had a few, some wetlands. This one doesn't but if ' you saw what it is today, you would say now there's a PUD. I mean because anybody, we're seeing people come out and saying, my god. I can't believe this is the same piece of property. That's what a PUD allows you to do. 1 Batzli: Where is it? Terry Forbord: It's on County Road, at the intersection of County Road 24 and Highway 101. It would be the northwest corner. And that's a good example of an existing condition and that site was featureless. Other than some wetlands but it had more character even than ' this one but we're going to try to do the same thing. I can't do that as a standard subdivision. So I would be happy to do either do that through slides... ' Batzli: What I think, I think it would be helpful to do it by slides. I mean I'm going to try and make an effort and I'm sure other Planning Commissioners will try to make an effort to go up there and drive through it but I think slides would be better, especially for the record. Terry Forbord: It's called Heather Run and there is signage that will direct you. 1 Mancino: Where is that again Terry? Terry Forbord: On the northwest corner of the intersection of State Highway 101. Same highway. And County Road 24. A good way to get there would be take 494 north. Go west 1 42 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 on Highway 55. Go south on 101 and it will be on your left side. - I Batzli: Okay, thank you. I'd also just like to make a comment, while we haven't voted on anything, I think my nose count was more no's than yes's for the connection. Is that right? For the connections in general. Conrad: More no's? 1 Batzli: More no's. I Conrad: That's correct. Batzli: Yeah. So thank you all for coming in. We have not actually voted on the issue but 1 as it stands it looks like there's at least three no's. I think Matt might be persuaded for one connection and Joe I think was saying no for Kiowa and potentially for Lake Riley? Is that what you're saying? Scott: I had a problem with understanding, because I know what's going to happen to those I guys but I'm familiar with both areas so. Batzli: Okay. Yes sir. 1 Resident: Just a question. With all the neighborhood input tonight, if you hear this again on another night and all of us don't show up, can we assume that all of our comments are on the record. Batzli: All of the comments are on the record and the City Council will see those and we'll 1 remember them, believe me. But you'll receive notice again or will it just be published? Krauss: I'll touch on that for a moment. Our next Planning Commission meeting is on the I 17th. The following one is on December 1st. What these things often put us in is the need to sit down with the developer and start working out issues. Whether that can be turned I around in a holiday shortened week, with a big agenda already scheduled for the 17th, is questionable. So what we will do is we will notify the neighbors again...when it comes back to you on the Planning Commission. I Batzli: Right. So you will notify the neighbors, so you should be notified of the next meeting. 1 43 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Resident: If not this much of a turnout can happen, can you still remember how many people 1 talked to you tonight? Batzli: Yes. Farmakes: It's on video. Batzli: Okay, thank you all for coming in. ' Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to table the proposed planned unit development to rezone 80.8 acres of property zoned A2 to PUD and preliminary plat to subdivide 80.8 acres into 134 single family lots and 7 outlots, for the Dolejsi and Rogers property, Lundgren Bros proposal. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 20, 1993 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Batzli: Paul, do you have anything for us? Or Kate, you might as well tell us because Paul's busy. Aanenson: The last City Council meeting, quite a few items were tabled because...but they did approve the motel site plan expansion. Centex was tabled because of the length of the meeting. They also tabled the Jean Addition. The one lot subdivision. ' Krauss: Let's put it this way, I didn't give you a Director's update because there wasn't anything to tell you. ' Scott: I was at that meeting and the garbage thing just expanded to like, I think I left at 11:00 and they were still talking garbage. Batzli: What did they decide on that? Krauss: They decided to continue it. U Batzli: The arba a thing was continued? Okay. g g . Y 1 ONGOING ITEMS. 44 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Batzli: I was going to touch on that but we'll talk about that next time. Any administrative 1 approvals Paul? Krauss: No. OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR PLAN. ' Batzli: In view of the amount of time that we spent on the last one, for once again amazingly enough we've had a couple of these and granted I haven't been at the last 2 or 3 meetings in a row but we end up talking about issues that really aren't related to the development for inordinate amounts of time. And I'm curious to know whether, because they liked the development. Almost to a person. The people that were in here said, the development appears to be pretty good. We don't like the access issues. I mean this is kind of replay of Pleasant View and the issue, in my mind is can we do something about this so that we don't drag all these other things around the wheel when it's the developer sitting there saying, you know. Anything we could do? Anything we can do? Can we somehow separate the issue? I mean it seems to me that from a planning point of view, I would rather say here's a piece of property. This is the way it's going to develop. Where should the access and these types of things be and not get it wrapped around the wheel of what the internal workings of the development look like. Now tonight, by way of example, and I know Jeff has requested this ad nauseum but what does it look like around the development. Here we are talking about all these access issues. About Lake Riley and Kiowa, we don't have a single map. So I was, you know. If we're going to talk about access issues, let's talk 1 about them but let's not sit here and worry about the internal workings of the development and be sitting here clueless as to why people would turn left or right on these streets. Farmakes: It's sort of standard operating procedure in arguments from the neighborhood, in P gP g g particular. I mean we're seeing neighborhoods that haven't been around in 4 or 5 years and then they're in here when a developer comes next to them and they're saying the quality of life that they've come to enjoy is being threatened. Timberwood and Stoney Creek I think were the last issues. I don't know how long one predated the other but not by more than 4 or 5 years I don't think. It just doesn't seem to make any difference. I don't know whether we should legislate and just do like we do with taxes and say hey, the State made us do it. Or how we could address that but it does seem to be something that's just going to come up habitually. Mancino: And that was my question. What's been done before on these long standing cul- de -sacs? 45 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Krauss: This is all blending into one...and I honestly don't remember if this happened here or ' in Minnetonka...we went to the City Council and we said, alright. We're getting awful tired of this. We don't know what to do you know. Should we just forget about it? I mean you know the story. You know, you've heard the line...yet 80% of the time, 90% of the time you 1 vote to over rule it. Should we just forget about it? Farmakes: No, I don't think you should. I tried to quantify what I said here. The only other one that I had voted to support was the one on TH 101, the access over there on that cul -de- sac. I used the same reasoning before and it's a really...and I see it as a grandfather issue. If a community's been there for 20 years, that the city, if they're going to change the rule, has 1 an obligation to look at how that's going to affect their lives. And what they've come to over the years. Same philosophy I think that the city uses for grandfathering issues. 1 Mancino: But how long is that? Krauss: I don't know but...would end up in the packet and we should have. But sometimes 1 they throw you for a loop. I would never in a million years think anybody in their right mind would go around the back side of Lake Riley to get out of that neighborhood. 1 Farmakes: A shortcut to TH 101. I mean, yeah. Not in my worst nightmare. Scott: And I look, you know the thing that I get really tired of is that, well the realtor told me that da, da, da. But I mean quite frankly I mean, yeah. I can see some impact on the people on Kiowa but this Pleasant View. I mean that was a bunch of you know what. These ' people are here, sometimes you have to protect people from themselves. Look at these people down there are going to fry if their house catches on fire in the winter and I'm going, fine. But do I protect you from yourself. 1 Batzli: We're getting off the topic but I'm saying that if what we have to do is say to the Council, look. We're getting all these old long connection issues in front of us. What do ' you want us to do? Then that's what we should do so that we don't, we're going to have to let the public have their say and I think we need to let them have their say, but at the same time we should have some sort of guidelines to follow and we do need better reference 1 materials in our packets so when these people start talking to us about the street connections around the development, we know what they're talking about. ' Scott: And Brian, I thought your point was very good about the fact that you didn't vote us in on the Planning Commission so you can say whatever you want and we may not react one way or the other but if you want to get excited, go to the Council meeting because they're the 1 elected officials. 1 46 1 Planning ommission Meeting - November g g e 3, 1993 1 Batzli: They're going to be excited when you've got 50 people cheering. Scott: So on issues like that, it's almost like. Krauss: You also touched on...issue though of how the Planning Commission raises issues tonight that nobody...It's not to say that it's not a valid issue. It's always difficult to raise a philosophical or ordinance issue in the context of a particular development. We used to have lots of time to spend on those kinds of things. We had time to develop ordinances and plan but for crying out loud, we've been trying to schedule the Highway 5 plan for the last 2 months and there hasn't been the time to do it. Farmakes: We have to have a separate meeting for that. Just that. Maybe more than one and if that means bumping them back, that has to be done...and what it means for our community, I think it certainly should be in the driver's seat. Krauss: Councilman Wing is trying to, and I don't know if he'll follow through with it but he's indicated that he'd just as soon that we closed out some of your agendas and kind of a demi moratorium and just got on that and stayed on it until it was done. Farmakes: Absolutely. Why there's weather enough that we can still look at some of the areas that we're talking about. Mancino: I still think we need to take a site visitation and ride down Highway 5. Farmakes: It is a lot of information to absorb. There's a lot of things to look at. 1 Batzli: Well, would everybody want to do it on a Saturday? Saturday morning? Scott: If we can schedule it far enough in advance. I think we all were thinking about the g g first Saturday, the 9th and then I got a call and it was like for the 16th or something like that. Can we pick, because I'd like to do it. I want to get out there and walk around. Mancino: But we did. Farmakes: I was available. Conrad: I want to. It's just real tough to find time. ' Aanenson: What I was getting, we could go on a regular day, like Paul had mentioned. Maybe start earlier in the day. 47 1 1 I Planning Commission Meetin g - November 3, 1993 1 Batzli: It gets dark awfully quick. I Scott: Yeah, there will be an hour of daylight. 1 Conrad: How about this Saturday? I Scott: It's deer season. Conrad: We could get shot. 1 Mancino: This Saturday? I Krauss: No. I've got my son is being operated on. Mancino: What's the next available? :1 Aanenson: The 13th. 1 Conrad: I am gone. Batzli: The next one? I Scott: The 20th is the weekend before Thanksgiving, which might be a good one. Saturday the 20th. I Mancino: I can't. 1 Scott: Oh, where are you? Batzli: Are you the only one that can't make it? Because you know where all the stuff is. 1 You're on the task force. I Mancino: Yeah, I've got to talk. I mean I have to be there. Batzli: Have you got to sell it? 1 Mancino: I've got to sell it. I Batzli: Okay...4th of December. Boy, the holidays are just. 1 48 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Mancino: That might not be bad. _ Scott: Yeah, I'm fine with that. It's far enough in advance. Batzli: Okay, 4th. 1 Conrad: Sure. Scott: Don't change it now. Batzli: No, nobody changes it. 1 Scott: And this is like what? Report for duty at 7:00 a.m.? Aanenson: Not that early. Scott: What time? 1 Batzli: Are you also going to invite other members of the Task Force, because I think that'd be a good idea. Krauss: We had people call in and say they're going to do it and Kate and I just said 3 people isn't worth giving up a Saturday for. Mancino: No, no but that's what I was saying. Are you going to invite members from the Highway 5 Task Force? Krauss: Yes. 1 Farmakes: But I would like to encourage each and every member to keep an open mind on the information they're... 1 Mancino: How could they come closed minded? Farmakes: Well Y ou're the one who mentioned sell. Aanenson: ...last time we ended up at the Arboretum and have lunch because that really 1 shoots a big hole in a Saturday. Krauss: We don't get back home until 2:00 in the afternoon. 1 49 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 ' Aanenson: Yeah so I think it'd be better if we went more like 9:00 and we try to be done by noon so we can get on with the things we need to do. 1 Batzli: I mean 6:00 in the morning until 9:00 is better for me. If everybody else in my house is sleeping I can spend as much time as I want. So the earlier the better is what I'm trying to say. ' Aanenson: 8:00? 1 Scott: 8:00? That's cool. ' Farmakes: I have one quick issue I'd like to bring up, as long as this is still open discussion. Time me. We talked about the issue of city staff for the people who came up to the podium and talked that, I think it was the Fire Marshal. The letter from the Fire Marshal is clear ' here. I mean to me. It doesn't leave any room for interpretation that he was against this issue. And this individual came forward and if you listened closely to what he said, he really didn't say that he disagreed with him but he thought he did. He didn't see any reason so I don't take it as a criticism on the Fire Marshal but I would follow that up to see if there was any. I'm assuming there wasn't. Maybe this was sort of a hopeful interpretation of the situation but we have to make sure I think that if it wasn't, and if he did say counteract his ' letter here that we don't get this. Batzli: Let's talk about the Highway 5 corridor here for a minute. 1 Farmakes: I thought we were done with that. Batzli: No. I thought you were going to go through something. Aanenson: Well I was. Now if you want to spend some time. ' Batzli: Well, we can spend time in one of two ways because I think we all want to leave by 11:00. We can spend time talking about goals or we can spend time talking about, something 1 about Highway 5. What do you guys want to spend time doing? Aanenson: I think it'd be more beneficial if everybody's taken the time to read through it and kind of kick it off on the 4th but I think again what I want to focus in on is the land use options that we're looking at. And the mission statement...looking at the land use and making that consistent. 1 50 1 Planning Commission Meeting - g November 3, 1993 1 Batzli: By fluff she means really good fluff and necessary. Aanenson: ...then also the road design for the frontage road with the recommendation from the task force. And then the proposed recommended land use, which is included in the 1995 study area. And the architectural design elements. Those are the key things we need to be looking at...So what we'd be doing in the draft document, we'll be putting together your issues. We've gotten at the task force issues and sending those forward to the City Council in kind of a summary report. So what you're going to be focusing on the road design, architectural standards and the proposed land use recommendations. Krauss: But you've got to be up to speed enough to hold the public hearings. ' Aanenson: Because we'd like to have that as soon as possible. ' Farmakes: I think the only really controversial issue in land use I think was the Mill's property. There are a few others but I mean that was the major lawsuit situation. ' Krauss: Yeah, there's that one and the roadway issue, which is why Brad Johnson is here tonight. There's an issue which Opus - Steiner and the land by the Arboretum. Those are the... Aanenson: And I think Nancy pointed out too, if you look at the colored map in the document, there's some inconsistencies as far as what the Task Force recommended and if you look at the chapter that goes through the, Chapter 2... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Batzli: If the landowners want Brad to attend, that's fine. And I guess we need to check ' with our City Attorney to see if we can even limit that. If more than 4 of us show up so we have a quorum there, even though it's not a regular meeting. Brad Johnson: More n likely there won't many there. tha y th t be that a y people the e. Batzli: Yeah, and I don't want you know, if these guys want to go along and listen, I think 1 they should be able to. I don't want them to get involved in the process of our education but on the other hand, they should be entitled to hear what's being said. Brad Johnson: We're in the process of preparing a presentation and we want to know what the presentation should say at a public hearing. 1 51 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 g g , 1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS. Krauss: Shorter meetings. 1 Batzli: We've got 15 minutes. Let's talk goals. ' Krauss: To an extent it's almost a moot point. We're so innundated with stuff, we don't have chances to do much else. We've always had an ambitious work agenda and I think we got a lot accomplished and the city's benefitted from that but I'm real reluctant to us 1 commiting to tackling major new projects in the near future. I've outlined a number of things. Some of them are directly related to the Planning Commission. Some are related to others... responsibility to do that. One of the things that I want to touch on here, when we ' start to change the ongoing item list to do, is we had for a long time we had issues related to the BF district. And I wanted...we ought to expand that focus to...a land use program similar to what we just went through on Highway 5 for the south study area. We ought to wrap the ' whole thing into one project and I've asked Kate and Bob to kind of spearhead that and lay out a work program to do that. It's something I think we probably can do in -house given the opportunity and time to do it. But we're experiencing tremendous pressures, and I've got to ' believe. Well, first of all let me, I fully believe that within 12 to 18 months we're going to start working on a MUSA amendment to bring in the north 1995 study area. 1 Batzli: In what time frame? Krauss: 12 to 18 months. We've already been petitioned by one of the property owners 1 there and I believe more will follow and I think as we had shown you on a map, all the land that we brought in in '90 -'91, and all the projects you approved that are in the pipeline, there's almost nothing left already. So given my projection on that, I don't think the south 1 study area is over the rainbow as far as people anticipated. When we sat here 3 -4 years ago doing a comp plan, it wasn't that hard to see things happening along Highway 5 but it was really kind of a stretch to see...south of Lyman. It's not that easy. I fully expect that area to be developed now before 212 comes through. So that's one of my goals. We have the sign ordinance that Kate's been trying to get back to finish up for ages now and we just haven't had the chance to get it on. Farmakes: That will tie in though with the Highway 5 issue. 1 Krauss: It can, yeah. We really count on this time of year to be a dead zone. Where we 1 ., 52 1 1 Planning Commission Meetin g - November 3, 1993 1 have the ability to do things. It's not happening. We're talking about there's a lot more in the pipeline right now. 1 Farmakes: How do you think population wise what we're looking at is going to affect this? Targeted goals for population growth? If we look at all these units and especially this high density and some of these things. It doesn't seem like to me that they're lining up exactly with some of our projections. They seem to be quite a bit ahead. Is that? Krauss: Well keep in mind, those projections that are on the Comp Plan, were conservative. They were lower than plans predicted otherwise. Farmakes: We were conservative but I know that the Met was far beyond us. Krauss: Well they were ludicrous. 1 Farmakes: They were below. They were below our conservative estimates. Krauss: Well when we started writing the plan, they were below what actually lived and walked and breathed at that particular time. We thought, I don't know. I don't think we're too far off. We went through a whole lot of years where we're building about 200 units of single family homes. So that's 600 a year. This year I'm guessing we're going to be up over 300 -350. Next year it's probably going to be 400. That's gaining 1,000 a year. Those are big numbers but they still get you up around in the 20's. Low 20's by the end of the decade and probably top off in the low 30's. Batzli: At what point does a community get it's own school? Generally. I mean high school. I mean does a 30,000 population base get it's own high school? Krauss: I think you know I'm a resident of Eagan and they're just now at 50,000 people and the high school was built 2 years ago. Scott: No, that's not the issue. The issue is, when ou have majority of people from Y J Y P P Chanhassen on the School Board is when we get our own school. Farmakes: There you go. Krauss: You have to remember too that the north third of Chanhassen is in the Minnetonka 1 district. The new high school, as I understand the building plans, the new high school that they're building should have some growth potential. Whether or not it's sufficient growth potential, I don't know. 53 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Farmakes: Chanhassen historically has been unrepresented by population in the school board ' and Chaska, curiously enough has been over represented. I'm not talking about the quality of representation. ' Mancino: Is there anybody from Chanhassen on the School Board? Batzli: Currently? I don't know. Farmakes: I don't believe so currently. But I may be wrong. ' Batzli: It was just a question. Well Paul, it sounds like you don't want us to give you anything new on your plate but how about if we prioritize what is there? ' Krauss: Prioritize away. Batzli: And what I guess I would propose is, you know we, we've done this the last couple ' years and the results have been sketchy but I'd like to take one more shot at it and that is, I'd like to see us come back with, you know everybody take your ongoing issues list and kind of prioritize it. How you want to see it done because what I would really like to do is send ' our prioritized list to the City Council and basically say, this is what we see the priority as and this is how we're going to work on it, unless we hear from you. Now, as most of you ' probably know, I'm probably not going to be here next year so this is more important for you guys than it is for me. I know in the last couple of years that we've done this, we haven't gotten a real big showing by our commissioners on it's actually getting a list prioritized and ' putting some thought into it, in part because we've been so darn busy doing other things that everybody's just kind of like, we're going to be forced to look at this anyway so we really don't care. But for example my one dream on the commission was to do something on the business fringe and you've just dashed my hopes of having a last month reprieve on getting something done down there. Darn you. Krauss: Unless you want to change your mind. Batzli: To me doing something like that, tying it in maybe even with the Bluff Creek ' corridor greenway kind of thing. Eventually as we do these things, we're going to miss opportunities that we have to, not to necessarily right wrongs but to preserve features. I mean we talked today about PUD's and features. The bluffs in Chanhassen are something that will ' never be rebuilt unless we save them now. And putting in the bluff setback was one thing. Steep slope another but if in fact we're going to try and work, whether alone or in connection with the Park and Rec Commission, to preserve some of these bluffs and creek corridors, we've got to do it and we've got to take the lead and we've got to let them know what we ' 54 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 think. In the past I think we've given them some pretty good ideas and they've followed up on it. And if this is a priority for us to investigate it, whether it's trying to get federal 1 funding to buy it and preserve it or to follow up on Eden Prairie's, I think they're trying to do something north or coming down the bluffs weren't they? They were trying to do something for a while. 