2v. Parkland purchase Galpin Blvd CITYO
i
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
' DATE: September 8, 1993
SUBJ: Authorization to Proceed with Parkland Purchase, 5+ Acres; David and Anga
Stockdale Property, Gaipin Boulevard
The presentation of this item is born from the review of the Song property (Lundgren Brothers
' Construction) preliminary plat by the Park and Recreation Commission. The commission
reviewed Lundgren Brothers' proposal for this property on two separate occasions- -July 27 and
August 24, 1993 (see attached reports and minutes of July 27 - -the August 24 minutes are not yet
available). As you are aware, this particular review was especially arduous for the department.
The Park and Recreation Commission is sincerely concerned about the lack of public park space
within the proposed development. As a part of a previous plat review (Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner),
' which is a "sister" development to the Song property, the commission did recommend that a
private or association park be approved. Lundgren Brothers Construction has expressed their
willingness to pay park fees in addition to constructing their private park facilities for both sites.
' An alternative to acquiring public lands as a part of the development of the Song property is to
buy other property in the vicinity using park fee revenue generated from both the Song and
Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner developments. Park fees for these sites will exceed $140,000. In
' exploring this option, the commission asked for a report describing the property in the area be
prepared (see attachments).
' David and Anga Stockdale own approximately 19 acres of land immediately south of the Songs.
At the July 27 Park and Recreation Commission meeting, Mr. Stockdale told the commissioners
that he had some reservations over selling a portion of their property for park purposes. In the
following weeks, however, the Stockdales reconsidered their position and decided to contact the
city about the potential acquisition of a portion of their property for a park. This information was
presented to the commission on August 24, 1993, the second time they reviewed the Song
application (see attachments).
1
1
1
1 Mr. Don Ashworth
September 8, 1993
Page 2
1 Upon conclusion of the discussion on August 24, the following action was taken:
Lash moved, Berg seconded to recommend that the preliminary plat to subdivide 112
I acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development into 115 single family lots
(Song property) be approved by the Park and Recreation Commission contingent upon the
I following conditions of approval being met
Parks
1 1. The private /association park be approved only if the additional amenity of an open
field with a minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope is added
I 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.
1 2. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application.
1 Trails
I 1. A 20 ft. trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line.
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
1 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
1 west of the trail bench.
2. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the
II southern boundary of the Johnson/DolejsifTurner preliminary plat as depicted on
Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this
I 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
I 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
I Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require
amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for
the Johnson/DolejsifTurner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of
1 the PUD for the Johnson/DolejsifTurner property are to be waived.
1
1
1
Mr. Don Ashworth
September 8, 1993 t`
Page 3
This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots
I
16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity.
This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the
I
Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24,
1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally,
Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city
I
specifications if it is acquired.
Upon authorization from the City Council, the City Attorney's office is prepared to initiate
1
negotiations for the purchase of the 5+ acre Stockdale parcel located on Galpin Boulevard north
of Highway 5 as depicted on the attached diagram. Mark Koegler of Hoisington - Koegler Group
and I have personally inspected this property, fording it suitable and desirable for the construction
1
of a neighborhood park. The remaining western portion of the Stockdale property may be
acquired by Lundgren Brothers for inclusion in their proposed development to the north.
pc: David and Anga Stockdale 1
Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc.
Attachments
I
1. Staff report dated August 18, 1993
2. Response from Lundgren Brothers Construction dated August 24, 1993
3. Land ownership map III
4. Stockdale property information and map
54. Minutes of July 27, 1993, Park and Recreation Commission meeting. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C ITY OF
690 COULTER DRIVE • (612) P.O. 937 -1900 BOX 147 • FAX • CHANHASSEN(612 937 - 5739 , MINNESOTA 55317
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
1 FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
1 DATE: August 18, 1993
•
SUBJ: Song Property
1
As commissioners are aware, this item was reviewed on July 27, 1993, with discussion that
1 evening concluding with the tabling of this issue. The expectations of the commission in doing
so were twofold: 1) the applicant desired more time to review internally and to address with
staff an idea to enhance the park and recreational components of this application; 2) the
commission desired additional information in regard to land holdings south of the Song and
Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties. I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Terry Forbord to
discuss the new idea which he referenced at the commission meeting. The applicant's
1 preliminary offer was to identify a trail easement along the southern border of the Johnson/
DolejsifTurner property (which abuts the Song property) and to construct this trail. Mr. Forbord
and I toured this area on foot the morning of August 9, 1993. The proposed alignment is very
1 desirable for a recreational trail and would offer an experience which is not attainable with a
typical on- street trail alignment.. This proposed corridor parallels a large wetland and the homes
which will be constructed in this area. The trail in most cases would be located at the edge of
1 the wetland sandwiched between the wetland and the homes' backyards. The alignment in most
areas follows the toe of a wooded slope which acts as a natural buffer. Several sets of
photographs were taken of this area while walking the site and will be presented to the
commission in slide form on Tuesday evening. I will also prepare blue -line copies of aerial
photographs showing the area in question. Upon concluding our site visit, it was agreed that the
' applicant would map this potential trail alignment, providing copies of this map for the
commission's review along with a narrative document explaining the applicant's proposal. On
Tuesday, August 17, Mr. Forbord called to inform me that Lundgren Brothers had determined
that it was not feasible for them to construct the trail at their expense. Mr. Forbord informed me
that the maps were being prepared and that more information would be forwarded to the city on
the 18th. The attached information was received on the afternoon of the 18th (Attachment No.
1 1).
1
1
1
Park and Recreation Commission
August 18, 1993
Page 2
In regard to the land holdings which exist south of the Song and Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner 1
properties, a map (Attachment No. 2) was prepared to further acquaint commissioners with this
area. The past three weeks have not allowed a complete assessment of the status of properties
I
to be compiled; however, some information is known. I had the opportunity to discuss this topic
with some of the landowners, a local realtor, and Mr. Forbord who represents Lundgren Brothers
Construction in their land acquisition developments in Chanhassen. As an agent of the City of
Chanhassen, and ultimately the City Council, I am restricted to how far I can proceed in
investigating potential land acquisitions. However, I believe it is fair to state that there are no
properties in this area which are being actively marketed. There appears to be at least one owner 1
who is considering subdivision of property (Mr.and Mrs. David Stockdale). I believe it is also
accurate to state that the remainder of the landowners have either been contacted by prospective
buyers or have considered selling or developing their property at some time.
1
The following information has been gathered to date.
- Stockdale (Approximately 19 acres): Mr. Stockdale visited City Hall on Tuesday, August
tY Y Su
17, 1993. He was interested in receiving an update on the proceeding relative to the Song
I property application. Mr. Stockdale and I also discussed the potential development of the
Stockdale property.
- Nelson (Prince R.): Future subdivision of Mr. Nelson's property is certainly possible, but 1
most likely not in the near future.
Royal Oaks (13 acres): Under development. 1
Windmill Run (17.4 acres): Under development.
- Conway (approximately 50 acres): The southern half of this property funnels directly into
the future Highway 5 underpass. I have been told that Mr. Conway has been approached
I
about selling, but that he appears hesitant/cautious in this regard.
- Gorra (approximately 140 acres): Mr. Gorra has participated with vigor in the Highway
I
5 Corridor Study. The future north access boulevard will have significant impacts on his
property. Mr. Gorra certainly has inclinations to develop sometime in the future, possibly
in concert with Mr. Conway's property. In conversation with Mr. Gorra, we had the 1
opportunity to discuss the interests of the city in maintaining a greenway around Lake
Ann. I believe Mr. Gorra has some concerns in this area, but appears to be willing to
work with the city in this regard. 1
- VanDaVeire (approximately 13 acres) and Swings Golf (approximately 18 acres): These
sites represent the northeast and northwest intersections of Highway 5 and Galpin
Boulevard and are unsuitable for neighborhood park purposes.
1
1
1
Park and Recreation Commission
August 18, 1993
Page 3
1 - Bentz (approximately 14.6 acres and 6 acres), Bentz (5 acres), Turcott (5 acres): The
Bentz and Turcott properties are all family related. The southern parcel will be affected
' by the recommended access boulevard alignment and contains extensive wetlands. The
two 5 acre parcels currently exist as estate lots with one single family home being
constructed on each. It is staff's opinion that these parcels do not offer an opportunity
for acquisition of an active park site.
Dolejsi (south half): The north half of the Dolejsi property will be developed by
Lundgren Brothers Construction. Any future development of the southern half of the
property would allow an opportunity for parkland acquisition. Here again, however, the
access boulevard alignment will limit these opportunities (Attachment #3).
1 Additional Issues:
- City - sponsored Recreation Programs: The potential creation of 234 lots between the
Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties and the Song property will result in increased recreation
program demands. A portion of Park and Recreation Department sponsored programs
currently take place directly within neighborhood park sites, i.e. Summer Discovery
Playground, tennis lessons, etc. What will the commission's policy be in regard to
providing program services in association/private parks?
' - Trail Easement Along Galpin Boulevard: The applicant's letter of August 18, 1993,
references 17 feet of right -of -way along Galpin Boulevard and the grading for a trail
alignment within the 17 feet. This position is in direct conflict with staff's
recommendation that a 20 ft. easement for trail purposes be dedicated adjacent to the new
right -of -way line. The additional right -of -way is being required for future improvements
associated with the widening of Galpin Boulevard. Retention of additional trail easements
along county roads which are part of the City's Comprehensive Trail System is standard
practice.
The Depiction of Passive Play Areas on the Attachment to the Letter Dated August 18,
1993: Although these areas are passive in nature, both are deficient in size and contain
excessive slopes to be classified as open fields. Staff specifically asked that the applicant
include an open field in the private park layout. A minimum standard for such a field
is 250 feet square with a maximum slope of 4 %.
CONCLUSIONS
The applicant has attempted to satisfy the desires of the commission in regard to park and trail
amenities, but has fallen slightly short of the city's mark. In regard to the second association/
private park, the applicant has failed to identify an area for an open play field. The question of
whether or not other lands in the area are available for development as a public park space
1
1
1
Park and Recreation Commission
August 18, 1993
Page 4
remains unanswered. Future events which will affect land holdings in this area cannot be 1
predicted in their totality. However, it can be said that if the commission's and city's desire to
acquire parkland is strong enough, the obstacles to do so can be overcome. This statement is I
also applicable to the subject property. In regard to the 20 ft. trail easement along Galpin
Boulevard, this is a standard requirement which should not be compromised. The offer to
incorporate the trail alignment along the large wetland is commendable. These type of trails are I
desirable in our society, allowing an opportunity to come in close contact with our natural
surroundings. However, it is staff's position that the trail should be constructed in conjunction
with the initial public improvements in the area.
1
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the preliminary plat to subdivide 112 acres from Rural Residential to I
Planned Unit Development into 115 single family lots (Song property) be approved by the Park
and Recreation Commission contingent upon the following conditions of approval being met:
1
Parks
1. The private /association park be approved only if the additional amenity of an open field 1
with a minimum size of 250 square 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
I
amenities.
•
2. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application.
1
Trails
1. A 20 ft. trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line.
Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with I
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.
2. 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.
I
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
I
full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property
1
1
Park and Recreation Commission
August 18, 1993
Page 5
1 and Johnson/DolejsifTurner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments
to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the
1 Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties.]
This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17,
1 Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity.
1 ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter dated August 18, 1993, Lundgren Brothers Public Trail Proposal
1 2. Land Holdings Map
3. Highway 5 Access Boulevard Map
4. A & B Proposed Trail Alignment Map and Aerial Photo
1 5. Staff Report (Song) dated July 23, 1993, with Attachments
6. Staff Report (Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner) dated August 11, 1992, with Attachments
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
r
CHANHASSEN
. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director '
DATE: July 23, 1993
SUBJ: Song Property, A Proposed Planned Unit Development by Lundgren Brothers '
Construction
As the commission will recall, this item was originally scheduled for review on Tuesday, June
22, 1993, but was omitted from the agenda at the applicant's request. To reacquaint the
commission with the application, I have provided an overview of the documents compiled to date
in this regard. Commissioners can make their own conclusions as to what relevance each of
these documents have in the review process. 1
Attachment No. 1, Staff Report Dated August 11. 1992: This report addressed park and trail
issues as a part of the application made by Lundgren Brothers Construction to subdivide 95.19
acres of property referred to as the Johnson/DolejsifTurner property. This property is located to
the immediate west of the Song property. As presented in the report, staff was not opposed to
the development of an association or private park. However, concern over how a neighborhood
with a private park would interface with the larger community was expressed. A position was
also presented that if Lundgren Brothers confirmed their intent to develop a private park, it was
staff's preference that the city retain park fees generated by the development to be used in a
combination purchase/land dedication venture in a future development in the area. The proposal
to develop the Song property does represent such a development. 1
Attachment No. 2, Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes Dated August 11, 1992,
Pages 10 -18: Verbatim minutes of the discussion entertained and the action taken by the
commission on the aforementioned application.
Attachment No. 3, Staff Report Dated June 18, 1993: This report addresses park and trail issues '
as a part of the application to subdivide the Song property. During a meeting with representation
of Lundgren Brothers Construction on Monday, July 19, 1993, Lundgren Brothers continued to
express their displeasure over this report; citing its lack of objectivity and content relative to the
positive aspects of this proposed development. I did not deny the lack of discussion on a variety
1
k TAC liAt17 g0-
Park and Recreation Commission
July 23, 1993
Page 2
' of subject areas relative to the application, stating that access to a narrative at the time of
preparing a report would have proved valuable in this regard. Lundgren Brothers concurred with
this reasoning. As a part of this conversation, I offered to admit any wrong - doing, including an
apology if I misrepresented previous discussions with representatives of Lundgren Brothers in
the report. Lundgren Brothers did not think that the content of the letter was misrepresentative,
but cited again its objectivity and lack of positive comment.
Attachment No. 4 Letter from Lund en Brothers Construction Dated June 21 19'3: The
applicant's request to be removed from the June 22, 1993, Park and Recreation Commission
' agenda.
Attachment No. 5, Letter from Paul Krauss, P1anni g Director Dated June 22, 1993: Response
to Lundgren Brothers' request.
Attachment No. 6, Letter from Mr. Bret Davidson, 7291 Galpin Boulevard, Excelsior, MN 55331
' Dated June 22, 1993: The content of this letter relates to the need for a neighborhood park in
the area of Royal Oak Estates and the Song property. Royal Oak Estates is a 23 home
subdivision being developed by Mr. Davidson to the south and east of the Song property.
' Attachment No. 7, Letter from Lundgren Brothers Construction Dated June 23, 1993: Rebuttal
to staff's report of June 18, 1993, in regard to the Song property proposal.
Attachment No. 8, Letter from Lundgren Brothers Construction Dated June 23, 1993: This letter
expressed Lundgren Brothers' desire to be considered as a corporate gold sponsor of park and
' recreation special events. The letter was delivered with Attachment No. 7. The Chanhassen City
Council maintains a policy of reviewing all donations in excess of $500.00 prior to their
' acceptance. City Manager Ashworth is recommending that the donation be returned due to the
timing of the offer.
Attachment No. 9, Letter from Carol Berg, 6910 Chaparral Lane, Chanhassen, MN dated July
1, 1993: This letter, addressed to Mayor Chmiel, presents Ms. Berg's opinions in regard to the
letter received from Lundgren Brothers Construction dated June 23, 1993, in regard to staff's
report. This letter is presented to the commission with the consent of the author.
Attachment No. 10, Letter from Lundgren Brothers Construction Dated Julv 2, 1993: Response
to comments and issues raised in staff's report dated June 18, 1993. It provides information on
the merits as presented by the applicant of the proposal. Note: The issues presented in this letter
are also included in the narrative received by this office on July 21, 1993. As such, I will
' address issues of concern presented in it during the review of the narrative.
Attachment No. 11, Letter from Don Ashworth, City Manager dated July 6, 1993: Response to
Lundgren Brothers Construction in regard to the Song property proposal and related matters.
1
Park and Recreation Commission
July 23, 1993 1
Page 3
Attachment No. 12, Narrative Presenting the Song Property Planned Unit Development Concept 1
Plan and Preliminary Plan Submitted bv Lundgren Brothers Construction, Received bv this Office
on July 21, 1993: The report is addressed to the Planning Commission and City Council. When
questioned in this regard, Lundgren Brothers Construction responded by saying the Park and
Recreation Commission was omitted from the title page in error.
In reading the 16 page report and its attachments, it can be seen that Lundgren Brothers has 1
provided details of their proposal in a very thorough manner. Section X discusses neighborhood
recreation specifically. Prior to discussing this section, I will reference sections of the report
which are likely to be of interest to the commission. As City Manager Ashworth mentioned in
his letter to Lundgren Brothers, the issue of whether a developer should be required to dedicate
land for a "public park" if a "private park" is proposed in the same area has never been debated
by our council or commission. The commission's decision in this regard will in effect be a
policy decision which will guide future applications of this nature.
Page 1, Titled "History of Development Proposal ": This paragraph, among other things, 1
discusses the relationship between the Song property and the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner parcels.
Staff concurs that this coordination of efforts results in a unified development, making an
important east/west connection between Galpin Boulevard and TH 41. The applicant will be
installing a sidewalk as a part of this connection. The presence of this sidewalk will allow non -
vehicular travelers to trickle out from the neighborhoods, gaining access to future trails on Galpin
and TH 41.
Page 2: In regard to the complicated development purchase agreement the veto authority by the
Carlsons and the Songs, and that the Carlsons and Songs do not want any public park, their
concern being that a public park would only invite trespass and disturbance of quietude and the
natural environment lake. The city respects the Songs and Carlsons positions, however, the city
represents the interests of not only the Songs and Carlsons as residents of the community, but
all other present and future residents as well. Furthermore, I would conclude that these same
concerns, founded or unfounded, are also applicable to a private park. People, as the primary 1
user, are basic to either a public or private park.
Page 5: Under the development summary, the acreage noted for homeowner association 1
recreation is 3 acres. This representation is inconsistent with the labeling of the association park
as 4.6 acres under Section X, page 13, paragraph 6. In speaking with the applicant's consulting
planner, I was informed that the number is flexible, but that the 4.6 acres more closely represents
the proposed park's size.
Page 6, Item 3, Subparagraph C. Public and Private Open Space: Staff concurs with this 1
subparagraph, but would include other citizens of the city in the fold as needing recreational
services. 1
1
1
1
Park and Recreation Commission
1 July 23, 1993
Page 4
1 Page 11, Section X, Neighborhood Recreation Area: Staff does not dispute that the private or
association recreation area, if developed at 4.6 acres in size with the amenities noted, meets the
park needs of those residing within the development. However, it is the intent of the City's
' Comprehensive Plan to provide recreational services for all residents. I do not know whether
residents of the city residing outside of this development would be welcome or allowed to utilize
this facility. A more important question in my opinion is would they feel welcome. The gross
density of 1.50 units per acre is low; however, open space associated with private lots while
providing for sun light and fresh air does not meet public needs for access to the park space.
The site does include two relatively large areas of land unencumbered by structures, roads and
' utilities. These "wetland areas" are also proposed to remain under association ownership.
