Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1j. Minutes
IJ :;,.AAT`IONt TEA ate:. To: ykiitto, Date 4Pri From: ytiit- ' ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTS X FOR YOUR INFORMATION ❑ FOR YOUR APPROVAL ❑ NOTE & RETURN TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ❑ NOTE & FILE ID❑ CALL ME ❑ FOR YOUR SIGNATURE ❑ SEE ME ❑ ❑ REPLY & 6END ME COPY ❑ ICOMMENTS: dtL 2LLAft? _Tt24.11__} i(78_444 -pittOei,e-dJ,-PC, Ai._, i...-4--p2._ //Tau" suA,LE., AI buz.. re- o Az ..,1--/LL. 9W VLC /veto, I if tlf 1619-4- 'i-I/ --ii-C-, L' Form 0A-4 rig S I ©Copyright 1969,1970 Laurel Office Aids,Inc.,Bronxville,N.Y. Distributed in Canada solely by V.W.Eimicke.Ltd.,Peterborough,Ontario. I I 'i i i p I I I I I • M1 • CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19 , 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and David Headla . Jim Wi.ldermuth arrived during discussion on item 2, Oak View Heights and did not vote on item 1. STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 13. 49 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE SOUTH OF HWY. 5, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Ray Brandt: Ray Brandt with Brandt and Brandt. I prepared the plans . If you were concerned about moving this around, I would think from the developer ' s standpoint , i-f they needed to move , I think we would probably rather_ just have the street run across here . . . I would think this would be a better situation if we did. . . This is just graded . In the dry weather it' s alright. Otherwise I don' t have. . . Emmings moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla : This whole packet . . . the most incomplete packet . We get a sketch tonight. If I can' t have 24 hours to look at it, I can' t . . . I 'm not going to look at it tonight . I looked at these drawings and trying to figure out what in the world, where are these 21 lots . I couldn' t figure out where in the world those 21 they were talking about . Olsen: You don' t have the plan? ' Headla : No , this is what we got . I couldn ' t figure out where the 21 were. And as I went through and looked at . . . Take a scenario like number 7 where . . . , supposed you have a fire there on a cold and icy night . You' ve got a lot of people coming in. That curve out there, off of Powers Blvd . . If we have one truck that has a collision there , you'd block that access to the whole thing . You aren' t going to drive up on the lawns to get there. Now you ' ve got something . . . I think the Fire Department. . . what in the world are they talking about? They' re talking a tree falling down. I 'm not talking about a tree falling down. I 'm talking about a blockage that could be extremely serious . I think you have to have a second access with anything that large . If you ' re talki.ng . . . I don ' t have a problem. . .comi.ng in from Powers Blvd . , I think that' s got a lot of merit . I ' d like to see it permanently. That ' s my philosophy. . . I think that secondary access is just mandatory. I also think that the. . .a check I , Planning Commission Meeting IApril 19, 1989 - Page 2 C Ilist. A checklist that many of us have a chance to go over to say yes, this is the checklist they should have. Then when something like this I comes up of this magnitude and later on. . . then we check it off saying if it' s appropriate or not. Batzli : I guess I had a problem understanding what lots we were talking Iabout as well . . .perhaps it would be appropriate to table it. The question I had was . . . the amended landscaping plan prior to the Planning Commisison meeting. Do you have that? Olsen: I have that . I assumed you had the plans. IBatzli : Okay, so this is just the landscaping plan and not the actual plan? Olsen: Right . It was supposed to go out in the packet. Obviously it Ididn' t. - Batzli : Is the watermain ever going to be moved? The watermain that ' s Igoing into the project. Are there plans for looping it or is it going to dead end? Olsen: Yes . . . Batzli. : Is it appropriate to say it in here somewhere that they are going to eventually loop it? IDon Patton: That ' s part of the PUD plan. IBatzli : That' s part of the overall plan? When would it be appropriate to dedicate the park? Do we typically do that in a preliminary plat? Olsen: As long as it' s approved as an outlot . . . IBatzli : Without that being a condition? IDon Patton: Jo Ann, that' s part of the PUD already. Outlot H is part of the public open space and dedicated for . . . IOlsen: That' s one of the original conditions of the PUD. They would have to provide those outlots for park. Batzli : But you said there were changes on this that we ' re looking at now Ifrom your original plat PUD. Olsen: The outlot itself is . . . You can make it a specific condition . IBatzli : If you don' t see any problems, I don' t want it in here. The only other things I had were some technical . . . 1 IEllson: I don' t have anything new. I was kind of confused on this too but from what I see. . . I ' 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 3 Emmings: I guess I don' t see any real reason to table it. I think it ' probably fits within the overall plan for what was approved here. Actually it appears that the area . . . is actually reducing the number of lots . . . As far as the conditions are concerned . . . Number 2, the applicant shall receive any necessary permits from the Watershed District and I did see a letter from them in here. Also from Carver County. There' s a letter in here that would seem to indicate that Carver County wasn' t requiring anything. Olsen : They want that secondary access. , Emmings: Okay, and then what does etc. mean? Olsen : Any other conditions from. . . ' Emmings : We either want to tell them which ones they have to get or else just eliminate that because that tell-s them nothing. So if we don' t know, if there' s nothing there , then let ' s just take it out because it doesn ' t mean anything anyway. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the through street shown as West Lake Drive. Now I take it that ' s , if you look at the landscaping plans, since that' s all we've got, that' s the road that' s coming out that says West Lake Drive on it? Which side of that street is this concrete sidewalk? Olsen : The Park and Recreation Commission did meet to determine which side. . . Emmings : I guess I 'd change number 6. It says prior to assigning street names, the applicant shall consult with the Public Safety for recommendations . I think that ought to say, proposed street names shall be submitted to the Public Safety for approval . Then it says on number 7 , revised plans that address the conditions and discussion conti.ned in this staff report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. That one came out of the City Engineer ' s report . Is that right? So shouldn' t it say that the revised plans that addres the conditions and discussion contained in the City Engineer ' s report will be submitted to the City Engineer for approval? That' s all I ' ve got. Otherwise, I guess I wouldn ' t have any trouble moving approval with those changes . Erhart: In the handout there, it 's designated as outlot H and. . . Olsen : Again, I assumed that you had those lots which showed that as Outlot B. The concept plan. . . Erhart : That is basically just a dead end street? Olsen: The cul-de-sac? No. , Erhart : This street just comes to a dead end . Olsen: There will be a temporary turn around there but it will be. . . Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 4 Erhart: Is there anything on the end that ' s suppose to show it' s a turn around? IThe tape didn' t pick up Jo Ann Olsen' s answer . Erhart: . . .a major portion of our pollution problem with plastic seems to IIbe erosion barriers and not removing them after the area has been revegetated. IOlsen: The development contracts now cover that. . . Erhart: What about on the City projects? It really is . . . If that's part of the process , then that ' s great . Since most of this has been, I assume I this whole plat was all part of the PUD and what we' re really seeing tonight is . . . IIOlsen : They had to come in for each phase of the project . Erhart: I understand but as far as the overall plan, this has already. . . Iso I guess in that respect, not having the plan. . . Conrad: Normally when things are missing or late I assume that means that staff hasn ' t had time to look at it and give us their opinion . In this I f ' articular case, that ' s not the case. They' ve responded with their h- comments . . . I think we have to come to some kind of resolution on the secondary access . . . Have you reviewed the two, has anybody reviewed the Itwo and what ' s the reason for the grading of the other street versus this one? IOlsen : When we were always discussing this during the PUD concept plan , the temporary access through the park to Powers was what we were always looking at in the second access so that ' s what we were looking at when we first met with Engineering and Public Safety. That ' s when Public Safety Ifelt well what they' re proposing is okay. We don ' t have to necessarily have that second access. Then the engineering department saw that they were going to be, that some of the street had already been put in. That Ithey could rough grade the rest and have a secondary access that way. As far as one over the other , the only difficult is getting a temporary access to Powers from Carver County. They don' t like giving those. Especially when it ' s in a location that ' s not so, I don ' t know if that ' s a Igood location but anything along Powers there, it' s really tough. That would be one of the deciding factors I believe. And then when the park is planned to be improved. IConrad : Any directions on this particular one Tim? Do you feel that we should continue along with the staff report or look at a different access Ioff the cul-de-sac or what do you think? Erhart: The Public Safety Director indicated that he was satisfied ai.th the second access . t °ut Conrad : The Safety Director said no secondary access . Engineer said to provide secondary access. The access of the cul-de-sac, can you eliminate I Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 5 one of those . . . Ray Brandt : I don' t know what rough grading this would do. If they wanted a second access . . . I did this one place in Burnsville where we have an access that' s graded but you at least can drive on it. Put a chain across there, a break away chain so an emergency vehicle would just run right into it and break. You don ' t want people driving in there. . .but ' if Public Safety says we don' t care, we don' t need another access , my point is , I don' t have any idea what this or what benefit of having this rough graded if that' s . . . ' Batzli : How long are we talking for temporary? Is that next week, tomorrow or next year? Olsen : The next phase is coming in from the west side . . . Batzli : So if we put it through the park, it may be there for a while? ' Conrad : It appears that cul-de-sac serves . . .the access for the cul-de-sac. . . , Ray Brandt: Also, the secondary road . . .doesn ' t own this land . That ' s another consideration. He doesn' t own that land. Erhart : We' ve had developments in the City that have cul-de-sacs that . . . and it seems to me that it' s arbitrary. . . Ray Brandt : There have been several people that . . . Erhart: I know we have. I 'm just trying to think. . . Conrad : We should be debating this . This isn ' t on our shot. We' re making a recommendation, or planning staff is recommending one alternative and another branch of the city government , they' re not concerned about this situation. Batzli : I pesonally can ' t believe that it said that after listening to the Public Safety Director stand up and talk for 15 minutes to my neighborhood and the whole neighborhood showed up and they decided to put an emergency exit. . . I couldn' t believe it when I read his recommendation here so I will definitely vote to put it in. Conrad: It' s inconsistent and that really makes us confused. At least I am. I go back to the days when cul-de-sacs were 500 feet . I guess Steve and Jo Ann, is it still your firm belief what control do we have in the adjoining property to grade it when we' re dealing with this particular plat? ' Olsen : . . . access to the property. . . ° Conrad : Okay, you' re comfortable that we could say at least explore that , at least to the tune of whether Carver. County would accept a temporary and then at least we have a secondary? I think we ' re all , well I 'm not sure. Planning Commission Meeting IIApril 19 , 1989 - Page 6 III think most of us believe a secondary access , I think it' s, especially on a real , some longer cul-de-sacs that it' s just a risk that I don' t think Iwe want to take . The one thing that maybe you could help us with in the future is why we got the recommendation that we don' t need that. Maybe if we could understand that, we could apply it. We need a standard and that' s what we' re looking for so we' re not arbitrary in dealing with one Ideveloper versus another . So I guess in our tickler file we better look into that at least so we can understand . . .secondary access and maybe there' s rationale for it. Anyway, with what Jo Ann said, I guess it' s up Ito whoever makes the motion. Jo Ann said they find it acceptable having a secondary access through the cul-de-sac if Carver County would grant a permit so that ' s an option for somebody to make a motion that we really. . . Again staff is saying that the developer can make a path , make a graded Iroad a secondary access. The comment would be, that road won' t solve all the problems if we do have a blockage. IIErhart: I think clarification. . . In- your report on streets it says, I think it reads the . . . Public Safety felt it not necessary to have it. . . IOlsen: Right. It was after we had our meeting and . . . Erhart : What did the engineer ' s comments say? III Olsen: . . . to have that there and their option was to grade that road. '= Again, all during the. . . that' s why he brought it up. IConrad: I 'm sure this will be resolved by the time it gets to City Council . Is there somebody that 'd like to make a motion? IEmmings: I 'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #87-3 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "April 12 , 1989" with the following conditions . Number 1 would be deleted . Number 2, the etc . would be removed unless there' s something to Iput in there. If there' s some other body. . .specifically named. 3, 4 and 5 will stay the same. 6 would be changed to read that , proposed street names shall be submitted to the Department of Public Safety for approval . I7 would be changed to read that revised plans that address the conditions and discussion contained in the City Engineer ' s report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval . Then there will be a number 12 added Ithat states that there should be a secondary access going off of the cul-de-sac out to County Road 17 and that if that ' s not an item that approval may be obtained from the County, then the Public Safety Director and the City Engineer ought to get together and decide what can be done if Isomething needs to be done to provide a secondary access as it gets to the City Council . I would like to delete number 10 . My thinking there. If we just rough grade that road , I don' t think it does that much number one . INumber two, it ' s going to sit ther_e . . .and just cover it however it is now. Erhart: Second . ( Batzli : In the Engineer ' s report it talks about that. . . Is that covered by your rewording that that will be taken care of or we should write it within the City Engineer report? II Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 7 I- 4 Emmings: I hope so. Batzli : The other question is, would it be thinkable to include as a condition the . . .or is that a given? Olsen: That' s a given but. . . , Batzli : If they have to follow that, I 'm confused because they didn' t follow it. They adjusted it from what was already. . . Olsen : The contract is still the same. It still applies and there are certain conditions in there and they always use that. . . Batzli : . . . if that' s not correct , then that' s the way it is . Conrad: Any other discussion. Tim, -let me get this straight. Were you concerned about the turn around? Erhart: Yes . Conrad : Are you going to let it lay there or? Erhart: Jo Ann explained it to me. . . , AL Conrad : Normally on temporary dead ends, we do have a turn around . We don' t really have a turn around but when you say it ' s being taken care of, I don' t know what that means . Emmings: Let cut this short. I want to amend my own motion to include that if West Lake Drive is not looped but comes to an end as it' s shown on the preliminary plat we ' re looking at here , then there will be a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of that. Erhart : I ' ll second the amendment . Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend , approval of Preliminary Plat #87-3 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "April 12, 1989" with the following conditions : 1. The applicant shall receive any necessary permits from the Watershed District and Carver County. 2. The applicant shall install a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the through street shown as West Lake Drive on the plat. 3. The applicant shall provide an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard. 4. The applicant shall receive 50% credit on park dedication fees and ' 100% credit on trail dedication fees . Planning Commission Meeting IIApril 19 , 1989 - Page 8 r 1 5. Proposed street names shall be submitted to the Department of Public ' Safety for approval. 6. Revised plans that address the conditions and discussion contained in the City Engineer ' s report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval . 7. Since the watermain is not looped, proper sizing of the watermain ' will be required for fire and health reasons. 8. A typical section of roadway is to be shown on the plans for approval I with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements . 10. There should be a secondary access going off of the cul-de-sac out to ' County Road 17. If approval can not be obtained from the County, then the Public Safety Director and the City Engineer ought to get together and decide what can be done, if something needs to be done, to provide a secondary access . 11. If West Lake Drive is not looped but comes to an end as it ' s shown on the preliminary plat, then there will be a temporary cul-de-sac at ' the end of that . All voted in favor except David Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Headla : I certainly agree with the applicant ' s desire. I believe Tim' s Irecommendation. . . IPUBLIC HEARING: OAK VIEW HEIGHTS , PROPERTY ZONED R-12 AND LOCATED BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, • CENVESCO: A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 140 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS ON 19 ACRES OF PROPERTY. IB. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A WETLAND AND STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO A WETLAND. IIC. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 140 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS . Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report . 11- Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 9 C Conrad : Just a question. If they meet what your recommendations are , do , they still get PUD status? Olsen: . . .because the lots are smaller . . . , Conrad: So they' re forced to a PUD status not because they' re meeting what we look for in a PUD. It is a mechanical reason that simply they have to have the PUD status to do what they want to do. Not that they' re meeting our PUD ordinance which says we' re looking for these things. . .to grant a PUD you should be looking for these characteristics that add value to this whole project. Whether it be a park. Whether it be certain improvements. Public improvements. Whether it be open space. They have not done that or you have not , have they done in your mind those things? I think that ' s what ' s not in the staff report right now and I 'm sure they want to talk to us about that but it' s kind of, it' s one of those things that I 'd like to see before hand where staff or the applicant says we want PUD status because we are going to offer these benefits and therefore I ' can grant them the additional units . Let them go over the impervious surface ratio. I guess now is a chance for you to give us your viewpoint. Olsen : I tried to point out what they were giving. . .and the first thing , would be that totlot. This area is not park deficient and they are giving that. They are providing additional landscaping . Conrad: They are? Olsen : They are giving more than what would be typically required . , Conrad: How much more? Olsen : When you start getting into the replacement . , Conrad: So it' s not a requirement. Normally we require 1 tree per lot on a subdivision right? Do we have 1 tree per lot here? And their landscape plan would improve the site? Olsen: They' ve got a lot of trees . ' Conrad: What else Jo Ann. Be persuasive. Olsen: The PUD site . . . , Conrad: We' re pretty tough on PUD' s. Olsen: They know that . I explained that to them. The thing is, the reason that it' s going with the PUD is because of individually owned units and the thing that ' s really hard is that when they actually. . . The way our ordinance is written, this would actually be more. . .comes to individually owned units . . . The way our ordinance is written. . . Conrad: Your other point is that individually owned units would be better ' than rental units? We' ll open it up for public hearing and I 'm sure that the applicant will have a chance to talk to us. You ' ve heard my Planning Commission Meeting 'April 19 , 1989 - Page 10 IIcomments as I ' ve directed them to the staff and really we have, I don' t want to get into a whole lot of detail on some of this stuff if the IPlanning Commission doesn' t really like what they see. We' ve got a concept and then we get into the development plan but if we don' t like what we see in terms of the concept , I think I don ' t want to get into details. Yet on the other hand, if everybody things that the concept' s Ialright, we can do that too . But basically. . . is way, way different from what we' ve ever granted in the City to my knowledge and the number of units is over what this supposedly could have based on the number in the Iordinance so I guess I ' ll open it up for public hearing. I 'd like the applicant to tell us why they think this should be granted as a PUD. Gary Purser: My name is Gary Purser. We originally submitted a plan to I the city and it was Steve that indicated that because of the fact that we were going to go with individually owned houses. So in other words, we ended up with a zero lot line. We' re selling fee simple title to people Ito own the land underneath them indicating that we would have to go on a PUD. That would be one way we would have to submit because of the 3, 600 square feet minimum. We feel that what' s required under the PUD, as far Ias offering additional amenities to the project , we feel that we' ve met that in preserving the wetlands. The City had asked us to provide a totlot and to their specifications . It came in, actually the one that we submitted, they' ve altered and the cost of this totlot is around, our cost 1r- is around $30, 000. 00 to provide it . Also , providing the additional - sidewalks and the landscaping, we feel that under the PUD concept, that it ' s a give and take situation and we ' ll providing the additional items to Ibe approved by a PUD concept. In addition, I 'd like to just make a comment as far as the idea behind the zero lot line and a condominium concept. If we were not to do this on individually owned lots, we'd Isimply do it under a condominium concept . By doing it under a condominium concept, the owners or the people who are going to be purchasing the property of course would not have fee simple title and it ' s basically more expensive for them to purchase it because there ' s considerably more cost Iin doing it . It seems like it' s almost a glitch in the zoning ordinance because it does not, because your ordinance differentiates between common ownership and fee simple . Do you have any questions I can answer? IConrad: Anything you want to react to in terms of the staff report? Gary Purser : Well I guess with regard to the engineering . . . , Randy. IRandy Hedlund: My name is Randy Hedlund. I 'm the engineering for Dean Johnson, the developer and one other item I want to point out . As far as Ithe give and take on the PUD, from the very start we have been extremely concerned with this area here . Jo Ann pointed out , there were 11 large oak trees up on the upland part of the site that really can not be saved Ibut down in this wooded slope area, which I 'm sure most of you are familiar with the site, coming up from the wetland there' s a considerable I amount of oak trees and I didn' t get an actual count on them but I might .,..., guess maybe 50 to 100 large mature oak trees . Now what the developer can Ido is come in with this proposal to just meet the city' s requirements as far as impervious and density with the City, because these future parcels, Outlot A and B are not developed at this time. Somebody else can 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 11 1 come in and do a lot of damage to that slope with the oak trees on there and there wouldn ' t be anything to prevent them from doing that. The only thing that' s really required is the 75 foot setback from the wetland that' s down at the 940 contour. One thing that the City is asking for is that we provide a conservation easement all the way up to the 980 contour which is 40 feet above that wetland. That will basically insure that all these oak trees down on the slope are preserved . As far as the grading , like for this future apartment that would have the driveway entrance down here and it would be all underground parking. The building could be designed where this grade along here would be about at garage floor. Up here would be about even with the first floor of the apartments so from this end of the apartments, patio and decks, you can walk right out onto open grade . It' s still some distance from the tree line. Down here there'd be decks out over the garage level of the apartment. It fit the site very nicely. Is there any other questions concerning that? That was something that we've always done quite heavily was the preservation of this large wooded area , the wetland and the slopes in that area and that ' s another, I think that' s a valid point to bring up in order . . . Conrad : Are reviewing that tonight? That ' s not part of the PUD is it? That's not what we' re. . . Olsen : That' s part of the concept . Randy Hedlund : We showed this , the developer does not have architectural plans for the apartment at this time so it' s almost like this is a first phase and that would be coming later . This is what he' s intending to do with it. That it would be covered with restrictions that limits him to do this . The developer is also willing to give Lot 14 into Outlot B as the City had requested . That lowers the density of this portion of the site to about 11 units per acre and I not exactly sure how it affects the impervious . If we look at the density over the whole site , the impervious over the whole site, we' re at about 12 units per acre for density assuming each. . .bui.lding 8 units and we' re at, I believe 33 . 3% impervious on the overall site and that' s what we were planning toward . . . He doesn' t really have architectural plans for this so . . . site plan for the apartment at this time. ' Dean Johnson : My name is Dean Johnson. I 'm one of the co-developers . One thing I wanted to. . .vali.di.ty. We looked at this site. . . We don' t really look at it as say the numbers . We look at it as outlot . . . so we worked our site plan . . .and we did save these groves of trees . . . As Gary pointed out , there' s some trees on the ordinance having to do with townhomes that are independently owned with a zero lot line. Whereas if they were condos . . .discussing this issue. . . .amenities that are going to go to the homeowners. We do have plans here that. . . We have done another townhome project . You always learn by doing . This one will have a sprinkler system. This one will have. . .maintenance free type of a siding . r That always seem to be the thing that plagued the association once the ouilding was up was the maintenance. Totlot was something that as much as Todd recommended we do and something we had in the plans already because we expect these things to be sold to a lot of starter families . . . We also too have learned that sprinkler systems. . . so the piece of property is I . . Planning Commission Meeting IIApril 19 , 1989 - Page 12 'i IIgoing to be irrigated . One of the issues that came up here has to do with Lot 14 and Lot 13. Lot 14 seems to be an open piece of ground. Lot 13 is Ithe one with the apartment building . Something that' s been brought up is the fact that we could sell it do something else. . . The reason we split half of it was because we did not feel it was a fair burden to the townhomes to have that piece of ground next to a . . .that the residents and Iquantity of residents that came into the apartment building should share in some of the costs of maintaining this property per density. . .are worked so that. . . That is the reason why. . . We have seen those types of Iproblems. Did do a townhome project in Plymouth. At the time cedar siding . We all all weather this and that . . .and the painting bill and their watering are their two largest expenses that they have. . . Any questions? IMavis Sculley: Mavis Sculley and I live at 787 . . .Drive which I believe is right across the highway from this development and I guess I haven' t quite Iunderstand the map. How does this connect up with Kerber? I can see the line there but where does it actually come out on this side? So this does not extend all the way over to Kerber? Does it begin at Powers then? 1 Olsen: Right. And then where those other townhomes are, that' s where it will connect. II " Mavis Sculley: That ' s what concerns me. That was one the things that was concerning me. Considering the density there already and with apartments or townhomes or whatever so I 'm concerned that if this ran into that, that Iit would make literally just a wall of townhomes and multiple unit dwellings. The second thing that concerns me was that hillside . We have to have an easement. We know we bought ours so we could maintain the Isanctity so to speak of the valley and we were just under the impression that was also going to be maintained on the opposite side of the highway and when you look in the direction of the valley across the way, you would also see trees and greenery and things other than man made landscaping . IThat was . . .but that will be maintained? Okay, thank you. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in IIfavor except Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. (Tim Erhart ' s discussion with Jo Ann Olsen and the developers was not IIaudible on the tape. ) Emmings : I 'm opposed to it the way it ' s . . .but it ' s almost okay. I take Iit that this is a good location to have some high density development. I like the zero lot line business of locating . . . I think again we need to offer a diversity of housing in our city that we don' t have now. . .and this Ialmost does it. I like the way they look. I think a reasonable amount of thought has gone into the plan. My objections are these. I could almost live with the Lot 14 and sliding everything over and open a space up a little bit and making more density on the south side that way. IThen I can ' t live with . . . My objections are these. I think the parking is woefully inadequate. I think that the setbacks from the property lines are totally inadequate and I think that the setbacks from the road itself IIIN Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 13 1 I" are inadequate . The density is too high. The impervious surface is too high and I see that the potential for that apartment building coming in, that just adds. . . That being said, on top of everything else , you talk about a glitch in our ordinance but we' ve still got an ordinance to apply. When we put together this PUD ordinance , the essence of it was that the City should get something. That a PUD should not be granted unless the City gets something that. . . So far nothing that I ' ve heard offered , the preservation of wetlands which is required under our ordinance. . . And a totlot which it seems to me for the amount of development that' s going in, in itself would decide. . . The totlot again is something that would be used as an amenity to sale of the units . Anybody who would look at them is going to say do you have a place for my kids to play but I don' t think the City is getting anything at all . And for all those reasons, I 'm opposed to it. I said a lot of negative things. Now let' s go back to the positive things. I like this type of development . I like it where you've got it. I 'd just like to see it done a little differently. The applicant ' s architect made a statement from the audience. Emmings: When it becomes a PUD it' s not R-12. And it' s not R-12 anymore, then I get to say the setbacks are. . . 14 extra spaces for visitors is. . . We could argue all night long but I 'm getting my comments. You've had your chance and not it' s my chance. It' s inadequate and it' s inadequate ( because every, I think it' s inadequate because you have a single car ‘- garage for_ those units . You' re talking about young families though. That' s what you said the market is. Most of those young families are going to have two cars . That puts 1 in the garage and 1 outside and 1 as a visitor car. Where do the people with the single car garage. . . When they have Thanksgiving at their house , where do they park? It' s inadequate. Ellson : Jo Ann, when you were giving your report you said that the oak trees were being designated. . . Olsen : Alan Olsen , when he came out and he is doing all of that and that was one of the sites that was . . . Ellson : The 11 as well as the hill? , Olsen: The hill is definitely. . . Ellson : My biggest concern was those oak trees . They' re about 100 years old and I 'm not going to be around by the time we replace them and. . . I think the City has already made , indicated that if we really wanted to say respect the trees that are out there, it ' s almost impossible to do something to protect them and maybe it' s just bad timing . Who knows . In a month they might have been a protected woods . . . f Batzli : Would this require a zoning amendment? Olsen: A rezoning is part of the PUD. Batzli : So the people to the north were notified that this was . . . ? dm I Planning Commission Meeting IApril 19 , 1989 - Page 14 II Jo Ann Olsen ' s answer wasn ' t audible on the tape . IBatzli : Do you plan on putting deed restrictions on Lot 13 or is this actually a registered deed? Is that what we did on the other lot where they clearcut the trees? IOlsen : Which lot? Triple Crown? IBatzli : Yes . Olsen : That was just , there wasn ' t anything in the plan. IBatzli : Was that just in their covenants? I guess I had a couple questions . One thing that I 'd really like to see is that we' re not. . . If we' re not building the apartment building right now, I have a question why Iit' s even in there. . . if that ' s what they' re going to have. If this is being separated, I don' t want to give approval to it now. I 'd rather see it all open and have them spread everything out a little bit here rather Ithan cram it together and then decide that they have to go with a PUD. So I agree it should probably be higher density development but I think there' s room in the lot to do something like that without doing what they' re requesting tonight . I 'd prefer to see more given to the IV: although. . .h. . . Wildermuth : I don ' t think we' re at the PUD point . . . I 'd like to see the II applicant improve the building. . . The parking adequate addressed. Unless the applicant can convince me otherwise , I think there should be a provision . . . to change to double garages for each unit. In looking at the plan . . . What is the construction . . . I Applicant' s answer from the audience wasn' t audible on the tape. IWildermuth : What is the difference in cost , construction cost for putting that in brick? IThe applicant ' s answer from the audience wasn ' t audible on the tape . Dean Johnson: I 'd like to point out that. . . The small units will require annual income to qualify of $30, 057 . 00 per year to qualify for those Ian units. It' s going to be our goal to try to keep the price low so they' re more affordable units . . . IHeadla : . . . totlot near the parking . Who pays for the playground equipment? IDean Johnson : The homeowners association . We as developers pay for the equipment . . . (� deadla : And then the City maintains it? IIDean Johnson: No . . . I a 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 15 1 C Headla : . . . I looked at that and it' s a 50 foot drop. I thought that' s terrible. I think the Park and Recreation Committee would take that tremendous asset. All the people. . .just think what they could do for sliding in the wintertime. They could be out there 8 hours a day and I think the City could really capitalize on that . I just think that' s a tremendous asset that we overlook and we ought to try to capture it . . . . it' s a safe place for them to be. I like the plantings. I like all the deciduous. I 'm not that concerned about the oak trees. I think they' re past their ultimate climax . If we put anything in there. . . is going to kill them. Not today or tomorrow but 3-4 years when we kill them, then the City doesn' t get anything out of it . But if they come in and. . . I think if we can get that trade, I think that' s reasonable. Gary Purser : . . . the zero lot line . Conrad: The zero lot line is a little bit different issue than the ordinance says in the PUD what we' re trying to accomplish . The ' accomplishment is we relax standards and hopefully we get something in return. That' s pure and simple what a PUD is . Maybe this concept which you've got, obviously there' s some glitches but there' s some glitches in what you've got planned , you obviously knew it didn' t meet our ordinance . You put more density on, you put more impervious surface on. The way I have to read it, it' s our norm. . .so if there was a plan that kind of meets f' our ordinance and meets the intent of the ordinance, and I think most of "L the people here said they don' t mind the townhouses and I like the townhouse idea . I think we all envisioned apartments going in here and that' s why we have an R-12 designation and you' re trying to do something a little bit different . Maybe it doesn ' t quite work as easily but I don ' t mind the townhouse. The zero lot line is fine and maybe there' s some problems in our ordinance to try to accommodate that that you can resolve in the future but I think the from the pure and simple standpoint, I don' t believe you' ve tried to meet the intent of the ordinance and that ' s why I prefaced our whole discussion saying, if you want, you' re here under a technicality basically. You' re applying for the PUD because of a technicality. Not because you have some interesting features and property that you want to alter . Not because you want to embellish something and give the City something. I didn' t see many cases other than the landscaping . That ' s alright . I didn' t see anything where we would feel , the Planning Commission comfortable with this . On the other hand, I think we see a lot of things that are positive that unfortunately, my preference is that you try to meet the ordinance as it stands and we would work with you to try to help you to do that but my preference right now, unless you can go out and show us how you' re embellishing this