1 Krauss: Yeah, they were trying to take down all the trees... Batzli: Well they weren't trying to do that originally. The were tr in to put in some sort Y �'Y g They trying P of preservation zone. Krauss: You know on the Bluff Creek issue...tree ordinance but we've of something g g interesting coming up. Another reason for you to stay on the Planning Commission Brian. Batzli: We're going to build a golf course? Krauss: No. The DNR has started kind of an experimental program to work with total 1 watershed issues. It sounds kind of glib but they've got one program now going on over at the Phalen, Ramsey watershed on the east side of town. Basically what they want to do is to convene working groups of concerned residents and representatives of all the agencies that are involved in preserving the environment of local watersheds and boy there's a zillion of them. And we thought that, and they contacted us because of what we're doing on water issues. And we suggested Bluff Creek might be the ideal one, because we've already done some planning on it. We have some ideas of what we want to achieve for it. We've got hopefully an environmental condition that can serve as a liason and what this does is, we anticipate meeting a couple three times and kind of laying out a work program and then going before the LCMR, which is Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources I think. And they get money through the lottery and some other sources and can give it out to environmentally significant projects. Since this is a project that would be recommended by the DNR, and we're pretty well...we have a fair chance of getting funded. What we're trying to do is you get the money and you hire a coordinator who offices out of the DNR working through our staff to push this project for total watershed management planning. It includes tree cover with recreational issues. It includes MnDot building roads over them. The whole 9 yards. We very much want to keep the road connection...and I asked them okay. So we do all this under the grant. What about money for implementation and there's no guarantees that you get money for implementation. However, since you've got all these agencies on board buying into the planning process, it's pretty likely you're going to be able to tap into some outside 1 money for implementation, which in this case means land acquisition and reforestation. Construction of water quality improvement basins. You name it. I think the sky's the limit. 1 So the kick off meeting for that is going to be on Tuesday, November 16th in the morning 55 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 here. We've got notices coming out to all of you. We would like you to stay involved with I that. I expect to be, we need to get together a submittal to the LCMR by the end of January to make their funding cycle. But maybe that will get it off of dead center. I'm running out of ideas to do much else with it. 1 Batzli: Okay. It sounds like a good idea. After getting money for our pedestrian bridge, maybe we're on a roll. I Krauss: It never hurts to ask. I Batzli: What I've asked everybody to do is to take a look at their ongoing issues sheet and come back with a recommendation with how they would prioritize it. Some things obviously have to be done right away but we'll try and get a consensus and we'll send it up to City 1 Council saying, this is what we see the priorities as and this is what we're going to work on when we get a spare minute. And if there are things on there that you feel should be on there, please bring those as well. You said we had a busy agenda next time. What are we 1 doing? Krauss: Well maybe it's not so busy as I thought but we have the school site coming on and I it's got to go through the process quickly. I Batzli: But that will be a fun one. Krauss: Oh, by the way. Byerly's did submit. They're going to be on December lst. 1 Batzli: For where? 1 Krauss: Right across the street from City Hall. On the Charlie James property. Batzli: Byerly's? 1 Scott: Well that's ridiculous. 1 Farmakes: Here's the competition. Byerly's. I'm never leaving Chanhassen. Krauss: ...a retail center attached to it. I Batzli: Out of curiousity, how big is our current grocery store? 1 Krauss: 30,000. 1 56 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 g g , Batzli: And how big is the Byerly's? Krauss: Twice the size. Now, I think it will have a liquor store. It will have a restaurant. Batzli: Are they asking for, I mean is HRA doing this with TIF and stuff? 1 Krauss: I didn't ask. I assume they're going for the standard program which is to take a 3 year deal. I haven't seen elevataions of the building yet. We've talked to Byerly's staff. The Vice President. What I conveyed to them is Byerly's is always a lovely place to go into but your outside are nothing. A brick box and they came back with, well you know the Edina store is 20 years old and it doesn't look it. But it will be a brick building. They are trying to do something architecturally different than what they've done in the past. Apparently Byerly's is, I wasn't aware of this but it was bought out by an investment group. Don Byerly's still involved but it's basically a... Farmakes: Their presentation as a retailer I think is excellent and it gives Chanhassen something, particularly our downtown area, something that it doesn't have currently. Krauss: Well it sounds trite but I mean I've told people that a Minnesota community isn't a town until you have a Target and it's not a class act until you've got a Byerly's. Batzli: What's going in across from Cub in Minnetonka? 1 Krauss: Rainbow. Batzli: Good gravy. Farmakes: Competition. 1 Mancino: Is there also going to be a senior center in the area or a senior? Krauss: We're working on senior housing. In fact Charlie is trying to sell us the corner. g g �'Y g Out beyond Byerly's to the Powers, which may be a possibility. I think we're going to see 1 something on that in '94. Farmakes: Can I ask a question of Byerly's, is this the target market when they were going 1 to go in over here by Burger King? Krauss: Yes. 57 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Farmakes: And they're moving this far out? Wow. That's a major. 1 Krauss: Yeah...why. Farmakes: That's a major marketing move to come this far out. Krauss: But the next nearest Byerly's is in Minnetonka up on Highway 12. 1 Farmakes: Right. St. Louis Park and then Edina. ' Krauss: A Byerly's here will catch south Minnetonka, Shorewood, Excelsior, all the little towns. It will catch eastern, I'm sorry, western Eden Prairie. We're an up and coming market. Farmakes: But this is definitely a draw to the northwest in Minnetonka to here, which we haven't had before. Batzli: And it seems to me that our, when we looked at the traffic patterns that the Target would generate, we were looking at a little bit different draw because of the location of the other Targets and I think this, and so this pulls more from the north I think. Krauss: Once you've got that kind of traffic, I mean people are... Batzli: Well that's exciting. That will be fun to look at. Other than the resolution that Ladd is wearing the most stylish cap we've seen in ages, is there a motion to close? Scott moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director ' Prepared by Nann Opheim P Y P 1 1 1 58 1 I CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 26, 1993 1 Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Berg, Jim Manders, Ron Roeser, Larry Schroers, Jane Meger 1 and Jan Lash MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Andrews ' STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berg moved, Meger seconded to approve the Minutes of g � g PP the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated August 10, 1993 as presented. All 1 voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. FINAL REVIEW OF NEW CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CITY INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PROGRAM, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. 1 Dave Leschak: Thank you Todd. Good evening. My name is Dave Leschak. As Todd has mentioned, I'm an architect with Hammel, Green, Abrahamson and I'm here tonight to you the final schematic plan for the site as well as the community portion of the building. From this point we will be taking this plan and preparing it for a submission to the Planning Commission, which they have scheduled for November 17th. Our submission to them will be j on or about November 1st. Highway 5 to the north. Galpin Blvd to the west. A new collector road to the south. Originally the site was approximately 42 acres, including all of the right -of -ways. Once the right -of -ways are removed from the parcel of land, including an 80 foot easement for right -of -way for the new collector road and as this new collector bends up to the north around Bluff Creek and rises up to the north at the west end where it ties into Galpin, we end up with approximately 34 acres of usable or buildable land. Initially, some time ago the building had been proposed over here on the east side of the site. At one time we indicated there was a possibility to get approximately 6 fields on the site. As we began looking through it...subsurface conditions, the soil borings, we found that this east end of the 1 site had some poorer soils on it which really was not feasible for us to build on without going through some significant foundation designs to accommodate the bearing pressures of a building of this scale so the building had been shifted from the east side to the west side of 1 the site and as we began to take a look and to see how we're going to grade this site without 1 1 1 .1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 torturing it, we realize that the number of fields were going to have to be reduced as well. g � g g ' What we have is approximately 110,000 or 112,000 square foot building here. Staff parking, which would be for the school district during their use or during the day of approximately 100 cars off of Galpin. Allowing this for access off of Galpin as well as access off of the new collector road. We felt that that was a much better situation for the school district to have that sort of access rather than having the building up here in the east which would have then given us access really only off of that collector road. To the east of the building we 1 have a community parking lot of approximately 100 parking stalls. That would serve the community portion of the building as well as the fields to the north and east of the new facility. The bus drop off then to the south, which the students then would exit from and enter into the school. So we have as far as zones, we've tried to create a true school entry here on the west side. A community entrance here on the east and a student entrance to the south. As you all know, security has been quite an issue here between the school district as well as the community and we have identified what entrance people are to go to so we split up those entrances and we would then use articulation in the facade of the building to help promote those different entrances and what portion of the building it is that they serve. In ' this area we have the 4 tennis courts, 2 hockey rinks. This is considered to be our lighted portion of this park site. We've indicated we have significant plantings to sort of buffer that from the neighborhood here to the south, Timberwood Estates, so they're not getting this light drifting off of this site. We've added a smaller community parking lot of 30 to be accessible to the tennis courts or this community baseball- softball - soccer area here. In this area on the northwest portion of the site we end up with the ISD #112 fields. They have a softball and soccer field programmed with their building, which of course could be used by the community after hours. We have a community baseball field in this location. A soccer field. A baseball, softball and soccer field. The soccer field being overlayed with the infield of that 1 baseball, softball field and that is as a result of us trying to maintain the grades. If you're familiar with this site, the site begins to step as we get down here to Bluff Creek. With 4 softball and community soccer fields in this area here. The building as we have it proposed 1 right now would sit at a, or have a finished floor elevation of approximately 958. The fields in this area here would be approximately 3 or 4 feet higher than that. And then the fields begin to step or terrace down as we go to Bluff Creek. We felt that that was a far more sympathetic solution having the building here, along this to terrace this down rather than having the building here and have everything terraced down to the building. It puts the building on a more oh prominent level as you're coming on the new collector road, you're significantly lower than the building itself which would sit up high and we feel that that's of an advantage. We were able then to preserve a portion of our wetlands in this area here by ' reducing a number of the soccer fields. We still remain with 2, are those full sized at this point. Are those the big soccer fields? And the other 2 I believe are 10 and under. 1 Hoffman: Correct. I 1 11. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1• 1 Dave Leschak: The planting scheme that we would like to establish is historically the Chanhassen area has always had a lot of apple orchards and I believe even the Highway 5 commission has kicked around this idea that they would like to reintroduce apple orchards along that Highway 5 corridor, and what we would like to do is more or less follow that recommendation by a planting of orchard type trees along Highway 5 to help us buffer with the traffic noise and then using evergreens as like wind rows to bring this back to maybe what it used to be historically and help us to find these exterior spaces. We would also like to use that idea as an educational aspect for the school where that you would have the wind rows and the woodland type areas that might be created up on some of the higher elevations with for instance your hardwood type trees and then get down into some of the wetlands and along Bluff Creek and introduce some soft woods which would be characteristic of those types of land forms. And that's again something that we would like to, or that the school has wanted us to develop in conjunction with this park site. Is actually make the site as though it were a classroom so that they could go outdoors for science. Visit the different areas on the site and use that as a lab project for instance so as I mentioned, we're thinking that at this point apple orchard along the Highway 5 corridor. Your sort of wind rows that we would create then, running in a north/south direction. Down along the wetland areas we would have soft woods and up on some of the higher elevations on the site, the hard woods and out in front of the school maybe introduce a prairie type of ecosystem with actual prairie grasses for the school. In this area we are indicating that our storm water retention for this site would be 1 handled in an outlot on the south side of the new collector road. We've indicated at this point that in the future there could be a park shelter. We're anticipating that the services, sanitary and water would access the site on the east side of our building allowing for, in the 1 future an easy tie in if the community wished at that time to add those types of services in this area. We're anticipating that the electrical service for the building would come in from the north. Again in reasonable proximity to the out building that the park could construct at a 1 future date. We have totlots located then on either side so that as parents drive in, park. They're able to watch their participants in their sporting events and maybe the younger children would have a totlot to go to but still be within a reasonable distance of where mom and dad were for instance. And we would at least have some visual control over the younger children. And that, we've indicated the trail system, which would tie into a pedestrian underpass at Highway 5 and evetually continue with going beyond the site. We need to work with Todd and his people on that yet. This is again just a schematic plan but at this point we are actually beginning to set the grades, terrace the fields which is somewhat of a more trademark here in Chanhassen with your parks and playing fields where they seemed to be terraced. We've indicated that there could very easily be incorporated into the plans some terraced seating areas. This area here would be, in the winter time possibly an open skating rink or we see it as the front yard for the community portion of the building. And that really is a brief overview of the entire site. If you have any questions concerning this site, I can certainly answer those. Bob Rothman with our office will then take you into the actual 1 3 1 1 1 -� Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 building and show you how the different entrances and the community portion of the building 1 relates. Manders: I have a question on the lower left corner there. The indication of the usage there. 1 Is there. • Dave Leschak: Well, the tennis courts are something that the community really wants to ' have in a park such as this and we have indicated that there is an option to have tennis courts over here possibly. I mean back when this project originally began, everyone assumed that the collector was just going to go straight through here and that all this land would be a part of our site. That ended up not being the case. As we began to look at the site and realized that we've got all of this terracing going on and we needed to sort of expand and try to find areas to lay some of these fields, we have suggested that this outlot could possibly suffice as 1 a tennis area. Manders: Are there any other thoughts in terms of usage for that? Dave Leschak: At this time, no. 1 Hoffman: It's not flat. Dave Leschak: No, it's not flat. If we would do tennis courts on there, they would also 1 probably end up being terraced. Manders: Sliding hill. Dave Leschak: It is, as a result of us, where our building is and how we tie into the collector 1 road, Galpin does come down a little bit and that does help us. It does sort of knock the top off of that hill. This is the high point of that whole site right now. Is actually on top of, in this southwest corner of that site. 1 Manders: So I mean is that still considered part of this site? That area. It's just whether we use it or not. 1 Dave Leschak: You know I don't know whether the city and the school district have actually come to terms yet as far as ownership of the property yet. The road actually bends up this way. There are three property owners over here. And in order to miss those property owners, this new collector road actually moved up to the north so that it could go past those folks without having to condemn those properties. And like I said, I really can't be certain just how this site is going to be split up yet with the school district wanting 20 acres, I really 4 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 ,- 1 don't know yet. Whether the school district would end up owning this portion of property or whether the school district would end up owning this piece of property, that's still up in the air. Hoffman: Currently the basis for those discussions are, whenever you develop a site you can't use it all. There are going to be outlots, retention ponds, portions of the property you cannot utilize. The outlot may go to the city. It may go to the school district. The retention pond that's there is most likely, or most aptly related to the school with all the hard surface that it did bring along with it so more...site, we do not know but it has never been a real big concern of the city's. The community's not going to know where the property line is out there. It's all going to act as one property. 1 Lash: But would that corner be suitable for a sliding hill? That would be a good idea. Hoffman: It slopes right down towards the street. We'd have a tough time with that. Dave Leschak: It actually slopes down this way towards the school. You may, you know at this point we're still putting some grades to this collector road and just how all of that works yet, hasn't been quite determined. There's been some talk about some sort of a retaining wall along the new collector road to maintain this existing mass of trees that exist there now. But those final plans haven't been developed yet. Manders: My overall comment is, I like the plan. • 1 Roeser: I do too. Dave Leschak: It's been a tough site to deal with, to be honest with you. You know thinking that we have 42 acres or 40 acres to begin with and trying to accomplish everything it is that the task force has wanted. One of their concerns was accessibility to the playing fields and what we have done then is added a drop off area here which would allow a parent or someone to drop off a participant at this point. Allow them to get up into this playing area and then to park their car. You know we've added another parking lot, smaller parking lot in this area which would allow for a little additional accessibility to this portion of the site as well as the tennis courts. But as far as bringing this parking lot in further, or creating, moving that parking lot someplace, really ended up just torturing this site as far as grades and trying to get some sort of terracing and allowing us to create the sort of fields that they had desired. 1 Berg: Is there any fencing planned for along the part of the park that goes by Highway 5? 