This section makes reference to a neighborhood park as being 5 acres in size and serving 1,000
people. These standards have not been applied in the city for at least the past five years in favor
of the 1 acre/75 people standard. The report goes further in supporting Lundgren Brothers
' position that their proposal meets the needs for parks within its own development. The policy
decision facing the commission is whether this exclusive approach to development is in the best
interests of the city.
1 RECOMMENDATION
Staff's recommendation of June 18, 1993, remains valid.
Parks
' In regard to park dedication, the commission has many options. The three most obvious being:
1 1. Recommend the rejection of the preliminary plat due to its lack of public open
space.
2. Identify zero to 4.6 acres of land for acquisition as public parkland and
recommend the requirement of this dedication as a condition of approval for the
1 plat.
3. Recommend the acceptance of park fees in lieu of land dedication (subject to the
private park being developed).
Trails
1 It is recommended that the following conditions of approval in regard to trails be forwarded to
the City Council:
1
1
1
1
Park and Recreation Commission
July 23, 1993
Page 5
1. A 20 -ft. trail easement be retained along the entire easterly property line to 1
facilitate the future construction of a trail along Galpin Boulevard.
Note: The applicant has stated it would be their desire to have this trail 1
constructed within the road right -of -way. The additional 17 feet of right -of -way
required is for road purposes. The city will also need a utility easement along this
I
alignment. This easement can overlay the trail easement where they interface.
2. In addition, any trail easements and/or trail construction which would be
I
necessitated by the identification of a park site within this plat should be required.
1
pc: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Paul Krauss, Planning Director
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
k 4 1 11 ‘41 ki&..- i / - / ,r-
j ii;ii( ` � ~-r iffr , Na, i
I II M I VPG . N -
'': - 4■ .-- 1, (Ei 1
Op - .4:07A, 4P,A1,..1, . I C. ‘1 , s .: . 4F es aa.-- 4,,, ,
III
A r 1 `, 'I ` �i !� /10 • N � �,.14
11fjr N �MIN � 1
I i l I I -Si .1v \i -, zeiv-s, P ( ir
:0 .--r... TM thilp N ifiNi Nr. :-41.
f at ' 1 ACtI Q i`" 1
,x N k Vit ♦ ,
l';', , k . i :, eV* ‘ -411, -)11 40 4 03 V \ lt . ,.. VI iiik A..._ ...
1 i Wel. Zigcrejon it
N 4 ",N1k Il lkNftw, 8/11 P.moilingii4Atijk Vii 1 10,J1
". INVIIII.v.."-■".....00 WO, -"'
00 \ -.. glitli.
I ) /.. N •
..... Ve -t - ■D vel{ k 14.1i— Vrth f iP ' . ‘--
° W I a: i \ ''.6. * • NViw 4 traftzvb 0 ,
? N',1111P / l # ' eftiTeir .2'‘'7k.")%17"-s \ -
. N.. I \ N: 011 1.10 ,,....._
1 � ! • 0",.0\ `�� If .,e e,� �� 1 wE• �. 0 a : � :
i
NEIGHBORHO. RE - �• - . A' ' `1
„m g ' Taw A \ V -.
• "Apo e0 0 - o- .` 1�
r . evo`o \ " �ir'If �t; ■
111 111111 14 44...._ ,.._ ,,,,,i., .400,....,,,,,,,v1111111°Nuii-li• •
7 0 .0% \ P."'
i1
I E 3 . 0_ 0 .*: \ 4 0 . -.. .. . . - ,
All '' sA W;k 1 AliVISE -
0
F 10 .,-
1 , ..... _:.,,, „ 11....
. . -_ _ _."-- - i I " " " - - ' •r- - (W w i 7: -- -.1 al V
1 ._ r , 4 .0" 1 " -s / 0-----.,.--' , ,----- - , l iaimoige
/41 ''.'.1.''''''''"'' '''' .........,...11% Allibmi ,iikill
Z 00 Z00 'SKI 'ASQ T092 LCC ZT9$ ZC:CT C6 /LZ %L0
_. ; . 4.415..1.,
CR � S - - � \
c fi Z T s. 2.
r
�r I
io
■
o
c � I
bb-4.4 /Ait Ia n ik
, k ... - ,N,.. I
km* , „.., 4: 7. ow• #
1
NO- ' 4'4 k' :-:.__Z2--'9 INti,4
A i g i : :: 1 . ....... .1.4.,,.. At . 4, AA ..
���% V..* 4 ° i ■. u a d pi ► I ___.. . Ai .: 41 ge ;g
- Er -,..o. *
./• • • iii : ,`: jI n
� �1 R rf 111 N.
.:L•. •∎ �•: 4 r,• ∎•,..: 4 -
Np �i
1 101,1F 111
1
•
( cR. 'v 0
k' 4 .
i P
8 9 Uhf � 4q � o �1 ±� •
....7•01 !VW ■ i
4V 4111. 414 4;
- -..vi s
'ItG:; a� !
s It.ia.GlHre.
1
r::::,:.. ... alliMP -
tip,,,,Illr N '' II'+
1
r S ) 9
1 )6111--) el I ___,.•., V- lb ,----
.
1. v .
:.. �..,^^... Y. �� ® O � �'fi �� � , � � �_ A AA
1
la ii
� ;_ � g_, AN �� EIS kr _
Nik
-�, Winn ma . ca/ :i ?i��oi 1
IR
\G a, , ..w • N 0 ► ,11111 ow. ninir m
c .
,a 41, . ■ a ve il t n
-- 2 /(:) ,„, ) __
POWERS 4:0114,111, — -- us a MII 10 .. 11C.. /i��1 ±i/ pm -�• .. v / /tom
-.. ,„..i..„-......_
• - � ; ITY OF „ �N %o1 .tvis�, �
ruANHAsg 11 CC DATE: - 6
ei
HOFFMAN:k
STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Rezoning, Planned Unit Development and Subdivision of 95.19 acres of property
1 into 120 lots, alteration/filling of 2.81 acres of wetland, Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner
property; a single family residential Planned Unit Development concept.
i
F LOCATION: See vicinity map
•
•
1
APPLICANT: Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc.
a 935 East Wayzata Boulevard
' Wayzata, MN 55391
Q Mr. Terry Forbord
1
1
PRESENT ZONING: A -2, Agricultural Estate District
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - RR, Rural Residential District
S - A2, Agricultural Estate District
E- RR &A2
W - State Highway 41
1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Recreation Section
Q for public recreation open space is not being met as a part of this
• �— proposal. The provision of a 2.3 acre "private" or association park
O does not meet the city requirements of providing public parkland
as a part of the subdivision and development of a parcel or parcels
• W of land. In addition, open space, which is comprised of wetlands,
is not acceptable for park fee credit under city ordinance. City
Code allows for the capture of one acre of developable land for
1 (n every 75 persons the platted land could house based on 3 persons
per single family dwelling unit for public park purposes. This city
ordinance is derived from state statutes. In this application for land
development review and acceptance, that amounts to 360 persons
or 4.8 acres. Putting aside the proposed development plan for this
1
ATTACHMENT
1
1
Lundgren Brothers Proposal
August 11, 1992
Page 2
property and addressing the site solely on its proximity to existing or proposed neighborhood based
sites, reveals the void currently existing in this area in respect to neighborhood parks. Being
historically agriculturally based with intermittent estate residential areas, there has been no impetus up
until this point to acquire and develop neighborhood parks. Requiring a public park space as a part of
this subdivision may be advisable; however, if the applicant confirms their intent of developing a private
recreational facility in this neighborhood, it is preferable that the city retain the park fees generated by
this development as capital to be used in a combination purchase/land dedication venture in a future'
development in this area. If the applicant chooses not to pursue their private facility, then it is
recommended the city require parkland dedication in an amount not to exceed 4.8 acres in a location
deemed appropriate and desirable by the Park and Recreation Commission with park fee requirements 1
being reduced by the appropriate percentage.
Staff is not opposed to development of a residential neighborhood containing a private or association,
park; however, there would be no public use or control over such a facility. The types of amenities
proposed for the private recreation area, i.e. a tennis court, basketball area, and children's play structure,
are appealing to the home buyers targeted by this development. Lundgren Brothers has found this'
approach successful in other cities, such as Plymouth, which is why I assume they are proposing it here.
For their private parks in Plymouth, Churchill Farms and Stromseth, Lundgren Brothers did not receive
any park fee credits, and the granting of any credit was never considered. •
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN:
The City's Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for the future installation of a trail along State Highway 41
(the western edge of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property abuts Highway 41—see attachments). Highway
41 is classified as a Class I minor arterial and currently has a 150 ft. right -of -way. The attached diagram,
details the cross section of a Class I minor arterial showing Highway 41 will in the future be a four lane
highway with a median, leaving approximately 27 feet of clear zone at its edges. In many instances,
27 feet will not accommodate the utility and drainage needs and the construction of a trail combined,
due to constraints such as the presence of stands of trees or specimen trees, excessive slopes, uneven
terrain, etc. It is therefore appropriate to require the dedication of a 20 ft. wide easement for potential
future tail construction purposes along the entire western border of the subject property abutting State'
Highway 41.
It is also advisable to install a concrete sidewalk along Street A which will in the future be the thru
_ street in this development. The City's Planning Department will address this need. No trails are
proposed to be constructed by the applicant, thus no consideration for trail fee credit is necessary. 1
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the recedin comments, staff recommends that the Park and Recreation Commission'
P g
recommend that the City Council:
1
1
1
Lundgren Brothers Proposal
1 August 11, 1992
Page 3
I 1. Accept full park and trail dedication fees in the absence of land dedication or trail construction.
These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit applications at the per lot fee in force
for residential property at the time of permit application. The current fees are $500.00 and
I $167.00 per lot, respectively. The above recommendation being contingent upon the applicant
indicating their intent to develop the "private" park area as indicated on the general development
plan.
1 2. The applicant supply a 20 ft. wide easement for potential future trail construction purposes along
the western border of the subject property abutting the right -of -way of State Highway 41.
1 3. The inclusion of the "private" park does not diminish the requirements for public recreation and
open space as part of a subdivision, therefore, no credit will be considered for the inclusion of
1 this private facility.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
1
1
A r 7WCART B W4S
MINNEM TA r
IGNE TN 3' PA
C D
I
, 1
_ k ....• .c 1
__ . I
• ,IflOoVri :1:" 774 am Tv
p di IT .74:41 OP . r ...., our - 0 ,.... , OM ' 11111111114 r -
.. ,t lit : Z ....i .. _________„, , 111:11*) ::::ii,a%iiiis.::lirl.: I T i r a y ,7 ,....7■111....i;miximill...,..%.:7:44:4;::47.;...:1:4:::'
*iitird_ k A' mir rit, _ 4 - 1: ....-- ...e. •
BIWA. Mil0 .. - • ' -" . . V t
.--/ ,,,,k, ' tr ,..,. as z a , ( 11 ).......- c ...,,,:,• •
. 1 , 100 . :40 4 .i_ini_m_li ' _ AN !No. u read4=:-%
/2 dik ° .7M, *; (--
/6 4 004. 4 .411*.
, ... 0 .,--'- --. - N-,L," ■ grAnAll '" _
iifki. il 611Citibl
4 7 . ■ • `*-Thir ft, •Ili
. ..44.. .2.,Assoi
.411r Aq: -,... 0
Illi
• Eipt= m IN . LAKE
m •
. .,
211.r. , LAKE •\ 1P' - •
./; •
..--- 111 rr/ ,
IMF _. ail
Mit p allEGIONAL
. ,/am
...___ • .....v .,
• a ssa,1140* .: a
! 171 11R -11 1 . 7 1- -1111
A elAb l ! A t AM
; 1 47.10£ ,:" :-.....-• ._ LW. p4
#11 A
...;:
■ 1
tal
I
,
....._e
1
...14,4
- •
f,
s• , L.u.:...a. .,
,
Ab„."4. C:5)
4., onams., - , — • RAH 44..
ff
A
7,Air, a A
D*,
.........,
_ ,,-- -Ar AP _Iimmosil
...
4
- MN.
1 ...
...._ 1=
I li
= li ;a ,
,
.........
An I
41 k.
P 'Mr
XICI
■
* ! i
ELI
•
tr
..
.....-,
11=11.,
% I PINNI, 1
—
1 r osiw . is
_
at lb Trott?
8 a „4-- Pew
...... ■......
111=4
ji 1 lipa■ 1 G a
, ...,. 4.
... .•..._
,-•"
,...
N....,•■••••• :i i ,,„---"-
/
1
.m.■..............................-. ',MAN OM ' (CI lel I Nt.
I . I
I
I 1
.,,---- _ ________,_
.,00_, ligh
1 1
0
I § ? § i 1 ,,c
I I I 1 ,,,,--....,. ---
....-
. m . ...,_ ,.... 2
_ .
.-,,...,,,,__- -_ - _ - ---,.,-, ..-, :-...... - _ - ... __,„... .44.1 4ft-c•-:-.1• --4*-1- •-*-_ s . -_- ----..---,,, --,I• ., .
e - , _;,..,_ • *.v.a. -
, .• TN.:SIK-', ..1..... . - • .,.%:- - .,...." --- '• vA, Vi: 1, „ ..''' fie; ---•---:- '4 - ' -= '''' ' ' - -
- , ' -- . ' -. - ' z.."": - 44r,„ -- l--- . ' '' `• - ' ' ,glitT - X ' '...--. •'• :y P 'V:7 z.o... .-- - : ,z0 0,...r.: ,. ', . ,-A-1,
_ -:. •-• 74 '047 ... '-' ;‘, - - Zka l'"•. 7 ••;,-`,-, , ..i› , .e.' . - .... . . .., .7*.•- ..!' , - -,.': ••••_-." , :.40, - .',7^s. e _ ...! •:-.. _.-..--, 0. - _ • . -
z. ..At aarioatsPerA
S
i I 11 1 1
. I
a a A
3 . I/ • I ...„,...,
• 1.'
pr,i i t ri5 , ... . .
Pt
.1 . II "1 CP ■ I.
s: 1
..: 41
1 c
1 i
it i
i i
i 1 v 1 c 4 '
. e t li2 ; ti Ili Tr'
cn 1 • .
si, 3:0
, __:... r _ i _ . ,•,.,c - - - .._ .„,........
.* - -. - - cl.--\,; ... 8 •- • .
Cn --1•2,. •
i I i I
•
• : .11,2%. ;
13 If
ri
i
lit ii
0
_. ......-.---,..- 1 ----- op •,..,
I 1
- .
l
I I 1
1
• t
1 . ; . i .. ,,...,.. f ; 41, 4 . N • rn
1 .
.... - . .-
I i i i rn
i . , ii, , . ,- •
z
I ,
I a- al
II
1 : t
i
4
k "4
A Atav
.1.
,i.
: ..
I i
/ *. .
''''.4......... r;
II
f I . ........_
.4 - •
,
r4411114.1 il
..
c •-... n .1
I
--•• „ 1. 1 1---- -"-
.b 01, .....
... j,....: ii i. •
. . .. : r;
- • .
... _ , .
..... • 1
i
I .
-.-'.
-----r ; -i
•• ii i ,
1: .\,1
li \I.
.
•
. i
1 1
.: ..•
1.....
.. .-.
g
i
_ _•-•
. 1
i
1
I
-i.
i
1
i
1
1 . .
9
II
_________..v._•.- 1
.__ .....
, ,
„.
.
. rAt-..., .,.....,.....
IV/
I'
al
.. C .... 1
1 : :*
1 11.
I 1
I . —
1
11■" .......
1
c .,1 1 • , .
I-1 • lit 1:1
,i11 1
1 i i 21
1 rill', .1^ tii•G'n
I II 1 I
1 i! II lir 1
8 -0
it f 1 t Il i ; ! i oil / I!:
. I „ t /, g I z o
ii' .: v ,. < 0
1 1 F. i! 3 I
N' Ill .. lip s 4V* i m
11 lig! A 1 i .. n 0
• , • 0
I
1 ,. ,..• . o
1 ( .,,
!-.....: ••,- •
;
1 r
..., a. 4 % •• •
: li /0 ! If Y ! r: P4 1' ••• • • rn
. .. ,a, ..,.. .
. v - i' .1-.• ,.. . 0 I
9 S; 0 •Ii
I- 11 ' . •
d> ...
,
- 0 i ...."1" 'i #. • ; .
i i t $ t ...0 , , . . / . 0 .S.L• ..s 33
• . .
• • ;," . ... • 1. N ‘•
...t .• — , 4,,t )... a - . 1
; ,
.
• fall gL ;`A,P'' *1/2 • -4 G)
am.. IPI IX -s . I ‘a■%: ' , .i0,4 A'...\\ .
I II -■ -;41 , .,
1
t 1 i I ' 1 /41 . 1, tr....... :'',....,.. ." 1■4
- i • - ti T ./ 4 !:- . t, • ,. 'VA M O C 4..,
• A : " / .2,•fgh„ 2;i1 ic' .,..; / 4,44.... . •‘.,
a ' ' " I 177 i llo s * : 1 , . '''''' - . ‘ .
o. ti. •••••■ . (0,.. j• a• • , 411, s... ••,,, n...•
PPM PP.. Pni•P •■•14P• DI . • • . • /1 At,. -.....---)..i I k.......t.... , zo.. • .
:.:_:.•1_,, i ...w.,---,....;' ... - c
.r,...:v• - • ...
/ -, j ; • . % \ - - int ‘ '
4' a .' - ••
.. lefiffrinNfaVikt"rggaM '..7 m
I
• ..r• A ....... -`44A • , ,-, - , •*--'-. ,
'to' w e ; ;' (7 1 \/ -. 1 :' INA , '. • * ::-.-.. : • -•
, ..: il .,• • , p 4..... -1- ,,,■
• .
• . • I •Il 4 r._ - ,....., •- %■-• , ii••• .._•,•. .1
1 ;;
...
.,. i• • .,..../ -. fit•A - , .- ..,!1. • ....1
NI, II VI
• ,
P it. ;'''... _ ,.... ■ • - . , •c•+. It .3„..,' ■** I I .
1
sel■ c:,
Z.%%=%...,""7 7 . -=_7- ..... - -.1441: -. .. - -r.".:,',4 *----- ka,A. .-- - . - ort, : i 1 \ ''' '.: \ - ... : i . i
• I _ vo. .....w..‘ \ ;,/ l iii, . .;•A j I .
P Akil lir e fig We d Or I- • z- '. :Ili r" • - iit - li A. . •• .-\ i , f ,
•
, FN . -4I-' • A 1 -...../ .. E - . .. .: ti% - -- I ■
ec Is livmowv,, -0, -'. '''' ''. • .. al...t
li 1.1,7fav 4e1" Tei!" ,••••i:" -".: % - --F7) •
I
! for • 7407,,Att- ••:-" iv ___`- 4 2-irt1.- A 411.1r4f4z-..,-..., ..,. " 4 \-,,,:, y
f F . h. . ( /
• ..4. 4:-.'," 's .... - I .