into a PUD. . . On the other hand , I ' ll remind you that we ' re pretty strict on PUD' s and City Council sometimes has differed. They take other views besides ours when they review them as a concept for a PUD. . . I think you' re missing the intent of our ordinance basically and you came in not trying to not meet them and our intent in Chanhassen is greenery and open spaces and the preservation of some of the wetlands and I think you' re missing the mark. fie obviously want high density here . That ' s why we zoned it R-12 but if you want to increase the density over what we originally intended, and I think when you do that we become a little more critical . I think the parking appears to be a problem to me like it has been with some other I Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 16 C Ipeople. In other residential subdivisions , when a house goes in and they bring in a single family unit and there' s one garage and no place for I storage and what have you, we' ve been very critical of those designs . So I want, now that you ' re really giving home ownership here, I think we' ve become kind of critical of what this neighborhood is going to look like in 10 years. The parking appears to be a problem to me. I know you've got I more parking than individual units and I , like other members, are concerned with visitors and 14 units. I 've visited developments like this and parking becomes a problem and I think the city will end up with the I problem as people end up parking on the main road. So from that standpoint I 'm concerned and I 'm a little bit concerned and my direction is for you to somehow meet the impervious surface. . .but I think we have to meet that because that has some meaning in what we' re trying to develop in IChanhassen. That means green spaces and a little bit of openness and places for people to go. Based on the land , and again I don' t care how you do it. If you bundle more property in here or not, I think you have Ito meet the density standards that we-set but I think I 'd go along with the other small lots that you recommend and I can go along setting the lot lines so if that means you have to take out one whole unit or you have to Ibundle in additional property, that' s what you do. I guess I can give you my direction but I think. . .and I think the staff has given us some other alternatives of bundling in some land where the apartments are but that chunk sort of bothers me too . I guess I could prefer to look at the units Ily- here as being as what we' re looking at and hopefully that will mee tthe zoning ordiance , or the ordinances as they stand . Unless you start developing some . . . Here are some reasons for granting a PUD which then Iyou could possibly say, yes that is PUD. The last thing I ' ll say is we try to, one thing sets precedent and . . .we' re always concerned if we set precedent on the Planning Commission and I think our minds tell us that other things that have come in the past that have looked like this . . . PUD Istatus . So those are my comments . My preference tonight and I guess I ' ll ask the applicants what they'd like to do on this one. My preference tonight would be to table it or turn it down. Tabling it to see if staff Iand the applicant can work together to see if could come in with something that staff believes is good. Whether it be a PUD and bringing something or whether it ' s something different on meeting the certain zoning Irequirements. Or we could vote on it tonight and send it along so you could get reaction from the City Council which many times is different than ours . IGary Purser : . . .We in our minds have met that . Now as I see it then , what you' re deciding on tonight, we can go back and . . . To do that, we can have an architect draw up some prelims on the building . Say this is the Ibuilding. We can bring it back in . . . What you ' re deciding tonight , just so you know. . . 3,600 square foot on the lot and that ' s something . . . zero lot line is fee simple ownership. We looked at the lot line . . .something that should be, as much as it' s a progressive idea , should be considered as I something that we are giving to the city. They are getting . . .and that is r something . . . s IC0 nrad : But you can ' t. . . this parcel to meet the impervious surface ratio . Without the condo, you can ' t structure that whole parcel , the overall parcel within the apartment and Lots 13 and 14 is 34 . 3% . II Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 17 ' Gary Purser : Granted we don ' t have the building design but we' re saying we' re going to live within that lot. . . We are already within your building service so that really isn' t the issue . Jo Ann Olsen discussed the impervious surface ratio . Gary Purser : What we' re saying , is that really that much of a consideration? . . .That' s why we get back to this zero lot line. That' s why I 'm saying . . . I guess what we' re trying to do is get it less of a cost. Something that is an advantage to the City as well. That' s what we really want to do. Conrad : Any other comments? What do you want to do with this one? Erhart: . . .as part of your PUD. . .maybe you meet the coverage, you meet the density. The one thing you don' t-meet is the philosophy. I think what we' re saying is, as a PUD we can negotiate that lot size. We don' t have to require that you have 3, 600 square feet . I think as a rule. . .and I would suggest maybe you take another . . .setback from the through street . I think that' s what we' re looking at and then we' ll talk about impervious surface. . . f Gary Purser : Hopefully that can happen . It ' s hard to get direction when. . . I guess we met with staff 3 times and. . .are those the types of things. . .as much as I 'm sure you guys want to work with us . . .give and take. If we have to cut the density in half, obviously there' s no way. . . We'd just as soon not do that . . . We could change the density around to where it is . . . but it' s hard for us to know. Obviously we' re meeting the design. We' ve got the design. . .but we have to have a general direction which way to go. As much as we' ve already. . .we' re asking you. Dean Johnson : This is the sixth concept that we' ve done. Gary Purser: We' ve met with staff 3 times to try to get this. This is something that your staff worked with us . Conrad: I guess the real question is if they came back. . .would it still , meet what we would consider a PUD? Emmings: But they can' t come to us and ask us that question . They can ' t ask us until there' s a specific plan in front of us whether it ' s something that we' ll approve or not because we don ' t know what it looks like and we don't know if it meets our, we can' t answer that question. The things that they' re proposing to me, it sounds like they' re headed a long way in the right direction. I like the general idea. I like what they' re doing here . I think they' re doing too much of it . Now you' re talking about taking some of it away, and I 'm real interested. To me and my objections, it would be coming a long way. Whether you come far enough so I say yes , that' s good, I don' t know until I see it . Gary Purser : I guess that ' s what I meant . . . I Planning Commission Meeting IApril 19 , 1989 - Page 18 IDean Johnson : The other thing too is the parking . You need to . . .deed restrictions , . . . Gary Purser : Going back again on the deed restrictions . . . Conrad: . . .Commission is kind of wasting our time and Steve, as you said, I we won' t know until we see something . Yet on the other hand , what the offer is . . .what we would get out of a PUD is we allowed a smaller lot, we would get individual ownership of the property. That ' s the trade off . We I would grant PUD status on property that we thought was going to be apartment buildings anyway so we kind of zoned it thinking we were going to get apartment buildings which it' s not putting the townhouse down. I like that and I like the individual owners but it kind of goes back to a Iphilosophy, are we getting anything in return? They certainly can hear that . If we' re going to say, well still you' re just not a PUD. Yes , they've taken care of impervious and taken care of density and we've got a Itotlot that ' s here and there ' s 10 more parking spaces . Do we have something that we would say, that ' s a PUD and we got a good trade? We just bought for Chanhassen individual ownership versus one owner . IWildermuth: That' s something but I think the PUD is something you' ve done uniquely with landscaping . Something done uniquely during construction and frankly I haven' t seen that here. Emmings : I wonder if they should be asking us or if we should be looking at some zoning ordinance amendments along with this. I didn ' t think of Uthis business of getting individual ownership as an amenity but I get a certain feel to that . . . and when you look at what it says in the PUD, it says . . .encourages creative site planning and subdivisions of high quality. For Chanhassen, this is kind of unique quality. It does have a certain IIamount of creativity. . . individual ownership. Maybe we should be looking at something to work. . . IConrad : In the past City Council ' s had a difference of opinion on what constitutes a PUD. IEmmi.ngs : The old Council . Conrad : Is there any valid , and it ' s still our choice here but is there a way to get Council feedback other than a aye or nay at this point in Itime? I guess the aye and the nay gets it off the table but a tabling doesn' t. Any insights on this Steve? IHanson : I think you can always pass something up and then pass it with direction. I would venture to say, really what I hear you talking about tonight is the concept plan as opposed to the preliminary. They' ve asked Iyou to consider both and when you started the discussion . . .concept plan so you could pass that concept plan forward if you wanted to . If you do that, you ought to do it with as much as direction as you can and I think %._Lhe best way to do that is either with approval or denial with specific Ireasons for the denial as with the conditions for approval . . . I Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 19 C Conrad : Is there any way of getting around granting a PUD status unless , we change the zoning ordinance in the R-12 district? Maybe I ' ll say it clearer because I didn' t understand what I just said . I see the PUD as something really kind of special and unique and creative and contrary to Steve, I don ' t think this is unique and creative. They' re doing something that place can use. It says we want high density there. I would like you to encourage them to come in and taking a few of our comments and changing that. Are we locked out of any other alternatives right now? Meaning are we forced to be granting that PUD based on what we' re seeing tonight? Hanson: I don' t think you can grant smaller lot sizes without it and that' s the direction hopefully. . . In order to accomplish the single ownership through the property owner . The only way I saw that they could do that was through the PUD process . Conrad: Because a zoning ordinance would take too long or why? Hanson: It ' s the only way we have the possibility to reduce that lot size. Conrad : Unless we change the zoning ordinance right? Hanson: Yes . Conrad : Which would take what? Hanson : I would venture to say 3 or 4 months . That ' s going to open up a whole different group of . . . Conrad : Just out of curiousity, would you like this to go up to City Council for their input or would you like to take it up there with our concurrence? There' s a couple strategies . . . .City Council goes along a bunch of what we say. They pay a whole lot of attention to us. They disagree in many cases . They have disagreed in what constitutes a POD. . .let you know that. Do you have a feeling in terms of what you 'd like to do? Gary Purser : . . .We obviously would like to . . . By the time we petition , the City to do the work. . .so if something could be arranged that way. We ourselves think we' ll do whatever it takes in whatever time we have to do . . . ' Conrad : Do you see us granting this as a PUD status? Headla: No I don' t . Conrad : Jim, do you see a way to persuade you that this would be a PUD? Wildermuth: Lower density. . . Conrad : Lower density would mean . . . So you' re not looking for half? They' re not going to take it down to half but you' re looking for a few less? Brian? Anything that they could do or would you consider I Planning Commission Meeting I April 19, 1989 - Page 20 IIsomething like this as a possible PUD? Anything that would make you think that yes, that' s a PUD? Batzli : I think if they were to . . . Lot 14 and get some more open area that way and decrease the density a little. . . I think parking' s a problem. I like that they are actually saving all the trees even though it' s on a slope. . . Ellson: I can picture it. . . IConrad : Steve, can you get into a situation where you would pass this? IEmmings : Yes . Conrad : And those are. . .what you discussed? IIEmmings: Yes they are . Conrad : . . .you don' t think the developer could never achieve? IIEmmings: I would like to see them move this project. . . If Lot 14 doesn' t have any development. If we lower some density. I don' t know what can be moved . . . The only thing that still sticks a little bit with me is the I ( size of the apartment building . I 'm not sure you can put that big of an apartment building on there and still satisfy the. . . I think I could be convinced . IConrad : I guess you' ve heard that we haven' t ruled the PUD out . There are some amenities to the property that I think you could persuade me on. I The numbers in certain cases look really great to me. I could go with a PUD. Therefore, I guess what we' re saying, the consensus would be, other than Dave. IHeadla : I 'd like to see the portion. . . Conrad: I think that means we should table it and see if city staff can Imuddle through some of the comments that we made . Work with you and see if you can come back with us with a revised site plan. Another concept plan that might encourage us . IBatzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table action on PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights so they can work with city staff . All voted in favor and the motion carried . I PUBLIC HEARING: INORTH SIDE PARKING LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 WEST 78TH STREET, CITY OF CHANHASSEN: ._.A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. IB. SITE PLAN REVIEW. Steve Hanson presented the staff report on this item. I MI Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 21 ' Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Brad Johnson: I want to just say a couple comments then Arvid Elness is here from Arvid Elness and Company. This will be the first , I don ' t know if you guys have seen the color rendering. This is the apartment building in the back and that' s the . . .we' re proposing on this part right here. Then Phase 2. . . At the request of the City we dropped Phase 3 here as part of our program. . . That gives you an idea . I ' ve asked Arvid to address, the signage issue I guess I want to talk about too. The signs are kind of. . . We need the signs permitted by the ordinance. . . It ' s back lit. It' s that ban, what do you call it. If you look at something like Gelco . That sign. That kind of sign that we' ve got a dark opaque feeling and the letters are cut into that opaque. Arvid can address facia . . . Arvid Elness : I ' ll just make a couple points . This is the soffit plan. Two things that were addressed here. .. We did a number of studies and I guess our feeling architecturally had to do. . .one is a matter of . . . The second is the fact that these elements are standing out in front of this building and I feel personally that they shouldn' t be distinguished as a , feature or element that is different than the main building. I think it will look like a simple building with some large brick high risers here standing and the facade standing out in front of it with a change of haterial . I notice the material used on that free standing element that stand out in front of it will characterize the theme of what should have proper materials and should feel like they' re integrated in the design so our thinking is to take the same materials that we' re using . . .so this element here looks like a part of this building and not distinguish it as something different. In doing that, the materials of the main building are like lap siding . They' re cedar lap siding and cedar shakes on the upper part and then our color ban that will wrap around the building. So in doing that we just brought those materials forward and put them on the front here . . .because this is really a free standing sort of spacial form out in front and it creates a shadow. Creates some interest and also gives us the opportunity to put some identification on there. Brad asked what the signage said . . .we' re talking about . We did some studies as to ways we could do it on a professional type building and I think the . . .was that it was because part of the design of the building integrated and was well controlled . . .color ban of the building or could be used to introduce some backing . Then it sort of looked like part of the archtectural . . . So it' s sort of designed and integrated into the building and to have . . .as opposed to a more commercial type brackets of signage where there' s a certain amount of freedom through the signage to create an identity and mark. . .so I think we' re comfortable that with the bannage system that goes above the entry at eye level . . . The problem with the drawings was that we submitted Friday without identifying what we had agreed to as the quantity of the potential site . . . So the two issues I have I guess are the choice of materials on the exterior of the building and I think that ' s in f character with what I 'm seeing in Chanhassen at this point and what ' s .1appening around town . These are materials that are very common place . . . Brad Johnson: What about the lighting? I Planning Commission Meeting IIApril 19 , 1989 - Page 22 IArvid Elness : Then the City has some lighting plans that we looked at for our standard ones that were going on the street. . . The lighting for the Iparking is taken care of on the plan. What we tried to do beyond that is because this element which stands out in front of the main building has sort of a void, a space between it' s . . .we put standard lights on the back side of these high risers that stand out here so at night each one of IIthese main areas will be lit indirectly to the back side so they' ll glow with it' s own light. Then the city standards out there with the light . . . So we' ll do some architectural lighting as we call it in these areas and Ievery place they refer around the building. We' ll probably put some light in the cupola on the roof up here. . . Those are the lighting ideas that we have. Signage I ' ve explained. The sign ban. . . Conrad : Anything else? IEmmings moved , Ellson second to close- the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. IHeadla : I have no problems with the signage. . . .The sidewalk there . I foresee that to be a . . . That' s the way I look at it. I 'm concerned about the skateboards coming down there, whatever . Are we putting up traffic signs or parking signs? IV- Hanson : No . We' re not proposing to put speed limit signs . IConrad: I think everybody' s going to have the same kind of questions . Steve, maybe you can help us on this , or Brad . The last time this was in, we were concerned where the sidewalk ran across the traffic . . . We talked Iabout speed bumps . We talked about signs . You eliminated the speed bumps. You eliminated the signs and basically what you' ve done is painted the walk so can you give us more rationale for that? IHanson: I personally don' t see that as a problem. . .look at from a traffic standpoint and their recommendation was striping was more than adequate. . . Speed in the parking lot is not that bad and we should be able to. . . I bringing