1 5 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Dave Leschak: That has been talked about and I believe there will be fencing along Highway 5. Hoffman: Dave, you touched on the major changes. I believe Chairman Schroers was at the last Task Force meeting. What the major changes were coming out of that meeting and then a few minor subequent changes which came out of staff comments. ' Dave Leschak: Yeah, like I said, we have you know added the additional parking. You can see that we've really lost one more field Larry. We used to have 5. We've gone to 4 but what we've done is we've kept 2 of the larger fields, soccer fields. It just so happens that at this point, this one we're showing a little bit...If in fact once we get into this plan a little bit further and we realize that through our grading we may be able to take this field off of that infield, that would be something that we would look to do. I think just discussing the plan 1 with our civil people today, they felt that it seemed as though maybe our fields could go just a little bit further north but they're at the point where you know they're doing that rough grading now and telling us what we can do. What we can't do and we're working to find the solutions and we're always keeping in mind those issues that...that they were really concerned with. We tried to create a little providence here with this building. I mean you've got this major axis at this point going north and south. There's another axis coming here on an east and west direction with a totlot, playground in this area. This playground being ISD 112 and it's relationship is generated as a result of the cafeteria being in this location. And then 1 another node, if you will, that would indicate or have associated with it another totlot in the larger community playground and some other additional landscaping. So we tried to organized the site with fields across the north. A couple of real definite gathering places in ' this site and some real axis that go through it to give it a little bit more organization and then using the shelter belt concept to help define those open spaces. Schroers: Are the ballfields still coming in at 200 foot? Dave Leschak: Yes. Schroers: So basically we can look at this from park and rec point of view as a youth facility. This is not going to accommodate adult ball playing at all. The fields will be too ' small. Dave Leschak: Yeah. And I know that from the school's standpoint, that was real attractive for them. Here you have an elementary school and the park facilities itself was geared towards the youth and maybe not the adults. They liked that idea. They felt it was a good match. 1 6 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 �. 1 Lash: Do these sizes accommodate all the youth sports? Schroers: Up to 14 years old I think. 1 Bob Rothman: This is something to keep in mind also, at least on these larger fields, is that these plans are strictly just chalk in the grass, with the exception of the infields. You've got a large expanse of grass. If you ran smaller fields going the other direction, you'd get 3 to 4 fields. Mid sized fields in there. Schroers: For soccer? Bob Rothman: For soccer, yeah. Dave Leschak: For soccer or as we talked, even in some cases the baseball where the young kids still don't hit it out of the infield. You could actually, and this is a significant area here. I mean it's, as Bob was mentioned, it really is. The fields as you see them are just chalk lines and it doesn't plan for the outfield fence. There certainly has been the direction from the Task Force that they want the backstops, the dugouts, the whole works so, and also again, the skinned infields. So that direction has come from the task force and that's what we're looking to provide at this point. The ice rinks would probably have a hard surface on them 1 so that during the summer months either they'll be for rollerblading. Could be maybe basketball, you know depending upon how that's all set up. That again is something that we would work with Todd on. In fact we've asked that they actually research what type of 1 surface it is that they'd like to see there. And again, the ice rinks and tennis courts, they're lit. A significant buffer to control that. That's where we're at today. Schroers: I like the lan. I like the changes that you made to accommodate some of the task P g force concern about accessibility. I think the drop off point is going to help and the other parking lot will help for the one field but what the whole sports program is about is a little exercise and recreation and I guess it shouldn't kill you walking from the parking lot to the ballfield. 1 Lash: It shouldn't but we just, at the last meeting discussed over at Chaparral people cutting through neighbors yards because they didn't want to have to walk from the parking lot over the field...but they don't like to do it. Bob Rothman: We did look at trying to take the parking a little bit further north and with the site grading as it is, we just...would torture the site to try and bring the parking in deeper. Hoffman: The middle parking lot though did come up. 1 7 1 .1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 Dave Leschak: Yeah. Oh yeah. It did move up. That's right. We did move it up. We also did want to preserve this area as sort of a front yard for the community portion of the building. Those...an area maybe where some sort of future expansion could take place so you might be able to expand into that area without having to maybe remove something that you've put in years previous. So there is some legitimacy to leaving this open and stopping this parking lot where we've shown it. ' Schroers: There's really very little unused space but yet it's organized and it looks the way you have it laid out there that it will have a smooth flow and it will be a good working plan. I think I like the way it looks. 1 Lash: I like it too. I do have a couple of questions. I guess you just touched on a couple of them. One was basketball. I noticed was something that wasn't on there and I thought the same thing. Maybe it could be tied in with the rollerblading. And I liked the idea of the possibility of having open skating there. That's one thing we're really missing. ' Dave Leschak: Yeah, and that again would have a nice relationship back to making your shelter, future shelter. Lash: Well and being closer to the hockey rinks too if we have to have a warming house. It could be nicely positioned between the two. And then you pointed out the two playgrounds right? Dave Leschak: Yes. We have, we've indicated as a part of the community task force, they Y Y indicated the need to have a totlot. We always planned for a playground with the school but 1 we've added another totlot at that end. Added a totlot and then sort of a community playground maybe for older kids so you have some separation between the real young kids and some of the older kids. Lash: And is the school district, do you know if they're planning on providing the equipment for the school? Dave Leschak: They will, yes. That would be part of their portion of the project. That they would equip their playground. Lash: Okay. And then another question I had. And this isn't even park related but it's just my own personal curiousity. The way that the family pods for the classrooms are laid out, I noticed that there's five. It looks like there's five. Dave Leschak: Yes. 1 8 1. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Lash: So is that grades 1 thru 5? Dave Leschak: It could be grades 1 thru 5. However, there is the potential for one of those classrooms to be a kindergarten classroom. Lash: One classroom or one pod? Dave Leschak: One per pod. 1 Bob Rothman: There's actually, in each one of those pods we have one grade so in each pod there'd be one, grade one, two, three, four and five. 1 Lash: Oh, so it's a family of mixed grades? Bob Rothman: Exactly. So each pod is not an individual grade. Lash: And one of the rooms does have the potential to be kindergarten? 1 Bob Rothman: Correct. Lash: Square footage wise? Okay. And then, okay. Another thing was you said the electricity is coming in off TH 5. I think that we as a commission and staff want to think about the idea of, if it's cheaper to go ahead and hook up electric to a couple of ballfields right away, because if it's youth we may have to have some pitching machines out there. So if it's cheaper to do that ahead of time, we should look at that rather than having to go back and do that. And then the apple tree idea, I think that's a really nice idea but do you know if it's supposed to be mowed underneath there? Dave Leschak: ...at this point at the concept, we're going to have to take a much closer look 1 at it to see exactly or how do we maintain it. Are there other problems that may be associated with the fact that we've got apples out there. Yeah, they can become projectiles very easily...you know so it's a great idea but we do need to look at it. Berg: It needs further study is what you're saying. 1 Lash: Yeah, I'm pretty realistic about that stuff and then I think, okay if there's apples. Are we going to spray the apples. Eat the apples. 1 Roeser: Or whether they're going to Haralsons or whether they're going to be, I think we're a long ways from that point. 1 9 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Schroers: I think that the current landscaping practices would probably have something put in like an ornamental minature crab which is something not much more than a berry. That besides all the other things that you mentioned, don't attract an exorbinate number of bees as well. So I think the landscaping will probably handle that. Lash: I wonder sometimes though about landscaping people. Dave Leschak: So do we. There are far more trees shown on this site than you'll probably end up getting too... Manders: One other question. That corridor. Kind of between the school and the ballfields there from, yeah. What's that envisioned to be? Is that like have a walkway or a path or what? Dave Leschak: There is a pathway, yeah. It would be asphalt or you know. 1 Bob Rothman: Kind of a boulevard actually. Kind of help tie the site together. Similar to the interior side of the building as we get into the next plan. 1 Berg: It wouldn't have to be asphalt would it? 1 Bob Rothman: No, it could be pavers. Dave Leschak: It could be, yeah. At this point you know. 1 Berg: I'm thinking of the paths down, for example at the sculpture garden. Something like that. That's a lot more amenable to a park than asphalt. 1 Schroers: One thing that you mentioned has me curious. As part of the collector road and the turn in that collector road to avoid the 3 private properties from condemnation, aren't those 3 properties across on the other side of Gaipin Boulevard? Dave Leschak: They are but what happens is that this collector road will eventually extend to the west. So you know, I'm sure the city's thinking there is, if you did create an intersection, you'd want to have, you know you're going to create the intersection. You're not going to have a road tie in someplace else along Galpin. Your turn Bob. 1 Bob Rothman: This is the building plan. As Dave mentioned, the community entrance is on the east side of the site. The major school entrance is on the west side with the cluster 1 entrances to the south. Basically your component is this orange portion to the northeast. The 1 10 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 building, as I mentioned, is organized along the...with more public functions being to the north and getting a little more private for just students as you head to the south. As you know these are the five school clusters that the...administration area. The parks and music area, ECFE, building service, cafeteria, kitchen and then the gymnasium. And we've got four meeting rooms which are divisible into, or actually one meeting room which is divisible into four portions. A fitness room and aerobics room. Locker rooms. Restrooms. Two storage areas. An office area and an entry vestibule lobby area. The gymnasium during the day would be divided down the middle with the school using the southern portion and the 1 community having access to the northern portion. So the school...this removable wall, or actually movable wall could be pulled back into position allowing the use of four 3/4 courts which would run north/south for community use. We've located those obviously near the 1 locker rooms. Across from the aerobics and fitness room. Again as a proximity to the locker rooms. The meeting rooms would contain, each of them would have a small, would have some case work including, we've talked about maybe the north and the south room having a 1 small kitchenette. Originally we had hoped to use, have the meeting rooms in closer proximity so they could use the full school kitchen. Because of some of these issues that were raised in trying to keep the school separate from the community portion, we withdrew on that idea a little bit and have looked at the idea of including small kitchenettes, not unlike what you have out in the hallway out here for the refrigerator and microwave and that sort of thing. And then in the evening for any larger type functions, the kitchen could be opened for community use. I think it's envisioned that in the evening that if there's some either multiple events or one large event, that the school could possibly drop a gate at this point and this parking lot over to the west could then also be used for any sort of function so you can park over there and just traverse through the building and get use of their function. During the day things are being worked out as far as security issues with the joint power agreements. What the school would like is a pair of doors here that would be locked from this direction but containing a security camera so that they could monitor who gets access to the school. Also we are going to be developing a courtyard which would be off the main entry to each of the school and the community and this would be kind of a little more serene. Flower gardens and that sort of thing. Kind of an eating or sitting area. And with that, if there's any questions. 1 Lash: Do you typically use a 3/4 size court? For basketball. Bob Rothman: More half court I think. I think this would be more for, probably your adult leagues. Lash: Okay. And then one other question. I think I read in the paper or somewhere that the City Council had asked if there was some way of still incorporating a track into this plan? 11 1 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Bob Rothman: Yeah, we looked at that and we did a proposal along with a schematic price estimate and we forwarded that onto Todd and I think it was felt that the budget constraints were not able to meet that at this time. 1 Lash: Okay, thanks. Berg: This request comes from a coach. Will you please make sure that in the gymnasiums ' you have plenty of baskets. Not just on each end. You can increase your play ability or whatever, your usage so much more if you've got baskets along the sides as well as on the ends. Bob Rothman: I think what we're thinking is, you obviously have 2 on the ends. You'd have 2 here and 2 here and those would be for the 3/4 courts. I guess maybe the possibility 1 is also there for maybe to having them drop in the center to create a couple half courts too. But we'll have to see how the dollars work out on that. 1 Berg: You can't err by having too many baskets. Bob Rothman: Yeah, we'd pull them right up and they're out of everyone's way. Manders: Would ou just talk about the school part of it. Just out of curiousity. What's all y just p ty tsa ' intended. Bob Rothman: Sure. These are called the family clusters and they contain 5 classrooms. 1 They're housed to contain 125 students apiece for a total capacity of 625. Each student, as we've shown, we've got the bus drop off to the south and they would pass through kind of their little house or science or outdoor classroom area and enter into their cluster. Again, we've talked about you know moving the building we had a little bit to the east and because of various reasons, the soils, among the other reasons were with the southern exposure is just perfect for the school kids to have these outdoor classrooms and get maximum use in this climate of the outdoor space. So the students would enter, the clusters are organized along an interior corridor that would then, it's kind of glassy on both ends so wherever you're at in this corridor you would kind of have a view of the outside and you'd be able to orient yourself. A lot of times in schools of this size, if there's kind of an internal corridor, it's real easy to get lost so we tried to stay away from that a little bit so you're easily oriented. Cafeteria is to the north with the playground. We found that there's a strong relationship 1 between playground, cafeteria. Obviously when they're done eating they go out and play so that kind of sets up the playground to the north here. The ECFE, which is the Early Childhood Education is located close to the entry but it's a 7 day program so students or 1 parents would be entering that at various times of the day, various days of the week. Again, 1 12 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 i 1 the administration is in this portion along the main corridor to give them access or a little bit of control ability of who comes and goes and seeing what's happening in the school. 1 Dave Leschak: We really see that major east/west line as being really open after hours all the time. I mean the school has gone so far as to suggest there may be at any one time maybe one of the family clusters would be open to the community as well for meetings or the library may be open. Bob Rothman: We've got some conference rooms that they've requested have doors off this I corridor so they were also accessible to the community as well as the...or the media center or the library. 1 Lash: So are these little teeny dotted lines by the hallway to each one of the little clusters, is that some kind of a security gate system? So each area can be separate. 1 Bob Rothman: That's more of an architectural, it's meant that these are somewhat markers for each one of the entries to the clusters. 1 Lash: So there's not like individual ways to close off each? Bob Rothman: We're developing that as we go along and I think there probably would I P g g g P Y ou be some sort of gate or doors for one we need for fire rated partitions and also for security. We could double up and use it all for security and enable to make this building as flexible as we can and open and close clusters. In fact the possibility also exists to use these, for instance if this cluster were to be open for some sort of night time class or something, that we'd close it or just use this entrance and people could come right in this way. So we're trying to make this building as flexible as we can. Roeser: ...area to the right and the center there. The library area? 1 Bob Rothman: Yeah. Again, overlooking this courtyard and it would have a door so students could go out and read. Lash: Is there a stage area somewhere? 1 Bob Rothman: This area here is a, it would contain a portable stage. What we found, specifically with the new ADA regulations, if you have a permanent raised stage, then you 1 have to require ramping to that. So that gets very space consuming so what we do is have a portable stage and portable ramp to go with that. I 13 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Lash: Okay. And then is this supposed to be air conditioned? Bob Rothman: Yes. ' Schroers: Any other questions? Thank you very much for the presentation. It looks like things are coming along very well and I hope that they continue. I didn't see here where staff is looking for any kind of a recommendation or approval or anything like that. Basically ' we're just looking for input on this. Hoffman: You will need to make a formal recommendation to the City Council. Schroers: At this time? Hoffman: Correct. Lash: That what? ' Hoffman: That you like the plan that you see and you recommend that it be constructed. The city portion. ' Schroers: Alright. Is there any further commission discussion on this item? And if not, then I would ask for a motion to recommend to the City Council to approve this concept of the ' design for the public area of the school. And site as well. Roeser: Alright, I'll make the motion. Schroers: Okay. We have a motion to accept this, or recommend y o ac p s, ecomme d to the City Council to ' accept this concept for approval. Is there a second? Manders: I'll second. Roeser moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the concept plan as proposed for interior and exterior public areas of the new Chanhassen Elementary School. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, the only other person we have in the audience tonight is Dan Herbst. Mr. Herbst is a developer as interested party in the property to the west of the school site and then we have an update, land development status on the O'Shaughnessy property, 14 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 1 Gaipin Boulevard, 6(a)(2) so I would recommend that you move to that item at this time. LAND DEVELOPMENT STATUS REPORT, O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY, GALPIN BOULEVARD. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. 1 Dan Herbst: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Dan Herbst. The property is owned by Betty O'Shaughnessy. I'm the contract purchaser. After meeting with staff and your guided plan which appears the site is very, a good site for a town house type of project versus a single family or commercial type development so I am not in the housing business anymore. We've done that for about 30 years and I'm basically doing I land development now so I came to Centex which I feel is one of the big premiere townhouse builders in the city right now. Trying to encourage them to develop this site. It's a very difficult one, as you know looking at the land arithmetic there. It's about 90 acres of land that we're developing down to about 29 buildable acres with Highway 5 right -of -way. Gaipin right -of -way. Here's the collector street. An excessive amount of wetlands. We did our own wetland analysis which was actually greater than what the city has on their behalf so the I park issue has been a big question mark for us. We, at one point in time were going to try to develop the entire property. Sell off the southwest corner to the Trotters Ridge, is that the name of it? Then further discussions with Todd, the site had some appeal to you people for I more of a passive and observation type area. So we've taken that off of the plans and then we really didn't know exactly what the soils were like out in that middle nodule out there. I thought Dan Blake was going to be here tonight with some of our graphics...road crosses the I wetland. There's a 8 or 9 acres of property there. Then Todd had some interest in looking at that for some park space. Moving that off of the Opus piece onto this one and we sent...up there. We did not gain access from the western property, which is the Opus and the Steiner piece so we couldn't get out there with our heavy duty rig. We've got some real satisfactory borings up on the hill where we want to put the townhouses and out in that island we did I hand borings. They weren't as bad as we thought they were but they're at a point where we need to get out and do some good borings. As Todd mentioned in your report, I think other cities have used that type of land for park. It's hilly. It's got some trees on it. It's kind of an isolated piece. It's got a lot of very pretty property so at this point that's kind of a question mark. It's if we could get some direction from you whether we should proceed with attempting to look at developing that out there or whether it could be an open space for a park type of piece. From a development point of view, I think the Planning staff would probably see it as you know commercial kind of to the west. Kind of some of your parkland to the west of that with a node of housing and then wetland again and then back to housing again so it does create a little bit of an island effect. So I think it definitely has some, either private or public park use out there but most of the soils would, we're encouraged with the hand borings. If we do the field test and get a great big readout there, I think there's some 1 15 I 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 potential for putting housing out on that site. But again, it's a difficult property to say the ' least to make everything work. So the more direction we can get from you. Whether you are going to drop the utilization of that island totally as any use for park, or whether there's some consideration for it and would help us out. So we're basically looking for direction at this ' point. Schroers: Okay, thank you very much. Basically we're looking at an overview of the entire area there, including the Opus site and we're trying to see how it's going to blend in to form a workable, fluid type of park system. I know that we have considered a trail system of some sort running through the area and without having this information in front of us, the ' overheads and things here to look at, it's going to be rather difficult for us to say right now that we definitely want to retain that island parcel for park. We need to see that along with the overlay for the Opus property and see how that fills in and then also we have not, to this ' point, been able to come to an agreement I believe with Opus as to what property we are actually going to be able to acquire for parks. So there are a bunch of unanswered questions and I'm not sure if Todd went to get us some information to look at right now or not. ' Dan Herbst: I apologize. We should have brought all our graphics along but I think what you're saying Mr. Chairman is the same position we're in. What's going on with Opus has been rotating and as far as you people have been rotating. We have a collector's street through this site that moved. Schroers: It doesn't really seem fair to have to be tied up by another development but. Lash: Can you...so we can get our bearings? 