/
1
......_ , .i.........__‘..../k \,., n 1
2 41/ ' IP -. . \ . 4b.: •
.... ) - le ' , KA P V • \ ••••
. .. , ,1 A ''' \'''''' 6afr •-,--- s - ..-‘ ' 1.--- 170 l' -s. 4 IA m
_,... , ), • • •-: , .:z.-A-- . V i
t 0 1. • ki
.:‘ - • 1 :0 . Z 6 •, 1 .,•- 1 ' , ..• • " rIt
i ------ _ _.-0..Nutfor • ...,.,, ..,1 ....... • -t.,....,:,..... i \‘. ( -.-. \_.-1 4 I
0 -11.
k . Ar• 41 0 ,.'1111 1 - .0 v • %.. 1 ••■• ipl ..0AzILTT: :-.!k: a it%' -----'.,* ;1 • i
lire ',.%, g r:3,,...,-, Z.,. _ A - ,-. _i - c.4111. 'tir;2F •,/?..,\
1 ,
irt '-e \,•,) i
o \ss.„....:::-.---_. _V.4/101111 s "..." 4, --.... j p, • lt,;. 4 :1' /
/ r t4 , ' ■ -.4 -0 91,14.--e „-;-_ ../... Li --- i„, - . 7 '' - ' IL
.,.
. iliill%11k4 ,. -__ mittaTA W i ... /./.1 % '• - ,:, .. hp g m l i . 0 \ 4 ,% ,4 ' %.....
.o. '' ` - -.11s:7 ...... s s- 41. V ?' .• • ::
/ fr . . iliks--.14t ..." '-' •))//'" .--' f .----f- `s ‘■ - ..' -- -
I
_ __-- _ _. __,_,
_
— C - -.:-. , 1 / // -.--' //" "\\ ."""'; '• • .--#." i '''' . ' ....2 ' •
F
....
, ic•
ma
CP r
- •
I
2. .
i
E ..
T. '0 en-
2 r
/ C I
Li 23 2
11 0
"CI a
r
a
fort 0 a
i
.__ %'63-
_
j/
° o WALTER WHIT HILL ..sc., ,.
11 1. • •K II!. P125 D 0 ROY , Ic
t 47144 BK 62. P 43 5 - 'G
■•
` ) J f e N
0 ♦ 17 ,0
N
/ • • f
• 6
. !� O
/
't T.Oos •
Doe.No.9984i , '--
/ •
• ` % f .~
/ r2 e
S.s � ' o
.. 1
/
f. �r GO r
1 f r` 6.69 .1-.
30 4 61
e , "
b K r M T, �
; � ', p 7 9
Ar
0
I 4 . .
G
:, / , . TRAIL EASEMENT
♦ "
M o°
t ,
I _ --
,' "Mte A GCSKE
UGC 56669 n
_ I N o e .
b
I 52� i 1
/
I
t
i ,
i
i
11 /7' /O' It' /1' d' /O' /O' 41 11* /1' /D' t7'
1544etla Pone 1 1
C/. gene � /�'� /ill an
• J w�
1 1
qui (/ari Nor grftria/ 1
II
1 , , t /? /? /1 ?
1
C /. Pon, l/. Rent
J .1H
1 /DO'
C /ass X Ni'or Arf rio/ 1
1
1 f d' /O ' /t' /O' /p' 1
C/. Pone An' �,Fni. C/ io�t
1 1---4 c==i--44--1 1
1 k ea' 1
cos' I caged,-
1
1
1 1 ?G' i t , / ?' / ?' ' ?G' 1
C /l'P Poop 1 Cleo.- Zone
1 f_______tig____, -1 -V4 I
1111 k 00' 1
G /dW$1 Co, telex
1
1
FIGURE 19 1
DI TYPICAL URBAN ROADWAY SECTIONS
11 1
46 1
illt
*- — - __AI
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 11, 1992 - Page 10
i
John Dietrich: It is crowded. It is anticipated that a majority of the
11 traffic would be coming off of Powers Boulevard with that interchange there
at Highway 5 and Powers. We will have to present that into traffic studies
to help show...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Schroers: ...pass on our concerns to the Planning Commission and City
Council as well, we'd very much appreciate it. Thank you.
Lash: And Todd, you'll do that also?
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW, JOHNSON, DOLEJSI,
TURNER PROPERTY; A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
1 CONCEPT, LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mike Pflaum Lundgren Bros. Construction
Thomas & Darlene Turotte
Bruce Geske 7325 Hazeltine Blvd.
Don Roy 7205 Hazeltine Blvd.
Paul Youngquist 7105 Hazeltine Blvd.
Marlene Bentz 7300 Galpin Blvd.
Hoffman: Chairman 5chroers, commission members. Mr. Mike Pflaum,
representative of Lundgren Bros. Construction is in the audience this
evening to address this issue as is the rest of the members of the audience
' as interested parties. This proposal is a rezoning planned unit
development and subdivision of 95.19 acres of property into 120 single
family lots. It includes the alteration and filling of 2.81 acres of
wetland and is known as the Johnson, Dolejsi and Turner property. A single
family residential planned unit development, PUD concept. Again the
applicant is Lundgren Bros. Construction. The present zoning is A -2 or
agricultural estate. To the north we have rural residential district. To
the south is A -2 again, agricultural estate. To the east or back towards
town, is both rural residential and agricultural estate. And then directly
adjacent to the west is Highway 41. In reference to the City's
comprehensive plan, the intent of the plan, recreation section for public
1 recreation open space is not being met as a part of this proposal. The
provision of 2.3 acre private or association park does not meet the City's
requirements providing public parkland as part of a subdivision and
development of the parcel or parcels of land. In addition, open space
which is comprised of wetlands is not acceptable for park credit under city
ordinance as the commissioners are aware. The City Code allows for the
11 capture of 1 acre of developable land for every 75 persons platted land
could house, based on 3 persons per single family dwelling unit for the
purposes of park. The City ordinance is derived from State Statutue. In
this application for land development review and acceptance, that amounts
to 360 persons or 4.8 acres. If we put aside the proposed development plan
for this property and address the site solely on it's proximity to existing
ATTACHMENT #2
1
Park and Rec Commiss n Meeting
August 11, 1992 - Page 11 1
or proposed neighborhood parks, it reveals the void currently existing i
this area in respect to neighborhood park sites. Being historically
agriculturally based with intermittent estate residential areas, there's
been no need up until this point to acquire and develop neighborhood par
Requiring of public park space as part of this subdivision may be
adviseable. However, if the applicant confirms their intent of developi
a private, recreational facility in this neighborhood, it is preferable
that the city retain the park fees generated by this development as capiel
to be used later on in a combination purchase, land dedication venture i a
future development in this area. If the applicant chooses not to pursue
their private facility, then it is recommended the City require parkland!'
dedication in an amount not to exceed 4.8 acres in a location deemed
appropriate and desireable by the Park Commission with park fee
requirements being reduced by the appropriate percentage. You have in your
packets the proposed site plan. This can confirm where the applicant is
proposing the so called private park or association type recreation area
Here's Highway 41 to the west. The main access road or Street A as it's
labeled running east and west. This will be the future thru road to oth
developments which will be coming along from the east. Again, this is t
location. Currently on the plan it shows a tennis court, full size, hal
court basketball area, a piece of play structure, facilities which are
commonly found in a neighborhood park although on a larger site. These e
facilities which again appeal to the perspective buyer of these homes.
regard to the comprehensive trail plan, the city's plan calls for the
future installation of a trail along State Highway 41, which again is thil
western edge of this property in question. Highway 41 is classified as
Class I Minor Arterial and currently has a 150 foot right -of -way. The
diagram enclosed in your packet shows the future layout of that roadway.
And it shows there will be 4 lanes. A 4 lane highway with a median leav c
approximately 27 feet of clear zone at it's edges. In many instances, 2
feet will not accommodate the utility, drainage, and construction of a
trail combined due to such constraints as the presence of stands of tree
or specimen trees, excessive slopes, uneven terrain, etc.. It is theref e
appropriate to require the dedication of a 20 foot wide easement for
potential future trail construction purposes along the entire western
border of the subject property abutting State Highway 41. Questions hav
been raised by the applicant in regard to, has the City undertaken a study
looking at which side of Highway 41 the trail would potentially go on.
Staff's response to that is that it indeed may go on both sides of State 11
Highway 41. If not, with the presence of the large land holdings of
the Minnewashta Regional Park and then the Arboretum property, some of
which is on that side, and the Girl Scout, Campfire location, we would II
assume that higher density residential areas would be developed on the
eastern side or the side of the street or highway which this development iE
occurring. So potentially in that light, the east side makes more sense
As far as terrain, it is difficult on both sides. One side is no better
than the other. In fact, they almost mirror each other. When one side o
the road drops off on the west, it typically drops off on the other side
well. It is also adviseable to install a concrete sidewalk along Street�
which will in the future be the thru street in this development. The
City's planning department will address this need. No trails are proposed
to be constructed by the applicant, thus no consideration for trail fee II
credit is necessary. An additional comment from the applicant in regard
to, back of the trail. You'll notice, if you've driven along Highway 41...
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
1 August 11, 1992 - Page 12
stands of mature pine trees which are there. I can only presume that some
of those were planted by the Highway Department when that road was put in
forbuffers and that type of thing. The stand in question is in this
location to the south of their access road. At the time the applicant
assumed that those were inside of the property line. The fact that they
are not and are currently in the road right -of -way. If you go ahead in the
future when they upgrade Highway 41 and these trees are in the right-of-
way, they're on the edge of the right -of -way so they would be left but then
if you try to put in a trail behind it, it would be squeezing the
alignment. That is one reason it is adviseable to take an additional 20
feet of right -of -way for, if you will insurance policy to the city. The
trail issue has gotten a real high priority from the community. We don't
want to... The area inside those trees is primarily agricultural. To the
south is fairly flat. To the north you see some relief in this area. In
light of these findings, staff recommends that the Park and Recreation
Commission recommend the City Council, one, accept full park and trail
dedication fees in the absence of land dedication or trail construction.
These fees are to be paid at the time of buiding permit application at the
per lot fee then in force for residential property. The current fees are
$500.00 per lot and $167.00 per lot respectively. The above recommendatior
being contingent upon the applicant indicating their intent to develop the
"private park" as indicated on the general development plan. Two, the
applicant supply a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail
construction purposes along the western border of the subject property
11 abutting the right -of -way of State Highway 41. And 3, the inclusion of the
private park does not diminish the requirement for public recreation and
open space as a part of a subdivision, therefore no credit will be
considered for the inclusion of this private facility. Mr. Pflaum may have
some comments in that regard or either Mr. Pflaum or myself will answer
questions from the Commission.
Schroers: Okay. I think before we get to that part, maybe the Commission
would be interested in entertaining comments from other residents or
concerned parties in regards to this development this evening, after which
11 maybe our questions, all of our questions could be better addressed. So if
that's acceptable at this point, I would invite anyone that wishes to share
some information on this development with us to please come to the podium
and state your name and address for the record and share your information
with us.
Paul Youngquist: I just have a question. My name is Paul Youngquist and
11 I live at 7105 Hazeltine Boulevard which is the 26 acre farm on the north
edge of the proposed project. The information refers to a city's
comprehensive trail plan and I haven't been at every meeting that there's
ever been so I've never seen that. Is that in the room? Do we have one of
those around?
Hoffman: Currently no. It's a plan which shows all of the proposed trail
link systems throughout the city. If you would like to address that, I
could certainly give you a copy of it.
Paul Youngquist: You don't need to do it now. Is it typically go down TH
41 and all the way to TH 5?
11
r
Park and Rec Commisslsdn Meeting
August 11, 1992 - Page 13
Hoffman: Correct. Typically the alignments are along, as you can see ill
we reference the map behind the Commission. East to west Highway 5 woul
be a link and then the major connectors coming through north to south are
part of the comprehensive trail plan. Highway 41, Galpin, Audubon, Powe
Boulevard, all on down the line. Typically it incorporates a major road
or collector roads.
Paul Youngquist: Okay. North of this site, the east side of the TH 41 II
gets real hilly. Real high and when you said that the two sides kind of
reflect each other, I think that's until you get north of the site. I'm
not sure that really means you're going to end up with a trail on the we
side though anyway. Is there any concept of where various parks should 117
I assume, I mean I know that you've been planning parks around town. Is
there thoughts about where parks should be in this whole area between
Gaipin and TH 41? Is there anything on paper with that kind of stuff or
not really yet?
Hoffman: No. The City of Chanhassen has not developed a long range
comprehensive park plan. However, now with this portion of the city is II
inside the MUSA line, we would be addressing that. Taking a look at the
potential future development and specifically keying in on geographical
features and areas which would be beneficial to a parks creation. So to
answer your question specifically, I could not tell you in reference to
your property or this subject property where the park would be planned.
Paul Youncquist: Okay, thanks.
Schroers: We are aware that there is a need for more parkland in the
western part of the city and we are looking for potential places to deve p
parks in that area and hoping to acquire property along with development as
the most viable way for us to obtain property out there. And also I
believe in the comprehensive plan we have, are the spurs that go to Lake
Minnewashta Regional Park and the Arboretum are included in the
comprehensive trail plan so there are proposals to connect the trail to he
Arboretum and Lake Minnewashta Park.
Don Roy: I'm Don Roy and I live at 7205 Hazeltine Boulevard. The
question I've got is, I see my property kind of abuts the north part of
this project and I don't know just exactly where the park is going to be
and I'm concerned about with the type of park it's going to be. The size
end...facilities you're going to have for it. So I'd like to know a lit e
more specifics on the park itself.
Schroers: I think that Lundgren Bros. would have to address that question
for you. 1
Don Roy: Alright. Then I have one other question. Is there a time table
on the widening of Highway 41?
Hoffman: We would not have that information. It's a State Highway. You
would need to give a call down to the State Highway Department.
Don Roy: There won't be any coordination with the development? There II
won't be any highway widening at that point then?
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 11, 1992 - Page 14
Hoffman: There may be, not highway widening but allowance for deceleration
acceleration lanes.
1 Don Roy: Yeah, that's a very dangerous highway right now getting on and
off.
Hoffman: Right. And those types of concerns would be addressed by the
City Engineer and Planning Department and City Council.
Koubsky: The only thing I've noticed is they are widening the intersection
down on TH 5 and TH 41 to allow for turn lanes.
Don Roy: Well when you want to make a left turn off of TH 41 it's, you've
got your life in your hands.
Koubsky: Yeah, I do that every day.
Don Roy: But the main thing just just wanted to be... I'd like a little more
detail on it.
Schroers: Okay, we'll make sure that that question is asked. Is there
anyone else in the audience that would like to address the Commission this
evening? Okay then, we'll open it to questions from the Commission.
Andrews: I'd like to have the applicant speak here briefly.
Schroers: Would you like to? Yeah, that'd be fine.
Mike Pflaum: I'm Mike Pflaum and by way of a little bit of introduction
and an apology. I have not been involved in the planning phase of this
project. A gentleman by the name of Terry Forbord, with whom I think you
are familiar, has been doing from our end that is, from a corporate end,
' all of the coordination and planning work on this. And as a consequence I
am not in an entirely desireable position to answer specific questions
about the proposal. Terry had suggested that this meeting with the Park
and Recreation Commission be postponed until he could be here. The
1 Planning Department however wished that this meeting occur so that the
results of the meeting would be available for inclusion in the Planning
Department report. Hence I am here. Now Terry would have been here but he
had another meeting equally important which he had to attend and it was
heads. So that's where he is. To answer the question to the best of my
ability about what would the park be like. It is not, I'm sure definitely
planned at this point. Typically the final planning of features is done at
the final stage of plan development which is after preliminary approval. I
am familiar with similar sorts of parks that we have built elsewhere and I
would imagine that the same general facilities and type of use would be
carried over here. One such facility is in Plymouth in a project called
Churchill Farms and it contains a prefabricated play structure of the sort
that you would see a grade school. It is a very sophisticated, efficient
in it's design structure. That particular play area also has integrated
with it, at a different location actually down the street, facilities for
older kids and adults. There's in that instance a tennis court and a half
court basketball court. 5o as far as traffic is concerned, the objective
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
August 11, 1992 - Page 15
is the owners of properties within the
i_ to have a private facility used by P P
development. It is a walking use. Walking or bicycle riding use. It i
not a drive in use. And there would be no provision for extra parking f
people that might want to drive to it. Fundamentally that's how these
things are set up. They're designed as an amenity to provide close at hand
recreational opportunities and in a certain sense provide supplementatio
to the community's own park plan, park schedule. So far as other specif s
of the development I can only offer generalities and kind of muddle my way
through. Todd probably knows more about it than I do. But I'd be happy o
attempt to answer your questions.
Lash: Do you know what the approximately size is?
Mike Pflaum: Of this park area? According to the report, it's 2.3 acre
Schroers: And if we were to ask for park dedication, parkland dedication
from this development we would be asking for 4.8 acres, is that correct?
Hoffman: Correct. The 2.3 acres does contain a holding pond or wetland
area so of what the Commission would call park property, it's less than 3
but the total which the City or the Commission could require is the 4.8.11
Erickson: Todd, is this property covered on the map up here?
Hoffman: Just the southern tip I believe. You see the large canary grail
type wetland. That is the southern fringe of this area.
Schroers: Any questions? Does anybody have any questions? Okay. In
light of that then, is anyone prepared to make a motion?
Koubsky: I just have one question I guess Larry. As I look at this, anil
these are tough to read with the contour lines but it seems like there's
quite a lot of relief in here and it is pretty hilly. Am I correct? Is
there 4.8 acres of flat land in that development?
II
Mike Pflaum: I doubt it.
•
Koubsky: It looks like your park or your play area is the only plateau II
I see.
Mike Pflaum: I think that's a fair observation. 1
Koubsky: I'm assuming that your soil correction will just be sufficient to
put in the roads and then the building pads.
II
h' wouldn't Pflaum: I'm assuming the same thing bu I ouldn t be so bol d to
assure you of that without having seen the preliminary grading plan. We
are very sensitive to the value of wetlands, relief and trees and when wil
lay something out, we try to preserve as much as we can because to us
that's value. So I would imagine that the plan... I would imagine that
your observation is accurate. The minimum amount would be done. 1
Lash: From the Tree Board perspective here, are we looking at any stands
of mature trees that are going to be getting wiped out Todd? '
II
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 11, 1992 - Page 16
11 Hoffman: Not to my knowledge. There certainly would be tree loss as part
of the development but in staff discussions, it has not been pointed out to
my attention that we'll be losing significant stands of trees.
Erickson: As far as the alteration or filling of the 2.8 acres of
wetlands, is that a Planning Commission issue?
Hoffman: Correct. That will be part of their review in Wetland Alteratior
I Permit.
Andrews: Is the applicant.bound by any of the Federal Regulations
regarding park and facility accesses, park type equipment for handicapped
11 people?
Hoffman: For ADA? Yes, to certain points. To certain degrees.
r Andrews: I think you should make it a point and coordinate with the
developer about that so they're in compliance if that's an issue.
' Schroers: Okay. If there are no questions, I guess I'll attempt the
motion.
11 Mike Pflaum: Could I ask one question. This is not in connection...on the
easement for trail purposes along Highway 41. I guess I have two
questions. This being a State Highway, is it prohibited to put the trail
in the right -of -way?