those islands out and creating parking stalls lets you know iii there' s something happening there and we can put in pedestrian crossing signs . In my opinion , that' s what we can do and that' s. . . IConrad: Are they going to, the pedestrian traffic, are they going to go through this or are they going to go around? Are there other sidewalks that they' re going to use? IHanson : I think some of the traffic will go around that way. The other question, if somebody' s walking , why are they walking in there? I can see IIthem walking . . . Kenny' s Market to buy groceries and then carry them back. . . Headla : I 'm not concerned about people carrying groceries . I 'm concerned I °ut young people on skateboards and bicycles . If you ' ve ever had an office by a window on the second or third story or higher above a parking lot . Haveyou ever noticed those speeders in the parking lot? It ' s atrocious the way they can speed. I ' ve been hit in a parking lot . . . It I MI Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 23 C happens. All the rationale says it shouldn' t, there are speeders . . . I I simply can not believe. . . I want to see something to make that sidewalk safer . Wildermuth: I had a problem with the sidewalk. . . Batzli : Did I miss something or isn' t the lighting of the building going ' to be. . .? Brad Johnson : It ' s all provided by the City as part of the parking lot so it's part of your site plan. Hanson: The other lighting was what the architect had mentioned . . . Brad Johnson: I don' t have a lighting plan because the lighting plan is the parking lot plan that BRW put out . Batzli : The access here, the left area. . .access east. . . That' s the one I talked about last time. . . Ellson : I don' t like the. . .parking . . .juts around . I agree with Dave. I think the thing that bugs me most about all this is, we naturally think. . .then it stops and then you' ve got this distance open but this goes f right through and there are parking places on this side and parking places on this side and there' s a sidewalk in the middle. Normally a person on the sidewalk is hidden behind two cars until they get out in there and I . . . and I don ' t like that. I think there should be speed bumps , stop signs . . . Emmings : I have the same reservation . I essentially feel that . . . I don' t have any problem with anything except the sidewalk directing traffic . . . What Dave says about kids on skateboards and little kids walking, they can walk out between two parked cars. If they' re 3 1/2 feet or shorter , the driver doesn' t have a chance to see them and they don' t have a chance to see the car . You' re creating a situation where I think it' s. . .driving down streets , you' re always thinking about kids coming out between cars. It' s happened to me. I didn' t hit them but other people have and we' re creating that situation. I think maybe widening it out . Eliminate some of the parking spaces on each side of that sidewalk. . . sight lines , that would help. Having a painted crosswalk I think would be , I think that' s what we asked before. To me that' s essential . I 'd put stop signs there . . . . stop at that sidewalk at least until I was absolutely satisfied through it' s use that the traffic on the sidewalk didn' t warrant stop signs . I ' d start with that and then make them prove that it wasn' t necessary. Then we'd just have. . . Tim Erhart ' s discussion could not be heard on the tape. Conrad : . . .yet from the apartment building standpoint, they' re going It ' s probably going to be there . It ' s fairly straight . I 'd have to go along with Steve. I think it may be a little bit of overkill but I think it should have some kind of signage. That ' s my only comments . I like the lighting. I like the signage. Is there a motion? I guess we • , . Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 24 C ■ have to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat. Is there a motion? IEllson moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . IEmmings : I guess I was a little confused about what exactly. . . was the preliminary plat? . . .sidewalk issue. IIHanson: The sidewalk issue is part of the site plan. That was the first document. . . IIBatzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the North Side Parking Lot subject to Ithe plans stampted "Received April 14-, 1989" . All voted in favor and the motion carried. IIConrad : Is there a motion for the site plan? Headla : . . . 1989 with the following recommendations. The three listed . I The first two. Pedestrian signs be added to crosswalks . I 'd like to go ‘' to number 3 on the opposite page. Traffic engineer should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the Ipossibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed bumps to maximize accessibility. IConrad : Is there a second? The motion fails for lack of second . Is there another motion? Erhart : I ' ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend Iapproval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on the plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" with the conditions , number 1 as is. Number 2 as is . Number 3 , did you start out Iby saying what? Headla : It ' s on the opposite page there . Number 3. IErhart: Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs . And item number. 4, to review the Iwest access to increase access to the area for . . . To review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot . . . IIHanson: Is the intent to try and get the access coming back towards the. . .? I 'm just trying to clarify that . '„Emmings : Did the Public Safety Director and Fire Department review this plan for the access? They did? Conrad : Is there a second to Tim' s motion? MIMI . . Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 25 C Ellson: second' ll it. I Erhart moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" subject to the following conditions: 1. No business may have more than one wall sign. I 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior . 3. Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east , portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs . 4. Review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot. Erhart , Ellson, Wildermuth and Headla voted in favor of the motion. Batzli , Conrad and Emmings voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3 . f 3atzli : My reason is, I still don' t like the eastern entrance to the south. The eastern most southern entrance . Emmings: It just emphasizes the sidewalk issue. I can' t approve the plan the way it is . PUBLIC HEARING: ' COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1 AND 4, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN MALL, INTO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD. B. REZONING A PORTION OF BG DISTRICT TO CBD DISTRICT LOCATED BETWEEN ' MARKET BOULEVARD AND LOT 4, CHANHASSEN MALL. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 80 UNIT HOTEL. ' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the above three items . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order on the Preliminary Plat and Rezoning issue. Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of Preliminary Plat #89-7 as shown on the plat stamped "Received April 11 , 1989" with the following conditions : II . IIPlanning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 26 C li 1. The applicant receive vacation of the right-of-way and utility IIeasements as shown on the preliminary plat . 2. Outlot A and D will be reconveyed to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, once the I improvements to the site have been completed . . All conditions of the site plan approval . All voted in favor and the motion carried. IErhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning Request #89-1. All voted in favor and the motion carried . IIErhart : A question. Is there any other area in this area that should be rezoned? Just kind of review this whole area . . . IConrad : The next item is the site plan review. Jo Ann ' s given the staff report. Are there any comments? IITruman Howe : My name is Truman Howe with Truman Howe and Associates . 'We' re the architects for the project and I 'd like to introduce an associate of mine . . . IIMike Simon presented a site plan review to the Planning Commission . IIEmmings : Where will that sign sit on the site plan? Can you show us on the site plan? Mike Simon : It sits right in her_e . . . The other two smaller signs, there ' s Ione small sign, 16 square feet at the edge of the canopy there. Then there ' s another sign facing south that ' s 37 square feet . The sign is a. . . IBill Dahl : Country Hospitality Suites is a new franchise created by the Carlson Companies about 2 1/2-3 years ago. In this period of time they' ve sold 283 development franchise rights across the United States and Canada . IAt the present time there ' s 5 properties open and another one opening May 4th in Holland, Michigan. There will be about 18 additional properties this year across the country. Country Hospitality Suites is a division of Carlson Hospitality Group Inc. which the Carlson Hospitality Group Iincludes a Radisson Hotel Company. Colony Resorts which they have primarily in the Hawaiin Islands. TGI Friday restaurants and the Country Hospitality Group. The Country Hospitality Group includes County Kitchen Irestaurants , Country Hospitality Inns, Country Hospitality Suites and Country Hospitality Resorts . Part of this program is that all properties r are listed in the Radisson Hotel directory. . . We ' re also on the same r0n system as the Radisson Hotels out of Omaha , Nebraska . The ountry Li.ne . . . take reservations through there. We' re listed in all the sk Mr . Foster Travel Agencies . They' re the second the largest in the world and the largest in the United States and generate some 22 , 000 II II• Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 27 overnights each day through their travel operation . The operation. . . National Management Company. A professional hotel and management company. . . in accord with the Country Hospitality Inc. guidelines . They 11 are. . .with the Country Hospitality facia look that they like on the outside of the building with the decor on the inside using a very similar decor to that plus the addition of. . .Herb and Carol Bloomberg. There will be a couple of small meeting rooms in this particular hotel but we' re actually going to rely on the Dinner Theater for their meeting and banquet spaces and also utilizing the Dinner Theaters for some of the daytime meetings when the theaters are not running. Conrad : What ' s the typical rack rate? Bill Dahl : The rack rate being in the neighborhood of $48 . 00 to $65. 00. , Conrad : Are they really suites? Bill Dahl : Yes . We have a number of two room suites . They have two honeymoon or luxury suites as we call them. Then two bedroom suites. Two room suites like Embassy Suites . Some what we call demi-suites which are larger suites. Largely in one room. That will be equipped with a queen sized or king sized bed and the sofa sleeper that accommodates a family of four. Each suite will have a microwave oven and refrigerator and a wet ( 'gar in it . i Ellson: Is there going to be a restaurant or a lounge bar in this? Bill Dahl : Not within the hotel . We will serve a continental breakfast. As far as full . . .no actual cooked to order food . Ellson: Everybody will get into their rooms by going inside? Bill Dahl : That ' s correct . There' s no outside entrances . Correct. We' ll have a swimming pool and exercise room. Excellent safety visibility from the front desk over the swimming pool and the exercise room area . Very extremely fine layout. We' re quite pleased with it . Ellson : You said it was being run by a company. Does that mean like this is franchised but it' s actually run by Carlson? Bill Dahl : No, this is a franchise. ' Conrad: Anything else we should know about? Herb, you haven' t said anything . 1 Herb Bloomberg : I think this is rather . . .Chanhassen . My wife Carol and I are going to pretty much do the interior decor . . . Some of you maybe know we managed to get possession of the interior paneling from the old Charley' s Restaurant including the wonderful copper . . . We were unable to _get the statue . But we really look forward to having this thing in operation and I think it' s good for Chanhassen . . . Conrad : Any other comments? Planning Commission comments . wis Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 28 f I Erhart: The last I heard , there was supposed to be a regular restaurant IIwith the. . . Clayton Johnson : Part of our plans in the theater are to have a public restaurant to serve the hotel guests. IErhart : Is that where these Charley decorations? I Clayton Johnson: No. Herb ' s talking about using the interior of Charley' s in the lobby, the fireplace and lobby area in the hotel . II Erhart: . . . I had a concern, is the pylon sign going to have pricing? Room pricing on that pylon sign? Bill Dahl : No. That was originally in the Country Hospitality program to I have the pricing signs. This new concept they came up with so at 10: 00 at night if they had vacancies , they could reduce the rates . . .they got some comments from some of the guests in the property so that part of it' s been I scratched . I would love to have a reader board there so we can give informational comments on what ' s going on it the hotel . Such and such meeting or that type of thing or some information with special holiday weekend in conjunction with the Dinner Theater . Would that informational I ( 0 ard be considered part of the sign ordinance? Olsen: Yes . IIErhart : . . .putting pricing out there makes this thing look like a highway hotel and I just don' t think that ' s he image we want here. This is a downtown. . . in conjunction with the Dinner Theater . I Conrad: Reader boards are nice to have. IIErhart : Yes , I have no problem with that . Conrad: It gives them the flexibility to advertise their price but . . . IErhart: . . .prices is not consistent with what we have in the downtown. Then one more comment on the conditions. Are there any 3 : 1 slopes on the ii plat? I Olsen : There are some. IIEmmings: . . . I think it' s just great . . . Ellson : It looks fine to me. IIBatzli : Even though the applicant themselves , Country Hospitality Suites , the Carlson Compani.es . . .so I abstain. IWildermuth : I like the idea of a hotel . . . The one reservation I have is with the parking . . . short of parking . . . II Planning Commission Meeting ■ April 19 , 1989 - Page 29 ■ r Headla : Wouldn' t it have been appropriate for the fire department to comment on this? Olsen : They did review it. . . ' Headla : They didn' t comment on it? I assume they' re going to put in writing that they didn' t need any additional fire fighting equipment. ' Olsen : The new truck that we' re getting , that will . . . Headla: . . . I ' ve asked a number of times . . . ' Conrad : No comments . But just a reference to the staff report. It said the requirements are 88 parking spaces and they' re providing 99. There' s no restaurant . There' s no meeting space so I guess . . . I like it. I have no comments. Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #89-2 as shown on the site plan dated "March 15, 1989" with the following conditions : 1. Final Plat approval of the plat for Bloomberg Addition. 4"' 2. The sign facing on the pylon sign shall not exceed 64 square feet. 3. Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report . 4. An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals. 5. All side slopes greater than 3: 1 will need erosion protection. 6. A typical section of roadway and parking lot is to be shown on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site . 7. The applicant will be entering into a development contract with the City for phased development of the site including the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these improvements . 8 . All privately owned underground utilities , i .e. telephone, gas , electric, shall be relocated outside of the building pad at the time of construction. , 9. All roadway and walkways disturbed by the construction shall be replaced in sufficient proportion to provide a stabilized pavement area . F All conditions of the preliminary plat approval . All voted in favor except Brian Batzli who abstained and the motion carried . Planning Commission Meeting IIApril 19, 1989 - Page 30 F k II PUBLIC HEARING: IIZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE BY DELETING SECTION 20-255, SECTION 20-574, SUBD. 6, AND SECTION 20-773, SUBD. 6 (CONTRACTOR' S YARDS) , CITY OF CHANHASSEN. I Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . I Wildermuth moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. II Batzli : I 'd like the record to show that there ' s nobody else in the room except for us and staff. Conrad : Any general comments? 1 Emmings : I want to ask if the contractor ' s yards that presently exist , were those people specifically notified of this? IHanson: We did not individually notify them. I thought we usually do . . . ' Ellson: f Emmings : Are you telling us that we ' re not obligated to? IConrad: We' re not. The question is, to be sure. . . Emmings : On one hand . . . IIConrad : Does anybody else have any other comments? (Discussion went on between commissioners that wasn' t audible on the 1 tape .) Headla : If we approve this tonight , how' s that going to affect the ones Ithat already exist? Hanson : It won ' t. . . IIHeadla : Then I don ' t see any reason to not approve it . Conrad: It' s just that, would we learn anything additional? 1 Emmings: My concern is this . If we ' re going to make them, I guess the word is legal non-conforming uses right? My question is , what terminates Ia legal non-conforming use? If they don ' t use that property for a period of a year, how would we ever know? f Ellson : You' ve got to tell the neighborhood . IIHanson: It ' s the same way we'd know that a conditional use now had expired . II Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 31 Emmings: How? Hanson : If it' s not used for a year . 1 Emmings : How would we know? I guess here' s the point . If the object of doing this is to eventually rid ourselves of contractor 's yards because they' re inappropriate with the future development of the City, then it would seem to me that we would want to maybe think about. . . Ellson: Applying every year or something? Emmings: My voice came out of her mouth. How'd you do that? Maybe figure out some way to nail down when the year stops and starts so we can say if . . .we can' t do this. If that' s the ultimate goal for taking this step because one of these could go out for a couple years and then people sell the property and somebody starts- it up again, we haven' t got anything . Headla : It ' s like putting your dock in every year . You' ve got to put your dock in every year. Who knows . . . Emmings : Maybe we could somehow canvas these things and make sure they' re fin use in the summertime once or twice or having something the building inspector does when he goes out to do other things. If he' s driving by, he takes a look. I don' t know. I don ' t know how you do it. If the goal is to get rid of them ultimately. . . I Batzli : I think Steve raises an interesting point and because it ' s 11: 30 at night . . . I was always under the impression we were trying to avoid having more into the city rather than trying to get rid of what we have. Conrad: I think that point is well taken. . . Do you want to deal with that tonight? 1 Batzli : No . Conrad : Jim? ' Wildermuth: No. Conrad : Dave, you' ve got your coat on. Headla: I 'm going to turn into a pumpkin in 30 seconds . Conrad : Any comments? Headla: No. . . , Conrad : I think it ' s valid to take a look at the current uses of contractor ' s yards and make sure that they' re not used . . . Any other comments on the zoning ordinance amendments? I I ' ' Planning Commission Meeting IApril 19, 1989 - Page 32 IIErhart moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the City Code to delete the following Isections from the zoning ordinance : Section 20-255 Section 20-574 , Subd . 