1 Hoffman: Sure. The Highway 5 to the north. Galin Blvd then is right along this side of g Y P g g ' the diagram of the school site. Then coming off over here up in this corner. The O'Shaughnessy property runs from Galpin to the west to this line right here. The area which is being looked at for the townhomes would be the high ground to the north of the new collector road which is coming through. This is that intersection point we talked about. The road coming from the school will intersect here and traverse the site east to west over to the Opus parcel into the road pattern over on that side. 1 Lash: Okay, and Opus starts where? ' Hoffman: Opus starts right here and goes to the west. The Trotters piece is right now in this location. They're even a little farther south. Actually quite a bit farther south. The O'Shaughnessy property goes all the way from here down to about the bottom of your screen. 1 1 16 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 I 1 Lash: So actually when you were talking about the...to put homes in there, it wouldn't be on the passive area of the park, it would be right where that shows the ballfields. 1 Hoffman: Yeah. In essence what Dan was asking is if we put buildings there instead of this active park, the buildings instead of the active park would be right in the middle of your 1 passive area. You know it's passive all the way around here. Would the Park Commission, you know would you have a problem with that or would that bother you? This diagram. does show the 3 locations of the hand probes which were done by SDS. Soil consulting. So the 1 first probe was here. The second here. The third was down here. These are the two hills that Dan referenced and they are treed with, fully treed with box elders and this hand probe here, the soils aren't bad. There's some type of low...they weren't bad but the soils out in 1 this area are not the best and getting this road through is going to be difficult. You can see how the site lays out. With this being wetland and this being wetland, something tells you there's nothing going on inbetween there and even though it's a little bit higher, it's got those I two knolls on it where the soils aren't the best. So these would be the locations for the townhomes up in the northeast corner and then along this side down in here. I Roeser: A question I have is how does this map tie into what we've got in front of us? Hoffman: Okay. What you've got in front of you, there are two alternative park locations. 1 One being located right in this corner. So it takes, this is the Opus property, this little square. Right here. So it includes that and then travels to the west and you can go like this to the I property as part of the active park site. That's where those are located. Roeser: So the road on top is really this new collector road that's coming through there then? 1 Hoffman: Yes. This road on top would be this new collector road coming down. This is the intersection on both of those plans plus that intersection...build a park in that configuration either. You still have this...low lying area down in here and you can see they've identified their ponding down here. Lash: Okay, the way that's laid out now, is that, the amount that's on the Opus property is 1 that in line with what we can require for dedication or is that over and above what we can require? 1 Hoffman: As I referenced in the Opus site, what they have identified on their initial concept plan, approximately 18 acres, is just about what you can acquire through dedication. 1 Anything additional, if you went with one of these other two concepts, we would have to compensate Opus for that additional property. 1 17 1 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Lash: But what does that? 1 Hoffman: This site, this plan right here represents the original, just about the original plan from Opus. So again we need to make that split. That's Opus, this is Pemtom, and the O'Shaughnessy property. If we leave this behind and allow the applicant to make their own mind up as to what they'd like to do with it. 1 Lash: Well if we did that we'd have nothing because there's not enough property from Opus. Hoffman: Correct, we'd have to go out and buy it. Incorporate it into a tax increment ' financing plan. As address, particularly in my staff comments tonight, the city...tax increment districts are no longer as slush as they used to be. There's a lot of competition for dollars. It is expensive property. We can go elsewhere. My comments back to the city planners is that 1 I don't see anybody coming back and criticizing the city for going out and getting the property in 10 or 15 years. I don't think that's the case. But one potential discussion, area of discussion is north of Highway 5. There will be considerable residential properties and 1 pretty high densities by the time you get done with the new frontage road and all the housing that would go in there. There's a study area. A very large study area north of here. And 1 there will be all that property south of that big wetland which is the Rogers - Dolejsi property. We've got that big wetland that splits the Song and Rogers - Dolejsi to the north to this property that will develop to the south. But locating some type of community or regional 1 recreation area south of that wetland makes a lot of sense. But then you're isolated by Highway 5. So do you need an active community park site here to meet the needs of the neighbors, the residents who can get to it and to meet the needs of the employees in the ' business center. Or with that passive trail, are they going to be happy? So we kind of overlap in the two here because they do, but whatever the direction the Commission could give both the applicants and staff...would be appreciated. 1 Lash: So if we were to pursue a plan that was like that. We've got part on Opus. Part of O'Shaughnessy and the two together would both fill the requirement of what, the maximum that we could require for dedication from both developments? Or would it still cost us money to do that? ' Hoffman: O'Shaughnessy we would have to be compensating the land purchaser. We would be buying that property which would be over and above what we typically would use... 1 Schroers: By how much? Hoffman: It's hard to say. I mean we're obviously the value of that land is in question so. 1 18 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 1 Dan Herbst: It's going up as we get less land. Lash: But acreage wise, is it an acre? Is it 10 acres? Is it, how many acres would it amount 1 to? Roeser: Isn't the question though, total acreage for the total park area. Isn't that covered by the whole development of all the properties around it? I mean we wouldn't have to buy additional. 1 Hoffman: The park requirement, which would be, which is generated by the development of the O'Shaughnessy property. We're talking 15 acres here. A lot of wetland which we do not give credit for. Some high ground down on the south that would probably be up to 18 -20 acres. That site most likely generates how many acres? Dan Herbst: Total? Hoffman: Yeah. 1 Dan Herbst: 232. Hoffman: 232 so 600 eo le. Something of that nature. Probably 6 or 8 acres so you'd P P g Y Y probably have at least double that. Double or triple. By the time we get done with the calculation. How many residents per unit. One acre per 75 residents. 1 Lash: Well, I want to look at this, the whole general locality of this and having just had that school site where Todd you've got hockey there. We could have open skating. We're going to have tennis. There's going to be several pretty nice playgrounds hopefully. Five fields... for youth and then not adults but that's a lot of active equipment right in, I think in pretty close proximity to this. And if this is going to cost us another chunk of money to get this little piece to put in a couple more adult ballfields, I don't know. We're just so short on money and so on and the needs, that especially from commercial property, if we decided to go back and just get the fees from Opus and then look on the north side of TH 5 when 111 something else comes in. Maybe we'd be better off. I don't know. This is a tough one. I agree. We'll never be criticized for taking too much property but in the end if we end up shooting ourselves in the foot and we can't develop anything because we don't ever get any money, we're going to have a lot of complaints there too. Hoffman: ...somebody else is living by the park to protect... 1 19 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Lash: But you know, like you said. The TIF money is starting to peter out and maybe one of the things that we need to look more at using that TIF money for is the underpass and ways to access the park that we know we are going to have and make sure that we get that trail connection that we need. Schroers: I guess there's a lot of different things to consider here. I'm not so sure that residents of the O'Shaughnessy development would want to have to cross a major road to get ' to facilities and I kind of like the way it ties in with the proposed parkland that we have with Opus. I wish that we knew a little bit more about what actually was going to happen there. To have the two parcels tied together and end up with a good sized, basically a park system ' down there would be a nice amenity and it would serve a total different purpose than what is proposed at the grade school. 1 Lash: Well it would be adult ballfields. Other than that I don't see that...different. If the plan shows tennis for the plan, I don't know what all is planned. 1 Schroers: Well I think it would serve the adult community and the industrial commercial community there as well so that we would be catering basically to different types of users and different age groups. Lash: What other things do we have to the south of this area? There's housing th ea. e s a couple ousing developments down there too aren't there? Hoffman: Well you run right into Chaska if you go west...and Trotters Ridge development is there and then the next closest park would be down on Hans Hagen. Lash: So what are we putting in at Trotters Ridge? Hoffman: Trotters Ridge would be acquired...that little triangle of property up there for the preservation which came in. It was really a knoll that you...from Trotters, O'Shaughnessy over to Opus and that's for preservation. Schroers: That's that nice hardwood oak. Lash: And that's just a passive? Hoffman: Yeah. We still will preserve this wooded area here. This wooded wetland if you will for passive and incorporating that trail. Part of the concept for this active parking point with the trail head so this is significant enough that people want to drive through there to 1 walk this 3/4 mile loop around that wetland. It's very serene. Very beautiful. The area is 1 20 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 1 full of wildlife. A lot of people want to go there. We still could incorporate that up in this top side somewhere with the parking lot and the trail head and if you imagine, let's say that 111 they developed this. Do the soil corrections into homes, this could be multi- family units and the trail would then pass down in front of those along the wetland and down and make the loop around the other way. But again the Park Commission has pretty much at this time dismissesd this because of the soil problems there. If you're familiar with Curry Farms, it's a very similar area and we've filled the ballfield 6 times and it still sinks. We talk about the nightmare that happen with peat soils and when they filled for the Cub store at TH 7 and TH 41, they surcharged those peat soils in there and they had a big mountain come up somewhere way out in the wetland. You push down over here, it has to come up somewhere. I'm not sure that's, I'm not trying to insinnuate that that's what would happen down here but those soils are questionable. Lash: So we potentially use up all the funding we could generate from Opus and Centex plus use up some TIF money plus use up some of our budget money to ultimately develop this someday and it could be on a chunk of land that isn't even going to accommodate a ballfield anyway. ' Hoffman: Correct. If the Park Commission wants to pursue this, from a city level I would want to hire some intensive, more comprehensive soil borings. You couldn't get in from the west, coming in here? Dan Herbst: I think both sides with the... , Roeser: Is the issue with that area there, if we didn't want to spend the money to, even if it could be brought up to a level that would be acceptable, that they would be able to put ' houses on there? Wouldn't they have to spend a lot of money to be able to do that? And is the question there whether they can even do that or whether it would be feasible? Hoffman: Sure. I think what Dan was asking is, before they went down that road, started investigating that and then have the Park Commission say, ah. Hold it. If you're really serious about this, we don't want you to do it. So before they invest that time, and I think if he wants to receive and opinion of the Park Commission... We don't care if you can do $50,000.00 worth of soil corrections to get the buildings in. Maybe that's in your margin. It probably doesn't fit in the park's margin to build a park. Lash: And there's going to be 232? 1 Dan Herbst: That's correct. If we were to build out on this, otherwise it would be around 180. Up on the higher end. ' 21 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Lash: Well the more I'm hearing about this the more I'm leaning towards and ultimately what we'll maybe do is get a little chunk of property so we could put in maybe just some kind of a open field and a play structure or something so like Larry said, you don't have people with, in 232 homes there and Trotters Ridge too, all having to cross Audubon to get to any kind of a park facility. I guess I'd be interested in knowing what the service area of the elementary school. How far that would dip into this and the Trotters Ridge area just to make sure that we're, we wouldn't be shorting them if we just passed them altogether. But I guess 1 maybe I would envision something there. I don't know how big of a park area but. Schroers: I don't know why it would have to be the whole area there that we proposed. ' What if we just took the normal dedication. What would be the normal dedication so that we didn't have to make additional purchases and that would probably be enough land to develop some kind of a neighborhood park that would have a totlot and maybe some open field play 1 area but not, wouldn't contain adult softball fields and then also acquire the trail easement so that we can do that trail but not have to make a land investment out of our budget. 1 Lash: What kind of acreage would we be talking about? Schroers: Didn't you say like 6 or 8 acres? Lash: No, not for that. If we just wanted to have a trail head and a playground and a place J P Y�' P ' where a person could play catch or fly a kite or something like that. Hoffman: The Commission's neighborhood standard for a neighborhood park again is about 1 10 acres. We've gone under that. We've kept at 10 acres for the Minnewashta park. We've gone under that for the Stockdale purchase at about 6 acres. Lash: A neighborhood park is usually 10 acres? Schroers: 5 acres. 1 Lash: 3 acres. Hoffman: 10. Minimum of 10. Comprehensive plan. We have come down below that but it's where you begin to talk about, it's for economics of scale. Whether you want a whole ton of little tiny parks out there. To answer your question about the service area. The school ' site is just across the street. You could probably see it from a majority of these units. There will be a stop light semiphore at Galpin and Highway 5 which will allow you to cross to get to the school site. The interior collector road, I'm not certain there will be a stop light there. 1 Dan, do you know? 1 22 1 I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 I 1 Dan Herbst: I haven't heard. Lash: There will be someday. I Hoffman: Yeah, with the school access. 1 Roeser: Will that be a 4 lane road then probably? Or not? . Hoffman: Audubon? I Roeser: Galpin. 1 Hoffman: Galpin? It will be upgraded. I'm not sure if it will go to 4 lane but with the school there, so you'll probably have two stop lights there to be able to get back and forth to I the school site. Lash: How about Trotters Ridge? 1 Hoffman: Those people will have to come up the trail system. Lash: But would they be within the service area of the elementary school? Y Y Hoffman: Yes. 1 Schroers: At this point in time Centex does not have a concept plan so we could see the way that this development is laid out. III Hoffman: You should have a concept plan that was, it was presented to the Park Commission ' at a conceptual level. Tonight's information is merely an update in response to going to the ongoing design of the project... Lash: And what kind of, from Opus, which is not...but what kind of fees would that generate if we didn't take land dedication? Hoffman: As you recall on Opus, the original concept showed, indicated approximately 18 I acres of heavily wooded knolls going into low lying areas. That meets their dedication. If you say I don't want that, then it will, that 150 acres at $3,000.00 per acre, $450,000.00. 1 Lash: But the treed areas, if they take that, that 18 acres doesn't even include this park here? I 23 1 1 I 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 Hoffman: No, the 18 acres incorporates all. ates a . 1 Lash: All the different. II Hoffman: It starts in this area and then it goes down and hits the fringe areas. This big knoll here and then there's one to the south. Those are all within the park boundary and those are all heavily wooded. Old growth knolls which, as you recall when they were in they said we I preserved the most beautiful property on the site. Well, yeah they have no interest in going in there and tearing up trees. They'd like to see it preserved for the site as well. But if you don't take it into park and public ownership, you don't have it forever so. 1 Lash: So all that's shown that's developed into park there, we were going to have to pay for anyway? That was above and beyond what we could require. 1 Hoffman: Over here? 1 Lash: Right. Hoffman: Yeah, then we cross the boundary and then we're dealing with the other applicant, I the O'Shaughnessy property. Lash: No, but the park that's shown there that's developed, that's Opus. That part right 1 there. We were going to have to pay. Hoffman: This. I Lash: Yes. We were oin to have to for that anyway? g g a pay 1 Hoffman: No. No. That's what their original concept says is the about the 18 acres. I Lash: That's part of the 18? Hoffman: Yep. 1 Lash: Okay. So we could have some land, some cash? I Hoffman: If you wanted to. Lash: If we skipped this altogether and all we kept from Opus was just the treed areas, we'd 1 still preserve all the treed areas. We wouldn't be buying any property but part of, the 18 1 24 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 acres is less than what we could actually require? Hoffman: No. The 18 acres is just those treed areas that they established in their original concept plan. Just preservation. It did not account for any active park space. Then we started asking them for additional property in this area. To the west to create an active park 1 and that's when Howard Dahlgren was here saying, no. Absolutely not. We can't do that. And that kind of went on the back burner and in came Pemtom and Centex and we started looking over here and we said ah -ha. This works kind of nice until the soils came in. Then 1 we went back onto the Opus site. Did some more concepts. None of those work real well. They're always, they had some soil problems again down here. Then you run into the cost of purchasing the property. 1 Roeser: Is there any, just getting back into the history of this. I seem to recall a discussion about some type of adult park, in terms of ballfields. Access for corporate ballfields. I mean is that just some early discussion? Is there any precedent behind that that we had planned or intend somehow to get those in there? Or are we coming to a certain reality now that maybe that isn't what we should be doing there? Hoffman: That was one of the premises which the discussion was based. Roeser: Yeah. And has that changed at all? It looks to me like the conditions of what we have to work with just don't allow for that in terms of the land. Hoffman: They're not optimum, no. We certainly can make it happen as we travel down the roads trying to point out the areas which we...The thing to consider in here, area of growth in our adult athletics or adult recreational facilities is...we've Bandimere which is targeted for use...so the squeeze at Lake Ann as we continue to grow and we don't have another adult facility, community park if you will identified. Now maybe that goes north of here so as you come down the Highway 5 corridor you start at Lake Susan. You hop to the north of Highway 5 at Lake Ann and then you hop to the south of Highway 5 at the school. Then you'd hop once more to the north up in this area, what we call the Fleet Farm area. You have a pretty nice community park system along a major corridor where people can feed into it from the north and south and the east and west along that new collector. That last one could be a community park which would facilitate and handle these adult type activities with 1 lighted ballfields and there's a lot of cars, a lot of traffic which you probably could do a lot on that frontage road. That access boulevard. That seems to work out but as we've always said, why we pass up opportunities, looking in the future, you have to make sure that that 1 future comes true. 1 25 1 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Lash: I'm looking when the new elementary site's done, it's going to take a little of the I pressure off of Lake Ann because right now we've got some of the youth ball at Lake Ann. A couple fields anyway. So once that opens and they can move to the new elementary site, we have two more fields. 1 Hoffman: It will free up a little bit but the fields normally used for that older age group, so if you...Field #1 is used for the Babe Ruth level so we know Babe Ruth...Field #2 is used for 1 official Little League. There's no official Little League at the new elementary school. Lash: Well what would it take to have official Little League there? I Hoffman: Put in a mound, backstop and...fence. 