Hoffman: No, it certainly would not be. It would be again a coordination
effort between the State and the City to see that that trail alignment as
1 identified in our comprehensive plan would be built. Again as stated, and
as shown in the Commissions packet, once that roadway is upgraded, we have
27 feet of clearance which when allowing for site constraints and changes
I in elevations, those type of things, tree stands, does not give us the
necessary leeway to construct that trail. An additional 20 feet would theT
allow us only in the areas which are necessary, will allow us to go outside
of the road right -of -way to see that that trail is put in in the most
environmentally sensitive and prudent manner.
Mike Pflaum: Not being familiar with this property, presumably the trail
is going to travel some distance along 41, is that correct?
Hoffman: Correct.
Mike Pflaum: Does this mean that the City would be acquiring 20 feet of
easements from all the other landowners along Highway 41?
1 Hoffman: Absolutely. As you would, being that this property has just
recently been put into the MUSA, Metropolitan Urban Service Area,
additional developments will be coming in and we will be obtaining those
easements. There certainly will be exceptions but as a rule, we want to
take a look at receiving that additional leeway so that that comprehensive
trail plan can be followed.
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
August 11, 1992 - Page 17
Mike Pflaum: Excuse me, I would like to make a request that since it sells
to be the general intent to utilize the area close to the highway for trail
purposes, that the trail be constructed within the right -of -way wherever t
is reasonable and feasible and where it is not constructed on the proper
the subdivision, there be a vacation after the trail has been
constructed for those areas the trail does not occupy that were set aside
as trail easements. So it was only the portion that the trail really nets
is set aside as easement. As individual homeowners I'm sure you can see
the advantages of not having an easement there.
Hoffman: Staff has no objections to that request as long as it's
reasonable. We're not going to vacate minor little jogs but as long as
some realistic straight lines and that type of thing can be drawn to the
easement documents, that can be accomplished. 1
Schroers: Okay.
Lash: Mr. Roy and Mr. Youngquist, do you feel like your questions have II
been answered?
Paul Youngquist: Yeah, I do. I was just going to say. I don't know wh
everyone's thinking about what is happening to the other property along e
road but as for our family we'd just as soon, we're just going to keep it
as our family.for a while. We have young kids and it's a great place to
�
live so we don't plan to sell it and I'm not here because I want to see
neatly mine could be developed next year. I'm here just because this is
where we're going to live. 1
Schroers: Thanks. Alright, with that let's attempt a motion. I'll move
to accept full park and trail dedication fees in the absence of land
dedication for trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the tim
of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residenti
property at the time of the permit application. The current fees are
$500.00 and $167.00 per lot respectively. The above recommendation beinil
contingent upon the applicant indicating their intent to develop the
private park area as indicated on the general development plan. Okay.
Two. The applicants supply a 20 foot wide easement for potential future"
trail construction purposes along the western border of the subject
property abutting the right -of -way of State Highway 41 and that the City
not require that easement to be maintained in an area that is not going
specifically be used for trail. And three, the inclusion of the private
park does not diminish the requirements of the public recreation and ope
space as part of a subdivision. Therefore, no credit will be considered
for the inclusion of this private facility. 1
Schroers moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council require full park and trail dedication f
in the absence of land dedication or trail construction. These fees are c
be paid at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in
force for residential property at the time of permit application. The
current fees are $500.00 and $167.00 per lot, respectively. The above I
recommendation being contingent upon:
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 11, 1992 - Page 18
1. The applicant indicating their intent to develop the private park area
as indicated on the general development plan.
2. The applicant supply a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail
construction purposes along the western border of the subject property
abutting the right -of -way of State Highway 41.
3. The inclusion of the private park does not diminish the requirements
for public recreation and open space as part of a subdivision.
Therefore, no credit will be considered for the inclusion of this
private facility.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CARVER BEACH PARK. VEHICLE PARKING.
Hoffman: Upon receiving the Commission's recommendation in this regard,
for the designation of four parking spaces at Carver Beach. I consulted
with the City Manager before giving this to the City Council. Finding the
Commission's action consistent with the Carver Beach Park adopted master
plan, the Manager suggested I include the item in the July 27th City
Council administrative packet as an informational item. If no comments
were received, I would then move ahead with the designation of the four
parking spots. No comments or questions were heard from the Council that
evening but prior to moving ahead with this project I received a call from
a resident of the area. That resident was at the meeting, at the Park and
Recreation Commission. This person stated that they did not believe all
their questions had been addressed satisfactorily at the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting. In talking with the individual I could not
resolve their concerns and they voiced a desire to speak to the Mayor or
somebody else on the City Council. He eventually chose the Mayor. The
Mayor upon receiving this call talked to the individual at length. Mayor
Chmiel then took the time to arrange a site inspection with me. After
which a meeting between all parties, this person and their spouse, Mayor
Chmiel and myself, was scheduled to discuss their concerns. This meeting
was held on the morning of July 31st. The result of that meeting it's his
recommendation to reconsider your previous action in recommending a total
of 4 parking spaces be designated. Reconsider that action of recommending
4 parking space be designated. Instead designating a total of 3 parking
spaces for Carver Beach Park. This is somewhat inconsistent with typical
action. Typically it goes to the full Council, there for review prior to e
' recommendation for action coming back to the Commission or approval taking
place. However, it is recommended that the Park Commission rescind their
previous recommendation of June 23, 1992 recommending the City Council
approve the construction and signing of 4 parallel parking spots on the
south side of Lotus Trail for Carver Beach Park. One of the four spaces
designated for persons with disabilities as specified and shown on the
attached map. And have planning and engineering take a careful look to
I/ ensure that there will be no damage done to the existing trees in the area.
Instead make the following recommendation. The Park and Recreation
Commission recommends the construction of_signage of three parallel parkins
spots on the south side of Lotus Trail at Carver Beach Park consistent witt
' the park's master plan. One of the three for persons with handicaps and
1
LUrlDGRE11
1
BROS.
CONSTRUCTION
INC August 24, 1993
1
Mr. Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Director
City of Chanhassen
935 E. Wayzata Blvd 690 Coulter Drive
P. O. Box 147
Wayzata Chanhassen, MN 55317
Minnesota 55391
Re: Song/Carlson Property - Park and Recreation Commission
(612073-1231 Public Hearing of August 24, 1993
i
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
After review of your Staff Report to the Park and Recreation Commission dated ,
August 18, 1993 for the Song/Carlson property proposal submitted by Lundgren
Bros. I have the following comments for the Park and Recreation Commission
consideration:
On August 20, 1993 I met with Mr. David Stockdale who owns the property •
immediately south of the Song/Carlson property and he indicated to me his
willingness to consider a proposal from the City to purchase a portion of his
property for public park purposes. '
I do not know how much money Mr. Stockdale wants for his property but his
willingness to sell his property to the City is significant in that the City has 1
expressed its desire to have a public park in this general area. The acquisition
of the Stockdale property by the City would alleviate the need for a public park
on the Song/Carlson property. 1
Lundgren Bros. believes that it is possible to locate the public trail within the
future right -of -way of Galpin Boulevard without causing any problem for the
future construction of the road or utilities. We believe that to require an
additional 20' easement for this trail would be an unnecessary taking of
additional private property for public purposes. We believe the trail can be
accommodated within the future right -of -way. Please refer to Exhibit 1.
1
1
August 24, 1993
Page 2
Lundgren Bros. liked the idea of staff to provide for a reasonably flat open play area
within the association park to accommodate frisbee throwing, etc. However, we
believe that a 250' x 250' area is excessive and not necessary. Especially in light of the
fact that the City now has an opportunity to acquire land for public park purposes in
the immediate vicinity (Stockdale property).
4. In the Staff Report dated August 18, 1993 under the recommendation for trails Item
#2 states "that Lundgren Bros. dedicate land to accommodate trail construction
along the southern boundary of the JohnsonfDolejsi/Turner preliminary plat.
This construction is to be completed per City specifications and at the time of
adjoining street construction. An alignment of this trail shall be staked by the
developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City
1 Engineer."
Lundgren Bros. would like the construction of the trail to occur in a phased manner
consistent with the phasing of the lots adjacent to the trail.
5. This additional proposed trail offered by Lundgren Bros. will require an amendment to
the Conditions of Approval associated with the preliminary plat for the
Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property. Lundgren Bros. would like to have any fees
required for the amendment of this PUD to be waived.
Lundgren Bros. appreciates the additional amount of time that the Staff has given to the
review of the Song/Carlson proposal and we believe that Lundgren Bros. proposal for a
public trail significantly improves the overall park and trail experience for the area. In
conjunction with the association park and payment of park dediction fees the new trail
proposal offered by Lundgren Bros., along with the City's opportunity to acquire the
Stockdale property, seems to offer the City of Chanhassen a unique opportunity to easily
exceed all of its park needs within this area and we respectfully request your acceptance of
our amended proposal.
Very truly yours,
Terry . Forbord
Vice President
TMF:bw
-t t 1 c, evc-tt -�E C� 1'O��i ^fib t�� c)^�'?Cbc- \'� ��tL
u \
— 1 i�- t" -�-t: f y �,� -'S�. 1 t +� `� G'�� C A
< L L. A tvs-., r-: t c Lc r �C� •2t �j:+t -1 1 5 1 0-1
Z Pr G411 cuivv, t c t' -t l h-t- i n re--cc
E_rA i to 4.. t �Lt � i'i-11�� (2 t' t (-)11 C-s-' i S t o
TU 7 i a -t-t.4. 1 4 k --7- 1 .
e
?H •
i
• • A l j C
it mo I
. ATM
dwommili
1J 171-11161671 i��ii i i
SONG ----• utility
PROPERTY corridor
1
44
6' 8' 10' 26' I 26'
4 100'
GALPIN PROPOSED
GALPIN ROAD TRAIL SECTION
SCALE 1" = 100'
ME A M M M MS MIll r NM M MI N M MI = I MI
MI I IIIIIII MI IIIII = MN MI MI MI • MN NM MI MI MN INE all MI
0
0
0
0
vi
0
C4
al
z
a�
N
a %
T
T
r
U
" I
y -
a 4 13' .I. 13'
66'
GALPIN EXISTING
0
n
.i
m
6 GALPIN ROAD TRAIL SECTION
N SCALE 1" = 100'
.4
�
mls
N
aD
0
0
0
0
0
•
•
cP0 as �
.4 ig •
T '
t M �
� � OF �• _; ' ^
0 I
MIME
z
9' 10' 2 6' 26' 14'
.- -..- -� .I - . -
85'
MINOR ARTERIAL
Ira
Is-
O
B.R.A. DESIGN WOODBURY
SCALE 1" = 100'
SOURCE:BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOC.,]NC.
sis
N
a0-
O
MO no am um NE EN i ow am ow — ow E. E. am — No am
hr._ uc., • Maai.l t
..,
jr///, n
\ abt $l �l'd..H
cb� �10� . m NO ,7
F� ����� J ONOd
s9t41 MS ow)
' lb . AVAANO) 4
73 11 02 vdZ 1N ae,
IU 11
Z11436 4.s 9 i
H•, N . . *5
11141 QN1 M
t , 710 *m f �' r/
3'1d 0l , olS ® c ..r
,R 1•,. 10 b
wini. t 3n1a0
rs3'foa '`' l'"0
IP
V Q A113dOla
140S tit or Ir.
'�
r
� 111L, d
t ) SOS . 11r
■ ..,,,A4---,..„ ........ir
III/ NOS /d/ElVM MOW
MIII/ f 3111V/r 111 _ AV*/ _ _
V
7V/1/0/.031/ r co
Aiii .` - \ _ ■ A (, �� 1 ■ C Geolit. %if
fvf
.r'' d1HSPM3NN /W „if
� � 331d 7
'i, s4
IN .t. -
N. ,t y,c---,,_ - N, ,.
_ - l - , ‘,„ -
e ,.v. ritmr--,----k_. .,,,,._ 4. -1. c \ \ -
1311 ...e,.. I • NNdd it �<_)
k
Hi ■ TIE i d ,+ 073/ is �3 Ifs
�N .).‘
1
1
City of Chanhassen
1 Stockdale property investigation
Landowner
I David and Anga Stockdale
7210 Galpin Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 Phone : 474 -7626
Owner : Edgework Builders
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 j . •
1 ••10
--..s.,.. t lc-
i Nicilli
. \,. .. i ) 1 , ..•••
.1
..
1 : ,
1 •.• A i \ \ ! o i
1 ; _ ��
"...A.... ... 3 la / I \ I ' ' \ Vg,, \ , \
I : , e 4. /4/, . 1 t t . grl-e.,,,,......1
(._li,-- z_., r
: liall ... . 4. i,.., , ..,
•• ,...., 2: ',
1
N ((
, . ! ' ti a
t!t i r O �. r r .. ....... •
Z
i g
-; �- . s,-....„ \ ` . I /
1 0 1 \\ \ \��,..'._ \ 1` i si
- \ .
1 3 rt ^ ♦ \� N \-.‘ . I ♦ • \ \ \ \ ; ` ; '1 ♦��,
• 1 ', '' \ \\
•
_._ / / '; .. •` \ \ I � ` `` ♦ •. `, •
' /• : `\ ` ` \ .I ` ,`. .t \ '\
'r• N la
63 \ \ .\ t • \ I ' � 1 t \ : 1` i 4 t Q1 co Z \ ' • t
Q1 QI X 11 i i r ,
. 1 ) 1 co
`, 2 b a m I m N
r j=
1.
in
...s .....,..::::"..": r �__ _ _ ... n . ''' ......--..".... ‘ ..'
_..._� - '
i • . . ••...
. ,
•
,
„ . •• ,,... , , . .
, . - . • -. ... . . .
• Villirlir:VIT'ATZr, 'D'inr 124 ,? : .•,,' . -.., , 1', , ' , , • ; ,,,, .
. , .
5. .. .,., .. .,. - • . .. .. , -,.,, , v,.. ' ,.. • E..:.. ,, 1 1 , 111 11 62iiiiii iiii i ; .,. , ..',414 ' .,,, 44 , .,,,.., ';': ,r ..!, • , ' .. ...!' 1 ' ' '"
.. ''... '. '... i.... .-1' ' ,• ''' ' '' ' ''''' 4- '
h , , :•' 1a:illi ' ' W: ' ,.t ,, '
'..ere .. i
..a,.
., . .
i ..., .,....., ' i.;:::::, ‘6M:'1:41444 04.y ; ':' ' '''',.(',.( ;.... '' • '. ,,''' ...' " , '"!'' "I' , ; 1- ' 4 .; . V'l ' ''. i- '
56, . - - ..;..;; , , ' • +. 7:. , • . h , .. ,,, n' •', ' Nei '''• ADDRESS 4. Eam.' ipookt.gat ,,f4. ,', . it . -,, 0 ., , ;. " •,:h• .• , ,..,r, ., : It .; ..'' 4 . t , •,.. : ,, ' ' L ,. L .' . ' , L •"„; ;:: .,!" ',,, " , i '.,.. $, !,,,, ",,:-.••,. t 14, . ',..; ' 4 , •''',, 7 V
• -. II . .:; ' •-.." ii 4 • . • ' .., 2 4, . ‘, ,...., ,,. • 1 ,,,, .„ ,'1./ 1 ,i,•,..y .. . - • • "Ii- ..c.crr t' ' .0, , "%-v.. - '' . • ' '' ' " '4% ' ' r'r't 1: !: . ' ' • % ',/ "...,.( : ' 11% , r . , i , '1 /.. ,.. e 3 , .{ ,,. ,,, •,2.,/ N.,
.. ,
I .. II
_.; ' • 471S. fratt 1 . . . . 4.1 • ••• 4... ' ' ' ..;,' '■! ,. ' " 7 + " ' ''''' '0 i' Ye
I :I-
I 5; TH ELY • ALONG NLY R-0-1T0 E • •••
•• '•A LINE SIII/4; TH N 2* W 'ALONG E 4 ' t; ' /.' ' :. ' ' !,.:' '..r."',/ '
ooi4; • LINE SW1/4 1622.81'; TH N , 89*
ri----- . • ,i f'c.'!.i
• 95' A . Y A , 1 k,..1.• ',.1.•:;' .
CURVE 174.92' TO PT OF BEG CRY As ..••••'` ': ' ' r;,•: "4.0'. A !.',.;,•."..•.': , '1,'',... 1.
t i 1529 •
I• •• ' `' . . ' 7. 'A 0.-1, . ■• '1;".1 ■
IT, N ••• ii, ' • '.' r ••. n% ••..../, ; ' ,!' ,• . 1 ` .
-- .-.. - - -. - ----- - ... -. ----- -.-- - -
_.--..
"0006420 PRI BRETT A DAVIDSON 2508 6300 0112 064 505 509 507 1994 R25.0101220 IV
4 , l• 7291 GALPIN BLVD SECT-10 TWP■116 RANGE■023 so
to ............., i. ',S'•''' ,* , :'' ." •
1' . . ._ . ........ExcEL s I UR t... MN__153.31. 11.0Q_ AC so .!: k ' ;. - :;','. 1 k ,f . .,,',' ..•:: "
13 ACRES AS SURVEYED " . ' t''■'
PT OF SW1/4 DESC AS FOLLOWS* . .,. .
A ' • 2: •
',..,,;,. ; % .2 i
.",":; ,...L.''.' ..:..!."•"•,, ".
COMM AT WEST QUARTER CORN 24 ,.I 7•, `,..,...•,,, 1. , ■ ,
. . ■.. Y. YY■. ..... Y... ..y. yy Y.■Y. ..■. . ■■ _ -
SECT 10 TH S 89* E ALONG N as
0. • LINE 1355.09' TO PT OF BEG TH 2 lar
coN,Eppg S 89* E 1284.68' TO 4 • '.' ,4,2•i,'''.''t.
_
.. - .-. ---. - .. - -----.... . -- .._ ._ _ . . ._
-. CENTER OF SECT TH S 2* E ALONG
so E LINE 433.50' TH N 89* W
• 1332.60' TO A PT ON A CURVE '1,.:.•' .:!:,, ,:,,,:,,
_
7 CONCAVE TO W FROM SAID PT TH \ 't
40 ' / NLY 1* 193.28' TH N 3* E 4. ' ' ',,*), ,, i'
-
- 249 TO PT OF 0,EG CRY 1 • . , r, ';cs
' ,
84258 DOC 878967 3 1 . 1 , 2,1 • •
4 • • fe.**,*;,.4.7.' .,. ;. C ,
1 -tD005096 PRI JOHN HENNESSY 4 z 596 6300 0112 _064 _ _ 505 509 507 _1994 R25.0101300 .
D RENGERS SECT-10 TWP•••116 RANGE-023
oo .
4 .
1305 GALPIN BLVD - 2.06 AC A , .. • , ii , • . , :!, :
1 b111. t•W k f ok I
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 2.06 ACRES IN SW1/4 I,•• , ..4 ' .7.''..,•': ' . ';'1• "; . 4r ! !'
42 ., ';' ,0 1 :• f' ' '" SI I P . ' , 1 , •+'. i,. f '.