6 IISection 20-773, Subd . 6 All voted in favor and the motion carried . IIErhart: My comment is, as time has gone on on this thing, it' s become more and more clear that we are recommending the correct thing . . . IIAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 5, 1989 as Ipresented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. IITEMS FROM THE PLANNING STAFF. Steve Hanson updated the Planning Commission on what work had been done on the following items : convenience stores, wetland articles , zoning code, ti ise of matrix and letter from Roger Knutson dated April 12, 1989 . IEmmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11: 40 p.m. . ISubmitted by Steve Hanson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim I 1 II Ir I i P P h e ARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING , 3y A, t (K t;_,. ,r F ...,. APRIL 11, 1989 I Chairman Mady called the meeting to order . IMEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Larry Schroers, Sue Boyt, Jim Mady, Ed Hasek, and Dawne Erhart IMEMBERS ABSENT: Curt Robinson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, ' Recreation Supervisor The Park and Recreation Commission welcomed the new commissioner , Jan II Lash. IAPPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHAIR. Hasek moved , Schroers seconded to appoint Sue Boyt as Acting Chair the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : IHasek moved , Mady seconded to approve the second half of the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated March 21, 1989 as amended Ion page 27 to replace Don Ashworth with Don Chmiel . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mady moved , Hasek seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and IRecreation Commission meeting dated March 28 , 1989 as amended on page 32 by Sue Boyt to change "lime shelter" to "Lion ' s shelter" ; and Dawne Erhart stated that on page 48 she voted in opposition to the motion so the vote I should have been 4 to 2. All voted in favor of the Minutes as amended and the motion carried. 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON MASTER PARK PLAN FOR CARVER BEACH PARK ALONG LOTUS LAKE. Public Present: IName Address I Don Peterson 6896 Navajo Drive R.J. Anderson 6870 Lotus Trail' Roger_ Byrne 6724 Lotus Trail Steve Olson 6780 Lotus Trail IMary Beth Tillman 6940 Lotus Trail Michael & Marie Schroeder 6600 Lotus Trail Dave & Leneda Rahe 1021 Carver Beach Road IMike Wegler 6630 Mohawk Drive John & Lisa Lensegrav 6380 Lotus Trail • Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 2 ' Chairwoman Boyt called the public hearing to order . Sietsema: I 'd like to ask everyone to please sign the sheet in the back of the room so we can contact you of any future meetings because I 'm sure that there will be. This item is placed on the agenda to brainstorm as to how we can improve Carver Beach Park. The linear park along Lotus Trail within the Carver Beach neighborhood. Staff doesn' t have any ideas or any preconceived ideas or any kind of plans in this area . There has been the desire on the part of the commission to improve the park since the old boat access was removed and to put up some barriers to make sure that that old access stays closed and is not used. In previous meetings when we've had the audience in on other , or the people in the neighborhood in on other issues, they have indicated that there are some things that they'd like to see done to the park so we wanted to provide them with the opportunity to come in and tell us what those are formally. We will take those ideas back at the direction of the commission and put them down on paper and come back with a park plan -showing those ideas and how those would work. So I ' d just recommend that you open it up for public discussion. Boyt : Anyone who wants to talk to us about the park, come on up. ' Don Peterson: My name is Don Peterson. I live at 6896 Navajo Drive. I ' ve been an active user of the park for 10 years . It' s great that they' re going to do something with it. I 'm a boater and it' s a very nice lake to boat on . The DNR is active in the lake. The enforcement was there quite a bit last summer which I appreciated. Right now I think the park is greatly under utilized . The 4th of July there was four boats down in the park for the whole weekend and I was one of them, and they' re all neighborhood people so as far as like it says , discussing limited powerboats drastically. The new access has already done that. There' s only 10 or 12 spots and people aren' t going to wait . If they can ' t get on, they' ll go to another lake. Waconia and stuff so the lake is pretty quiet all summer long . So anyway to try and shut off the neighborhood or more boats would be just like, you might as well make it a canoe lake, which I enjoy doing too but it ' s a big resource. I hope to see improvements be made but I hope it' s not just for a certain element or to satisfy the people on the other side of the lake that have docks because it' s kind of like our, Carver Beach uses that for kind of like our lakeshore fun too . Sietsema : If I could just make one comment . The map that I handed out was done by one of the residents and with his suggestions . I thought it would be nice for you to have a visual to look at the map and his suggestions are on there. He' ll probably get up and talk about those too. Mike Wegler : My name is Mike Wegler . I live at 6630 Mohawk Drive . Down by the old boat launch area there. I ' ve been a resident in Carver Beach , Chanhassen for 34 years . I ' ve lived in Carver Beach all my life. I know this area very well . We discussed last fall about the raft and staff and moving it out and that was our main issue about keeping it for kids and public and everybody to use. I just drew this up. Didn' t have much time to do it but you can see there ' s a walking path on there and stuff . It Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 3 needs to be cleaned up. We would like to get either the City or us to put a new raft in. It doesn' t make any difference to use. That ' s where we' re standing on it but we need to have a clean up to bring us down dumpsters and get something going. That whole area needs to be gone through and brushed out and we don' t want to take any trees down or anything like that but we want it picked up and cleaned up and make a chip walking path or gravel . I personally don ' t think blacktop. . . Boyt: You put this together? Mike Wegler : Yes. Boyt : And is this a dock that you have drawn on here? Mike Wegler: Yes. They discussed a fishing for the kids and this is a very nice spot in here. If you ' ve been down there , that ' s a . . . Boyt: Yes, a weedy area. Mike Wegler : Where we ' ve been keeping it mowed and stuff and we thought put a few picnic tables in there. Put a fishing pier out for the kids . Let them use it a little bit. Hasek: It says fishing/launch dock . Mike Wegler : It ' s where the old launch was . Hasek: Okay. So you' re not advocating opening another launch? Mike Wegler : No . My mother drew this up and she had talked about it and stuff like that and she wrote that on there. We didn' t have time. I didn ' t even have time to go back with her and go through it so there ' s a few things on there as far as the motors and stuff like that that' s already decided on that lake. Schroers : Mike, since you live right there, do you think that the main use of the path would be to get the residents from the immediate neighborhood over to the main park area and back and forth? Just more or less a walking and maybe bicycles path? Mike Wegler : That' s about exactly what it would be . Just a walk. I know my kids don' t go over there as far as to swim and now with the new Fox Chase and stuff coming in, this end should basically be left the way it is, if not upgraded and make it useable because if you let it go back, it ' s just going to. . . Schroers : Would you see crushed aggregate or woodchip be adequate? Mike Wegler: I don' t see why not. I know the woodchips are kind of thing with the pollution . I don ' t know if they really like that . Schroers: The thing with woodchips is they just don ' t last . Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 6 Roger Byrne : Well , me and Mike was talking about that. The road ' s pretty narrow. I don ' t know if parking on the road per se , all up and down the road would be very good. But there are some spots along in there where a couple small trees could be cut down, there' s a million trees in there , and the road would be widened out. Mike works for the City. Half hour with a grader down there and he could make, there are some spots where you could park a couple cars here. Maybe up half a block, another couple. I 'm sure along that, from one end of that park to the other end there' s probably spaces where you could widened it out enough and say parking here. Parking there. No parking on the street per se but you 'd probably get 15 cars in there. Mady: I don' t know if we need that many. Roger Byrne: Yes, I know but if you really wanted to. And then down by towards the boat launch , there ' s space out there where you can make a couple. I don' t know, you could try -down the road on one side. I don' t know if it would work too good . The road' s pretty narrow and it washes out when it rains and gets big gullies on the side which makes it narrower yet. Until they fix that road and maintain it , it' s tough. But we ' re willing to get it paved but we don' t want it to. Nobody wants to pay the City tab. They want us to pay for the whole thing so now we don ' t want to pave it and there you are. It should have been done a long time ago when the sewer went in but I can ' t afford . I ' ve got to pay like $6 , 000. 00 to $7,000. 00. That was 5 years ago. It' s probably double that again by now. Mady: I just wanted to find out what your feeling was . Roger Byrne: I 'm just speaking for myself on the parking. I know alot of people don ' t want no parking out there. That ' s just because they were so mad because we took it for so long because the boat launch down there, we go no relief from that for years and years . And the dust, we got no relief from that for years and years . Now everybody says , hey, now all of a sudden they want it back and we fought and fought for the no parking and now we fought so long for what little we got, now I want them to give it back. I think something could be worked out down there. But you 've got to keep in mind also that it is a neighborhood park. It' s not Lake Ann. It' s for everybody but everybody' s not going to come. The neighbors are going to use it probably 90% of the use and some other people come down there with a fishing pot you know and they should have someplace to park. I 'm sure something can be worked out there. I think something should be worked out there. That can probably be worked in with cleaning up. When they clean up, if we have a couple extra trees , bulldoze them up and put a little gravel in and you 've got a parking spot. Boyt : Is this something that we' re going to work with Mark on? Sietsema: Yes . Boyt : Okay. So now should we hear the commission comments on it? Sietsema: Yes. You want to discuss it amongst yourselves and then direct staff to include different , whatever you want to include in a plan and Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 7 1 Mark and I will come up with a concept plan with different facilities and improvements. Erhart : I agree that this site needs to be cleaned up first. Some of the trees maybe taken down, the dead ones anyway and some waste containers . Maybe some grading, like he mentioned, for parking . Widening the road . IIHasek: I guess I 'd like to see as many facilities as we can possibly put down there that the people would like to see . I don' t know how that ' s Igoing to be accomplished. I think that a fishing dock is in order. I would like to see the trail cleaned up. I know we walked it last year and it was bare and muddy and I think that might be a little bit of a Iproblem for a quick and dirty solution. I think it' s going to have to be looked at a little bit more closely. Maybe even designed on site to accommodate some drainage so we don' t get washouts with whatever we do down there. I 'd like to see an aggregate trail as opposed to woodchip Itrail or bituminous trail . I don' t see any problem with the raft . Weed control is something that we' re constantly working on. The major clean up is going to have to be done no matter what we do down there. Picnic Itables are a good idea. They' ll get used no matter what. New raft is something I ' d like to take a closer look at. I 'd like to see some canoe racks looked at. I think that will probably take care of everything. The parking is something I 'd like to look at but I certainly don' t want to Iover park that road down there. I know that it' s narrow and it' s got some drainage problems. We can accommodate a few spaces for the people that want to fish off the pier that don' t live in the neighborhood . IMady: Previously when we toured the park, when Mike Lynch was on the commission, Mike had offered the Boy Scouts for park clean up. They' ve Idone it before so possibly I 'd like to see staff contact Mike and see what he can arrange with a quick clean up as soon as possible and then we can see really what we have there to work with. They' re willing to do it and I know they' ll do a good job for us. On the raft, if we've taken the raft Iaway, we should be putting the raft in this year too . We' ve got $3 , 0001. 00 in our budget for this park. I 'd like to see staff get some numbers for us as soon as possible so that by the 1st of June we can have something Iavailable. With the trail , I agree with Ed in ag. An ag lime trail is probably the best thing down there. Woodchi.ps are simply just going to float away into the lake. They' ll look nice for about 3 months and then Iwe won' t have any trail again . We need to probably do it on site . Try to find out what we need to do with possibly culverts to direct some of the water away from the trail after it gets put in . There is a fairly natural path down there. A couple of spots have been pretty overgrown but if Iyou' re willing to really work hard , you can get through but I don' t think it 'd be too much trouble to brush that out and we can do that. The rest of the items , the trash containers and picnic tables , we 've got those Iavailable in our budget and just through our yearly acquisitions shouldn' t be any problem putting in a few tables down there and whatever number of trash containers are necessary so that we can control the trash problem. Just park maintenance is already going to the main beach down there. They Igo another half block and pick a couple other cans up too. To the parking issue, my main concern is to be able to handle maybe 2 or 3 cars for the fishing. The guys that come down there to fish because there are a number I MI Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 8 1 of people that use that because there' s a real nice drop off off of the wooded part of the trail . Usually in a good year you can reach that. We should make that available . The fishing pier is a great idea. I'd like to see us work with the DNR and maybe get one of their grants. Was it about half that they' ll pay for Todd? Hoffman: They' ll pay for the entire thing . ' Mady: There' s some great fishing spots along that shoreline . Hoffman: We applied for that grant for the Lake Ann fishing pier in ' 88 . It was not approved . It will come up again this year for approval in 1989 for installation in 1990 if possible. There are certain stipulations that need to go along with that. Parking is one of them. You would need to have a certain number of cars available. Handicap access. Asphalt trail to and from the pier . Those types of things which would need to be looked into. I 'm not sure if that type of pier, through the DNR would be the most appropriate here because of some of the stipulations they attach with that grant application. Mady: Why don' t we find out exactly what that is for the next time we meet with the residents so they' ll have a good understanding of that . Maybe it ' s just going to be us putting a dock in ourselves . Hoffman: With the steepness of the drop off there. . . Mady: It might be difficult . ' Hoffman: A regular dock would probably serve the purpose but something certainly would be nice. Hasek: Will they move off of the bituminous trail at all? Have we tried them on that? Hoffman: I doubt it . They receive so many applications , if you question them about trying to make amends with them, they'd certainly just drop you to the bottom of the list . Hasek: How about if we just throw a little bituminous in with the aggregate? Boyt : Just bituminous down to the pier . It ' s only 5 feet. Mike Wegler : Are you talking about the fishing pier kind of in the middle or are you talking where I have it drawn? Because if you have it where it' s drawn, you' re only about 50 feet off of the main blacktop. Or not even . So to get a DNR from there , and there isn ' t a drop off out there. It' s a gradual slope. We fish down there and it' s good fishing in there. Everobyd ' s getting bass and crappies and whatever so if you try to get it down the middle, that will be a heck of a job. Hasek : Maybe we can just look at some small . . . I know you don' t have to go out very far and you pass the trees . 1 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11 April 11, 1989 - Page 9 II Schroers : Since Mike just brought that up, your pier , where you have it drawn here, and it' s right by where the old access was . Mike Wegler : A little bit south. IISchroers : Yes . Do you think that that area there would lend itself to 4 or 5 parking spots? The old access. Would the neighborhood have an Iobjection to having a few parking spots there? Mike Wegler: It' s going to be hard there because if you' re going to put Ithem on the lake side, you' re going to be right on where there' s only a 15 foot strip when there' s high water of grass and you' re going to have your car right there. If you put them on the other side , there' s a ditch. There' s springs running in there. They' re going to run off and I 've Ipulled them out , many times cars get -stuck in there in August . Schroers: So basically what you' re saying is that there isn' t enough Ispace there for parking? Mike Wegler : Unless you could get up on the blacktop and maybe make it one side somewhere. IISchroers : Parallel parking? Okay. Well I am in favor of. . .exact distance of feet but that' s quite a ways . If we only have $3 , 000. 00 in Iimprovement to spend , that can get eaten up pretty fast by putting that trail in. But I am in favor of having an aggregate trail if we can get it in there . I also would like to see the City maintain the raft. Also, Ithe trash definitely needs to be taken out. I got the impression that some of the residents indicated that we should maybe clean up some of the brush and the poison ivy and things too and I think that would be af'propriate just right along the trail area but I don' t think we should Iclean the underbrush up on the hillside. I think we'd run into some erosion problems there and I would like to see the environment stay as natural as possible. I think what would be nice along that trail , if we Icould cut a couple of viewing areas right on the lakeshore . Just open it up a little bit where we could install a bench or picnic table just for sitting and looking out onto the lake . I 'm talking from between the trail and the lake. I would also like staff to check into a canoe rack. I I think that we could possibly install one canoe rack and number it or issue permits on a first come first serve basis and see how much it gets used . That would tell us whether or not one would be adequate or if we 'd Ineed more. I think that ' s all I have. Don Peterson : I wanted to suggest that I wouldn ' t mind help getting a Ineighborhood, like Saturday clean up party for the beach if the City provided us with a dumpster just for the weekend because with the shallow waters , it' s an excellent opportunity to get at some of the glass that' s been in there for years . We' re talking back to the fifties and stuff . We I did a lot of it on our own already but a lot of this has just been exposed because of the low water . As far as Boy Scouts , maybe they might be a little bit too young for that kind of work because there' s a lot of II so Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 10 I broken, because there used to be a jar factory so I personally know of quite a few people that would spend the day and that'd be the immediate thing we could do while the water ' s still shallow. Boyt: Lori , do you want to work with Don on that? Sietsema: Sure. , Don Peterson : All we need are some flyers and maybe just on a Saturday and then have a dumpster for the weekend. I think a lot could be accomplished by volunteer service. Sietsema: Do you have a daytime phone number? Don Peterson: Yes . 