1 Lash: So would that be that big a deal? Berg: You'd be losing a soccer field or two that way. If you put a mound in. I Lash: Oh yeah. 1 Schroers: I guess that I don't feel real comfortable in giving direction this evening as far as how Centex should proceed with their development when we don't really know what it is we I want to do there yet. Basically what it comes down to is that we're kind of waiting on Opus to see what's going to happen there and that's I believe what ultimately affects what we would like to do on the O'Shaughnessy property with the Centex. I think it's difficult right I now to advise someone to go ahead and make an investment when we're in a position and we're not sure about what we want to do there. I mean that's, I feel like I'm not sure about what we're going to do there and so... 1 Roeser: My opinion is that, to build another major, big active area so close to another active area, and I understand that they're two different areas. One's adult and one's youth, is I questionable that you'd want to put two areas that close to each other. The adult piece of it is, the lands I think are pretty suspect and the only problem that I could see. A problem I could see is the funds available to develop someplace else. You're going to have to come up I with these funds if you want to put in a corporate or an adult sized facility someplace else and is that going to be any less or more than putting it in right here? 1 Schroers: And the other question is, is the space for that going to become available? Roeser: Right. 1 1 26 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 hr • That's what we o' knw could say l' just dedication oers. a w at e d n t know. We cou d s y et s bus accept the park ded canon fees and we'll just develop a trail in there and identify it as a passive use. Natural area and let it go at that and that would be nice and that would be easy. I think it would be a desirable thing to have and to leave that area down there nice without putting ballfields and stuff in it. That would be nice too and then we would have the dedication fee. Well, we wouldn't have the dedication fee but we would get the trail in but then what we are banking on is that something else out in that area, probably to the north of Highway 5, is going to become available and a large enough parcel that's going to allow us to develop another adult facility that's going to accommodate the future needs. And I guess I don't think that we know for sure whether or not that opportunity is going to present itself. Meger: Todd, where does the Stockdale property fall in relationship to all of this? 1 Hoffman: It's directly north on Galpin. Just about a half a mile. So you hit the intersection of Highway 5. Continue north about a half a mile. Up here. Continue north and then it's on the same side, the west side. Lash: We know we're never going to be sure that we're going to get the property but it was June or something when Opus came in the first time and at that time we didn't know anything about the O'Shaughnessy property coming in. We didn't know anything about any of these things coming in and we were so nervous at that time that we couldn't count on that. Well we know that almost all that land out to TH 41 is coming in for development. So I don't think we have to be too worried that it's not going to come on line for development for us to get some property on the north side of TH 5. It may cost us some money to get it to be as large as what we want. There's probably not going to be one development coming in that would be big enough that we could have that much property dedicated but if it's all coming 1 in at one time, we have a better shot at trying to coordinate the location and the dedication of more than one development, like we were trying to do here but maybe end up with a more prime piece of property that would suit our needs more than a questionable one like this. And it would maybe be a larger site that we could have 4 fields on instead of 2. You know I look at 2 as being a little bit isolated. If you want to make it a youth, or more of an adult complex than trying to get 4 fields in or something. And maybe we don't have to feel we're completely locked into Bandimere being a youth complex years down the road. Maybe we want to change Lake Ann and have that be a youth complex and have Bandimere be an adult one as long as we're starting to, you know if we have Little League already set up at Lake Ann. That's money already invested there. So maybe we need to look at this as being a little more flexible in the future and going with it as we can and if this isn't a prime piece of property for putting ballfields, and we don't really think it's a prime location, then maybe we should pass on this and focus a couple of months down the road when we know the other things are going to be coming in. 27 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Hoffman: What the Commission does need to remember is that you are the planning group for the parks in the city. If you don't want to wait for it to develop. If you want to instruct us to go out there and buy the property and find out how much it costs and bring it back... it's going to cost this much. We could finance it over 10 years or we have to do a bond issue to buy this property. Then we can go out there and be proactive. We can get right into the hop with everybody else and go out and purchase the property. Next meeting we will be picking up the comprehensive plan issue again so we can start right in this area and try to ' identify what property is available. What would be suitable for an active community park site. How much would it cost? There's no surprise that it's costing a heck of a lot more than purchases we made at Bandimere of approximately $6,000.00 an acre. Lake Ann 1 expansion, was purchased back when the market fell out. The property owners reverted back to the bank... City Manager Ashworth relayed a story where we was tentative to purchase it because it was at that high interest rate. He said, if I have to carry at this high 1 interest for 4, 5, 10 years, why should I be carrying it. But today you couldn't touch that porperty for $30,000.00 - $40,000.00 an acre and that's just been 8 or 10 years ago. So we are, our money does not go nearly as far so we have to face that fact. We have to go out there and especially in the Highway 5 corridor, identify what we want to buy and pick it up now because as we talk about acquiring it through dedication, it's going to be, you're going to get a fourth or less of it through dedication. You're going to have to come up with the 1 cash to buy the rest of it. Berg: I guess I've been leaning towards waiting and seeing what we could get out of Opus. What we could do with Opus is a better way. You make a real good point about looking at priorities of what we've already set aside. Maybe we do have to look down the line at Bandimere and changing the emphasis from youth to adult. And maybe we do have to look at the possibility of acquiring property to the north. I think that's the ideal spot to go because the concept of Highway 5 being the center corridor for all of these complexes is really 1 exciting... Hoffman: If you want to wait until we see what happens on Opus. Well they're waiting to see what you're going to do on Opus so if you want a park at Opus, tell me and I'll tell them. Then they go on. If you just want the passive area, tell me that and I can relay that to Opus but if we continue, I mean it's been 2 years. We've continued on this cat and mouse ' game and again parks is just one of the issues. In fact the acreage which would be calculated in the park dedication may decrease because of the deals which are being cut west of TH 41 with the Arboretum. And if they bend over to such a degree on that side. We lose the 1 capability to assess park dedication against that property, then we're down to 120 acres and then you can get 12 acres of property. So we do need to tackle this. Staff needs to know your position in that regard. We've brought forth 3 concepts for an active park site. Do you like that? Do you want to throw it out the window? Do you want to tell them to throw all 1 28 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 1 park dedication out the window and take the cash at $3,000.00 per acre for park dedication and use the money elsewhere? As you recall, the reason for going after those wooded knolls was always a big passive treed area which boy, that was a big...with the Park Commission and the Planning Commission about 8 -10 months ago. We can't just all get a lot of active park sites. We need to preserve some trees for the future of our community so that's where that came in and as Mr. Herbst eluded' to, they actually showed a cul -de -sac coming up in there so you're not servicing that entire area. Cutting down trees and the Park Commission said no, we don't want to see that. Go out there and acquire that land. So you already have played your card in that regard. We're going to have to acquire some of that. On the Opus site it's probably 4 or 5 or 6 acres. So you're already halfway there in your dedication. What do you want to do with the rest? Burn it up or do you want to take some cash? 1 Lash: Are they going to come back to us if we come up with a different idea, direction we want to go? Is that going to alter their plan do you think? That they'd come back with 1 something new? Hoffman: On Opus? It should. 1 Berg: I'd like to explore the possibility of money and passive. I'd like to see how realistic that is. 1 Manders: ...be leaning towards a passive facility and preserving the knolls. Hoffman: It's key to that whole passive area there. Those knolls that we're talking about, that's right where the trail is coming up on this side. The knoll to the south of this one and then it goes over into the corner of the O'Shaughnessy piece. The diagram for it but you've already said, don't...that. We want that. You've already said you want 4 or 5 or 6 acres, depending on how much you can get. You also need this property up here so, as you can see there's a break out...to the last page in the packet. The total park dedication for the Opus site as proposed originally was 32 acres. The high and dry was about 18.8 so we're at, we're maxed out at that point. If you want to start chiseling away and say we don't want this, we don't want this little piece. We want that little piece and what you're going to do with...this little sliver up here right next to this wetland. You know squeezed in here, even though it's high and dry...you know will come down to that type of a negotiation. Right now if you want to say you want to cut that in half, you're going to take some cash here, that would change both their plan and it would change our vision. Lash: I guess before I'd want to really go too far with that, I'd want to see the plan again. Their whole plan so we can see exactly which areas amount to the 18 acres and what's on those areas but I guess I would be leaning towards the other commissioners who voiced their 1 29 1 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 opinion. That with this idea, I think I'm to the point where I'm ready to scrap that concept and go, stick with the passive and I guess I would like to see staff come up with some alternatives on the north side of TH 5 that we can explore. If we're going to work on the Comprehensive Plan so we can pick what we think will be a prime site. That we know the ' soils are conducive for an active area and will accommodate what all we want and then what we have to do is earmark that so as everything comes in, we know exactly which corner of each little development we need to grab to make it all come together. 1 Hoffman: Okay. ' Schroers: If I remember correctly, as far as Opus was concerned, the last time we identified what it was that we wanted and gave it back to them and the ball is pretty much in their court. They have not come back to us with a response or a revision of their concept or a new plan or a new idea. So I had the feeling that the ball was in their court and we were kind of waiting to hear from them to see what their response was going to be. So we don't really know what is going to happen there. We don't know what they're going to come back with. It seems to make sense when we take everything into consideration. That the soils are poor and that it lends itself very well to being a natural passive area. And it's a much more doable thing than trying to make an active use facility. But actually we're reverting right 1 back to, we're actually contradicting ourselves. That's what was proposed to us pretty much in the first place and we said no. We didn't want it. This is what we want. We need an active adult facility in this part of town. We were, we came across very solid with that point and now here we are a few months down the road changing course totally and basically saying we want what they offered in the first place. 1 Roeser: Well you just say it was the new members that forced this. ' Lash: I agree. It doesn't make us look good but we didn't have any information on soil conditions. Schroers: We can say that and we also didn't know exactly was going to come in and we didn't know what was going on at the elementary school and there were a lot of unknowns at the time. There were a lot of changes. 1 Lash: Given what we knew at the time, we made the best decision that we could. Given what we know now, we now have a lot more information than we had at that time so if we want to go back and change that recommendation, personally I don't have a problem with that because nothing's been carved in stone. Opus...I don't think invested a lot of money or time into doing anything towards our recommendation. It sounds like they've just been sitting 1 around waiting anyway. So I don't, I guess I don't have a problem with it. 1 30 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Berg: I don't have a problem because I don't feel like we've been pressured to come to this g P P decision. I think we've taken our time. We've looked at what's developed with the new school site. We've looked at the soil samples, etc. We've come to the conclusion that this is not the best for the city. There isn't any pressure from any outside sources. I don't like giving in either if I feel like I'm really losing or giving in...we're making more of a...decision now than we were able to make before. Schroers: Yeah. I don't feel that we're giving in either. I'm just pointing out the fact that we're doing a 180 here and that I don't have a problem doing it provided that we have some validity and some support behind us for making a complete turn around in midstream. Berg: And I wouldn't be willing to do the 180 until we get some information from staff too 1 as to what's available north of Highway 5. Roesers: The reasons are good. The soil is bad, you know and the elementary school is 1 going in. Certainly for changing our minds, the reasons are good I think. Schroers: Actually the property, most of the property north of Highway 5 is a higher elevation and would probably not run into the problems with the wetland and the soil as much as on the south side of Highway 5. When that property becomes available and in what sizes and all that, but you know what we have to do is go back to the plan and identify an area and we're pretty much going to have to get on that course and stay on that course. If we start making these decisions and we give up opportunities like this, where there is adequate 1 space available even though it's not ideal and perfect, we're going to have to stay focused and realize that we are then on a mission and we are going to need to identify some space and we may have to take some aggressive action in order to acquire it. 1 Lash: We'll have to be real proactive on the north side instead of just being reactive. So they're just wrapped into each development as it comes in. We've got to have the plan 1 before each development comes in. Hoffman: You're correct that they didn't respond so we went out and did our own 1 investigation. We took some plans of the Opus site and then O'Shaughnessy came in and as you recall...the consultant planner for Opus designed the whole park over on the O'Shaughnessy property so there you go. There's your park. And at the time we said, well that's probably not your area to design the park on another property but then it came in and we said, maybe it will work. So we said, let's take a look at it. We took a look at it and designed this and in fact, no. It's probably not, the water...The City of Chanhassen and many other communities, older communities in particular, have acquired a lot of this property over the years and have a very hard time in...active spaces so...we've done our own analysis. 1 31 1 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 Inside our own ...look ... ook elsewhere and it's not a suggestion. This came from the Planning staff and out of staff meetings with Opus. As we get farther down in negotiation, things are going to get tougher. Resources are going to get scarce and if this is something you really want, they'll stick by us. Management will stick by the Park Commission. They stuck by you in the CBC property. They went out and acquired that woods using tax increment dollars to preserve park fees as part of the CBC so we've done this on other sites. 1 Lash: What's CBC? Hoffman: Chan Business Center. The triangular development with the Weather Service. 1 Lash: Oh yeah. Hoffman: The little block of woods down there which the Park Commission said we want that for passive...saw that the district was amended as a result of your actions in that case to go ahead and purchase it. And at the same time preserve all the park and trail fees as a part 1 of that development to come back and use funds. So did the city go back...in those regards. Larry, I'm glad you brought out that...The first thing I said...Do we want 2 ballfields? Do you want this? Do you want this? They didn't respond so we designed it and... Schroers: The proper course of action at the moment here seems to be the dilemma. I guess that I am willing, I mean I'm in favor of passive, natural areas for passive use and I am in '. favor of that and I guess I would very much support that provided that all the other commissioners felt strongly about it. But if there are reservations at this point, and we need more information then I guess that I would welcome an opportunity to look at some more 1 information before making a real firm commitment as to what we want to do in this area and we don't want to mislead developers or anyone else and say, okay. This is what we want to do and then at the next meeting come up with some new information saying now we don't ' want to do this and somebody's already gone ahead and made a bunch of investment in time and money and energy. I guess that I would like to be a little bit more sure about what we're doing before we actually make a real solid recommendation. Lash: So like what would you want to know? 1 Berg: I'd like to have some idea if it's just a pipe dream that we're talking about north of Highway 5 and if that's something that's at least feasible. That's what I'd like to know. 1 Lash: Is that something you could put, have for us by the next meeting Todd? An applicable site, possible site to locate it? 1 32 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 1 Hoffman: Sure. I'm real comfortably today saying that yeah, it's feasible. There's big chunks of property up there. Fleet Farm has one of them. Dolejsi has another. There's one inbetween there. Money talks. If you've got the money, we could buy it tomorrow. Lash: Well the problem is we don't have the money. 1 Hoffman: Correct but we're going to come back to you with a commercial...of Stockdale's. That went out to David Stockdale today and we're going to spend, we're...our dollars. We're going to spend some dollars. We're going to purchase it on some type of contract for deed over the next 2 or 3 years forecasting the incoming park dollars which are coming off the Song and the other developments there. You can do that. Simply because we're city government doesn't mean we have the cash...We do finance properties. The Carlson lot and the referendum. The last purchase of Bandimere was through a referendum. The Park Commission at that time identified it... , Schroers: Okay the information I want to know is, if we just go with this as a passive park, what the dedication is from Centex and what the dedication is from Opus and I want to see ' how that lays out as a passive park before we recommend it. How many acres do we have? Where and how the trail is going to run and something that we can look at cohesively as a commission and say, yes. We like this. We like the way this lays out. We like the way it 1 looks. It seems very suitable for a passive park and in lieu of all the new information we received, we think that this is it and we want to pursue rather than the active park that we had originally thought about. And I would just like to see how that all lays out. Tied in together with the Centex and O'Shaughnessy and Opus. Lash: I guess in with that, what I would like to see and I think I mentioned this last time but 1 nothing new has come in. Is that whole section from say like Audubon or whatever over to TH 41 and TH 5 down to Pioneer Trail. All of those developments that have come in and each park that we have put in and if we've got it ear marked to be passive or active and size and all that. So we're looking at that whole, I don't want to call it a quadrant of the city but that whole chunk that is all fairly new stuff that's come in for us. So we can see what we've done and how it all fits together. Make sure we're not missing a piece of that puzzle. Hoffman: Okay. I've drawn that diagram. It's right on the clock because that was an issue... Lash: And then maybe the next step would be to see north of TH 5 from Galpin. Probably that would be the Song property and the Dolejsi property and where Fleet Farm is and the other site you mentioned and try to fit that piece of the puzzle in too. 1 33 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 Schroers: Is that available in an overlay? Do you have an overhead of that? ' Hoffman: Currently? 1 Schroers: Yes. • Hoffman: I know we had an overhead... Schroers: Would you want, prefer to do that at the next meeting or would you like to do it right now? Hoffman: I think it can wait to the next meeting. It's safe to say for the applicant's information that the active park site on Pemtom, or O'Shaughnessy is not as desired or are we going to leave him hanging again? Schroers: Well...I think what we're saying here is that we are interested, equally interested at this point in looking at the facility as a passive use only as well as active use depending on how it fits into the master park plan if you will. ' Lash: So you have all your bases covered there now? Schroers: I'm trying. I'm trying not to make it any more confusing than it has to be but I think that also we don't want to make a mistake here and go out on a limb and say, okay. • Now we're going to, just like this we're going to do a 180 and this is going to our decision and then all of a sudden some other new information presents itself and then we're doing another 180. I guess that I prefer not to operate like that. I want to see how, take a look at, I guess I'm not interested in going all the way over to Lake Susan and to the school and all that because we know how that's laid out and we've just been through that. But I want to look at O'Shaughnessy and Opus together and just see how it fits in as far as a passive park. At least before we decide that we just totally want to forget about any active use in that area. Hoffman: Do you want to relook at that, because we have done that. We did the master plan. We looked at that. Schroers: Yeah but we did that in a combination of both active use with a passive. Okay, now what we're talking about is we're talking about eliminating the active use and having just passive. I guess that I would like to see what that would look like as a concept plan to take that entire area that we have proposed for both passive and active and turn it into passive and see what we've got and see if we're happy with that. 34- 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Hoffman: Okay, we have that all on file. What I would simply do, I wouldn't spend any more money and have us draw another one. I would just put it up there and say, put a piece of paper over the active. Schroers: If you want to do that right now, that's fine with me. I don't care. • Hoffman: Okay. Berg: I'd like to do it the next meeting. 