• 0004520 PRI LARRY E ELIZABETH VANDEVEIRE 2508 6300 0112 064 505 509 507 1994 R25.0101400 , ,,. t .0,si, ; !,,,,,, A ,,14.1,, •
•7 #41.N '• 4 4.. • NI.' .;.. , I• ' x
• 4890 CO RD 10 E - _ SECT-1.0 TWP .-1.16 RANGE-023 4. ".%'•...±..','414.4',14 '..1
CHASKA. MN 55318 13.31 AC • :,. A O,'•'^f■''..t,VW.1
13.31 ACRES IN SE1/4 & 5141/4. .
., .', X,1' . .•;* 3 .1i.'•?.
____ _
. . - --- - ._ _ „.. ,,_ ___I/4 L NWIL4 OF N41/4 SEC 15
' 11
PARCEL A
1 .•q-; , fli t' ..4 ,1'."'''''' .°, 4' ,..• , 77 1 4, 4 i4k . O•
4217
0108 • PRI DAVID A STOCKOALE L. 2508 6300 0112 064 ....,_, 505 509 507 1994 25.0101500 z 1,,, , l.' • ...41.,10
i. ,... --; '-qC. s
' 4
6.:'...,,•'
ANGA MCBRYDE STOCKOALE SECT-10 TWP-116 RANGE-023 . I" '''•41:glr44•'":'
.o. 7210 GALPIN ,, BLVD 12.39 AC ' - fr n...",.
: , - , t ■
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 . .___ .. _. .. - 12.39 ACRES :so ;..!,..
. . ... . .
- -- Pi OF N1/2 -- -- --
AS ---- _ Is' '... •:,;1;, ''. , ..4 Flo,. ,.
• FOLLOWS: BEG AT W1/4 CORN OF 2 ,..., •' 7,s "le..., 4 :
1.1 - • 1,..',. , k,Td ..1p, A, i, ,
_
SECT 10 TH S 1* E ALONG W _ J.. "yj ,?,1 .•.44'. .:1 XI r
t ' ._ .. .. . ___.
-. LINE SW1/4 651.25* TH N sei E -- - " 1,
• 1283.64' TH N 6* E 53.26' TH '''' i ip i i."' trr otli.7•14 . '001. ;'.
NLY 279.57' ALONG CURVE TH S
74* ki 184.53' TH WLY 109.22' . , . -
40 ALONG CURVE TH li 88• W 7 1 • :• • I ''' . i 1 . 7 .,„.P e..n.,
607.87* TH N 1* E 316.05' TO N • 1 , 2 :Ik ' .1 , ,,' • ii ii V ,1 4 ... ,., if A . . 1 I , ,,,,,' . ' ,
-
LINE SW1/4 TH N 89* W ALONG N 1':
• LINE SW1/4 452° TO PT OF BEG. irs **
. .- ...-- ---. _ _ --- __
--- ' . ''.1"°'. ' - '''''''''t k 1.4' *,,,',1•:. %: • ,
. - .. --.--. ._ ----_____
'.'It'k
UM In IN IIIIII ME 11111 111111 UM NMI ME OM MN IIIII 11.11 MO MI . - UN
101111 • IIIIIIII MIS MI 111111 MB =II MI am me S SO •
me
E 777.13' TH S as W 66.03' TM
SLY 227.'1' ALONG CUWVE TH
$OR+ M 725.48' TO PT OF RE'..
CKV 49060
' rte 505 509 507 1994 K25.0101520
4
0059579 PRI °ARLEEN�TUCUTIc" 2506 6330 0112 064
`f ,rvQ 44,,',...) ✓ . SECT-1J TdP -116 PAIGE -023
� 5-;=3/ 5.30 AC
>M3T� uz 5.00 ACRES AKA TRACT 9
EDE �e. N 272.96' OF S 562.15' OF N
1213.40' OF E 818.71' OF
NW1 /4 SW1 /4 W OF CO RD 117
0005100 PRI THEODORE F C MARLENE M BENTZ 2506 6300 0112 064 505 509 507 1994 R 015
0 -116 RANGE -023
7300 GALPIN BLVD 6.00 AC
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 6.00 ACRES AKA TRACT C
S 562.12' OF N 1213.4' OF W
464.93' OF NW1/4 SWl /4 CRV
811467
008281 PRI DAVID A STOCKDALE t 2506 6300 0112 064 505 509 507 1994 R25.0101540 RANGE-023
ANGA MCBRYDE STOCKOALE 2 346 AC
7210 GALPIN BLVD 6.46 ACRES AS SURVEYED
EXCELSIOR. MN ,55331 P/0 NI/2 SW1 /4 OESC AS: COMM
AT w 3UARTER CORNER SECT 10 TM
E ON N LINE 452' TO PT OF BEG
TH CONT E ON N LINE 903.09' TM
S3•W 240.60' TH SLY 20.37'
ALONG CRV CONCAVE TO W TM S
74•W 184.53! TH WLY 109.22'
• ALONG CRV TO N TH N98 +W 607.87
FT TH N1•E 316.05' TO BEG
0005096 PRI JOHN HENNESSY G 2506 6300 0112 064 505 509 507 1994 R2 0WP -ll6 RANGE - 023
D RENGERS 1.03 AC ...
7305 GALPIN BLVD 1.03 ACRES IN SW1/4
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331
0005100 PRI THEODORE F L MARLENE M BENTZ 2508 6300 0112 064 505 509 507 1994 R 25 . 0 1 0 17 00 0WP - 116 RANGE - 023 II
7300 GALPIN BLVD 14.64 AG I'Y
L _. G %Cfl SIQR. NN 55331 ._. ._ - __ -'_______ ___ __ __ , •
BRC TAX SYSTEM CARVER COUNTY
'03/25/93 13:35:56 NAME ADDRESS LEGAL MODELER TA9O1L PAGE 918 •
•r '
'TAXPAYER NAME t ADDRESS GIST TIC SCH SPl SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6 SP7 S SP9 YEAR RPARCEL # L EGAL S TATUS
I'
� •
�,•
I�, 14.645 ACRES AS DEEDED
PT OF SW1 /4 OF SECT 10 ANO PT
• I " OF NW1 /4 OF SECT 15 OESC AS •
�' FOLLOWS: COMM AT W1 /4 CORN OF
SECT 10 TH S 1* E ALONG W LINE
SWl /4 1213.40' TO PT OF BEG TH •
• CONTINUE S 1+ E ALONG W LINE
SW1 /4 4c5.43' TH S 7•I• _
11 CHANHASSEN PARR AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 27, 1993
Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Jim Andrews, Fred Berg, Jim
Manders, Ron Roeser, Jan Lash and Jane
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry
' Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program
. Specialist
' INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY APPOINTED COMMISSIONER.
Hoffman: Last evening the Council did interview the last
candidate as a regularly scheduled item to their meeting. They
discussed the appointment and I'm happy to announce that they
have appointed Jane Meger to the Park and Recreation Commission.
Her term is an odd term. It will last through the end of the
year and then choose whether, you have the open then to choose
whether you liked your experience or not and ask for
reappointment so welcome.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berg moved, Lash seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June
22, 1993 as presented.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Hoffman: There are none from the audience. I would on behalf of
a group of young citizens who I had a conversation with on the
tennis courts last evening in regard to inline skating. I won't
take the commissions time at the present but I would put that off
until Administrative Presentations. They had thought they would
have representation here tonight to talk to you during Visitor
Presentation. They chose not to come but I still would like to •
discuss that issue with the Commission.
Schroers: Okay, very good. If there's nothing further then,
' we'll go onto item 4.
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: 115 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD. ONE -HALF MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5: ,
Public Present:
Name Address
Peter Pflaum Lundgren Bros Construction, Wayzata, MN
Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros construction, Wayzata, MN
1
1
1
1
• Park and Rec Commission
11
July 27, 1993 - Page 2
Name Address
Jerome & Linda Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd.
Charles & Irene Song 7200 Galpin Blvd.
Bret Davidson 7291 Galpin Blvd.
David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd.
Dennis Jacobson 6841 Hazeltine Blvd.
Hoffman: As the Commission will recall, this item was originally 1
scheduled for review on Tuesday, June 22nd but was omitted from
the agenda that evening at the applicant's request. Tonight we
have with us Mr. Terry Forbord and Mr. Peter Pflaum, representing
Lundgren Bros Construction. This is a proposal to rezone 112
acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development
Residential. Preliminary Plat to subdivide that 112 acres into
115 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit. The
location is west of Gaipin Blvd, 1/2 mile north of Highway 5,
referred to as the Song property. The...location. Lake Ann Park,
...Highway 5, Galpin Blvd, Swings Recreational Center is located
in this location. As you travel north, the Song property is then
located just west of Galpin Blvd... Again the present zoning is
Rural Residential. Adjacent zoning to the north is Rural
Residential and Lake Harrison, which is referred to as a lake but
more of a wetland. Open water wetland, is how I would classify
it. South you have Agricultural Estate and then the Stockdale
property which will be...To the east you have Gaipin Blvd. To
the west more rural residential and agricultural estates and then
also the Dolejsi /Johnson /Turner property, which is also being
developed by Lundgren Bros. The Comprehensive Plan identifies
this site as being centrally located in park deficient area
number 3. The map depicting that... As stated in the
Comprehensive Plan, the area identified on the map as Zone 3 is
presented largely undeveloped. Again, this writing is dated so
bear that in mind. According to the land use section of this
plan, this area will be serviced by sanitary sewer and water
prior to the year 2000. That servicing is currently being
coordinated as of 1993. As a result, additional neighborhood
parks in Zone 3 should be considered as additional development
occurs. Future park plans call for the construction of a trail
encircling Lake Ann. The construction of such a trail could
effectively link the eastern half of the area to Lake Ann Park.
The western half of Zone 3, which lies between Highway 41 and
County Road 117 or Galpin Blvd, may require a separate
neighborhood park. The land around Lake Harrison would be a
possible site for such a facility. That is the text which is
included in the City Comprehensive Plan. Attachment C also
indicates the recent developments which have been approved in the
2 11
r
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 3
area without the. acquisition of public parkland. Put that up on
' the overhead. The dashed line indicates the service areas of
Pheasant Hill Park and the new school park site. Going in across
that areas are the Johnson /Dolejsi /Turner property in this
configuration off of Highway 41. This is the other development...
Both those destinations being Pheasant Hill and the new school
site will eventually be accessible to the Song property via the
city's comprehensive trail system. However, again both are
located well beyond the site service area. In reviewing this
application I have made reference to the following documents.
Attachment #1 is the staff report dated August 11, 1992. This
' report addressed park and trail issues as a part of the
application made by Lundgren Bros Construction to subdivide 95.19
acres of property referred to as again the Johnson /Dolejsi /Turner
property to the west. As presented in this report, staff is not
opposed to the development of an association or private park.
However, concern over how a neighborhood with a private park
would interface with the larger community was expressed and at
' that time discussed by the Commission to some extent. A position
was also presented that if Lundgren Bros confirmed their intent
to develop a private park, it was staff's preference to retain
park fees generated by the development to be used in a
combination purchase, land dedication venture in a future
development in the area. Proposal to develop the Song property
' does represent such a development. To reacquaint you with the
Johnson /Dolejsi /Turner property, as discussed this has, it's in,'
close proximity and really ties in with the Song property...
Johnson /Dolejsi /Turner concept for the east /west connector road
' which will connect to Highway 41 from Galpin Blvd. For those of
you who are familiar with the region...
' Lash: That's the development from last year?
Hoffman: Correct, 1992. Units there.
Lash: 120?
Hoffman: I believe it's less than that. 112.
Schroers: Has the application for zoning from Rural Residential
to high density residential been granted?
Hoffman: That will be approved as a part of the process. The
review process when it comes before the Planning Commission.
' Schroers: Do we have any input in that decision regarding the
rezoning?
3
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 4 ,
Hoffman: If you wish to pass up a position to the Planning 1
Commission, you may certainly do so. As far as what influence
that would have in their decision, I do not know that. Attachment
No. 6 is a letter from Mr. Bret Davidson. The content of that
letter relates to the need for a neighborhood park in the area of
Royal Oak Estates and the Song property. Royal Oak Estates is a
23 home subdivision being developed by Mr. Davidson to the south 11 and east of the Song property. I made reference to that site. If
you've been out on the road, they're moving dirt so as these come
through you can see the action taking place out there in the
community. You also have before you this evening a letter
submitted by Mr. David Stockdale, the land owner to the south in
this regard as well.
Lash: Can you show us where Mr. Stockdale lives again. '
Hoffman: The Stockdale property is the dotted, 17 acres.
Attachment No. 12 is a narrative presenting the Song property,
planned unit development concept plan and preliminary plans
submitted by Lundgren Bros Construction, received by my office on
July 21, 1993. In reading the 16 pages and it's attachments, it
can be seen that Lundgren Bros has provided details of their
proposal in a very thorough manner. Section 10 discusses
neighborhood recreation specifically. Prior to discussing this
section I will reference sections of the report which are likely
to be of interest to the commission. As City Manager Ashworth
mentioned in his letter to Lundgren Bros, the issue of whether a
developer should be required to dedicate land for a public park'
if a private park is proposed in the same area has never before
been thoroughly debated by our Council or Commission. We
discussed it briefly as part of the last application but it was
not the intent or the desire at that time of the Commission to
acquire public park properties so this situation is different.
The Commission's decision in this regard will in effect be a
policy decision which will guide future applications of this
nature. Page number 1 entitled History of the Development
Proposal. This paragraph, among other things, discusses the
relationship between the Song property and the Johnson /Dolejsi/
Turner parcel. Staff concurs that this coordination of efforts
results in a unified development making an important east /west
connection between Galpin Blvd and TH 41. The applicant will be
installing a sidewalk as a part of this connection. The presence
of that sidewalk will allow non - vehicular travel to trickle out
of the neighborhood, thus gaining access to the future trails on
Galpin and TH 41. Again, attached is their overhead 3 and 4 show
that configuration...Page 2, in regard to the complicated
development purchase agreement and the veto authority by the '
4
1
1
1
' Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 5
Carlson's and the Song's and that the Carlson's and Song's do not
want any public park. Their concern being that a public park
1 would invite trespass and disturbance to the quietude and the
natural environment lake. The City respects the Song's and the
Carlson's position. However, the City represents the interest of
not only the Song's and the Carlson's as residents of the
community but all other present and future residents as well. In
regard to page number 5, under the Development Summary. The
acreage noted for homeowner association recreation is 3 acres.
In looking into that, that's just an inconsistency with the
labeling of the park. There's 4.6 acres. The conceptual plan
submitted by the applicants for the park again labels it as 4.6
1 acres. This would be the association park as a part of the new
proposal for the Song property. It's located just inside the
entrance off of Galpin. The northerly entrance. Page number 11
1 of Section 10, entitled Neighborhood Recreation Area. Staff does
not dispute that the private or association recreation area, if
developed at 4.6 acres in size, with amenities noted, meets the
park needs of those residing within the development. However, it
' is the intent of the City's comprehensive plan to provide
recreational services for all residents. Furthermore, if that
association park were to be given to the city at some point in
the future, that's a common practice for the land owned by
associations, revert back to city ownership. The park would lack
at least one vital component of all city neighborhood parks,
specifically that being an open field. Typically the Commission
' sets aside an area for open field type of applications within
neighborhood parks. I do not know whether residents of the city
residing outside of this development would be welcome or allowed
1 to utilize this facility. I think the more important question is
would they feel welcome. The gross density of 1.5 units per acre
is low throughout this proposal. However, open space associated
1 with private lots, inbetween the private lots, the large lots
which are being proposed, while providing for sunlight and fresh
air, does not meet the public needs for access to open space or
public parks. The site does include two relatively large areas
1 of land unencumbered by structures, roads and utilities. These
wetland areas are proposed to remain under association ownership
as well. Those areas would be the Lake Harrison outlot, as has
1 been mentioned..This section makes reference to the comprehensive
plan as identifying a neighborhood park as being 5 acres in size
and serving 1,000 people. These standards have not been applied
in the city for the past 5 years. The commission is in the
1 process of updating the comprehensive plan. Instead what has
been used, or what is now the the applied standard is 1 acre of
parkland for every 75 people residing within the community. The
1 narrative goes further in supporting the position of the
5
1
1
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 6
applicant that their proposal meets the needs for parks within
it's own development. Again, the policy decision facing the
commission is whether this "island" approach to development is in
the best interest of the city. Recommendations passed forwary by
staff to the Park and Recreation Commission. The recommendations
of June 18, 1993 remain valid with the noted modifications. Parks
in regard to park dedication, the Commission has many options.
The three most obvious being number 1, recommend the rejection of
the preliminary plat due to it's lack of public open space.
Number 2, identify 0 to 4.6 or any additional acreage of land for
acquisition as public parkland and recommend the requirement of
this dedication as a condition of approval for the plat. Number
3, recommend the acceptance of park fees in lieu of land
dedication subject to the private park being developed. Again
that condition is recommended that that condition carry with it
that the association park includes sufficient land for an open
playfield. In regard to trails, in the comprehensive trail plan.
The comprehensive trail plan identifies a trail along Galpin
Blvd...and traveling south. As you travel south it crosses
Highway 5... 1
Schroers: Todd, does that trail corridor go at all north to hook
into the Lake Lucy trail? 1
Hoffman: The Lake Lucy trail. Lake Lucy comes across, the on
street trail right here? 1
Schroers: Yes.
Hoffman: So there'd be a connection at some point here... 1
Schroers: But along with this proposal, the connection would be
made from Galpin to Lucy? 1
Hoffman: No. This proposal we're asking for the acquisition...to
allow for future connection.
Schroers: Just along the property but then there would be still
a connection to be made to the north.
Hoffman: Correct. It is staff's opinion that this construction
will likely...take place as part of the upgrade of Galpin Blvd
when the County comes in and upgrades that to meet the expanding
needs of development in the area. It will piggyback on that road
project and install the trail at that time. So there's no
constrution being recommended as part of this proposal.
6
1
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 7
Schroers: Just an easement.
Hoffman: Correct. As mentioned, in a few short years this trail
will play a very important role in transporting grade school
students to the new school. It is not known at present which side
of the road the first alignment of the trail will be constructed.
Eventually, however the trail will be desirable on both sides of
Galpin Blvd. due to the nature of the north /south collector, that
being Galpin Blvd, and it's relationship to Highway 5, Highway 7,
the new school site and the proposed access boulevard that
parallels Highway 5. In regard to trails, it is recommended that
the following conditions of approval be forwarded to the City
Council. One, that a 20 foot trail easement be retained along
the entire easterly property line to facilitate the future
construction of the trail along Galpin Blvd. A note to the
commission. The applicant has stated it would be their desire to
have this trail constructed within the road right -of -way. The
additional 17 feet of right -of -way required for road purposes.
The city will also need a utility easement along this alignment,
thus the additional 20 feet beyond that 17 would also be labeled
as a utility easement where they interface. Again in conversation
with the engineering department, they do not feel that we would
be capable of installing a trail within that 17 foot road right -
of -way. But they would work with us in a combination easement
for utilities and the trail. In addition, any trail easements
and /or trail construction which would be necessitated by
identification of a park site within this plat should be •
required.
Schroers: Thank you Mr. Hoffman. At this point I guess we could
ask the representatives of Lundgren, if they wish to address the
commission on this issue.