474-2003 . I think a lot could be done with volunteers. If the budget' s that limited, we'd like to get at it but a lot of the stuff you just can' t haul -up hills. Some old tires that are off of Model T' s with rims. There' s stuff that' s been down there for 30 years. Leneda Rahe : I 'd like to add something too if I might . The suggestion of the bench, I think that'd be a great idea but I wonder, it couldn' t be put right by the lake because lots of times when I 'm watching my kids swimming, the natural place to sit or if they' re just down there playing , it'd be nice just to have a bench. . . .go for a walk and the kids say can we just go down there and play. There is no place to sit right now and that would be a really good idea but I 'd like to see that . Resident: Are you talking about. . . Leneda Rahe : Yes , I 'm talking at the other end . Where the swimming beach and the parking area is. Mady: You' re talking the main beach. ' Leneda Rahe: Yes, the main one. Lash: I guess I 'd agree with the suggestions here . I had the idea of the Boy Scouts , or Eagle Scouts. They' re a little bit bigger and have a little more muscle power . But to try and coordinate some kind of effort with the residents too, I like the idea of trying to get the neighbors so they can start out saying we helped. So if we can try and coordinate the residents and maybe get some bigger Eagle Scout involved in there. I 'm in favor also of keeping it natural . If it eats up a majority of our money to put in a trail , I guess I would go for some of the other things first and clean the trail out so people can get through there but maybe look at that at a little later date. See how much we can get for the $3 , 000. 00 out of these other suggestions that people made. I think the fishing dock looks like it would be a nice thing. I think people will use it. That sounds great , especially if the DNR paid for it . I like Larry' s idea of starting a canoe rack up and then maybe wait and see how much of a demand there is for i.t . Maybe expand on that. Definitely the trash cans and maintenance, it sounds like that' s something that absolutely has to go in Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 11 Idown there. And picnic tables are nice . I know we' ve had problems with people, kids mostly, taking the picnic tables into the water and using 1 them for a dock so if we' re going to put picnic tables down there, I think they need to be anchored in some fashion to curb that from happening . Sometimes chaining them to the tree works but then a lot of times the chains get cut so you might want to think about different ideas . That' s IIabout it . Boyt : The only other thing I have is signage. That will help tell people IIit' s a park if we have a park sign down there. Do you need anything else from us? ISietsema: No . What I ' ll do is I ' ll try and incorporate as much as to what your ideas have been. They' re all real similiar and come up with a sketch plan and we can revise it from there . Also , I ' ll try to get some costs associated with some of the things that you' ve outlined here as Iwell . I did want to mention that I 've got a couple of Eagle Scouts in that are looking for projects. One of them is looking at breaking the trail through the Lake Ann woods and the other one has put his name by Ireclaiming the trail along Carver Beach in that area. I think the clean up, if it' s major clean up, they can ' t do trash pick up or litter pick up as an Eagle Scout project but if it' s a major clean up effort as well as reclaiming the trail , they could brush it out and get it all ready for Iaggregate to go down and do the clean up and that might qualify. I don' t know if you'd have to do the aggregate too or not but that would be a way to get some free labor . They' re usually, we've had good luck with our IEagle Scout projects so far . I will include the trash part of that on that project and also we can organize the neighborhood as well . IMady: Lori , could we , because I know the residents are real concerned about the raft. Would you like a motion to direct you to go forward with the raft as soon as possible? ISietsema : I 'd like a motion for you to direct staff to pursue coming up with a plan and also yes , the raft. If you want me to go ahead and get some prices and that kind of thing on that. IMady: My understanding with the meetings we' ve had in the past, that raft is important no matter what we do on the whole outline of the park. The Iraft is going to ultimately go in front of that sandy area so we might as well do that now instead of waiting until Mark comes back with a plan because then we' re looking in August . ISietsema : Sure . And Dale may be able to build something with what ' s there too. I don' t know. Maybe just revise or use some of the parts and build something or come up with something . IBoyt: And then we' ll bouy the area a swimming area? ISietsema : We probably should . Don Peterson : On the raft , that ' s been there for over 30 some years and if you want us to, we' ll put it back in. We have no problems with that . II is Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 12 , The reason it got so run down last year was because of this whole thing . We knew that this was coming up and there was a big deal about it and we didn' t know how you guys were going to feel about it . Now if you' re having trouble with money and stuff like that. . .but there's never been an accident out there. I 'm not saying there won' t be one but we can' t look at it that way. We want that raft back. That' s number one. Hasek: I think from a liability standpoint , it only makes sense that the City puts it in. We' re responsible for it and if it' s not kept up to a standard that we ' re responsible for , we' re liable anyways so we would just as soon take the responsibility to do that. Mady: It' s the same question we have with swingsets and those types of things. We have to make sure we put in an item that there' s no doubt about how good it is . The quality and everything is . Just so the liability issue doesn' t come back and haunt you. Boyt : It is a high priority. We do want to get a raft out there. We' ll have a motion. Hasek: I 'd like to make that motion just as Lori. stated . There' s no ' point in restating what she just said. Schroers : I ' ll second it. , Hasek moved , Schroers seconded to direct staff to pursue coming up with a park plan and also getting a swimming raft to replace the one taken out. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Don Peterson: One more suggestion if you want, we just talked about it ' here , I 'm sure if we talked to all our neighborhood and we could get enough money I 'm sure to rebuild it, if you wanted that. Boyt : Could the neighbors work with staff on that? Don Peterson: That would save a few dollars . Roger Byrne : We were going to rebuild it anyway so it ' s in A-1 shape . We' ll donate it to the City. Mady: One last thing before you all leave . This will be coming back here again and ultimately up to Council . If you haven ' t signed the sign up sheet back there , please do so . That ' s the only way you ' re guaranteed of being notified when this comes back up. Roger Byrne : Do all your plans , what you decide to do with that park, has to go to Council before it can be done? Mady: To an extent . Sietsema : The basic overall plan has to go to the Council for approval . If we do anything different than what ' s actually there. The $3 , 000. 00 Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 13 Icould be spent on improving the raft or reclaiming the trail or doing some landscaping without going to Council but if we' re going to do a full Ifledged plan that calls for a future dock, fishing pier , canoe rack, and all of that, that should go to Council for approval . It' s our standard procedure. The money, the $3, 000. 00 that ' s budgeted for 1989, when it was approved, those types of things were what it was designated for at Ithat time. Roger Byrne : You can get that much stuff for $3 , 000. 00? ISietsema: No. It would be probably one or the other. We probably can' t do that much . Not all three. But we have to make sure the City Council IIendorses our future, what we' re planning for the future if we want to get funded for it. ISITE PLAN REVIEW, OAK VIEW HEIGHTS . Sietsema: The Oak View Heights townhouse development is a planned unit IIdevelopment of 18 . 9 acres . They' re planning to build 140 townhouse units . It ' s located between Kerber Blvd . and Powers Blvd . west of the West Village Heights apartments. The proposal will also include the extension of the road that currently goes into the West Village Heights apartment II building. That will continue through onto Powers Blvd . . At the time that the West Village Heights apartment development was approved , we required them to give additional easement right-of-way for sidewalk development in Ithe future because we had plans on that road going all the way through. Therefore, staff is recommending that they also dedicate additional right-of-way so that we can accommodate a sidewalk within the development . IThere then will be a trail on Kerber Blvd . and on Powers with a sidewalk connecting that high density area to our trail system and to our downtown and to the schools and they have a safe way of getting there. We would require them to build the 5 foot concrete sidewalk along their development Iand the City would pick up as a street improvement on the rest of the way. That ' s the intent . Also in the Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along Powers Blvd . . This connection will Iconnect into the trail that will be built by Saddlebrook and that connection will then be in place. It will be a 20 foot wide trail easement with an 8 foot wide bituminous trail within that easement . Staff Iis recommending that they get 100% of the trail dedication fee credited for the trail and sidewalk construction and easements . Because there ' s parks so close to the development, it' s not within a park deficient area . We have City Center Park just down the street and then Chan Pond Park is Inot far from their meeting the different types of needs . But because of the high density of the development and because they are requesting PUD status, which requires them to give above and beyond the minimum IIrequirements , staff is recommending that they be required to install an extensive totlot equipment to serve the young families that that type of unit usually attracts . And because that would just be meeting the needs of their development only, we would not give them a credit towards the I park dedication fee would be the recommendation of staff . So in summary, it is the recommendation of staff to require 10 foot wide trail easement to be dedicated and a 5 foot wide sidewalk constructed along Jenny Lane II IN Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 14 ' and a 20 foot wide trail easement be dedicated with an 8 foot wide bituminous trail constructed along Powers Blvd . . The developer would then be given a 100% credit towards the trail dedication fee and as far as parks required, that they put in the totlot equipment and pay 100% of the park dedication fee . Mady: Where is the totlot equipment going to go? , Sietsema: They proposed that, I should have made an overhead of this. If you see the one with all the buildings on it, you see this dotted line that' s future parking area. They were proposing to put it in this corner here. Mady: As part of their parking area? , Sietsema: It would fit in between the parking area and that corner . Mady: How big a proposed apparatus are you looking at? Sietsema: Something that would be considered about 3 of our normal phases . Mady: Okay. My concern is with a unit this big , they' re going to need to be accommodate 50 to 100 kids down there in the middle of an afternoon. Sietsema: The equipment , I ' ve sent them a picture of equipment that staff was looking at and it was roughly $30,000. 00. A $30, 000. 00 set. , Mady: Dollarwise tells me how big a piece it is . To me that ' s the minimum they' re going to be putting down there. Sietsema : What we put in at North Lotus Lake last year was $7 , 000. 00. Mady: That ' s not very much. ' Sietsema: No . What you see at Meadow Green Park, to give you an idea , Meadow Green Park' s is roughly $15, 000. 00. ' Boyt : I 've looked through the catalogue and I know $30, 000. 00 is a nice structure. Do we recommend at the same time that they put in benches or picnic tables near the totlot? Sietsema: I would include that in your recommendation. Hasek: I just have a quick question. What happens to trail easements that we take if they' re not developed? Are they in perpetuity or do they revert after a certain amount of time if we have some changes? Sietsema: No, they' re in perpetuity. Lash: Aren ' t you talking about if they get this easement , that the ' developer has to put in the strip of the trail? NI II Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 15 IISietsema: Right . The easement is just so we make sure that the trail ' s on public property. Then they can meander that as the topography or the Ilandscape or whatever calls for . We only want actually an 8 foot wide bituminous trail somewhere within that 20 feet along that street. Then what the easement along Jenny Lane actually is , they just widened the right-of-way there and that would become public property rather than an Ieasement. Lash : So this equipment you' re talking about , they' re talking about IIputting it by the parking lot? The totlot equipment? Sietsema: The totlot , that ' s where they had identified it . I have to Imeet with them and look at a more realistic plan and I haven' t had the opportunity to do that . Hasek: I don ' t mind the corner that they've chosen I guess . It ' s just IIthe proximity to the parking that concerns me a little bit. Sietsema: The problem that they' re dealing with and I know that this is Ireally kind of a lousy picture but I didn' t have a whole lot to deal with , the problem they' re dealing with is that this is a slope that goes straight down so they can' t really go much further out. It' s a wooded area and it' s a pretty significant slope . IIHasek: Is the parking required by ordinance? ISiestema: They plan to expand . They plan to put apartment buildings into that slope eventually and that' s . . . IHasek: Oh, that ' s the parking for that? I see. Sietsema: Basically I think if we just tell them we want them to put the equipment in , they can figure out where to put it on their property. IMady: If it' s going to be a park it would be nice to get it fenced . IBoyt : Any further questions? Can we have a motion. Mady: I move we recommend to Council to require the developer to provide IIa 10 foot trail easement to be dedicated and a 5 foot sidewalk constructed along Jenny Land. A 20 foot wide trail easement be dedicated and an 8 foot wide bituminous trail constructed along Powers Blvd . . That 1000 of the trail dedication fees be credited. Additionally, that the developer Iwill provide sufficient totlot equipment in the area to handle 50 to 100 children minimum and that no credit be given to the park dedication fees recognizing that this is a PUD and that they should be providing more than Itheir minimum for the City and also recognizing the fact that they will be putting in a large number of people into our park system. Then to direct staff to work with the developer to provide an optimal location for the totlot site . IMady moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to require that a 10 foot trail easement be dedicated and a 5 II MI Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 16 1 foot wide sidewalk be constructed along Jenny Lane. That a 20 foot wide trail easement be dedicated with an 8 foot wide bituminous trail constructed along Powers Boulevard and that 100% of the trail dedication fee be credited for the trail and sidewalk construction and easements . Additionally, that the developer will install sufficient totlot equipment in the area to handle 50 to 100 children minimum and that no credit be given to the park dedication fees . Also, to direct staff to work with the developer to find the optimal location for the totlot site. All voted in favor and the motion carried . 1990 CIP BUDGET WORKSESSION. 1 Sietsema : What I concluded in the packet is your wish list that you identified at the last meeting. On the first page of my report I tried to pick out of the 1989 budget what we weren' t going to spend . The $40, 000. 00 for the totlot equipment at City Center Park and the $60, 000. 00 for ' development at South Lotus Lake. That ' s $100,000. 00 that we would roll over into the 1990 budget. It' s anticipated that we'd get roughly $110, 000. 00 in park dedication fees and $37,000. 00 in trail dedication . That brings the total up to $247 , 000. 00 not including what we have in reserve which in this year we have $35, 000. 00 in Herman Field if we don ' t do any development in that area. We have the $55, 000. 00 for Lake Ann community shelter out at Lake Ann Park which was the boat rental and bath house shelter . That was put in there for a matching grant for LAWCON grant. Then the other one was fund reserve of $100 , 000. 00 so that ' s $190,000. 00 in reserve that would be rolled over. So if we want to keep the $100, 000. 00 in unused 1989 expenditures allocated to those two projects that we rolled over and the reserve as that is , that would leave us with $147 , 000. 00 that we could spend on park acquisition and improvements in 1990. Hasek : Okay, help me through that again. We' ve got $247 , 000. 00 to start with unused 1989 expenditures anticipated for dedication fees and anticipated trail dedication fees . In addition to that we have $35, 000. 00 that could potentially be rolled over from Herman Park. Siestema: That' s the only one we have to leave in Herman Field because ' that money was dedicated to the City with the property for the development of that property. We do not have the option. . . Hasek: So that' s not a reserve? Sietsema: Well it' s a reserve but it ' s for that park specifically and can' t be changed. The other two we could allocate to something different . The $100, 000. 00 has sort have been our policy to keep that for an emergency type situation and $55, 000. 00 for the Lake Ann shelter was the matching grants in case we ever got the LAWCON grant for that . Hasek: So that' s just those three numbers , $35 , 000. 00, $55, 000. 00 and $100, 000. 00 are in addition to the $247 , 000. 00? Sietsema: Right . 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 17 I Hasek: How did we get from $247 , 000 . 00 back to $147 , 000. 00? ISietsema: The $100, 000. 00 from unused in 1989, if you want to roll those over to the same projects for the totlot and for the development at South Lotus would give you $147,000. 00 for new projects in 1990. Hasek : Okay, got it. IMady: Lori , the $55,000. 00 roughly at Lake Ann . The contract came in at $220,000. 00. We've got roughly $270,000. 