1 Roeser: I would too. Dan Herbst: Mr. Chairman, could I ask? I'd like to kind of ask four questions to help me move forward and then maybe to think about it and you can answer them back to me. Number one, I guess I want to make certain that the passive corner on the southwest corner, we were already in a position to sell to Tandem as a foregone item. We were in the process of selling that piece of land. They were in the process of putting a cul -de -sac down there. 1 Schroers: Would you point that out. Dan Herbst: It's not on the site but there is a knoll right down here that Tandem was going to put a cul -de -sac in and we were negotiating to sell them that property. We were directed by staff and I believe by the Commission that you wanted that piece so you acquired that or 1 gave credit to Tandem which really has now has us landlocked. Tandem was going to put that cul -de -sac. They were going to get 3 lots off that corner so I'm assuming that that's a given. Right? Lash: And Tandem is Trotters Ridge? Dan Herbst: Correct. Lash: Okay. I can't keep all these names straight. f Dan Herbst: Is that a given? Roeser: I would say we want to keep that for park space. Lash: That's the treed. 1 Roeser: Yes, that's the treed area. 35 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 Dan Herbst: I have an isolated P iece of land. Roeser: Right, yeah I don't see a problem there. 1 Dan Herbst: Second question. If you had good soils there and if the soils are adequate for what you want to do there, would you go ahead and acquire that site and develop a park there? The third question I have, if the soils are not the best for an active park but there may be some passive considerations there, would the commission consider some type of passive or smaller use type park there but not the full acquisition. Maybe it's a lesser price. And the fourth question I have is, if that's completely out of the question, can we look at that for development purposes? Answering those four really give me a lot of direction. Schroers: Okay, the second one that you asked. Whether or not, depending on the soils, if we want to pursue that as a active park. Dan Herbst: Yes. Schroers: The answer is, that depends. What happens with Opus. That's kind of where that one is. Dan Herbst: It sounded like you worked your way in and you haven't made a definite decision but it seems to me that there's enough land, passive land on Opus' piece and our piece that you've already talked about, to meet both of our park requirements. Right or wrong? Schroers: Yes. I think there is. Hoffman: Well passive on your's and... Dan Herbst: Right. And then Opus seems to have met their requirement if g OP �l you want their 18 Y acres or total of...so that's an assumption. And then the next step is, if there's good enough 1 soils there would you acquire that and develop a natural park? ' Schroers: That's not what we're talking about right now. Now what we're looking at. What we're looking at is a passive and that was your third question. Would we develop it as a passive. That's more what we're thinking about at this point. 1 Dan Herbst: So this concept would be out then? 1 Lash: But we wouldn't be developing that whole area as a passive park. We would just be 1 36 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 developing what is already basically been earmarked. Schroers: Yeah, basically what would be through there would be a trail corridor is what was identified in that area. Lash: It would basically be the treed areas, right? In the south, yeah. i Hoffman: It would be the wetland areas and then a sufficient corridor along that wetland to get a trail. Lash: Right. But I mean the wetland isn't part of their park dedication. We don't accept the wetland as park dedication so it's basically just the treed areas that require anything. Hoffman: And anything that would be to the north that would be along the wetland and allow you to get that trail corridor in. Schroers: Am I right that more than likely what we would be doing is we would accept trail dedication and then probably fees in lieu of park space. I mean we would be seeking a trail corridor but we wouldn't be seeking active park use. So we would be dealing more with the trail part of the dedication rather than the park dedication. 1 Hoffman: You're taking that bottom corner there as... Schroers: Okay, so then we're acquiring it for park dedication but we're using, that part would be a trail corridor? Hoffman: Correct. And a trail as p art of the master. Lash: And what is their, can I ask them what we could require. 6 did you say? Hoffman: Somewhere just off of those. Lash: Okay, so we're looking at approximately a 50/50 split on the O'Shaughnessy between properties dedication and cash park fees. Hoffman: Again, we're at the conceptual stage. What you eventually end up with. Schroers: See that's why it's so hard to answer these questions because we don't know 1 exactly what it is that we're working with. We're kind of in the same situation you are. You don't have all the information you need to go forward and we don't either. 1 37 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Hoffman: We do set the direction. They're asking what you want to do and you hold the cards. You and the Planning Commission and the Council. And if you...designate it our job, my job is getting the information you need to make those decisions and helping you do that. I know when we review these, we review these conceptually. We reviewed this park. We need to take a look at the information again fresh, we can do that but that was the answer I was trying to get out of the commission. If these are good soils, do you want to pursue this? 1 Lash: But if they're not good soils, then why do we have to try and answer that? Can we make them good soils? 1 Hoffman: No. Lash: Okay so then what's the point in even saying whether we would do it or not. If it's not doable, then what difference does it make? .' Hoffman: Well if you want to do it, you tell me to go out there and find out what the soils are, I'll come back with a recommendation. And say hey, if we want to do that, there's good soils out there Todd. We want active park. Lash: But you said it's not good soils. 1 Dan Herbst: This is specs. I think we have to do more tests. Hoffman: They're bad soils. They're not good soils. Whether or not we would work, to 1 what extent correction we would need. I think they would be extensive in many areas there. In other areas...but we continue to say we don't know what is going to happen on the Opus. Again, you're in the driver seat. You make that, as I explained. If that's your decision, the City Manager will back you. We'll draw...as we've been chastised for at all those meetings. We'll continue to do that and we'll go out there and we'll get the property. If you don't 1 want to do that... Dan Herbst: Last night we were not allowed to, we weren't voted on because, but in 2 weeks from now we're going to be before the City Council and the City Council is going to ask Todd what you intend to do with that piece. We're showing buildings out there now. Schroers: You're showing buildings on where the ballfields are? Dan Herbst: Correct. 1 i 38 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 1 Schroers: You know I guess we're just throwing this around but I keep coming back to the same thing. I would like to again see how a passive park would lay out between the O'Shaughnessy property and the Opus development. I would just like to see how the trail runs and what it would look like as a passive park. What kind of amenities we could offer there. If it would be enough that it would lend itself to cross country skiing in the winter. That type of a trail system or if it was only going to be a short nature trail. Lash: We can't just keep putting this off. This guy's got to, I mean they need to know. 1 Schroers: Well that's the thing. Todd says we're in the driver's seat and I realize that but being a driver you have to take some responsibility for how you're driving and I guess that I don't feel just because you're in the drivers seat you have the right to run someone over. Lash: No, but the question keeps coming back to me. If the soil was good, would we pursue it? Well yeah, we probably would or we wouldn't have made the recommendation to start with. But we know now that the soils aren't good so what, I just can't see the point in continuing to pursue it. If it's something that's not going to work and we can't develop it the 1 way that we had intended and it was to fill a need, then what's the point in passing up some possible fees and spending even more city dollars. Whether it comes out of our budget or TIF budget or the next 5 years or a bond referendum or whatever, what's the point of 1 spending money on land that's not feasible for park development? Schroers: That's a good point and you know we wouldn't want to do that but if my memory 1 serves me correctly, the last time that we addressed this issue, again on the Opus property, I was left with the feeling that with the grading and the earth work that was going to be needed to complete it, that an active use facility would be very feasible there. Even knowing that it isn't the best soils in the world but it would support a ballfield. Berg: I guess what's swinging it for me more than anything right now is what we didn't 1 know when we talked to Opus and that's the elementary site. It keeps coming back to me what Todd said a few minutes ago. Everything within this park that we're thinking about here and the homes that are going in here, it's going to be within site of the elementary school. And it's within the use area of the elementary school. Trotters Ridge. Centex. All of these. I'm just wondering if it's practical to be thinking about an active park that close to what's going to be a jewel of an active park. I just don't know if that's the most responsible way to go. Schroers: I hear what you're saying but I think we're talking about two different parks. 1 We're talking about an adult park and a youth park here. 1 39 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Berg: I agree. 1 Schroers: So I don't think that we necessarily have to have an adult park there but we have to have one somewhere. 1 Berg: I couldn't agree more on that. ' ' Hoffman: Even the few comments I've said were prepared by...group for the total of the three properties. This is probably about 2 months back. I do have an overhead too. This first overhead basically...Opus' original concept before the Park Commission, with some modifications. Again, this is the boundary line. Opus' industrial park and then to the east is the O'Shaughnessy property. So at the time you saw this, Dan was out doing his stuff and we didn't know anything about it and then they came in the door. Modifications that the Park Commission asked for was, they were a connection over to the street plan in this location. They made that connection so you'd get on street. And then in your...way you were trying to get an active park site, if you recall. They said we want to move it over here. 1 That night was a...we want to match it up here. Absolutely no way will we do that so we stalmated at that point and then O'Shaughnessy came in. We came up with these concepts. We have either one on, however they're labeled there. One on the O'Shaughnessy and one 1 on the Opus and we continued on down the planning process from there and came up with the concept back on the Opus piece. The property which we talked about down in this corner, obviously that's a, this is a common point for all three sites. And so if you will, this pie right here is a high knoll on the O'Shaughnessy property which Pemtom was going to ' penetrate their site, this property line here with a cul -de -sac. Come up. Put a cul -de -sac back in here and service all this property with homes. That was the meeting where tree preservation was a big issue. We were active in the Tree Board's issue and we said, no. Want to preserve that. Take your cul -de -sac away. We took this corner down here from the Trotters folks. We said this site we want this and we said Opus, as part of this we want this site. These are the areas which comprised the 18 acres so you've got a high piece of ground here. Fairly substantial. You've got a high piece of ground here. You've got some high ' ground at least as it shows on this plan here. Up to the north in this configuration and then a little bit along here. So those areas total that 18 ± acres which, and then some of this to the... ' Lash: So which of those areas are the tree, the heavily treed. Hoffman: Heavily treed areas would be that entrance point is very heavily treed down ' through here. The creek that comes down through the bottom to feed this wetland. This knoll. The entire area through here is heavily treed and then this knoll up in here again. Those are quality trees down on this side. You move up here into the wetland...and it's all ' box elder. ' 40 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 1 Lash: Okay, so what if we ultimately said the one to the south, the better quality trees. Yes, we'll accept that as park dedication but then the ones that are more to the east and the north, that we don't really have interest in that. Hoffman: You can do that. The one, we have a variety of goals which we want to meet. If we want to have some sort of a trailhead access or a visual impact down into this area, you would want to preserve this road frontage up here to do that. Lash: What if that was on the O'Shaughnessy property? 1 Hoffman: Well, yeah we could, we're back down into the soils and where they want to put their. They need to gain access onto here for those units as well. For that building there so we could look at that. So again that plan was developed and all of a sudden we said, we realized all three properties are in. We should really do something with that passive recreation area. What are the concepts? And the active area was incorporated into it and we have those two conceptual plans there. Lash: Well the chunk up in the northeast corner looks to be like a sizeable piece that would 111 be really of no use for us. Isn't it? Hoffman: Northeast? Yeah, that's wetlands. • Schroers: Well you know the way that this lies out, I would imagine that Concept 2 was the 1 latest and the one that we were waiting for some word back from Opus as to whether or not they were going to accept that. Is that correct? Lash: Or was that our first one? Berg: I think 2 was our last one. 1 Schroers: If my memory serves me right, we were going with 2 and that was what we decided to do. So when you look at that and then you look at the proposed active development for Centex and O'Shaughnessy there, I mean they're not connecting. It wouldn't be an active use system. It's like two different things. Two different locations wouldn't it be? Roeser: Were you talking active use on O'Shaughnessy? 1 Schroers: Or on Centex. I don't know if I'm following myself or not. 1 41 1 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 Hoffman: Concept 1. And again, I need to continue to make it clear that it's not a question P g Q of whether or not Opus is going to accept it. It's a question of whether or not you want to 1 mandate it and fight for it in some sort of negotiation and what we would pay them for it... ' Lash: We decided they were right after all. Hoffman: That's why you are governance. You can mandate what you want in some cases. In other cases... Lash: So the Concept 2 shows all the park on the Opus property, right? 1 Hoffman: Correct. 1 Lash: And that property is conducive for ballfields? And that's different property than what we were looking at for park. So I mean we've already answered our own question concerning the O'Shaughnessy property haven't we? The Concept 2 was the preferred plan 1 and it's not even on the O'Shaughnessy property, then what's the problem? • Hoffman: I don't know if that was preferred. Lash: It wasn't? Oh, okay. Manders: The reason I said that was I think that was preferred based on some information about these soil conditions. 1 Hoffman: Oh sure. Manders: And so were leaning towards that. ' Hoffman: Yeah. Leaning towards g Opus. 1 Manders: Right. For that reason. Schroers: Okay. Before you put this over that, would you put back the one that you had up? So where are the active use fields on there? Point them out. The same place. ' Hoffman: This would be concept. Roeser: This is concept 1. 1 1 42 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Hoffman: Same intent. Schroers: Did you have an overhead that showed active use on the O'Shaughnessy property? 1 Hoffman: This one. Schroers: That's on the O'Shaughnessy And the us property Y OP P P rtY is to the west? Meger: I think, piggy backing off what Jan had just said about kind of answering our 1 question. I don't know, maybe it's just that I wasn't here through all of the discussions but it seems like we can answer this question from everything that we've seen. At least we can say that we don't want to pursue an active park on the O'Shaughnessy property based on the soil conditions. And what we need to decide is do we want to pursue an active park with the softball fields on the Opus property. So I don't know, it sounds to me like we can give him 111 that answer but maybe I'm missing something. Roeser: No, I agree. I think you're right. That's what we should be. If this is the better place to put the ballpark, on the Opus property right and as fax as you know the land is better. I mean it wouldn't require all the work that it would require on the O'Shaughnessy. Then it seems to me it's pretty obvious that concept 2, we could tell, yeah. We can go ahead with, he can go ahead and pursue the soil, or whatever you're going to do with this you know. Because this is the better of the two concepts. Concept 2 is better than the other one. 1 Hoffman: Obviously at this point I don't want to muddy the waters. But the thought process is complex so, it does help if you identify whether or not you want the active park at all because let's say the property at Opus costs us $35,000.00 an acre. So we're going to spend $400,000.00 on land acquisition whereas if we buy this swamp land, peat farm for half or less of that and we have $80,000.00 in soil corrections, this is a better deal if you want a park. Again, I don't have all the answers for you so before you go on and say, we don't want this. We want a park here. We want it on Opus... Lash: I asked if you could make the good and you guys said no. You can't make the soil good. So what are you saying? Hoffman: Did I say that? Lash: Yeah, both of you guys did. 1 Berg: Yeah, you both did. 1 43 1 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 Dan a Herbst: ...yeah they can be corrected you know. If they can be corrected to hold a I building, they can be corrected to hold a park. Lash: Well I kind of got the impression that, I don't remember... 1 Hoffman: I don't know if they can get their rig out there because they couldn't drive out there. They can't get access to it. Right now you'd sink out there. They're going to build a I road through there. Right down in here, if you know Dave Hempel the engineer. He's bigger than I am but we stand 5 feet apart and he jiggles and I jiggle like jello. I mean that stuff is water permeated. The water table's at a foot so yeah, you'd have to do soil I corrections but we had that conversation. Well, if you want a park you can't overly dismiss this site. It wouldn't be my first choice. I Lash: Okay, Jane and I were having a little side conversation here a little while ago. Okay, sometimes that's when you accomplish the most. What we're thinking is, what we're getting out of this plan, wherever we put it, is 2 adult fields. Everything else that's in there we I already have on the elementary site. So it's sort of a duplication of facilities. Within a service area. So that's what's kind of contradictory to our own philosophy here. If we're going to put in a couple of ballfields for adults, I mean 2 is going to help but 2 is a drop in 1 the bucket in the overall picture of things in future years. So maybe what we need to do is just scrap this whole thing. Look north of TH 5. Get a big enough parcel so we can put in 4 or 6 or whatever we think ultimately we're going to need because north of TH 5 we're going 1 to ultimately have to have a playground and tennis courts and you know whatever over there anyway so then we're going to have them at the school site. We're going to have them at this site. We're going to have them right on the other side of TH 5 and they're going to be 1 getting, the tennis courts especially, will start getting to be lumped pretty close together and that was contrary to another one of our philosophies. So ultimately what we're getting here are two adult fields and is that the location that we really want to have them. Or do we want I to have one bigger facility for maintenance wise, parking and everything. Put it all together in one site and be done with it because we're going to have to put one north of TH 5 anyway 1 in a few years. Hoffman: Don't get me wrong. I was right on that road with you pulling for this park stuff I here and I'm riding into the...with you so that's again the reason we need to get into that Comp Plan and talk about work... I Lash: It wouldn't be quite as hard if we all hadn't made a showing at the City Council meeting. 1 Hoffman: They've got a lot of issues, don't worry. 1 44 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 1 Lash: They've forgotten about it. Hoffman: They'll forget about you like that, and they'll be onto something else. 1 Schroers: Our feeling was that a development of this size was going to generate it's own needs and that's why we wanted to have the fields in that location. To accommodate the use that was going to be right there. That was our intent. That's what we were hoping. If you recall, we were talking about commercial development of 160 acres. How many softball teams is that going to generate? Probably quite a few and we could accommodate their needs right there on site without having to put that extra burden on Lake Ann and that's another thing that we're talking about now is the timeframe. We're going to be looking for something in the north and are we going to find something in the north and are we going to get it developed or are we going to earmark something in the north and go after it aggressively and get it developed in time to accommodate the need that is going to be there if 1 and when Opus comes on line and a development the size of Centex homes will probably generate an additional softball team or two as well. And for the point of clarification here, I guess in my own mind, I'm a little bit confused. At one point here we're talking about the 1 O'Shaughnessy property and then the next time we're talking about Centex Homes and they are in effect one and the same. Hoffman: Correct. Betty O'Shaughnessy is the current landowner. Berg: Jerry, I don't know if you can help us at all or not. What kind of effect would the 1 addition right now of 2 more fields, adult fields have on the leagues? The adult leagues. Ruegemer: It depends if they're...or not. 1 Berg: Well let's say they...because we've been talking about that the whole time too. Ruegemer: You could probably go, you could cut back...and get 4 games a night in on each site. So adding 16 more teams. Berg: So 2 is significant. Ruegemer: It's nice. 3 is better. 4 is better but it would help. If you wanted to just 1 earmark that for... Berg: I'm wondering if we could get 3 on that site if we eliminated all the other things we have listed on there. The tennis courts and the picnic area. The volleyball, etc. On the Opus site for concept 2. 