1 Peter Pflaum: My name is Peter Pflaum. I'm the President of
Lundgren Bros and also the principle owner in the company and I'm
here, first of all I should back up for a minute. I have not
' been before a Park Commission in Chanhassen, I think since '78 or
'79 when we did Near Mountain, and I had the task of trying to
shepherd that project through. The reason I'm here tonight is
that I believe there has been way too much emotion exerted on
this project to date already, and it's sort of gotten out of
hand. I had a meeting with the City Manager and the Mayor
1 yesterday to talk about it. And as a matter of fact, that's the
first time I'd met the Mayor and the first time I'd talk to
Ashworth in I think 6 or 7 years so the only reason I mention
that is it's been a long time since we've had a need to come and
chat with one another. My feeling is that what happened, I think
7
1
11
1
Park and Rec Commission 1
July 27, 1993 - Page 8
Lundgren Bros is guilty of getting a little carried away and
being emotional when we should have focused in on the topic at
hand and had our discussions solely on the topic. In talking to
Ashworth, the City should have also done things on their behalf
that would have straighten this thing out. The reason I wanted
to meet with the city was to see if we could learn from this
experience and set procedures in place so it just wouldn't
happen, because it's not appropriate. I think, and that's why I'm
here is to apologize. It happened and I'm responsible, since I'm
the senior guy over there and also I'm involved on a daily basis
watching what's going on in the land development. So on behalf
of Lundgren Bros I wanted to apologize. We'll still fight with
regard to issues that we believe strongly in but we'll try to
keep the fight toned down and aimed at the issue and not, and
hope it doesn't spread so that's the only reason I'm here
tonight. Terry's certainly competent to talk about the project ,
and I just wanted to express that to you all before we got
started.
Schroers: Thank you very much. Did you have a question Jan? 1
Lash: No.
Schroers: I think that I would like to clear the air a little
bit on that myself. My position on this is that we're not here
to play politics. We are here to deal with nothing except the
park and recreation related issues of this project and our focus
is what we feel are our best efforts in meeting the needs of the
entire city of Chanhassen and we do not make any decisions here
specifically. We just make a recommendation based on our best
judgment to the City Council and they make the final decision so
that's the way the process here works and we're not for or
against anybody. We're just trying to do the best we can with
the park facilities within the city.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Park Commission. I'd
just like to add a couple of additional comments to the statement
that Peter just made. And I'll keep them brief because I know
there's, you want to hear about the project. But the bottom line
on this really is, is that no matter who's right or wrong, as
adults it should never get to this point and I feel incredibly
bad about it and I've come and talked to Todd about it within the
last week and I also originally had a meeting with the Mayor and '
with the City Manager. But really that's the bottom line. I mean
what happens is that, you know we're all so busy in the world,
sometimes you forget to be level headed and sometimes we make
mistakes and unfortunately that's one of the downsides of life is
8 '
1
' Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 9
that we make mistakes. And I feel that I've made a mistake here
in not keeping my cool. Not taking the additional extra time
that it may take to try to get ahold of somebody. To try to meet
with them privately. To work things out rather than reacting in
the way that I did. And so I feel bad about that and I told Todd
I felt bad about it, because I don't think it should ever get to
that. And I'm not perfect. I make a lot of mistakes. Really
the bottom line is, what do you do after you make the mistakes so
I just hope that you'll accept my apology. I apologized to Todd.
To each one of you. Certainly to the Mayor and the City Council
and it's never my intent, because I do care about Chanhassen. I
think those of you who have seen me make my presentations before
and those members of the staff who have worked with me on
projects over and over again, they know that we work very hard to
try to put forth the absolute best project we can. And what
happens sometimes, you get so absorbed by it and...somtimes you
lose track of the bigger picture. And I think that's what
happened here. And we've talked with the staff about trying to
improve communications so if these things do happen, that we have
opportunities and abilities to resolve them the way we all wish
that it would be done. So I apologize to all of you and certainly
to Todd. I'm going to talk a little bit about this neighborhood
community, referred to as the Song property. Obviously in any
project like this, certainly of the scope that this one is,
there's all kinds of challenges and I'm not going to burden you
with all of those but the primary challenge for us, and something
we started a few years ago was how do we do something that would
make our neighborhood communities something a little bit special.
Now we don't have all the answers so a lot of times what we do,
we travel around the country and find out what people smarter
than we are are doing and we found that something that's been
•
'
•
occurring all over the country is that people creating
neighborhood communities, in their pursuit of making them
something a little more special than maybe what they have been in
' the past, is they try to add amenities to them that will benefit
the people who buy homes within the community. Well there's also
an ancilliary benefit to that and I've dealt with that a little
bit within the report that's been given to you tonight. Is that
there also is a side benefit for those who live outside the
boundaries. It clearly wouldn't be fair to say that the only
people who benefit from this are the people who live within the
community because there's another aspect of this. When we were
looking at how we could improve our communities, there was a
phenomena occurring in government and that budgets were severely
' being constrained in all government, State, Federal, certainly
local and they were having a hard time delivering the services
that their residents wanted. And I know Chanhassen's not any
9
1
1
Park and Rec Commission 1
July 27, 1993 - Page 10
1
different. I know Chanhassen's going through the same thing that
many municipalities locally are. They have some budget
shortfalls. They're forced to have to cutback on certain things
that they'd like to do in their capital improvement program. And
the first community that we had an association park in was
Plymouth and they had some constraints too. I mean they can't be
everything. The Parks Department or the City can't be everything
to everybody in the community because their resources are limited
and they have to prioritize. So in conjunction with the fact
that we're attempting to make our neighborhood communities
something extremely special for those who live there, we also
know that the cities, especially in the type of amenities we're
providing. Things like tennis courts and handball courts and
basketball courts. Those are the things that most cities are
really having a hard time providing at a neighborhood level. I
mean they just don't have the funds so we realized, how do we do
something that maybe not everybody else is doing. That maybe
will give us a little bit of a competitive advantage. Give our
future homeowners a competitive advantage when they go to sell 1
their home, and hopefully that the city will look at and say, you
know there's some benefit to the city in this in that the
developer's not just putting forth park dedication in land.
They're willing to put forth some monies upfront and build these
things upfront, which oftentimes cities can't afford to do, even
if they did get the land because they just don't, unfortunately
have the money. And so we realize that for most cities,
•
especially in Minnesota, this was kind of a new phenomena. Now
you would see it in townhome and apartment units throughout the
metropolitan area. This is not unique to a townhome project. '
There are many townhome, multiple dwelling neighborhood
communities in the metropolitan area that have tennis courts and
things like this but it's probably a new phenomena, in Minnesota
anyway, to single family. You just don't see that much of it.
So we realized that most cities would probably say well geez,
this is really a departure from what we're used to and we also
realized that the cities still have park needs outside the
boundaries of our project. We certainly weren't thinking that
that problem would go away. And so that's why we've, in the
communities that we've done this, we've continued to offer to pay
park dedication fees. Even though we'll spend quite a bit of
money providing amenities that are within these neighborhoods.
So actually it's kind of, the city's getting a double benefit.
Now there's also an additional benefit is that the association
continues to maintain these so the city doesn't have to. And
then to give an example in a new neighborhood community called
Woodlands in Apple Valley that we're just underway with. The
City had concerns well what happens, I mean the City has to look
10 1
1
1
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 11
' at it from a worst case scenario. What happens if something
terrible happened and 10 years or 20 years or 30 years or 40
years from now the association wasn't getting along and there was
a problem. They didn't want it anymore or whatever. Well we can,
just like we did on Apple Valley. There's a couple things that
we can do. One is we can actually plat those lots, if necessary,
for if the city in some point in time, if there's a problem, that
might be able to be lots. Or we can have a document that would
facilitate the orderly transition of that property to the city if
that event ever occurred. Now we don't think that's going to
happen because what we've found is if the ones that have been set
up right to begin with usually don't have a problem. And all of
them aren't set up the same way. I mean so it wouldn't be fair
to say that all association parks have a potential liability of
this happening because they're not all set up the same way and we
spend a lot of time and considerable funds in trying to do it
right and studying on how others have done it. So that's really
why it is that we're proposing what you see before you tonight.
Now Todd explained to me, or shared with me an idea or a concept
today that is a concept that has merit that I hadn't had a chance
' to talk to him about before. And that is that he thinks it's a
good idea that if there was some additional flat area in this
association park area, it could even be included within it and
that's something we would have to look at in our design, where
people could throw a frisbee. They could run with their dog.
They could fly a kite and things like that. And that's a good
idea and that's something that we had not thought about. And if
' you, we try to put everything in the kitchen sink in this
proposal and that's something we did not think of and that was a
good idea and it has a lot of merit and it's something we should
have thought about and it's something we should put in there.
And what that allows for, I mean that's a desire of the Park and
Rec Department that if they ever did, for whatever reason, have
to have this little neighborhood park back, then it would have
some of that area in it that the Park and Rec Department would
like to see, so we think that's a good idea. We pretty much have
based our proposal and the size of the facility and everything on
our understanding of what the comprehensive plan is. We take
that document and we try to read it and decipher it and put forth
in conformance with it. And so that's how we've kind of come up
' with the sizes, etc. At this point in time I think it's, you
probably may have some questions about this proposal and myself
and Mr. Pflaum will do the best that we can to answer those
questions.
Schroers: Thank you. Questions from the commissioners. If not I
have a couple. What is Lundgren's position on the surrounding
11
1
i
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 12
1
community using these facilities? Are you looking at this
strictly as a private entity for your development? 1
Terry Forbord: Would you like me to respond?
Schroers: Please. 1
Terry Forbord: On these questions, okay. The park is owned by
the association which is comprised of those people who live in
the community. The association pays taxes on that property, I
believe and they also have the liability that's associated with
it and they pay the insurance and all the other things. And they
pay for the maintenance of it so these people will be paying an
annual fee to cover all of those costs and because of the way the
laws are, it's important that the association documents the
Declaration of Covenants and the association documents themselves
are, because it's a corporation, the association is, that they
have to have certain language in there to protect the association
against things like people getting hurt and just like, if you
owned a business. You have to have some kind of a protection in
there for that so the purpose of the park is for the ownership of
the association and for their primary use. Now that is not to
suggest that if Janey or Johnny have friends that live across the
street in another neighborhood, that they can't come and play
with them because of course that's not the point at all. But it
would, it isn't something that's advertised as a public park or
displayed as a public park. I believe that for insurance purposes
it needs to be posted that it is a park that's owned by the
association and that it's for the primary use of those residents.
But again, there's no policemen. There's no badges that people
wear or anything like that to identify themselves. That's not
the intent.
Schroers: Okay. There was some mention to wetland alterations
or a permit for wetland alterations. Exactly what alteration is
intended? 1
Terry Forbord: We'll put a bigger exhibit up here. I don't know
if you can see this. North would be up. Galpin Blvd, Lake Lucy,
the Johnson /Dolejsi /Turner neighborhood...I'm not a wetlands
expert so I'm not going to try to represent that to you but I can
generally tell you, I assume you're talking about this dark 11 area...
Schroers: Well my interest is actually to what alteration is
going to be done to the wetland. 1
12 1
11
II
II Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 13
II
II Terry Forbord: To the entire wetland?
Schroers: Yeah.
I Terry Forbord: Okay. Nowadays you do everything possible you
can to stay out of a wetland because it's just a lot of cost and
things associated with it. All the different agencies that you
II have to get your permitting from. It's extremely cost...
(Mr. Forbord was away from a microphone and his comments were not
being picked up on the tape clearly.)
I Schroers: Thank you for that explanation. I think we all
appreciate the progressive thinking and all the work that you've
I done on the project. The concept looks very nice. However, from
our perspective what you're asking of us is to make an exception
to policy here and my concern is that if we do that, in all
II fairness, that is going to set a precedent and each time that a
developer comes in with a new idea, that sort of gives them
leverage. They can say, well you let other developments do this
and you let other developments do that and that wasn't part of
I your policy and now we feel that we should have the right to do
this. And what I feel is that it is going to disrupt the
comprehensive plan and really make the acquisition of our public
I park and recreation facilities a lot harder to acquire, and it's
difficult to do right now. I guess what's not clear in my mind
is what you think the major benefit to the city is that we should
make such an exception to our policy here. I mean my personal
II feeling is that if you want to develop a private recreation area
for the people in your development, I think that's fine but not
to exclude the public park and trail facilities that we require
II of every development.
Andrews: Can I ask some questions?
I Schroers: Wait a minute. Would you care to respond to that? .
Terry Forbord: Actually I guess, I think there's a number of
II ways that one could look at this to determine what benefit is it
to the city. First of all, there will be about 230 new
homeowners that will be citizens of the city that will be living
I within this 200+ acre neighborhood community and actually the
density is less than 1.5 gross. It's about 1.1 on this
particular site. I mean it's a very low density and those 230
II people, if there was no, for instance just on the Johnson /Dolejsi
property to the immediate west. If there was no facility there
whatsoever, those 112 people would be going somewhere in the city
II 13
II
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 14
to utilize that facility somewhere, if there was one. The 11
people, 115 people who will be, excuse me households. We're
talking more than. It will be 230 households times 3, if that's
the basis for what we're using for numbers. So it would be 690.
About 700 people. What's happening here is that we will be
providing an upfront, the facilities for 700 people at no cost to
the city. Plus we will be taking park dedication fees and paying
them to the city as well. So I mean just those two things right
there I see as a real benefit to the city. When you add in the
maintenance component, and that the city will not, the city's
budget, the city's park and rec budget will not have to be forced
to maintaining these facilities. So a burden of 700 additional
homeowners, or residents, will be immediately taken care of by
this proposal. I think that's a real benefit to the city. And
they get the additional funds from those 230 units and they can
take those funds and if they deem that it is necessary in park
deficient area no. 3, or any other park deficient area for that
matter, they can take those funds and put those to use for those
people who live outside the development. Now when they do that,
the people, the approximately 700 people that are living within
these two PUD's, will not be burdening that new facility as much
because they have their own. Now one of the things that I didn't
address earlier is that why do we put the type of facilities in
that we do? I talked a little bit about the fact that the city
can't afford maybe to put in, and the city to my knowledge does
have a policy, in neighborhood parks they no longer put in tennis
courts and things like that because they just can't afford to.
But there's another reason we do it in that in our, through
talking with our sales people that sell in our neighborhoods and
by talking to our homeowners, these are the kind of facilities
they really would like us to put in. It's not necessarily that
we have so much vision or anything. We just listen to what our
customers are telling us. They're telling us, boy if you're
going to build us a park, here's what we'd like to have. We'd 1
like to have what some people call a totlot, but really they're
these playground systems. You probably have seen them. I'm sure
the city probably has some, an extensive one or maybe more than
one somewhere in the city. They're made out of those 6 x 6
timbers and they have all that neat stuff. Well we put those in.
We create large sandbox areas around them. The tennis courts,
the handball courts, the basketball courts and those types of
things we find our homebuyers say these are the systems that we
want that the city can't provide us with anyway. So because of
those reasons, we think it's a real benefit to the city. '
Schroers: Okay, I think.
14
1
1
I/ Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 15
1
' Andrews: I have some more questions, if I could, for Terry. I
guess my question would have to do with talking about 230 homes
between the two developments together. Do you think it would be
necessary to provide some parking for people within the
development to be able to drive to this tennis court to use it or
do you think they're all going to be pedestrian travelers to this
park site?
Terry Forbord: You know that's a good question as well. In fact
I think that we should provide some parking by this proposed
neighborhood park. I don't think a lot of people will drive there
but I think some people may and I think that if you approve this,
we should be required to provide some parking spaces. I think
that's a good idea.
Roeser: I kind of get the impression here that you're saying
this park is going to provide all the facilities for these people
in this area. They're still going to go out of that neighborhood
to swim. They're going to have to go out of that neighborhood to
play Little League baseball. They're going to have to go out for
arts and crafts. So you know, you make it sound like it's going
11 to provide all the facilities when it really isn't going to
provide all the facilities. It's going to provide a tennis court
and a small picnic area and playground.
Terry Forbord: I regret if that's what it appears to be what I!m
implying because that's not my intent. I realize that these
families will have boys and girls that may want to compete in
Little League. I realize that they may be involved in other
activities and obviously we can't put in all those types of
facilities and I am not trying to imply that at all. But just
•
from our experience at doing this, and from listening to our
customers, we do know that these are facilities that they do wish
they could have. And we also know that the other cities that
we've done this in, those cities can't provide those needs
anymore either because they can't afford it. And I was at a
meeting here one night where it was debated here in this chambers
about can the city afford to put tennis courts and things like
that in local neighborhood parks and it was determined they
couldn't. And there were some residents standing here and they
really wanted one really bad. And so we realized that we can't
' provide everything and we realize they will have to go outside
the boundaries of the community but we also know that within the
certain scope that we're presenting here, we can provide a lot of
the things that these people really do want.
1 15
1
1
Park and Rec Commission 1
July 27, 1993 - Page 16
11
Berg: I guess I'm looking at it a couple different ways too. If
I were a resident of that new development, I'd really be excited.
Excited with the possibility of having this park that I could
bike to and take my kids to. I'm not a member of that community
and I am a member of a commission that has to be concerned about
- other citizens as well. I just can hear the people coming. Why
do they have this park here? What's wrong with you people? Why
aren't you supplying a park for us in an area that has been
labeled park deficient for a long time. I guess I'm trying, I'm
forced to think of the bigger picture at this point. Your
benefits to the city are undeniable. But those citizens there
are not being served by having that park outside of that
development.
Terry Forbord: That same thing concerns us too, Commissioner
Berg. We think that the city should be providing parks throughout
the community and I know the city's rethinking their park plan,
or considering it anyway, and contemplating being site specific
for specific types of parks. Actually this particular site, I
bet you doesn't have a level spot on it anywhere. I mean that's
something I haven't talked about. There's virtually, I think
you'd be hard pressed to find an acre of land that's level on
this particular site. And what's really important for the
different types of, I mean there's all kind of different type of
park needs that are needed in the city and we believe that it's
probably wise to be site specific and find level pieces of
property for certain types of uses and other types for other
types of uses. And we really do, I think there's a shortage of
parks in the city and we have never tried to suggest that there
isn't but we think that the proposal we're making, I mean whether
it was Lundgren Bros or it was somebody else, if somebody brought
in a proposal where they would agree to do this type of facility •
and still give the money to the city so the city could take care
of all those other things, I think they're hitting two birds with
one stone.
Schroers: I think though the real problem here, what I see is +�
just kind of the idea that this is a somewhat a private park
within a community. That's what is really hard to swallow. If the
rest of the residents feel that, for whatever reason, that they
can't go there and they can't use that facility because they're
not a portion of this neighborhood, then we have not serviced the
community. We have not done the job that we've been appointed to
do here. And that's a real concern to me. I think having a
park...is just the fairness of the issue I think is really a
major concern and we hear over and over again on every new
developing community, when we get to the park issue. What they
16 1
1
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 17
1
are afraid of is that when we develop a neighborhood park, that
there's going to be a big flashy neon sign and it's going to draw
the gangs from Chicago. It doesn't happen. Just the people who
know about it who live in the area come there and the real
problem I have with this whole thing is identifying it or
. labeling it as a private park.