00 available from the referendum. Where' s that money? ISietsema: It ' s not in here. It ' s a different program altogether . Mady: So that' s not in the park improvement area of Lake Ann or anything Ilike that? Sietsema: No . IMady: So your thoughts on that are in here? Sietsema: No . ISchroers : Do you have any foresight Lori as to what you would want to spend that money on in 1990? ISietsema: I included the list of things that you had identified and the numbers on there are really rough. I didn' t do extensive research on each Ione of these things because I knew that it was going to have to be scaled down quite a bit. But as far as what my personal , what I feel are priorities would be? ISchroers: Yes . Mady: There ' s a couple things here we need to do and discuss this year . II 'd like to see us come up with a budget number , just a number , kind of a goal that we want to hit . My thoughts are not to spend the whole $147,000. 00. . . .rollover or anything but the $100, 000. 00 that we' re not going to be able to spend this year that we' ve already committed to , I that' s going to carry over . The $147,000. 00 that we pick up this year , I 'd like to see us spend a good portion of that but not all of it, I 'd like to see us add a little bit to our reserves since we' ve got a lot of Ibuilding coming up. We' re going to have to kind of save a little bit in the sock so to speak. To me $100, 000. 00 seems to be a number to hit. That would leave us $47, 000. 00 and another. $50 , 000. 00 , we' d spend about Itwo-thirds. Save a third for the future. We do need to do a lot of things in our parks . Unfortunately a lot of things that weren ' t done in the past and we' re trying to play catch up. IHasek: Jim, what ' s your thought? Why would we need to bump another $50, 000. 00 into our reserve? I IM Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 18 I Mady: I want to see us have something available things slow down. When development ends. Development' s going to end in the City of Chanhassen in the next 3 to 4 years . Hasek: What makes you believe that it' s going to stop? Mady: Because of where the MUSA line is . ' Hasek: But the MUSA line will just move. Mady: It will but not until the year 2000. ' Hasek: If we built out in the next 2 years , all we' ve got to do is go back to Met Council and they' ll move it. Mady: I don ' t see that happening though. Realistically, I don' t see that happening right away. There' s a lot -of land in Eden Prairie that isn' t filled up yet and they' re just not going to , because they've got to get the Blue Lake treatment plan expanded before they can move the MUSA line. All those things have to happen . Blue Lake I don' t think is going to be expanded until after 1995. I 'm saying the City' s got to be full prior to 1995 and we' re going to have 2-3 years down the road where it ' s going to be slim pickings and we' re still going to have people coming in asking for things . Be it boat docks , totlot equipment . We' re going to need to have some money to be able to go after it because I don' t think the Council ' s going to give us money out of the general fund. (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting. ) , Sietsema: Anyway, it' s just a suggestion to move into an acquisition mode and putting money into, I don' t know into reserve or whatever to identify and actively pursue parkland in those deficient areas. Once we have the land, then move back into the development mode. Now we' ve done that. We were really acquisition happy back in the early 80 ' s and now in the mid-80' s we've been into development and we may need to switch gears again . Again , must a suggestion . Mady: I agree with you to an extent with the exception of Chan Hills. I know there' s been a request there and it' s been there for a while. Sietsema: There ' s been a lot of requests from Curry Farms too. I get , phone calls quite frequently from them. Hasek: How about if we do this? How about if we think about what we' re going to do and what we need. Does 25, 000. 00 for each of those, how much of the plan that we have for those areas does that provide? Sietsema : Well $25, 000. 00 will buy us a tennis court or a half court basketball court, a couple of parking spaces and some totlot equipment . Or a backstop and a half court basketball court or a backstop and some totlot equipment and a little bit of parking . Hasek: Okay, but the parking is being served as parking as opposed to IN I Park and Rec Commission Meeting IApril 11, 1989 - Page 19 Ijust . . . I Sietsema: Parking really isn' t , I was thinking paved parking but we wouldn' t have to pave it right away so that really isn' t. The $25, 000. 00, if we don ' t have to do a lot of grading which we shouldn' t have to on either of those sites, we should be able to get a backstop, first phase 1 totlot equipment and a half court basketball court. Schroers: Another way to think about that is 5 to 10 years down the road Iwould you be willing to trade that $25 , 000 .00 worth of totlot, parking and backstop for property out around western Lake Minnewashta that will not be available then. ISietsema: Right . The $50, 000. 00 will probably buy us half a piece of property out at Minnewashta Parkway. IBoyt: I would like to hear sometime -from the Council their opinion of our budget and should we be using just the park funds or would they like to see us use some of their general funds? Maybe they'd like to see Iacquisition and development. Maybe next time we talk to them that could be on the agenda . Mady: That ' s a good point because right now we' re taking money that ' s Ibeing provided by new residents of the City really and building in old areas of the city that have never provided dollar one to their parks which is just the way it is . IIHoffman : You' re just never going to catch up . IMady: So you' re not using the new money to provide parks for new people . Sietsema: Although there are a lot of people out there that have paid too. IIMady: Ultimately the City' s going to have to come to the point where taxpayers are going to have to provide for their own park development too. INot just new residents coming in. Boyt : I agree with Larry that I think this is the time to acquire property and I would say we can delay, even Chan Pond, since it' s a I passive park. Delay Chan Pond . That one has been getting requests too but delay development and work on acquisition. ILash : Have you heard from people what it is they want? Can we just give them a little bit? ISietsema : They' ll be in next time on Curry Farms , Chanhassen Hills and Lake Susan Hills West. Those people will be invited to come in here and give their_ input on the master park plan so we' ll know next time what they want to see there. ILash : If they' re happy with just maybe a little totlot equipment , stick a little bit in and leave the rest of the money for buying some property. I MN . 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 20 ' Sietsema: I honestly think that they would be happy with that for now. There' s a lot of young families in those areas and they'd be just tickled with some totlot equipment. Mady: But you' re still talking top grading and totlot equipment, you' re talking $7, 000. 00 to $10,000. 00 for the equipment. When you get that all said and done, you' re still talking probably $20,000. 00. We' re not going to be saving that much. I don' t see us putting up a tennis court in any one of those things. I just don' t. Not now. Totlot equipment and a backstop is probably what we 'd be looking at. Hasek: I ' ll tell you, I think Curt would push for that. Tennis court and parking has been next to him for a long time. Sietsema: What I have in here for general development is $25, 000. 00 for Lake Susan Hills West, Curry Farms and Chanhassen Hills. That' s $75, 000. 00 . Mady: We' ve got a feasibility study for $7 , 500. 00 that we' re going to have to do next year. Hasek: I would like to suggest that if we do start an acquisition, that we call it an acquisition fund. That we don' t put it in the general fund . That it takes some thought to move it out of that if that' s what we want to do. Boyt: Do those funds earn interest? 1 Sietsema: Yes. Last year we earned, I think it was $25, 000. 00 in interest . Boyt : And we' re still getting funds from the pulltabs? Sietsema: From the Lion ' s? We can' t count on it but we do. ' Boyt: I think it' s important that we keep the miscellaneous stuff , and that' s $21, 000. 00. I Schroers : I definitely support Ed ' s idea about labeling a fund as an acquisition fund. It' s only inevitable that if we wait to acquire, there' s not going to be anything to acquire. We can just look at what happened tonight. We have a park that' s been a long time park available to the residents and they have finally gotten to the point where they' ve come in and said hey, let' s get it fixed up and taken care of and we' ll help. We could probably anticipate more of that type of community and neighborhood response in the future down the road but only if we have the park. If they come, in and say, we don' t have something . We want it and we say hey, we can ' t give it to you. It ' s not there. Boyt : We' ve run into that too . Schroers : So development absolutely has to be after acquisition . I , Park and Rec Commission Meeting IApril 11 , 1989 - Page 21 IHasek: Do we have to solidify this tonight? Sietsema: Well I need it cleaner than this because we' ve got to solidify it by next time. Hasek: Okay, but next time we' re going to have Curry Hills, Chan Pond Iand . . . Sietsema: Let' s say we have to have a recommendation all clean and ready Ito go to City Council by their second meeting in May so we could talk about this again on the first meeting in May. Hasek: Okay so we could kind of pull together a ballpark number that' s Isomething short of what we' ve got and listen to those. . . Sietsema: Yes. Just tell me what you want to delete for sure out of here Iand then I can get cleaner numbers for the rest of it . Hasek: Let' s talk about what we want to keep. You were talking about I $75 , 000. 00 worth of acquisition is what you said right? Sietsema: No. There was $75, 000. 00 in general development for those three parksites . IHasek: Okay, for those three . So that would not be a positive or that would not necessarily be a solid number. It might be something less than I that . Schroers : Can we just start at the top of the list and go down? Let' s Istart with Lake Ann. Do we need the trail through the woods at Lake Ann? Hasek: No . ISchroers : Could we save $10, 000 . 00 there? Boyt: That' s the one that an Eagle Scout had signed up for . 1 Sietsema : This was to pave it. The Eagle Scout project would be to clear it and possibly put the aggregate down. I 'm not sure about that even but he would clear the trail and then the $10, 000 . 00 was to put the base down Iand pave it. Again, that' s really a nebulous number . I just kind of picked it out of the sky. ISchroers : Where was that trail going to go to? From where to where? Sietsema: We talked about meandering it through the woods starting at the Itrail that ' s there and maybe looping it around so you could take a nature walk and clear out some areas with benches and picnic in more remote picnic areas . IHoffman : A couple different access points and exit points . Accesses off the parking lot which are close to that tree line. Access to the beach so you can walk to and from the beach through that area . It ' s really a nice I Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11 , 1989 - Page 22 ' portion of the park which is unused at this time. It would add another different type of use to Lake Ann. A nature walk. People who come from Greenwood Shores around the lake could then take that other loop through Lake Ann Park to extend their walk and make it a little longer . Schroers : Okay, in your opinion then it' s something that you would like to see stay in? ' Hoffman: It' s something that I would like to see stay in place. It could be reduced somewhat if we just want to go with an aggregate base at this time and not blacktop it. That certainly can be on in the future. Hasek: I don' t think that' s a bad idea on any of these trails. It' s like your driveway. If you put the ag down and let it set for a while , a lot of times you get a lot better surface out of it so I don' t think that' s a bad idea . Boyt: Had you included the aggregate base in the Eagle Scout project number at the bottom? Sietsema: No . ' Mady: Make it $5, 000. 00? Hoffman : Yes , $4 , 000. 00 would probably get by there. Hasek: Is the Eagle Scout going to go to four? ' Sietsema : No . The trail through the woods would go at $4 , 000 . 00 . The park shelter would be the one that we talked about that would go at the top of the hill which would just be the open air shelter because that ' s where our big groups go. Mady: Clarify something for me. Where is this $50, 000. 00, I still don ' t know where this $50, 000. 00 is from the referendum that we' re not spending on the contract left for expansion of the park. Sietsema: It' s in the referendum fund. It' s not in this fund . 1 Mady: That' s park development . We can do anything we want with it at Lake Ann so we can do these things with it . ' Sietsema : Yes . What I was going to kind of propose was the community park shelter with the bath house and the bathrooms and the boat rental and the upstairs community room. The screened house type room. If we put the money that' s left over in the referendum and the $55, 000. 00 in reserve, we could probably build that thing . I see that' s something that ' s becoming more and more a need. I don' t know. We might want to roll this over into acquisition too . Hoffman : That excess money in that referendum dollars may also get nit ' picked and eaten away as the development comes along . I Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 23 ISietsema : Change orders along the way. II Schroers: Can you refresh my memory on the picnic shelter? Is this something that we would be open to the general public all the time or is this something that we would rent out to special groups? II Hoffman : It' s something that would be open to the general public at all times. Currently we' re almost filled at this time as far as group reservation picnics through June, July, August , into the beginning of May Iand into the beginning of September. The first thing they ask for is a park shelter . Do you have a large park shelter? No . You can bring in portable tents if you wish. A lot of those company picnics , family reunions , class reunions , they rent those large tents and put them up Ithere on that hill. Any group over 100 people or more I encourage them to set up on top of that hill , we provide additional picnic tables for them so they can do that to kind of separate the group picnics from the general Iuse of the park. The other people using the park during that time. I can see, I 'm sure you all have experiences with the nice park shelter like that for a family reunion, for some type of picnic of that nature and it' s Ia high cost item but it' s something that certainly would be used. But it may be something that needs to be put off because it is such a high dollar item. 1 Schroers : You would more or less be earmarking this then as a reservation area with the shelter but would we charge for this? IHoffman : It certainly could be charged for . Right now there ' s no charge for a group reservation because they pay the $2. 00 parking fee, the entry fee. If we had a nicer facility for them to use , we certainly could Iinstate a picnic reservation fee for the use of that facility. Hasek: So 100 people generate $200. 00? That ' s if they' re not residents . IISietsema : And most of them aren' t. Lash : And that would be per car too so chances are they' re going to be Icoming in . . . Hasek: So it generates less than that. IHoffman: They do generate quite a bit of revenue currently. Mady: My gut feeling is though, I agree 100% with what you said but it' s Ikind of pie in the sky, and the wagon comes first. Lash : I guess I would be a lot more in favor of this picnic shelter type Ithing than this other thing. The one on the other column? Schroers : The one with the bath house? ILash: Yes. That sounds like really pie in the sky. This is just a shelter . I think a lot of major parks have that . I think it ' s a real drawing card to parks although you said it' s booked already so, but we I Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 24 1 could recoup some money from it if it' s charged a fee for it. Mady: The Lake Ann boat shelter is a changing place, a picnic thing . Hoffman: Water and electricity need to be available as well . Mady: It' s been pie in the sky for us for as long as I 've been here. ' We' ve been trying and trying and that item always ranks real high in the grant application and then it just never seems to get it. Lash : Would this picnic shelter have electricity and water? , Mady: No water . Hasek: Similiar to the one we have out there now. Siestema: Right, only bigger . - 1 Hoffman: It would just be a large open aired shelter with a concrete slab. I Sietsema: It ' s a roof on stilts . Schroers : I 'm just amazed at the current trend for renting space for , group functions. Almost all the facilities that we have in all Hennepin parks are booked and they' re not cheap. People are willing to pay for these places and we may be missing the boat by not having an area like that that we can designate as a reservation area and charge an appropriate fee for it' s use. I believe if it was a decent facility, it would have very little idle time. Mady: Larry, could you find out for us what they charge for a facility? Lash: I can tell you one in particular because my family has a reunion up there every year and they charge $100. 00. Hasek: For what? Lash : It' s a shelter . It does have electricity and it has bathrooms. Hasek: This is where? ' Lash : It' s up in Fridley. I can' t think of the name right now. It ' s right on the river. ' Boyt : Moving onto playground equipment . Mady: Are we funding some this year on top of the hill? ' Sietsema : Yes. Mady: As long as we ' re putting in as much as we' ve got there now, I don' t have a problem with deleting it. We' re putting in a sizeable piece up I Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 25 II there . Sietsema: $10, 000. 00. I Lash : And this is an extra $10, 000. 00 for next year then? IISietsema: Yes. Mady: I guess I 'd be in favor of deleting that for 1990. ISietsema: Is that the general consensus? Boyt : If it isn' t, you guys speak up so we can get through this . ISchroers: We all had collectively agreed that the playground equipment at Lake Ann was definitely lacking and is the $10, 000. 00 that we' re spending Ithis year going to be adequate to get it up to par? Sietsema: It probably won' t be as big as what' s there but , will it? IIHoffman: Sure it will . Mady: All you' ve got is a slide and two swings up there. ISietsema: So you want to take this out? IIBoyt : And Ed wanted us to wait on moving the trees. Sietsema: Take the trees out? IHasek: Yes . The tree moving , that might not happen . Who knows . Sietsema: That is something that definitely could come out of the Ireferendum money. That could be a change order . Boyt: Let ' s recommend to do that. IISietsema : Okay, I cut the trees . Boyt : But we had asked for playground equipment out of the excess funds I from park development at Lake Ann. Sietsema : What excess funds? IHasek: That' s if there' s excess funds . ISietsema : But we won ' t know that until . . . Hasek: Unles we' re done with the changes . IBoyt : But we were making a list . We were talking about batting cages . We were talking about dugouts . I Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 26 , Sietsema: See now that' s change order stuff too . ' Boyt: Okay. Well , totlot equipment was in there too . Sietsema: I cut it. Boyt: Put it back. I Sietsema: I ' ll put that in the other one. Hasek: The picnic shelter is in? , Mady: It' s tentative. Hasek: Okay. And how about the Lake Ann boat shelter? Is that coming out of the budget? Mady: That ' s a reserve. Boyt : Let' s go to North Lotus . Phase 2 totlot equipment . Sietsema: Do you want my opinion? Hasek: Cut it? ' Sietsema: Cut it. Was I supposed to take that $7 , 000. 