1 45 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 I Hoffman: Yeah, the site's not conducive in there. It's not...mass radin isn't friendly to g g Y that site. In fact that's some of the Planning Commission's directives back to Opus is to be a I little sensitive to the site. Some of those tennis court, play areas, those can be pigeon holed in here and there but if you wanted 3 ballfields. 1 Lash: You know part of me, and this might not be, this isn't going to sound compassionate, for lack of a better word but part of me is having a little bit of a problem with the fact that I Opus wants to come and make a development. Build a development on that property creating the need for ballfields for the people that they are going to be bringing to that site, yet we are the ones who are going to have to struggle to find the money to pay them for their property ' to put ballfields there to accommodate the people that they're bringing. You know what I'm saying? I Schroers: What they're going to say is they're not bringing anyone. They're developing the property and whoever purchases the property and stuff after that are going to be the ones that are developing. You know that are going to be. 1 Berg: Bringing the people? I Schroers: Bringing the need, or so to speak. I mean Opus are the developers but they're not going to be the people who are in business out there. It's not going to be Opus is not going to end up with 10 softball teams out there. I Lash: Okay but if I'm a taxpayer, and I am, and I don't understand TIF, like most taxpayers but I have a better handle on it than most people but I still don't get it. And I'm thinking I that either my tax dollars or some of the TIF money that's getting generated here and there is going to put in ballfields basically for a couple of industrial leagues that are going to be playing in a new office park, and I'm thinking that TIF money could have gone to put the 1 underpass under TH 5 or it could go to, so that people can cross TH 5 or it could go for this or it could go for that. I'm not as happy with that allocation of the money I guess for some I reason and I'm not quite sure why I feel that way. Hoffman: The one...of that is if ou take your family out for a walk in this passive area, Y Y Y P ' you've just watered down your argument because the passive area is a community asset. Lash: But we can get that without paying anything. We can't get these ballfields. We can I get 2 or 3 ballfields here without paying a pretty sizeable amount of money just for the property, not even counting the development of it and the money to light it and all of that. We know how much that is. 1 1 46 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Hoffman: What the city's mitigation system is set up for is...This is a community asset so the rest of the community thus can turn around if you will and support the other needs which are being generated by this development. Those being community ballfields. You can make that argument. I don't want to do that. Lash: It sounds petty but I think I've lowered myself to that level. Hoffman: Do we want to answer those 4 questions and move on? 1 Lash: Yeah. Hoffman: Okay. The first one we've answered, right? Passive corner. 111 Schroers: Yes. 1 Hoffman: Okay. Number two, if there's adequate soils down there, do you want to pursue that plan? 1 Schroers: No. Hoffman: If the soils are not the best, would ou consider acquiring it at some level? Either Y q g through dedication. Schroers: Well, we decided that we would be acquiring the portion that would accommodate the trail. Hoffman: Okay. And then they can look at it for development? Schroers: Yeah. , Lash: They already have. Hoffman: Got it. Thank you very much. Lash: At least he fully understands how much we struggle. Dan Herbst: No, I understand your process and it is a complicated issue. That's why we started out talking and I understand what you're going through and appreciate all the dialogue... Thank you very much. 47 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 Schroers: I would love to blow off item 6 all at one oint in time. As long as we're still on P g it, under the land development status reports. Briefly if we can do 1 and 3 and then hit the b, c and d just quickly and then move on. ' Hoffman: You got it. Item 1 is the Song property...Planning Commission level. The plan finally arrived in the office on a Thursday morning after Planning Commission. Typically they walk around the long way to get an update...They had some disagreement with the ' recommendation and that confused me at that point because essentially after they were here that evening they didn't agree with it but they certainly consented to it. Or most of it anyway...so I called Lundgren Bros. At that time what I recognized as a response when I ' called Mr. Forbord was a call back from...presented to you this evening. Mr. Uban. I then again called Mr. Forbord. Talked specifically about why, at least he can see my opinion. They went to the Planning Commission and represented themselves differently than they did ' so before you...I put this report out and then received a phone mail message today from Mr. Forbord and he responded he wanted a call back and I received this fax which you have before you this evening. Essentially I disagreed...conditions on parks. The existing condition is that we...association park be approved only with the additional amenity of an open play field 250 x 250 being identified. They still would like to stay with 180 x180. I forwarded we compromise at 180 x 250. As you can see by their letter, they would still like to stick with 180 x 180. In regards to the full park fees, again you had continually said that that be required...paying full park fees. In regard to trails, that's where one change was made. The existing condition along Galpin was that a 20 foot easement shall be granted. That was based ' on a conversation with the County. They indicated they'd like to see...outside of the right -of- way. Through internal negotiations between the city and the county, that was resolved and now the trail can go within the county right -of -way with the only easement being necessary at intersection points...I suggest we make that change accordingly. Item 2 under trails, the existing condition. That would be the more extensive condition that the applicant shall mitigate the lands to accommodate for trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner and that they construct that trail. Again, that was the original offer from the Lundgren Bros to do so. That that trail showing their connection to the street plan ' which is obviously you have the trail running...Additionally that evening it was arrived and the applicant agreed to upgrade the Stockdale property if we acquired that. That has been qualified to some degree I think in this letter which says, if economically feasible...My point ' in this case or in this issue is that facing the possibility of the Park Commission of denial of this application. The applicant offered to provide...that evening. The Park Board said table this item. We would like to discuss the possibility of an alternative...The applicant, Lundgren ' made the offer to build the trail. We would give the easement. Then he called and he said, you know I want to rescind my offer to build the trail. I said well that's an important part of it and my reasoning is, we know we can get the easements in the rear yard of people and then 1 try to build a trail at a later date. That's a real nightmare...We talked about that phasing 1 48 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 1 approach. In fact then Mr. Forbord that night...made that statement that I talked to Parks Director Hoffman about the construction of the proposed trail and he didn't have a problem with the proposal. I think his staff report already says that he would like to build that public trail as development moves in phase. We will be doing one phase and we'd like to build that public trail along that phase and then when we do the next phase, build that segment of public trails and then as you go because that's how you're going to be doing the grading. You kind of build it as you go and I think that's what, I'm not sure, he was talking about today. Then however it was, and this is what I had the problem with...stated that the Planning Commission had problems with this and not only do they want you to give them the land, they want me to build it for them and they want me to grade a park on the Stockdale and do all these things. We can't afford to do that and all these other things. Again, as you can see by his letter this evening, he calls that a misunderstanding. Again, I can't quote it specifically...that's a misunderstanding...They also agreed to construct a trail around the wetland in exchange for the waiver of trail dedication fees which are equivalent to the cost of constructing the trail. You need to tell both staff and the applicant if that was the intention. My reading of that was, they needed to go above and beyond what is normal in order to bring " the commission into the position that you would approve the private park. I guess that's one area in the presentation...that we give direct compensation if they're going above and beyond what is required...or reduction in trail park dedication fees. In this case, I did not believe that to be the case but again the Park Commission needs to make that determination. So that's , the single biggest issue. The construction of that trail. The second issue would be the open play field. Whether it should be 180 x 250 or 250 x 250...You don't need to take action on this this evening other than the action which would be to make the recommended changes which are only two and that would be the reduction from 250 x 250 to 180 x 250 and then the changing of that trail easement. Then to forward that amended motion to the City Council and Lundgren Bros will be going to the City Council and then that would be the forum at which these issues would be addressed. Both from the applicant level and staff level, from the Park Commission directly to the City Council. Lash: ...go back to look at the Minutes from the August 24th meeting. I see the quote from Mr. Forbord. When we, Larry asked about the rough grading of the Stockdale property and Mr. Forbord's response was, if Lundgren has equipment on the site at the time that the city would like to have that park developed and graded, we'd be willing to talk to the city to try to facilitate the most inexpensive way of development. Timing would probably be the key. I don't interpret that as a current commitment on his part to do the rough grading for free. I look at that as an agreement to cooperate with us and try to come up with the most inexpensive way to do it. Although in the recommendations it reads that they would be required to do the grading. Also in the recommendation it says that we would acquire easements and the developer would provide construction of a nature trail or the trail around the wetlands and in lieu of that, full trail fees would be waived. That was just on the Song , 49 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 property. Not the Dolejsi property. That's the way I interpretted it. 1 Hoffman: Did the condition read specifically should be both the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner and Song on the waiving of trail fees? 1 Lash: Is that that amendment be done to the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner development from last year. Amendment for what? That wasn't for the trail fee. That was for something else wasn't it? If they wanted an amendment that had to do with them to waive a fee that they would be charged for. 1 Hoffman: Yeah, for doing the change. Lash: Right. Hoffman: Part of your recommendation is that in recognition for the dedication of the trail corridor and construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner application. They would receive full trail fee credits on both of those and they would need to change potentially the preliminary plat on the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner ' and any fees that would be associated with that change... Schroers: But they were responsible for installing the trail? ' Hoffman: Correct. But now they are of the position that they want dollar for dollar compensation for what it would cost for that construction. ' Schroers: No, that wasn't our agreement. Our agreement was that they were going to install g g Y g g ' the trail. Roeser: That's what I thought. Berg: That was in the motion wasn't it? ' Schroers: Yep. So I think that you can inform them that that is our interpretation of what our agreement was. And I don't know how the rest of the commission feels but I don't know why we should back off of 250 x 250 at all. 1 Lash: And by saying 250 x 250, we're not insinnuating that there's going to be active, organized sports taking place there. He's making that assumption. 1 1 50 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Roeser: Yeah, that was kind of, there was never any indication that the city was going to use that park for anything. Lash: We never gave an indication of that. If anything we said exactly the opposite. That it's our policy not to do that. Schroers: This is a neighborhood park. Berg: And we're on record as not using neighborhood parks for the community. 1 Schroers: With the exception of Meadow Green. I don't know if we have that labeled a neighborhood park or if that falls into the community. Manders: I'd be less inclined to be objecting to the 250 x 250 and accept the 250 x 180 but stand by the need to grade the Stockdale park property. Instead of backing off from that because we know we're going to have that. Or I guess that's the direction we're going. Lash: If we back off the 250 x 180. Require the construction of the trail. Require the grading of the property and back off on the right -of -way along Galpin, I think we're being very flexible. In all honesty, I really resent this whole process. 1 Roeser: My feeling right now is that we should let them build their private park and give them absolutely no credit for it. 1 Lash: We are. Roeser: No, I mean they should still go along. They can do what they want with the Y g g Y Y property but. Schroers: You're saying they just still give us full park dedication and credits. Roeser: Right. 1 Lash: They are giving us fees. 111 Schroers: And that pretty much is the thing. But what's happening here is that we agreed that they were going to install that trail and now...paying dollar for dollar and that's not what we had agreed to. We had agreed to...install the trail in lieu of trail fees and that was our intention and that hasn't changed. I just don't know any reason why we would back off from the 250 x 250. Why would we? Why should we? 1 51 1 i 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 Lash: whole whole The o e point, and I m agreeing with you Larry. The who a point is, we had a discussion, a lengthy discussion for two meetings with that developer. Came to what we all thought was a good agreement. Things that everybody could live with and he's not complaining to other commissions about our recommendations. I resent that process. I even ' resent the fact that the Planning Commission listened to his issues. I look at those as being two separate bodies. They have no reason to listen to his reaction to our recommendation anymore than we would listen to someone's reaction of the Planning Commission's 1 recommendations. Berg: I'd like to think at that point when we realize what somebody was standing in front of us and doing, we would say this is not the appropriate forum. Lash: Right. Right. Granted he can go do that at the City Council and they have the ' authority to accept or deny our recommendation. The Planning Commission doesn't and I don't think that because the Planning Commission doesn't agree with what we recommend that we need to go back and review our recommendation. Schroers: No. I mean they're just trying to chisel away what we've already agreed on and I guess. ' Lash: Right. He's trying to work our own players against each other and I resent that. 1 Hoffman: It's not the Planning Commission changes their mind. The one issue which really we clarify here is that trail easement. The other one is simply my conversations with their after meeting with the applicant, can you live with 180 x 180. I said no. But what we were 1 thinking about is we want to continue to maintain that length so if somebody wants to play flag football or pick up football or soccer or whatever, you've got the length of this field. If you want to stick by the 250 x 250, that's what it will be. ' Schroers: I mean why did they come back and say that? What's their reason for wanting to Y Y Y g ' cut it down? Hoffman: I believe it's stated in there that they want to protect themselves from active organized. Lash: What they want to do is maintain as much property to develop...as possible. Let's face 1 it. I mean they're developers. Berg: If you're going to have a park where a buncy of kids can't even get together and play 1 touch football, but you will on a small one. Even their own little neighborhood kids want to 1 52 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 play. Kids don't sit at the picnic table and read comic books. They want to do something at a park. 1 Schroers: Just basically tell them that it is not our policy to operate active organized athletics in this neighborhood park so they shouldn't be concerned but we still want the 250 x 250. Berg: I'm seriously getting more and more upset that we're spending our time discussing an end run by someone else to a different commission. I suggest we move on to another issue. Our statement, our proposal is on record. We're not changing it. Why are we continuing to talk about this? Schroers: Well put. Let's move on. Lash: How about the Galpin trail easement? I am willing to...that one if there's been an agreement between the County and the City. Schroers: Yeah, do you need a motion on that? 1 Hoffman: Correct. The issues was trail, number 1 and... Schroers: Is there a motion to change condition 2. Lash: So moved. • 1 Schroers: Second. Berg: Second. Lash moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission change the 1 condition regarding the trail easement along Galpin Boulevard that the trail be constructed in the street right -of -way except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas a trail easement up to 20 feet in width is required. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Hoffman: Thank you. Just for the record, one paragraph that...Parks Director does not like 1 our proposal and he recommded that the Park and Recreation Commission the denial of our submitted proposal unless it was modified to a degree that was then unsatisfactory to Lundgren Bros. I never made that proposal. Lash: And he was in full agreement with the conditions, the conditional, well I can't even 1 53 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 think what I want to say about getting the Sotckdale property. He sat right there and was in Y g g full agreement with that and willing to go along with it and I resent how he's going back to someone else and basically whinning about the whole process here. He was here and he agreed to it. So he can do his business at the Planning Commission and go on to the City 1 Council. Hoffman: Very quickly, as you asked for Chairman Schroers. We've done item 6(a)1, 2 and 3. Item 6(b). HIGHWAY 101 TRAIL UPDATE. ' Todd Hoffman made his very brief staff presentation on this item. ' Schroers: Would anyone like to respond to that? Berg: I just think it's really going to, they're going to have real trouble trying to assess people $700.00 or whatever it comes to. Hoffman: ...concept. That's a stab in the dark. I tried to paint a potential funding scenario. Schroers: I guess you know, it's like what it's coming down to is whether the residents along TH 101 want to foot the bill for a trail and I guess you know that's going to be up to them. C. STATUS REPORT, 1993 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 1 Hoffman: Essentially everything's either, most of it's been purchased or is in the hopper. Some of it has been delayed or postponed. Or omitted for good... D. YOUTH FORUM DISCUSSION. ' Lemme: I am hoping that you're going to recall that we talked a little bit about having the Youth Commission come in to have some discussion with a youth organization in regards to recreational needs within the community. I guess there's four questions pointed out here. ' What would you like to see covered if we were to have this discussion at the November Park and Recreation Commission meeting? What type of questions do you have specifically? Would this take place prior to or during the meeting? Again, just some feedback. I've talked ' to the person who's kind of in charge of the District 112 Youth Commission. I have not yet talked to the other school district but I can do that if that's...wish me to do. Schroers: Okay. Would you like to just kind of take these in order? 54 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 1 Lemme: Sure. Schroers: I guess we can just ask if the discussion were to take place, I think you can see 1 how the meetings go. We would probably want to set up a special time. Maybe start the meeting at 7:00 and have the discussion from 7:00 to 7:30. Have a timeframe on it and deal with it in that manner. Roeser: Sounds good. 1 Berg: It might help if they had some of our questions ahead of time so that they can have some answers ready. I've got some questions. Well, I see the things all over school all the I time and I know they're very service oriented. But I don't know what their other goals are. I'd like to know what the goals of the Youth Commission are. Are they basically community service oriented or is there another angle to what they're looking for trying to do? What 1 activities and facilities do they think would best meet their goals? We've talked many months ago about teen centers and that type of concept and recognizing that there's a real need in this community for providing something for the teenage group. We've also talked 1 about the fact that places like churches are not very well accepted because they don't want to . go to church to recreate. So what are they looking for from us in that regard or what kind of direction do they want from us. What kinds of things. 1 Lemme: Facilities? Berg: Yeah. Are they even talking about something like that. Lash: Activities. 1 Berg: Activities. Things that we could use some direction. I know we stumbled a few I months ago on what is it that teens would like to do and where do they want to do them and what can we do to help that. Assuming we all think there's that need. Lemme: Any other questions? Schroers: It would be nice, like Fred was saying, maybe they could give just a little I presentation of what they're all about. It's hard to ask questions when you don't know what you're asking about. Lash: I guess my questions were along Fred's points too. What we can do. Would they I want us to organize things like we, like Jerry started...Middle School kids. Would they like ski trips or would they like Apple River or some of those types of things that they can all go 1 55 1 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 on but they don't all have to drive. They can take buses if they want to. Y Y Y 1 Manders: What age bracket are we talking about here? I Lemme: I believe it's high school. Berg: I think it's 9 -12. 1 Lash: Or are those kinds of things just totally uncool by that age? I don't know. I Berg: Would they like to use Lake Ann shelter all of a sudden or is there something they could use the senior center for. That's the kind of thing I would like to draw out of them. I Lash: Or meet with this new elementary, the meeting room areas there. Maybe one of those rooms could be designated as, you know...what would they want to happen to make it appealing. I Schroers: Does that help you out Dawn? 1 Lemme: That helps me out... Schroers: Okay, finally we got through item 6. We'll back up to 4. I THIRD QUARTER PARK AND TRAIL REVENUE REPORT ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1993. I Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. 