Terry Forbord: You know just to give you an example. I should
have may talked a little bit about the math of this. But for an
example. There will be approximately $138,000.00, almost
$140,000.00 of money generated by park fees with the homes that
are built here. And if land in Chanhassen was going for
$25,000.00 an acre, that would give you more than 5 acres of land
that the city could buy to buy a park right in this area. If
they could find, and again I'm not exactly what type of park it
I is that you need but let's assume for a minute it was for ball
diamonds for Little League or something like that. You could put
a few diamonds on 5 acres of land right in this general vicinity
for the amount of money that would be received in park dedication
fees. Now that doesn't include the trail fees. The trail fees I
believe are $200.00 per unit and so there'd be an additional sum
of money. But this is just $600.00 times 230 units is about
$138,000.00. So when you look at it maybe in that perspective.
Okay, there'd be two neighborhood parks built by the developer.
The developer would contribute the land. They'd put in the
improvements when they develop so the facilities are there when
the people move in. And then they'd be maintained. Plus the
money that would be received from the park dedication would allow
the city to buy at least 5 acres of land and pay for the land.
And then the city, all they'd have to do is pay for the
improvements and then you'd have the other component of that that
seems to concern, or appears to be a concern of the city's to
serve the other residents.
Schroers: Does Lundgren Bros have a real problem with just
labeling it a Chanhassen neighborhood park, like any other
neighborhood park in this city? I mean we do not put major signs
out on collectors saying Carver Beach Park this way. We don't
attempt to draw people from other areas into the park. All we do
is like at the entrance to the park we put up the sign that says
the name of the park and that's all it is. It's a neighborhood
park. It doesn't specify that it's for someone or that it's not
for someone or anything. Is there a problem with that?
Terry Forbord: I don't think there would be a problem with that.
I think for insurance purposes, somewhere on that park, and maybe
Peter can remember but it seems to me that in the last
17
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 18
neighborhood park that we did in Churchill, i 1, the association, or
their insurer and the insurance agents would have to clarify this
but I believe that they were required to put up like a small sign
posted to say it because then if there ever was something, at
least they can say well it was posted. It's not like it's
identified in a big sign or anything like that. 1
Schroers: What does that sign say?
Terry Forbord: Forgive me for not knowing. I can find that out
but I believe that had to be done and the person who does the
developing of the parks for us isn't here tonight but it seems to
me that for liability purposes they had to do that. Peter, do
you recall?
Peter Pflaum: I don't remember...
Schroers: Does it say something like neighborhood residents
only? Something specific like that.
Peter Pflaum: ...I think it says a private neighborhood park or
something like that. I think the thing you have to remember is a
park owned...owned by the homeowners and they monitor and control
it. And the only issue, we have one in Churchill right now,
Churchill Farm and neighborhood kids come over and use the totlot
all the time. The area that we have concern... •
Lash: How would the association monitor that? And what would
they do if they found it was being monopolized by other people?
Peter Pflaum: Well I think probably, I would assume they'd do
something like this. They'd probably put, either post it and if
it was being abused by other people...I supposed they end up
putting a lock on it and the combination be given to the
homeowners. That's the only one element of the whole park and
that's the worst case scenario. You have to also understand that
people buying into this area are actually paying for it...
townhouse project or apartments or condominium where people have
their own swimming pool and tennis court. They pay for it and
they maintain it and they monitor it. If the neighbors want to
come on it, it's up to the homeowners association to decide if
they're going to...this has gone on for years and years and years
all over the country and all over the neighborhoods. Everywhere
and the only difference is that they're multi - family to single
family.
1
18
1
1
I/ Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 19
1
Lash: Well I want to just give you a little history and I'll try
11 and make this short. I happen to live in a neighborhood that had
an association and had an association owned park that was
developed by our association back in the 60's, or late 50's or
something. So it was a long time ago. Before I lived there.
Before I was born. But anyway, we moved in there and at that
time it had already transferred title to the city because of a
breakdown of the association and that I see, you know I hear you
1 guys saying that you're going to try and have this association.
The rules very tight so these kinds of things don't happen but I
personally have seen that happen where our association broke
down, and it happens over many years of people moving in and
people moving out and not knowing how the association operates
and pretty soon they don't want to pay their dues anymore and the
whole thing falls apart. And where our park had the biggest
problem was with enforcement of outside people coming in,
specifically teens coming at night and wanting to party back in
an area that's relatively remote. So the neighbors then would
I call the police to come and try and break up these beer parties
and the police didn't want to respond because it was privately
owned property. So it got into, it really got into a mess and it
ended up with the city taking over the title, which then led to a
whole kind of an ownership. Even though it was on paper, the
residents still feel like it's partly their own and they're very
protective of it. But yet the city owns it and there's been a lot
' of friction over the years because of this so I have seen how
this, in the worst scenario, it does not work. And from the •
sounds of it, we've had discussions up here of when we put in
11 neighborhood parks, when we require property, of requiring the
developers to develop it just like you guys were talking about
doing. And in that situation it's a win /win situation because
it's developed right away before people, before the development
1 is full. The people like that. We like that. It doesn't cost
us a lot of money and we've talked about doing that in the
future. I don't know if it's ever really going to happen or not
but it's something we've considered and if you people would want
to develop this but still consider it, turn it over to the city,
I'd be all for that but I am very, very leery of the association
owned park because of my own personal experience. Also, I look
at this particular area as having other property owners. There's
a 23 home development going in across the road and there are
other individual property owners out there who have also paid
park fees when they develop their homes. Built their homes and
they will not be serviced probably by this park and I don't know,
even if we get the fees from you, we can't say, we don't know
1 tonight that we will have the opportunity to acquire a nice 5
acre parcel when something else comes in to develop, and we've
19
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 20 IR
been through that problem recently too where developers come in
and try to convince us that it's right to take property for a
park but just not their property. They want us to take it from
the guy next door. Well the next thing, the guy next door comes
in and it's the same, we keep hearing the same story over and
over and it just, we can't operate like that. Hoping that
tomorrow the property next door will come in and we'll happen to
get the prime property that we want because we got the fees from
you. We can't count on that. So this whole thing has me very
uncomfortable. 1
Peter Pflaum: Good point. One of the things that's unfortunate
...isn't a master plan that designates in advance which
property...because then the property owner would be...they would
know. So I think one of the things you have to look at in the
future, to eliminate this kind of discussion would be come up
with a comprehensive plan that...and most of the other
communities have done this frankly.
Schroers: We are doing that currently. 1
Peter Pflaum: Okay. You raised some good points. What happens
if the homeowners association does not want to take care of the
property...We recently got approval, only like 2 months ago, the
same concept in Apple Valley. The Apple Valley Council liked
very much the idea of the...What their concern was, suppose the
neighbors don't want it, what happens then? They didn't want to
take it back and have a problem later on. So what they, in
working with them they came up with a program that said, in the
event, and this had to be in the homeowners document before you
bought the property...it would go back to the city or the city
could elect...to be divided into single family lots...ad the
underlying zoning was single family lots. 0l6;
�� i
Lash: So what if the association is split? Hal the people want
to keep the park and half of them don't anymore. Well, they're
going to have to, just like anything else. There's no perfect
solution. All I'm getting at, the other point. I don't, you're
talking about big issues and are important issues and I don't
want to make light of them because we sort of learned by working
with you people, and our residents. One of the things I think is
important for all of us to understand...the way we've done things
in the past isn't going to work and so rather than slapping us
and telling us we're bad guys for coming in and doing this, I
think we may be onto something that you may want to encourage. I
think it's time for the private sector...and they're talking
about cutting back in programs. All I'm saying is maybe it's a
20
1
11
_��_ _rpm
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 21
1
way for, and again...because this community said well other
communities are going to have to learn how to work with the
private sector. You can't depend on the government to come up
with the money. People are being taxed to death. So all I'm
suggesting is, maybe this is...but we are going a step forward.
We're putting improvements in upfront. There's no...and we're
. also paying money so the city's got funds coming up. So that
isn't all bad. And it's not...perfect but all we're saying is
maybe this is sort of a wave of the future...in order to provide
this community or any other community with these kind of
improvements...I'm just suggesting that because we know what our
residents want... We wouldn't be doing this. This costs a great
deal of money...
Lash: As every developer faces who dedicates property for
parkland.
Peter Pflaum: Yeah but usually they do one or the other. We're
doing both.
Lash: Well and, if my comments made you feel like I was slapping
your hands I apologize. I didn't mean them to be taken that way.
And if you'd like to create a wave of the future, I'd be all for
that so if you want to develop the property and put the
facilities on there that you have shown and then deed it to the
city, we would welcome that and that could start a whole new
trend for the developers coming in. That would be our way of •
working with the private sector. And I know I'd be in favor of
that. If you're interested in doing that and then putting,
taking away your park fees. We'd have the park and it would be
developed but it would be deeded to the city.
' Schroers: I think you would probably gain all our support on
that. That is the one stumbling block. You're asking us to do a:
public thing here for a private entity. It's not ethical. You're
asking us to do something here that's unethical and we're going
to live to regret it if we do that. I think what you're talking
about is wonderful. We'd love to see it happen but just to do it
and keep it private for the people who are lucky enough or
wealthy enough or whatever to be able to live in that community
and just target it for that specific neighborhood and just
putting the label private on there, we just can't do that. We
can't sit here and do that.
Lash: Because we are government.
21
1
1
Park and Rec Commission 1
July 27, 1993 - Page 22
1
Terry Forbord: Maybe I could just add a couple of quick thoughts.
As noble as that may sound, it really wouldn't be fair to the
people who would have to buy these homes because this money to do
these things doesn't just come from nowhere. The place it comes
from is that all 230 homes there, those people are going to pay
more for their lots and their homes in order to have that. In
other words, if you look at the cost of developing land nowadays,
those of you who have followed it, there's an incredible amount
of exactions that are paid by new development that is not paid by
the citizens at large. For example, storm water policies that
the city's looking at adopting right now. They're not going to
go back to all the people who've already lived here to ask them,
pay to contribute to the new storm systems that are going to
benefit the entire city. The people, the new people that live
here are going to pay for that. And there's a whole bunch of
those things like that but that's not the purpose of this
meeting. But there's all kinds of additional costs that the new
people who move into the community are going to pay. So if you
ask the people that are going to live here that they also have to
pay more for their lot above and beyond what would be typical in
a park dedication scenario, really that wouldn't be fair.
Meger: I don't understand the difference in paying a little bit 1
more for your lot upfront than having to pay association fees on
a regular basis.
•
Terry Forbord: Because the people then who are paying get the
direct benefit.
Lash: They still would. i
Meger: They still would.
Terry Forbord: No, it's the benefit is not the same. As a real
estate professional I can tell you the benefit is not the same.
Roeser: How is it different?
Terry Forbord: Because, let's just talk about a different type
of facility. Let's say if any other private recreational,
whether it's a health club or not. What if the people paid all
the dues and they paid everything but then everybody else got to
go. Now would that be fair? Would it be fair that everybody got
to go but only certain people had to pay? Of course that
wouldn't be fair. And I think the issue here, and I think
Chairman Schroers really hit the nail on the head when he said
that the biggest issue here, and I'm sure that the thing that
22 1
11
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 23
makes all of ou feel the most uncomfortable is private. It's
Y � P
exactly like what happened with the private golf course, Bearpath
and their approvals in Eden Prairie. There were a lot of people
upset because it was a private club. But you know if you look in
the history of Minneapolis, there's private clubs all over the
place but in the olden days people didn't get upset about those
- things. The fact that it wasn't labeled private, it may make
everybody feel better. One of the things maybe that you'd
consider is that, if you like the concept of getting the park
dedication fees and you like the developer contributing the
amenities that we've discussed, if you like that concept, and the
only thing that really rubs you wrong is how the terminology or
the name, maybe there's a way that we can work with staff to come
up with some kind of a solution that may be palatable to
everybody. It wouldn't be worth it for us as the developer to go
1 ahead and do this and say it's open to the public. Because
there's absolutely no advantage to any of the people above, that
live there, above and beyond what any other developer is doing.
If you look at our neighborhood communities you'll find that we
really make absolutely no attempt to do what everybody else is
doing. And I'd be happy to take you on tours of our projects and
show you that. We could care less what everybody else is doing.
We would like to do something special.
Berg: The word private's not what's bothering me. It's the sign
you're going to put up that says it's association members only is
what bothers me.
Terry Forbord: And if we didn't put a sign up like that, would
that be okay then?
Berg: You have to have a sign up for insurance purposes. And if
you don't have to put the sign up, then what are we talking about
here? Then it's a public park.
Terry Forbord: Well not really because, if you understand the
homeowners association and the State Statutue of how you set one
up and what it means, it's a corporation. So it means it's
privately owned.
1 Berg: Okay, then okay. Then to back up a little bit further,
then I'm not upset with... I'm upset with the fact that it's an
association's park and it's not a public park. I'm not upset
with the word private. I'm upset with the concept.
Lash: And if this development were going in an area that was not
park deficient and you wanted to do this, I wouldn't have a
23
11
11
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 24
1
problem with it then even. The big part of the problem is that
this is a park deficient area and as these developments or these 1
single homes start trickling in, all of those people are paying
the park fee but they will not be getting a park. Because they
. will not feel that they can go and use this park or the one in
the adjoining development, so where are they supposed to go? And
it's our responsibility to provide a park for the too and this
is not doing it. So then we're not doing our jobs. We're really
stuck.
Schroers: I don't think the people in your development would
sacrifice anything by not labeling that as a private park. They
are still going to have the amenities right there and that's what
is going to attract them to your development. That's what's
going to help them to decide whether or not they want to buy the
home there. They're going to like the home. They're going to
like the area. They're going to like the facilities that they
have. All we are saying is we think it's a great plan. Just
don't label it private but also don't advertise it that it's
there for the whole world but just have it as a neighborhood
park. I'll tell you. Just frankly we cannot sit here and say
it's okay to do that. I mean it's just absolutely not ethical
and we will regret it for the rest of the time that we are in
existence if we do that. It's just that it comes down to
terminology here and what you suggested working with staff to
define some terminology so that it is not labeled as a private
entity and that people who develop close to your development and
pay dedication fees can use that park if they want to walk over
and use it. But I just don't believe that you're going to see an 1
influx of undesireable people coming in there and disrupting the
residents of your development as a result of not labeling it
private. I don't buy that. But at this point I would like to
ask if there is anyone else in attendance here this evening that
would like to address the Commission on this issue. Is there
anyone in the audience that would like to share some information
with us? Would you please state your name and address for the
record.
Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Gaipin Blvd. And it is
correct that this is the Song property. It is not the Carlson/
Song property. I am, Linda and I are the Song's.neighbors
directly to the north. I suppose, I don't want to belabor this
whole concept of private versus public too much. I think that
it's a very gray area and I don't feel it's as clear cut as
perhaps some of you do. We bought a nice piece of land over
looking the Harrison wetland and we're working hard, along with
the Song's who purchased their land some time ago, with the dream
24 1
11
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 25
1
of relocating to a site overlooking that wetland. And paid all
the taxes. Made all the payments to the mortgage company, and so
forth and so on and I guess I think there is a lot to be said for
the rights of private property owners and I would hate to see an
attitude in any commission that feels totally compelled at all
times, under all circumstances, to look to the public as opposed
to the current owners of something. And what they've paid and
what they've, the price and the hard work that they've labored in
order to gain something. I'm a...free enterpriser and those are
just some of my brief philosophical thoughts. As far as this
park is concerned and as far as what's in it for the city,
perhaps Todd can tell me. What is the distance between Galpin
and TH 41? Mile and a quarter? Roughly.
Hoffman: Less than that probably.
Jerome Carlson: A mile? It depends on what park you're measuring
it from because they're both angling somewhat I guess.
I/ Hoffman: 3/4 of a mile.
Jerome Carlson: Todd and I discussed the park issue at some
length and I won't review that whole discussion. I was there on
behalf of the Song's as well as myself because I had been working
very, very closely with Charles and Irene to try to preserve
something very, very special that we both purchased and we own.
We think we have a right to own it. But in my discussion with
Todd I learned that the studies that in fact are current
apparently show that the distance anybody on average or if it's
an average or if it's the greatest distance that the average
citizen is willing to travel to a park, is 1/2 mile. Is that
correct Todd?
Hoffman: That's a standard which is put forth by the National
Recreation and Parks Association. It is commonplace in the
comprehensive plan.
Jerome Carlson: And you know I look at this whole development
and I do not have any part of the development but if you were to
I take these two developments together, and if you were to have put
a public park right in the middle of them, do you really think
people are going to cross Highway 5 from the south to use that? I
1 seriously doubt it. Do you think people will come all the way in
from TH 41 a half a mile, having crossed TH 41 to use a park in
the middle of that development? I don't think so. Do you think
people from Galpin, east side, would go a half a mile to the
interior of this development to use the park? Maybe. Not many.
25
1
1
II
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 26 II'
Particularly when there's a beautiful school park, a beautiful 11
school park with a wonderful trail system being developed right
up there on that corner immediately south of Prince's property
and that other development that's going much more close. It will
II
have all of the big stuff, I'm assuming, for kids. Where are
they going to go? Well if I'm a kid, I've got my bike, I'm going
to head for the big stuff. I'm going to swing on the big swings. I
That would be my inclination. I don't think I was any different
as a kid than most kids. And so you know, just as a perspective,
with all due respect, I've walked over the Song property many
II
times. I probably know it as well as Terry and his engineers do.
And I can only assure you that that property is a lousy place for
a level park of any kind. It's very, very tough terrain. You
know. I wrote the actual numbers down. 112 units and 115. That's
II
a total of on average 3 people. That serves 681 residents.
Admittedly they're going to go outside the park for the ballgames ii
and the swimming pool and such. It's $181,600.00 in park and
trail fees. If you can do an Apple Valley type thing, take the II
money and run. Buy some property that is in that zone that's
flat. My opinion. You're concerned about the gentleman across
the street with 26 lots, just to the east side of Galpin. Add
that money to it. Now you're up well over $200,000.00. Pick a
spot for that community park that is suitable for a real park and
equip it with the money. I can't believe that the developers
II
couldn't work out something relative to this, what's the title or
name or deed it to the city in the future such as they did in
Apple Valley so that if they don't want it, it's history. 1
Schroers: That's what we're asking for.
Jerome Carlson: I didn't understand you were asking for the Apple 1
Valley solution but in any event, as a private citizen who pays
taxes like all of you, this to me, this is a good deal. Figure
out a way to capitalize on it and pick the right piece of
II
property for a real park and use the money that's available. Let
the developers have the tennis courts. If that's what their
customers, I'm in the business of serving customers. And 681
people. That's a lot of folks. That's a lot of folks and if II
they're willing to pay for a little extra amenity like a tennis
court. If they really get excited about that and they want to
foot that bill, and if they don't, it goes back to the city. II
They subdivide it and create more homes to pay taxes. It doesn't
sound like a bad deal to me. That's just my attitude. Thank you
very much. 1
Schroers: Thank you.
II
26
II
...„,,i
________
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 27
1
Bret Davidson: My name is Bret Davidson. I live at 7291 Galpin
Blvd. A little history here first and then I'll come up to the
present day. I moved here in 1986 and I built a home...paid a
$600.00 park fee and so it was the first home I'd ever built. I
said, what in the world is the $600.00 park fee. They said well
the $600.00 park fee is going to pay for a park. And I said, we
have a park. Lake Ann Park. They said, no you don't understand.