1 Berg: Do we typically get 100% eventually? I Hoffman: Hopefully. Unless we have an off year... Berg: So you do by the end of the fiscal year we're pretty square on both sides? 1 Hoffman: Yeah. I Schroers: Okay, very good. Moving on to 5. 1 1 56 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meetin g - October 26, 1993 I 1 PROGRAM REPORTS: A. REVIEW 1993/94 ICE SKATING RINK PROGRAM, LOCATIONS, ETC. Jerry Ruegemer gave the staff report on this item. 1 Roeser: What's book hockey? I Ruegemer: Boot hockey is like. Roeser: Is that like broomball? 1 Ruegemer: Right. It's kind of the same concept of broomball and hockey. Kind of more I kind of tied together. You know broomball you have more like the, you use the side of brooms with the bigger ball. Boot hockey is more with the hockey sticks and you can use a tennis ball. You can use like a Gretzky ball. That's more of a ball that...so you have better I stick control. And then there's the slap shot. Roeser: You wear skates? I Hoffman: Boots. Berg: Do we have a liability for things like this? Does the city have any liability if 1 somebody loses all their teeth? Ruegemer: Really that's a, in all our organized activities, they sign a waiver... I Berg: But...really doesn't. 1 Hoffman: As a participant, they are participating in an activity...recognizes some risk. In fact in your Administrative Section you have a lawsuit...on Lake Ann for in excess of 1 $50,000.00 for injury at the time of first base. Well the city maintains we provide safe playing facilities up to a standard and we maintain them...We provide safety bases and the participant is at risk...participate in a sporting activity. I'm sure... 1 Berg: Because I know we can't legislate and insist that people do only safe things. But boot I hockey sure seems like it's opening up, I mean you're stable now while you're swinging that stick. Roeser: Well do we have broomball? 1 57 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Ruegemer: No. We're moving...Chaska offers broomball. ' Roeser: And that's a pretty wild and...game too. ' Ruegemer: One thing that we might be able to protect yourselves possibly as far as the city...and what not is require helmets and face masks. Hoffman: In my conversations with our City Attorney, his opinion is always...fear of a lawsuit, your department won't be able to do anything...As long as it's a reasonable activity, as long as other people... Lash: ...eventually do you think we may just get to the point where we'll just have a bon fire out there and maybe we'll just get one of those rental ones and have a rental one until we ' finally. Hoffman: The rental ones...no bon fires. Lash: Get rid of the old one...but we have to look at some just kind of short term solutions. ' Hoffman: We'll just continue using this building in the short term but on these other sites, we've talked about in the past to make them more usable...I'd also like the commission as part of this item...request on an annual basis that this neighborhood doesn't have a skating rink. We want one. They've got one. We want one.... ' Schroers: ...and we tried to and actually maintenance went down there and said there was not suitable level space and that also a new well was going to be installed there. There was an interference and I think that also some kind of power lines were in the way or something. So ' we tried. Roeser: I didn't know about that. Lash: Maybe the thing to do with this deal with the skating rinks is...tennis courts either is sit down and figure out a policy of the service areas so we know that every so many miles or ' whatever, we'll consider putting in a tennis court or we'll consider putting in a skating pond and so you don't end up with a skating pond in every neighborhood, just like we decided not ' to put tennis courts. Roeser: These neighborhoods ones are just daylight ones aren't they? I mean you don't light ' them or anything. 58 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meetin g - October 26, 1993 1 Schroers: I'm real encouraged about that open skating area up at the new elementary school and the fact that there could possibly be some lighting there for that and whatever. And that utilities that go in there I see as a warming house in the winter. Just they have rubber material matting especially made for that. Just put it on the floor and turn it into a warming house. Use it year round. 1 Berg: Jan's points a good one too of looking at the 6 that we're going to have this year.and 3 of them are real close to each other. That being Carver Beach and City Center. Maybe we 1 do have to look at expanding out, and Rice Marsh isn't that far away. Hoffman: Do you want to look at this again in November because I will, when the calls 1 come in after we start flooding them saying the Park Commission reviewed this and made a determination that. Lash: But they're a high maintenance thing. They need to be flooded...they needed to be plowed everytime it snows or you can't use them so from a maintenance funding thing, we need to be a little bit careful about we're not creating a budget drain. Hoffman: We'll look at it closely and... i B. HALLOWEEN PARTY UPDATE. Jerry Ruegemer gave the staff presentation on this item and asked for volunteers. 1 Schroers: Yeah, put me down for a couple hours here. Ruegemer: Costumed or otherwise? Schroers: Otherwise. Ruegemer: I have a costume for you. 1 Schroers: I'll drive the hay wagon. No, I don't want to be in a costume. I'll just do some manual labor for you. Whatever you need. 1 Ruegemer: Any other commission members? Big pressure. Lash: I tried to get a group of teens together. I thought it would be a fun sort of phase out from trick or treating and they could still get dressed up but a party came up so. 59 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Ruegemer: Commission members can think about it...interested in helping out. ' Schroers: What time does that start? Ruegemer: 6:00 to 8:00 so be here by about 5:30 and we can get everything set up. Schroers: You might want to call and remind me but I'm working Saturday anyway so I may as well work Saturday night too. C. SUMMER AND FALL ADULT SOFTBALL LEAGUE EVALUATIONS. Jerry Ruegemer gave a brief presentation on this item. 1 D. TEEN NIGHT OUT EVALUATION. Jerry Ruegemer gave a brief presentation on this item. Lash: I have a couple of thing s about this. I guess I'm interested in how many chaperones. P i Ruegemer: We had 14. ' Lash: Okay, and what do you consider to be a say ratio of how many chaperones to kids. Ruegemer: I'm pretty confident that the amount of people. We have groups of 2 or 3 people ' kind of positioned in critical areas. Locker room areas. Gym areas. Access points. Entry points...concession areas. We have people roaming around at all times to kind of keep the kids aware that somebody is there to help supervise. We hire a uniformed security person to ' help out and assist in any trouble. Troubled areas. They can handle that. Just having a uniformed person present I think deters a lot of kids from even trying anything. What we have is that person is visible right when the kids walk in at 7:00 so you say okay, this person is here. I'm going to think twice about screwing around. So that curtailed a lot of potential situations. 1 Lash: So you're comfortable with that number? Ruegemer: I am. Lash: What number will raise your level of comfort? 1 ' 60 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 1 Ruegemer: Well that was just my point was going to be. If we continue to grow beyond this point, we're certainly going to be adding more chaperones. 1 Hoffman: There's about 1 per 30. I wouldn't be comfortable with any more than that. 1 per 50. 1 Lash: I guess I'm getting nervous with the numbers and that's a scarey age to have that many kids together. And so I guess I'm getting a little nervous with how many kids are there, although I mentioned it to a couple in the middle school and they wouldn't be happy, the ones I talked to, they wouldn't be happy with the concept of splitting up grade levels unless it were to be two grades at the same time. Like 6th and 7th together for one or 7th and 8th because they have friends in other grade levels. But I did hear of a little mini brawl that broke out and one kid got pounded I guess pretty good. Ruegemer: I don't know if it was a mini brawl. Lash: Well no, but the one kid got pounded on and was crying about it and you know that 1 may be, and it was somebody that I know. It was our pitcher this year. I he's a tough little kid you know for him to be coming out of there crying raised some concern for me and that's why I wanted to find out about the chaperone ratio. 1 Ruegemer: Okay. I guess I wasn't aware of that. That person, I don't know who that was but it's not important right now but, we had a little minor type of thing but I didn't know of anybody crying. These kids were pretty big for their age anyway. Lash: You know what I mean? 1 Ruegemer: I know what you mean. Lash: As a parent with all these kids going there, it just makes me nervous and I guess I want to feel comfortable. I know if my kids going there, that there's plenty of chaperones. Ruegemer: We try to make that visible too. The parents come and they pick up their children or drop off the children. The volunteers and the adult supervisions at the front door just to let them know. Lash: And they're not allowed to come in and out. 1 Ruegemer: No. No. Once they come in, they don't go out unless their parent comes pick them up and that's a policy that we do stick by. 1 61 1 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 Lash: So how do you know that? I mean how do you know if their parents are there to pick 1 them up? Ruegemer: Because the parents have to physically come and pick them up out of the school. ' We don't let anybody out of the school. Lash: Before the night. Ruegemer: Before the end, right. 1 Lash: Okay. Berg: Maybe it makes a difference of who you talk to. I talked to a bunch of 8th graders ' and they said it's just not cool for 8th graders to go to a party with 6th graders. And the school is breaking it up now. The middle school has a party for the 6th graders one week and the next week they have it for 7th and 8th. ' Ruegemer: Yeah, we discussed last Friday as well and that's certainly a possibility that we might be going to that type of a format. Lash: And I do know from g arents of 6th graders, for some reason either they aren't as P uncomfortable with their kids associating with 7th graders but for some reason the leap to 8th graders is a real scarey thing to do. I can't even explain why they feel that way but I know there are a lot of people who feel that. 1 Berg: I guess I keep beating the same dead horse but I really want to see it broken up eventually. The sooner the better. If we're talking 400 kids. If you're talking 1 per 30, ' that's not acceptable in the classroom setting where you've got them right there. 1 to 30 is not a good ratio in a space where they can get so many places. And I disagree a little bit with, and I haven't been there. This is based on other experiences. I disagree a little bit with ' a uniformed officer being terrible effective. Ruegemer: It certainly can... 1 Berg: I think 10 more free parents could probably deal just effectively. But that's just my opinion on that one. I know with older kids it becomes a challenge as far as the uniform is 1 concerned. Maybe I'm just hanging out with the wrong kids but. Schroers: Okay. Anything further, any further discussion on Teen Night Out? If not, thank 1 you Jerry for the program report. 1 62 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 1 COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Lash: I have one short one. Piggy backing on the elementary presentation tonight. I think 1 we'd better make sure we remember in our long term budgeting that we're going to have some big expenditures there like backstops and playground equipment and tennis courts and hockey rinks and all that so we need to figure out which things are the priority and which years we can put them in and where we're going to get the money and all that. Hoffman: You're buying the tennis courts, hockey rinks, backstops and the dugouts. But you are buying the lights for those facilities. The building. The out building. Lash: You mean it's been included in already the money, the $2 million or whatever? Hoffman: Yep. 1 Lash: Are you sure? Because when they were here before they said none of that was included. 1 Hoffman: You're buying all the outdoor activities. The tennis courts. The hockey rinks. The playing fields. Backstops or whatever. The play equipment's not in there...city portion. 1 Lights are not going to go in. The building's not going to go in...We're going to have hockey rinks out there but no warming house. And the building should come fairly quickly so... 1 Lash: Oh, and the other thing on that. Do you think that we can contact CAA or the Hockey 1 Association to help us do some fund raising maybe to help to raise some of those costs? Hoffman: Sure. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Schroers: Is there anything in there requiring special attention? Does staff wish to bring 1 anything to our attention out of the Administrative Packet? Hoffman: No, other than the...additions to our agenda would be, the park crews have been out in corporation with public works and did a lot of grading, a lot of seeding...North Lotus that big back open expanse of field which at times the commission has talked about, staff has talked about leveling that thing so you have an additional playing field back there. They're supposed to go in there and do some grading. Would we want to level it out to make a playfield? I said well...we don't want to make...we don't want to make everything in the city 1 63 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 26, 1993 1 a playing field but this is a grassy knoll that currently is unused. It's labeled picnic on the master plan. ' Manders: It's kind of an area closer to the lake? Yeah. 1111 Hoffman: Do you want to flatten it out so they can practice soccer? ' Schroers: I guess I don't care. Manders: Yeah, it doesn't matter to me. ' Schroers: If they've got the time and they want to do it, that's fine. Hoffman: Flatten it? Schroers: Flatten it, yeah. Have they done anything at Pheasant Hills? Hoffman: Yep. That will be seeded fairly soon. Schroers: Okay. Whatever fits in their plan. Hoffman: But again, I bring these to you...reviewed by the Park Commission. They...I didn't make the decision. The Park Commission did and that is my job and that's your job so that's why I ask you. Schroers: Okay. If nothing further than I guess we can call for a motion to adjourn. Lash moved, Manders seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the ' motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman ' Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim ' 64 1 I I / f 1 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1993 1 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Brian Beniek, Bill Bernhjelm, Eldon Berkland, Dave Dummer, Craig Blechta, Don Chmiel COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Dave Johnson I STAFF PRESENT: Director ecto Scott Harr 1 Sgt. Julie Boden Public Safety Officer Bob Zydowsky 1 Commissioner Beniek opened the meeting at 7 PM. I Commissioner Dummer motioned, Commissioner Blechta seconded, to approve the 10/14/93 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion passed. I CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Commissioner Beniek commended the Carver County and Public Safety Departments for their 1 diligent work on traffic patrol. i 1 BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Permits and activity are still up. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT I OLD BUSINESS: 1 Director Harr reminded the Commission that winter parking is in effect, with a change in the hours for overnight parking (now 0100 to 0700 hours). In order to remind residents of winter 1 parking rules, an article has been placed in The Villager, and the deputies will begin by issuing warning tags to violators. 1 Director Harr reported that the Opticom System should be in full operation within a month. NEW BUSINESS: 1 Director Harr advised the Commission that he conducted a Winter Emergency Table Top Meeting with city staff members to prepare for winter emergencies. Many issues were discussed, with 1 successful results. 1 Page 2 1 Director Harr advised the Commission that they have been invited to utilize the Arboretum for the February Commission meeting, with a reception to follow the meeting. The Fire Department, Carver County Sheriff and Public Safety staff have also been invited. Discussion was had on implementing an ordinance prohibiting the posting of vehicles for sale 1 on municipal property. Director Harr will draft an ordinance to present to the Commission. Interviews for the position of Public Safety Commissioner has been rescheduled for 6 PM on 1 Thursday, December 9. At 7 PM, a work session meeting on shooting boundaries has been scheduled. Commissioner Beniek motioned, Commissioner Bernhjelm seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion passed. 1 • 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager i ' DATE: November 18, 1993 ' SUBJ: Request for Senior Citizen Special Assessment Deferment, Minnewashta Parkway Assessment Project Minnesota Statute allows for deferment of special assessments for senior citizens if income • guidelines are met. On October 11, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93 -98 which ' outlines the specific guidelines under which a deferment may be granted, and the conditions under which a deferment is terminated (attached). Attached is a request from a property owner in the Minnewashta Parkway assessment project requesting that his assessment be deferred. This property owner does meet the income guidelines ' for a deferral (the income verification sheet has only been included in City Council packets). Approval is recommended. 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA 1 DATE: October 11, 1993 RESOLUTION NO: 93 -98 ' MOTION BY: Mason SECONDED BY: Win A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 1 WHEREAS, the City recognizes that certain citizens may have a very difficult time in 1 paying special assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chanhassen City Council, Minnesota; ' 1. The Council may defer the payment of any special assessment • on homestead property owned by individuals 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a ' permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payment. If the property is homesteaded by more than one person, only one must be 65 years of age or older. 2. A hardship exists when the average annual payment for all assessments levied against the subject property exceeds one percent (1 %) of the adjusted gross income 1 of the applicant, as evidenced by the applicant's most recent federal income tax return. • 1 3. "Permanent and total disability" means the inability to hold gainful employment by reason of mental or physical disability. 1 4. The deferment shall be granted upon certification by the owner on a form prescribed by the County Auditor supplemented by the City Clerk to establish the qualification of the owner of such deferment. Initial applications must be filed within thirty (30) days after the adoption of an assessment roll for new levies or by October 31 for preexisting levies. Applications must be renewed annually by ' the filing of a similar application not later than October 31. The Council shall either grant or deny the deferment and, if it grants the deferment, it may require the payment of the interest due each year. If the Council grants the deferment, ' the Clerk shall notify the County Auditor and the county Assessor who shall record a notice of the deferment with the Council Recorder setting forth the amount of the assessment. 5. The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest shall become due upon the 1 occurrence of any one of the following events: (1) the death of the owner when there is no spouse who is eligible for deferment; (2) the sale, transfer, or subdivision of all or any part of the property; (3) loss of homestead status on the 1 property; (4) determination by the Council for any reason that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment; or (5) failure to timely file a renewal application. 6. Upon the occurrence of one of the events specified in the subdivision 5 above, the Council shall terminate the deferment. Thereupon, the City Clerk shall notify the Council Assessor and the County Auditor of the termination, including the amounts accumulated on unpaid installments plus applicable interest which shall become due and payable as a result of the termination. 1 Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 1 lth day of October, 1993. ATTEST: 1 e.„ Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Do ald J. C • , ayor 1 YES NO ABSENT Chmiel None None • Dockendorf Senn 1 Wing Mason 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Application and Authorization for Delayed Payment of Tax of Special Assessments I for Senior Citizens' Homestead Laws 1974, Chapter 206 STATE OF MINNESOTA I COUNTY OF CARVER Date / / - '> , 19 TO: County Auditor, Carver County, Minnesota I I, the undersigned declare under penalties of perjury ThatIresideat "' J 1 � /4/ c 4/ /< .4 Y.- C I (-- E (-5'012 - 1'''' ✓ C s -', I That I am not less than 65 years of age and that the date of my birth is is" 7 •- / 3 I That I am the owner of the property legally desc n as: t r ' G 1 7 V r S i S / ms s— / e l- 1G -1;7/.6' ,-/ / < -) C tS/7=/ 1 T 2-itI E / /)/i' )' 4 t • I Property Identification No. , .' s , t /ov That my interest in the ownership of the above property was acquired on , 19 , and is as follows: • I I. Soleownership (Enteryes,ifapplicable) �f�s 2. Joint tenancy, held with 3. Other undivided interest (specify) I That on January 2, 19 '7 , or June 1, 19 `i 3 I owned and occupied p the above property as my homestead and such occupancy began on ' / 1 -f l; ( , 19 6 l . I That the installments for improve }ents the special assessments dul ad pted in ordinance by the r'; of ��`//In 1 -a dde az/ as of 1 1/g � '.) .5', 19 Y? , which hae been allocated against the subject property would create undue personal hardship on I my behalf and I respectfully ,request that payment be delayed and that such installments be so deferred for the years 19 9 to 19 95 . - ' Signed / .('" f,,,7... ) 7 - i22 Owne 1 FOR CITY USE ONLY I, , Clerk of the of in County, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the application of , above named, has been duly reviewed and that I in accordance with the minutes of official record in said chambers was duly APPROVED or DENIED as of , 19 I That in accordance with approval granted, the special assessments listed below on the affiants subject property levied for annual collection in the amounts and for the years shown be so I deferred with interest at the annual rate shown until such time as it is deemed the applicant no longer qualifies or the property loses its eligibility. Years of 1 Name of Auditors D/P Total Collection Interest Assessment Number two Amount (Inclusive') to 1 1 1 1 1 do hereby certify that I am not required to file an Income Tax Return in accordance with United States IRS regulations. 1 1 further certify that my annual income from all sources 1 including pensions, earned income or indirect income -is less than $ /0?, lion. Pr /O i g( 7 7'7(- 1 Signature , /' ,� j / / //` 4/ / � 1 G' ',i- 1 Name - 7 /fi_7(/ ofri/( Address P % / fig , 1 Date STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 1 ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ' "'i -k \ day of ; ,if iw +- , 199 Not ry Public +_____.__��___ 1 KIM T MEUWISSEN t ! ,p. NOTARY PUBLIC—MINNESOTA ! p . CARVER COUNTY 1 �.l AR ror-•,F or Ekires MAY 29, 199E f 1 1 1 1 1