You're going to, we've developed a comprehensive park plan and
you'll have a park within about a half mile of where you live.
Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Now if you come to the present
day, I'm also developing Royal Oak Estates which is a 23 parcel
piece of property and just two thoughts. The first one is, if
11 its an association park, I don't think we can play with the name
and say it's a private park or a public park. If it's an
association park, the people that live in the other neighborhoods
won't be allowed there. I think that if we start to say well
we're going to change the sign, all we're doing is we're playing
with words. The other part of it is, I don't know if it's a good
idea or bad idea. My feeling is, my people in my subdivision and
myself have paid for a park. I think we should have a park within
the area. Now if there's a better suited spot than the Song
property in the area to develop, by all means. By all means get
it. My two feelings are first off, if it's an association park,
it's a private park and we won't be welcome. And second off,
we're paying a park fee and I think we should have a park within
our area.
Andrews: I have some questions for Mr. Davidson. When we're in
the process of competing for land that has potential for
residential development, being that you're an experience
developer yourself at this point, or you have some experience.
What do you think ag rich would go for in that area?
I/ Bret Davidson: Let me back up a little bit. Ask me how to fly
an airplane and I can tell you because I'm an airline pilot. I'm
not a developer and obviously Terry and Mr. Pflaum have a
tremendous amount more experience in it than me. This is my
first development so I'm not a qualified developer. Now if you
ask me what land goes for in the area, is that your basic
question? I can tell you that the average land price in the area
is around $20,000.00.
Andrews: An acre?
Bret Davidson: An acre, yes sir. I had an offer from the Rottlund
Company for my piece of property at $22,000.00 an acre. Prior to
developing my piece of property. Of course I had appraisers do
27
1
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 28
an appraisal for the area as part of my financing for my project
and it came in at almost $20,000.00 an acre so I think it's very
reasonable and fair to say that land costs in the area is going
to run somewhere around $20,000.00 an acre.
Andrews: Thank you.
Bret Davidson: But I'm not a developer, don't ask me. Okay,
thanks.
Schroers: Thanks for your input.
Dave Stockdale: My name's Dave Stockdale. I have the property
mainly south of the Song's. I'm here to express some of my
concerns. From what I can see between the Song property and the
Johnson /Dolejsi property, we're talking a little over 206 acres
the city is in the process of letting go into development and in
that 206 acres it appears that there may be no public park?
Surrounding that between Rottlund, Bret Davidson and the other
properties nearby that may be developed, you're talking about
maybe 20% of that potential development land. It just seems like
if there was any topographic possibility to do it in that
development, that would still be the most appropriate
proportionate to the number of lots being developed and the
impact it would have on a developer. That said, at some time in
the future I may be going for development on my land. I've got
roughly 17 acres and it appears that if nothing is acquired from
the Song property that I have a hunch my property's going to be
looking pretty attractive to some people.
Andrews: How flat is it? 1
Dave Stockdale: Flatter. And portions of it are more open. The
reality is that if in fact what they're after is 5 acres, that
pretty much nullifies the financial feasibility of a development.
You'll roughly cut a third of my development plan out of the
context of development so I have some personal concerns at that
level. Practically speaking, it's probably a lot more feasible
to look at my land than the Song's. I don't know all the Song's
property at this point. In answer to another one of your
questions Jim, what is acreage going for. I turned down an offer
of $24,000.00 on mine. But more significant to what is acreage
going for, is what is it's potential development return on the
finished developed land. And it's a lot higher. Lot higher. So
I just want that to be of record at this point. That's mostly
what I have to say at this point.
1
28
I/
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 29
11
Lash: Can you guys turn this thing on again. I need to have
another quick crash course just to get my bearings, so we can see
what all is being developed here. The big angled one, is that
the Johnson?
11 - Hoffman: Johnson /Dolejsi..and again the Commission should recall
that...concept of that association park right in that location as
a part of that.
Lash: And the new development now, the Song property is that
whole spot.
Hoffman: The Stockdale ro ert is the dotted region. Prince's
P P Y g
property. And Royal Oaks...wetland down in here. I certainly
understand the quandry that the Park Commission...Listening to
the discussion it comes to mind that if something is placed out
before you where you think it's a good deal and you look at it
and the other things aside, some people would place a pretty high
value on it as a pretty good deal. You get the park servicing
this region of the community if you splice that out, so to
speak...and you're still needing...thousand dollars to do things
elsewhere. But then again...parkland in this region and then
again severing this region to the north which is not depicted on
the overlay, be it the Carlson property north...It certainly
arises an issue on the values placed on each one. It's a
difficult position which you're placed in to make a decision.
What's going to be the best for the community. Best solution for
the community...
Lash: Well I guess I have a comment and we can probably pussy
foot around this all night long but if we want to get right to
the, cut to the chase here. The private versus the public park
is one of the conditions of the sale of the property. We need to
consider as a commission if that has any bearing on our decision.
11 And it's putting us I think in a difficult situation. We hate to
be the people to pull the plug on a whole development that's
coming in but our decision basically has the power to do that.
And maybe we need to look at some kind of other options and do
some brainstorming type things, and I have complete respect for
the private property owner. I have total respect for the
Carlson's and the Song's. It's their property. They can do what
they want with it. And if they don't want a public park in, and
that's a condition of the sale, I don't look at that right now as
being my problem. What we need to look at is what is going to
service the residents. Serve the residents of our city. If this
condition is something that the Carlson's, while they are
property owners, are feeling very strong about, we need to
29
1
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 30
1
respect that but maybe it's something that we can look at as a
future solution that if the Carlsons were no longer the property
owner, the title could revert to the city. Because that would be
a condition of our's at the development of his property or the
sale of his property because I look at that as basically the
whole crux of this problem. It's a deal breaker and if it's not
something that the Carlson's and the Song's are flexible on, and
you know Mr. Carlson had good comments on the draw of this
property of this park. Who's going to come to it? I think he
did the same, he was the perfect spokesperson for us. We were
saying it's not going to be drawing in throngs of people from all
over the metro area and so therefore that's where we have the
problem with not making it be public because we can't understand
the problem with it. If the fear is that it's going to be bring
in lots of traffic or undesireable people, I dont't think that
you're going to see that as the case. As Larry said earlier, and
I think you stated it yourself, the only people who are going to
come are going to be the people who live fairly close.
Jerome Carlson: May I respond to you?
Lash: Yeah. And maybe you're open to some suggestions, and I
don't know how much you guys have hashed this over. Maybe you've
talked it over to death, I don't know but.
Jerome Carlson: I need to clarify. I gave an impression which 1
was not accurate. As I have explained to Terry this evening, and
the Song's and I have spoke, I think it's important for the
Song's and for myself to make the Song's and my position real
clear. We don't know if a public park would necessarily be a
deal breaker. If a public park were the decision of the
Commission, we would be absolutely opposed to this location
because that is not, that would be a deal breaker. We don't want
the public park in a place that can be looking into our living
room windows. That's not why we bought that land. It's not why
we paid all the money we paid and pay all the taxes that we pay.
Would the location of a public park somewhere else on the
property break the deal? That would probably be largely up to
the Lundgren's. They're paying the money and I spoke with Todd.
I/
My comments to Todd, there were 3 things that the Song's and the
Carlson's were primarily concerned about. If there was going to
be a public park in the final analysis, that it would be in a
location that would not be viewed or in fact be disruptive to the
serenity that we are working hard and paying for to protect.
Right around that wetland. Second, that it not have lights.
Todd's indication to me was that there may be other alternatives
and there would be no lights. And third, that if the Lundgren
30 1
1
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 31
1
Bros viewed that as a deal breaker, then we would be opposed to
that because the Song's clearly have wrestled with the issue of
selling their property a great deal and have come to grips with
that and have chosen another homesite on the north end of the
1 property. The Song's never asked for the MUSA line to be around
their property. That was not their hope. That was not their
dream. They never solicited the city. They never came down and
supported it one meeting.. It simply happened to them. So now
they are responding to that and there are forces at work with
pipe lines and sewer lines and what have you that need to be
dealt with and this whole thing is kind of a big issue, part of
1 which is the question of the park. So I want to make it clear
what our position is on the park. We felt this was a fine
location for an association park because it would be smaller and
' it would be bermed and treed in a manner and it wouldn't have the
traffic that one could expect that close to Gaipin if it were in
fact an open public park. And we agreed with that.
Schroers: Mr. Carlson I don't, I hope we're not giving the
impression here that when we talk public park we're talking about
clearing land and flattening out and putting in ballfields and
lights. We are saying that the concept of that park is
desireable. It's nice in the location. The amenities that you're
offering would be fine. We don't have a problem with it. The
only problem we have is calling it private. Just make it a
public park and that's that. We're not thinking about putting in
ballfields and lights and that sort of thing in there. Your plan,
your concept is fine. The only thing that we can't buy is
private other than public. I mean we just cannot do that.
Lash: And if Lundgren is willing, Lundgren Bros is willing to
move it to a site that's acceptable to you, I don't have a
problem with that at all.
Jerome Carlson: I don't know that that's the case. I think
they've already got commitments for a park on the other side and
my impression is that by providing that uniqueness of the tennis
courts and the private park as a part of what people want today,
therefore it becomes a marketing tool. As a businessman I can
completely understand that approach. Give people what they really
are going to use and want and you're going to have good customers
and I think that's what I see them doing in this process. Trying
to assure themselves that it will have the kinds of amenities
that people are really wanting and needing. If there's 4 -4 1/2
acres dedicated to a city park, if I remember my conversation
with Todd, in lieu of any fees of any kind, there's no date by
which it's known that that park would in fact ever be furnished.
1 31
1
11
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 32
11
And so you know when I look at this I say, take the money and run
and with all due respect to Mr. Stockdale, if he's willing to
sell his land to a developer for $24,000.00 or $25,000.00 or
$30,000.00 an acre, why would you care if you sold it to the park
committee? Who do you care who you sell it to if you get, as the
initial landowner, if you get what you want. I'm not trying to
speak for you. It just doesn't make sense to me that you would
be extraplating this out as to the value to a developer once it
was developed.
Schroers: He's talking his acreage is 17 acres. We're buying 5
of it. He doesn't have enough acreage then left over to develop.
It ruins his whole development. We just continually run into this
and the same thing that you're telling us we've heard from Opus
and everybody else that wants to develop in this city. Take our
money and buy someone else's property. I mean I think that it's
really generous to offer someone else's property. We can't buy
that. I'm telling you, we cannot sit here and do that. No way.
Jerome Carlson: Then I would at least suggest to you that you ,1
take a look at the property and decide, is this the right
property to try to bulldoze and flatten and put a real useable
park in for the public? I maintain. 1
Schroers: We're saying that that's not the type of park that we
need or want there. We need a neighborhood park. We're not •
talking about bringing in any bulldozers and leveling and
building ballfields and putting up lights. Your concept for the
park, Lundgren Bros concept for the park is fine. It would work
out, no problem. The only problem is the private and the public.
There's the problem right there. It's just that simple.
Jerome Carlson: Well I hope I've made our feelings clear. We
are, the private /public thing is not a serious issue to us. If
it's public, the location is a serious issue upfront and if it's
a deal breaker in Lundgren's mind, then it becomes a serious
issue. I don't know that that's the case. I really don't. 1
Lash: Thanks for clarifying that. We needed to hear that.
Schroers: Okay. Mr. Hoffman. 1
Hoffman: In an attempt to, as we look at the potential scenarios
which could be concluded here, I think it's my responsibility to
flush out some issues that you would be faced with. Let's take a
look at if the association park were to be public. If that would
be an alternative. That would then most likely, due to
32
1
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 33
1
precedence setting and handling park and trail fee credit, that
then for the acquisition from the use of that property as a
public park space, you would pay the penalty of crediting the
park and trail fees, or the park fees, excuse me, as a part of
1 that development. So again that would come into play. It would
. be a penalty. We would have to most likely credit those dollars
for the land acquisition itself and the applicant is correct in
stating then that we're faced with as a commission and as a city
with developing the property. So it comes down to a very
difficult value judgment on where you place that value in taking
a look and considering all those different resources and all
1 those different issues as you think through the process.
Andrews: Just briefly, we talked about $138,000.00 of fees,
plus what we'd have to spend to develop it. I think we're
looking at a quarter of a million dollars if we were going to
build that park ourselves. And have it ready to use.
Schroers: Okay, we're going to take one more statement here and
then we're going to move on.
Andrews: We have some new people here too.
Schroers: Okay. One moment please.
Charles Song: I'm Charles Song. I'm the owner of that property.
concern. Since my neighbors all expressed their concerns, so I
think I should express my own too. Mr. Carlson has stated my
concern and my wife's concern very well. I think I need not add
much to it. But just my major concern is that since this area
is, does not have a flat place and it's very difficult to be a
11 public park there, and if for some reason you force Lundgren Bros
to go back on the deal and if our sale does not go through, •
that's our concern. Then I think the area will not be developed
for quite a while. I think Lundgren Bros is a very good developer
and that's why we chose to sell it to them. And if this becomes
the deal breaker, then I think it will probably take a while,
maybe I don't know how many years, before this will come up again
' and then it will remain undeveloped. Thank you.
Schroers: This is the final say and then we're going to have to
11 move on this issue in order to get along with, move onto other
city business.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Parks Commission. I
just want to make a couple comments here. There's a misnomer in
belief that because you have a large piece of property that you
' 33
1
3
1
Park and Rec Commission 1.
July 27, 1993 - Page 34
11
can afford to do something like this and if you only have 20
acres and develop, that it's going to impact that person more.
It's a deal breaker as much for our development, even though it's
100 acres, as it is for somebody who's developing 20. Lay people
who are not in my business may not understand that but originally
when park dedication fees, from the philosophy behind that was
established years and years ago and the Statutes were passed
giving the city the authority to utilize that too to collect
monies, there was some balance in it. And the Park Director can
support that I'm sure because we've talked about it. But Mr.
Stockdale stated that if that 5 acres was taken from him, it not
only was the cost of the land. There's the cost of lost profit
that is lost as a result of the taking. Now that same thing
occurs whether you have 100 acres or 200 acres or 400 acres. Now
if you look at the Song property, this is something I didn't get
into because I wasn't sure if you'd care, but maybe you do care.
This is not a normal piece of property from a physical constraint
analysis. You can clearly see how much of the property is
wetland...Most of this open terrain makes it valuable. Okay now
when we go out and buy property, those of you who follow us for
years, we try to...we try to buy the absolute best piece of
property we can. We pay a premium for the property...but when
you look at the net developable acreage and you take the total...
you can't use, then if you look at your price per acre, it would
shock you. The numbers you were hitting around here tonight
would be a joke. I wish I could buy property for that. You 1
can't. So the point...there's this incredible risk when a
company like ours tries to make what is not a vanilla
neighborhood because we have no desire to create a vanilla
neighborhood. There's plenty of other land developers out there
that are happy to do that. What we're trying to do is we're
willing to go the extra mile and have some time...to put in the
most unique things and obviously the city...so what we try to do,.
to minimize our exposure to risk...minimize that risk, all of a
sudden the deal is nowhere near where it was when...I'd like to
pose the question, if Lundgren Bros was able. Again, I'm not
exactly sure what kind of park you're looking for or if there's
some other type of a unique thing that would...and you would
consider that an alternative. But maybe Lundgren Bros, because
of the total amount of land that we have to...Maybe there's
someway we can come up with some other thing that the Park
Commission would look at and say well you know, if we can't get a
public park there, maybe Lundgren Bros can come up with some
other idea...all the residents of Chanhassen. And I was sitting
here listening to all of you and I'm thinking about it and I
thought of a couple ideas...and you might say you know, maybe
Lundgren Bros couldn't do this but they could do this and they
34
1
11
1 Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 35
1
came up with this idea and if they're willing to do that for
public benefit and not private, maybe we'd look differently...
And it just hit me as I was sitting here so I really haven't had
time to develop and think about it and I haven't had a chance to
talk to Peter about it but maybe what I could ask to do is table
action on this tonight. Give me a chance to sit down with staff
and make some adjustments and then see what they think about it
and if they think it's good, maybe we could bring it back...
Schroers: I would consider that. I think that that would be a
smart thing to do since this is such an important issue. I think
I that if you like your plan the way it's proposed to us and you
want to put those amenities, the tennis court, the basketball
court, and all that in your development and sell it to us as is,
all you have to do is label that park public. Don't have to
advertise it. You don't have to encourage outside people to come
in there. I mean that to me is a quick easy sell. Just designate
that as public park and we would love to see that development
there. If you want to work out some other options with staff,
we'd love to see something that staff would be in favor of and we
would like and you would like and I'm willing to ask for a motion
to table this, if that's what you'd like to do.
Lash: So moved.
Berg: Second.
Schroers: Due to a possible conflict of interest, Chairman
Andrews is not going to vote on this item. Okay, so it's been
motioned and seconded.
Lash moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
table action on the land development proposal for 115 single
family lots on the Song property. All voted in favor, except
Commissioner Andrews who did not vote because of a conflict of
interest, and the motion carried.
Terry Forbord: Thank you very much. Just one final comment. I
hope that you all accept my apology that I gave earlier this
evening. Again, we regret the situation. It's our goal as
professionals and certainly as adults to not have these things
happen and so I ask each of you, if you would consider that and
please accept it and it won't happen again.
Schroers: I think you can consider your apology accepted and we
1 would just like to work hard with everybody involved to end up
with the best final product here possible. But remember that we
35
1
Park and Rec Commission
July 27, 1993 - Page 36
have a framework that we have to.
Berg: I guess one other thing I'd like you to think about, when
you're talking to staff. What I'm hearing is that the
practicality of the park that you're proposing and the site
you're proposing...certainly respect those too. I guess I wish
you'd look at the concept or the thought of a public park
somewhere else in the development as a possibility.
Andrews: Terry, is the plat finalized for that Turner /Dolejsi 1
property?
Terry Forbord: It's in the process of final plat. 1
Andrews: Just glancing at the contour map, is there an area
roughly in the center where the two properties adjoint that's
relatively, more flat?
Terry Forbord: To be honest with you, this is a, and staff will
concur with this. Especially engineering department because
they've had to live with it too. It's a really unusual piece of
property. There's hardly any flat area anywhere on it except for
right by TH 41. I mean it's just a very. 1
Lash: What about by the time you're done?
Terry Forbord: Well obviously there will be some grading that .
occurs. The intent on obviously from our standpoint is to always
minimize grading because it ends up costing a lot of money and we
realize we've learned through years of experience that we're best
to leave it as natural as possible. Thank you very much for your
consideration.
Berg: I'd like to know too the practicality of any other land 1
that could be developed...so we know what potential we have in
other sites.
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: 20 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED JUST
SOUTH OF HERON DRIVE ON THE ESAT SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD, SHENANDOAH
RIDGE, SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT.
Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers and Commission members. I
would like to move 5 behind 6 and 7. I need to apologize to Mr.
Todd Owens who is here this evening. Between noon and 3:30, the
timing of the Lundgren presentation went from 7:30 to 9:30 and
back a couple of times. Inbetween that time I had talked to Mr. 1
36
1