00 out for North Lotus? Boyt : Yes . Sietsema: Anybody say no? Gone . Landscaping Chan Pond . , Hasek: I think that comes out and I think we need to put the trail in. Mady: We need to put that graded trail in . Sietsema: Is that all agreed? Schroers : I agree with we can put the landscaping on the back burner . The graded trail, I 'm in favor of a mowed trail around Chan Pond and I don' t think we need to spend $9 , 000. 00 to get a mowable trail around Chan Pond. Mady: I think you' re right . All we need to do really is go down with a Bobcat. Schroers : But we can just leave that $9 , 000 . 00 in there for trail grading and whatever is not used . . . Mady: Let' s drop it. Hasek : Just a second . Wasn' t there some discussion at Council about that trail and what they wanted to see? II Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 27 II Sietsema : They had recommended that we pave it. That can be a long term Ipart of the plan. In the interim we can have a mowed. Schroers : We can maybe phase that trail and have a phase 1 just a mowable. ISietsema: So my pen is erasing $9 ,000. 00? I Hasek: Yes, and it' s going to change it though. We' re going to change it to a grading number . Mady: A grading number , maybe a third of that. IBoyt: Is it going to take that to grade the trail? I Sietsema: It' s just smoothing out the bumps so you can take a buggy over it. IHasek : Is there a trail basically in place now? Sietsema: Yes . II Mady: They mowed it. Boyt: But it' s really uneven and bumpy. IISchroers : It depends on how we want to do it. It ' s going to cost some money if you ' re going to go in there with a cat and knock off the high IIspots . Fill in the low spots . Get it flat and level and just drag it, seed it so you can have a nice base then because that' s what you' re going to need anyway. No matter what kind of a trail will ultimately end up there, if you don' t have a good flat solid base, you don' t have anything IIto work with so at some point in time, that needs to be done . Sietsema: How much? ISchroers : I 'm saying leave the $9 , 000. 00 in there for grading . Sietsema: Is that agreed? Anybody against that? Hasek : I can ' t argue with it. I 'd like to but I can ' t. IIMady: I don' t have any basis for a better number . Lash : Is $9 , 000. 00 a realistic thing for paving it? ISietsema: No, for grading . Boyt : Chan Hills. ISietsema : Take the 2 off and leave 5 for totlot? II IN Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 28 1 Hasek: How about make it 7 or 10. Schroers : We don' t get nothing for $5 ,000. 00. Hoffman: The road ' s not even to the park yet. So we can wait until next year and then it will be houses built up around it. Sietsema: Put it off a year? Is the 25 gone for Chan Hills? Anybody against that? Erhart : I 'd want to keep a little something in there. I Lash: Even if they can just walk in. You don ' t have to have a driveway. Mady: You won ' t be able to get to it. Sietsema: It won' t be graded though -until the road' s there. I will not take away any of these numbers . I ' ll just give you back something with a delete after it or something so if you want to pull anything back, you can do that. , Boyt : South Lotus . Mady: The park plan' s important . Will the TH 101 realignment be done I next year? Siestema : Oh no . I Mady: Not in the ground but on paper done so we' ll know? Sietsema: Should . ' Mady: There ' s no reason to do a massive park plan if you don ' t know where the road 's going to be. Which apartment comes out or whatever they' re I doing . Sietsema: I think we' ll have lines to do a master park plan. I don' t think the road will be aligned so we could do any work in there though . Hasek: So you' re saying the drawings will be done but . . . Schroers: I would like to see enough money stay in South Lotus to accommodate a neighborhood skating pond for that next season. Sietsema: That won' t take much. Hasek : $5 , 000. 00? $3 , 000. 00 for grading? Hoffman: Less . $3, 000. 00. 11 Schroers : Dale went and looked at and he said that it needed some work. , Sietsema : But they could do that in house . i II Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 29 II Mady: They could do Chan Pond in house too . IIHasek: This $3, 000. 00 for grading? Boyt : What about the roll over funds? IISietsema: They roll over to something else then. They become available for something else then . IIMady: Roll over funds are this year ' s money that we' ve already got . I really have a tough time. . .that rollover . We've done it twice. This is going to be two years in a row. IISietsema: The only thing is, it doesn ' t make any sense to go in there with a grader or putting balifields in if they' re going to come in the I next year to redo TH 101 and tear everything out . Let me do this . Let me find out when the anticipated realignment of TH 101 and West 78th is and then you can make your determination on that after next week. IIBoyt: Bandimere Heights. I would say cut them. Especially after looking at the park site and the possibilty there . Any opposed? IISietsema: You took out Bandimere? Mady: Yes . ISietsema: I ' ve got a question mark by it. I ' ll bring it back. IBoyt : City Center Park, master park plan. Mady: God willing we' ll have some information by next year on the school . IHasek: Master plan cut? Boyt : No . We' d like to leave that in. ISchroers: We need to do something with City Center here. IMady: That park' s going to be there come thick or thin and will get a lot of use. That park probably gets more use than Lake Ann even. Boyt : And leave the roll over . IHasek: Okay, the whole thing ' s intact? So we' re park developing next year? Okay. Carver Beach landscaping $3 , 000.00. IIMady: That ' s the playground and tot playground right on Carver Beach Road. That was to put some more trees in there. IBoyt : Yes , we can wait on that . Curry Farms? Schroers: Scratch that . Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 30 1 I Sietse ma : Everybody agreed to scratch Curry Farms? Boyt: Yes . , Mady: We' re still going to invite those people in. Isn ' t that what you were talking about last time? 1 Sietsema: Yes . Hasek : Does this one have a road to it? , Sietsema: Yes. This has houses all around . Hasek: So this one is actually in better shape to be developed than Chan Hills? Sietsema : There ' s houses all around this one. , Hoffman: But again something to consider. Both those areas are still 11 just black dirt. Dale will most likely be in there to seed and do some landscaping. Going to put in a totlot equipment on a dirt lot is not real attractive. Maybe we want to give those parks a year , 2 years to start growing to look like a park before you go ahead and put in playground equipment. Hasek: That ' s even more reason why we should get those parks graded when development begins and not wait until the end. Get them graded and seeded so that when the thing gets developed out , we can do something with it rigth away rather than having to wait 2 or 3 years for it to establish it' s seed . Sietsema : I agree with that philosophy. The only argument to that is that would mean that Chan Hills would have had to have gotten the road down to Phase 3 when they started 3 years ago right away. Hasek: Rough grading for the road and cutting the rough grade for the road and putting the base in. Mady: Phase 1 creates the need . Phase 3 doesn ' t create the need . Hasek: I think it' s just common sense to get it done early. (A tape change occurred during the 1990 CIP program discussion. ) I Hasek moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the Maintenance Department include a Cushman vehicle. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 31 IDISCUSSION OT TOTLOT EQUIPMENT PURCHASE. II Sietsema: Have you guys had an opportunity to go out to different sites and look at totlot equipment? Boyt: Yes . It was a lot of fun and we found out lots of stuff. We took IIkids with us and let them play on it. Sietsema: What did you decide you like? IIMady: There' s something, you shouldn' t play on playground equipment when there' s ice underneath it. UBoyt: Somebody put it where it was too short. We took some 8 year olds along. We took kids with us . IIMady: Edina and Eden Prairie. - Hasek: That was kind of explained to Wes when he was here before . He Isaid a lot of times they' ll put it in not thinking about what they have to put in for a base and they' re going to go out and put the base in and they' re a foot low. IIBoyt : We like the timber . We didn' t like the metal . Lash: Do you like the combination? The timbers with the plastic? , Boyt : The slides that are real long . The kids get burned on them. Lash: That ' s why I like the chute and the curved . IIBoyt : The kids love curving slides . The kids love slides . The kids like some things that are real dangerous too. They like merry-go-rounds. We Itried the new fashion swing . Have you seen it in the book? Do you remember that swing that they were on where you have handles? IIMady: Do not like the roller slides . Those are bad . Boyt: They hurt. IMady: They hurt and fingers can go down in those things. Schroers: Yes. Little fingers could get smashed in those rollers . ISietsema : I ' ll contact the representative and come back with a picture of something that' s in our price range for your approval and then upon that Iapproval I ' ll order it. Schroers: Mainly a timber , wood structure. IISietsema: Timber structure like we usually have with the color coming off of it. Like the slides . I Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 32 , Boyt : We had an idea . When we go to a more expensive structure, they have these platforms at the top, 6 feet tall , interconnected so you can go in a triangle or a circle from one structure to another . The kids thoughts that was pretty neat. Only more expensive. When it comes to buying more expensive stuff , we' ll design what you want. Lash: That would be my suggestion. Pick out the things we think we like because the company will , if they know what we want, they' ll come up with 'a design that will incorporate all the different features that we want. We just did something very similar to that at the school that I work at last year and it was this exact company. Every day I watched kids play on it and the things that really attracts them and the things that are just really a waste. These little portable windows , they' re just a waste . These tic tac toe things, dumb. The little wheel , that ' s bad . Everyday I sit and watch kids play on this exact equipment. I have a real good idea . Age range was 5 to 8 basically. . . Hasek: Which wheel thing are you talking about? ' Hoffman : Steering wheel . Lash: The steering wheel that you mount on a ball and they' re supposed to pretend it' s a boat or something . . .and that ' s supposed to tie in with the portable one. Usually it ' s in an active spot. I talked with some of the teachers and I said what did you find to be real loser ideas and which ones would you really support having so they gave me an idea of the things that they really liked. Did you guys try that trap thing? , Boyt : They all tried it but it' s, where you grab on jerk across? Lash: It doesn' t just kind of go by itself? You have to make it go? ' Mady: Your body weight makes it go and it stops in the middle. Schroers: Isn' t that what Jim' s daughter fell off of? Boyt : Yes . Schroers : And that was a metal one and I guess I didn' t really care for that. Boyt : No , but they made things for upper body development. Like the old horizontal ladder . They' ll do that. Sietsema : So would you like me to do then , I ' ll take the Minutes of what I you' ve just said of the things you don' t like to make sure we don ' t include those things and go to the timber form style and come back with some ideas? Boyt : It ' s fun if they can use their imagination to make the play structure something it isn' t. Or a spaceship or a stagecoach. ' Hasek : That ' s why that one out at Lake Ann got destroyed . I Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 33 II Sietsema: Because of imagination? IIHasek: No , you' ve got to hide in it. Lash: The bridge, the connecting bridge things , they really like that. IIAnd the tire swings. I think you need to look at things for little, the 3 year olds. IIUPDATE ON SOUTH PARKLAND ACQUISITION. IISietsema: Since we met tonight, we won' t meet on Thursday or do you still want to meet on Thursday? Boyt: I don' t think so . Sietsema: I can ' t be here so you'd have to meet on your own. IIBoyt: When are we going to make a recommendation on this? Sietsema: In our discussion we should discuss now how we want to proceed . If we want to proceed with the Bandimere property, it sounds like we kind IIof have to make some movement in that area and I think if we start negotiations, that may at least, like you were talking about, tie it up. If we start talking that we want it and enter into negotiations without 1 actually entering into a purchase agreement, that ties up the process and we can look further into it so I 'd need a recommendation if you want to recommend to the City Council that we pursue the Bandimere property. IThere is not the big rush on the other so whatever you want to do. Hasek: I have a question. Is anything being done with TH 101 in that location at all? It ' s not going to be straighten there? There are no IIplans to straighten it out or to realign it? To widened it at all? Sietsema : Not that I know of. The only place I know that they' re going IIto do any straightening is up at the S curve at Lyman as it goes by Chan. Hasek: I like the Bandimere location. I like it ' s location . I don ' t IIparticularly like the lay of the land there . I think they talked a little bit about ballfields and being a wind tunnel out there. If you ' ve ever played in an open field which that one would really be. You can hit a ball to right field and go out of the left field line. It ' s just Iincredible what wind can do. It ' s not just ball parks that are going to be up there but there will be other things as well and unless we can do something to accommodate that, I think it could be a bad lay for a park. IWhat I 'd like to be able to do is to have perhaps us tie that piece up and have the traffic engineer look at an access to that piece of property to see if there ' s a good access for a major , if there' s a good location for a major access to that park. Also, the potential for access into the other IIparcel of land . That might give us a little bit of time to have somebody take a look at the possibility of the grading of new ballparks and so forth in that piece . Does that make sense? II IN Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 34 , Boyt: So have the piece in the water? Hasek: And the piece in the water would be . . . ' Sietsema: So you want to look into where you would gain access to the Bandimere property? ' Hasek: The traffic and the location of that road . I 'm a little concerned. You' ve got a road that carried quite a bit of traffic there. It' s a narrow road to start with and it' s not like they' re going to be turning off TH 5 where we' ve got the right sight distance and how does that figure with maybe a real conceptual idea of how that park might lay out. Sietsema: And you want to compare that to the other site? Hasek: Just the access . Sietsema: Because the other one is a straight shot. It ' s going to clearly be a safer access onto the other site. I can see that and I 'm not a traffic person. Hasek: But where would the straight shot be? Across from. . . 1 Hoffman: The first spot we stood . Hasek : On the second park? Sietsema: On the second part, Lyman Blvd . is straight . Hasek: I know Lyman Blvd is straight there but you can' t access along the whole thing . We walked up a probably a 30 foot hill just to take a look at the thing so that wouldn' t be where the access would be. It 'd have to be towards their wood lot. Mady: As you drive further down, CR 17 ' s going to get cut through in there. The second parcel on Lyman has some drawbacks in that ultimately CR 17 is going to cut through that parcel on the east side and potentially TH 212 could cut across the southeast corner of that property also. Hasek: When I was talking to Al , he said that he thought it might hit that corner but he wasn' t positive. The second thing, I don' t know that CR 17 is necessarily going to be punched through. I don' t know how much support there is for that. I think we' ve got two sites that are within our budget and we might as well take a look at both of them. I would hate to lock up Bandimere and then just have it completely undesignable for some strange reason . I think we ought to attempt to lock it up by starting a purchase agreement on it . Schroers : I kind of wish Al was here for that discussion because my ' perception of information that he put out tonight was that there was a definite sense of urgency. He indicated that he could make 3 phone calls IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 35 Iand sell that property. IMady: He indicated that it will be coming on the market. Hoffman: This coming Monday. ISchroers : So basically what he' s doing is giving us the inside tract and the first shot at this but if I interpret him right, if we don' t move on it , it' s going to be gone . IIBoyt: That' s right . Schroers : So I think we need to decide which of the two practical parcels Ithat we looked at would be the best. I think as far as the wind and being open, they' re both big open fields and are going to be hit by wind . That ' s something that we would have to try to curtail through planting . IHoffman: I don' t think you want to bear a whole lot of weight on that situation . City Center Park is known to be one of the windiest spots in Ithe city. Boyt : At least it blows the mosquitoes out . IIHoffman: And it' s used currently right now as the only youth park. Mady: We don ' t have our management decision analysis information Iavailable do we? Boyt : No , he ' s at home. IMady: We did , a year and a half ago the Commission spent a Saturday and went through a management decision analysis on acquiring parkland and we do have written down the process by which we should be selecting this I park. Schroers : I have some of that here with me I think. There' s just a few Ithings there that seem kind of obvious . They' re both open. They' re both going to take a certain amount of grading . It looked as though Bandimere would take less grading. IIErhart : They said more. Schroers: They said more on Bandimere? IErhart : Don Chmi.el anyway said more on Bandimere. IIMady: It depends on where you stand . Boyt: It ' s probably a judgment call . IIHasek: I think the reason is because you can ' t find a spot that' s even half way close to Bandimere . It ' s either on top of a hill , which you have to put the thing , put a field, or maybe perhaps down in one of the corners II mir Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 36 , but any corner you look at is going to take a substantial amount of grading. It' s like was mentioned before though that Lake Ann was up on a hill and we got three fields into that. The problem with that is the amount of money that we spend just preparing the park to receive the facilities and if we could save some of that , that would be real nice. I think if you look at the second location off of Lyman Blvd . , that the south part of that is a lot flater even though there' s a drainage swale over there. It' s a lot flater to begin with than Bandimere was. Schroers : Also , there would probably be less resistence from neighbors at that location because there are less neighbors. So that ' s something else to consider . Aesthetically, I like Bandimere better myself. Hasek: I said I like the location. I think it' s more southerly and I think it' s more remote from Lake Ann and the other park. Schroers : I like the fact of having -a lake there and that is really a big plus. I think that the Lyman may be a little more easily accessible. Mady: To whom though? Schroers : To the people who would be using it . Boyt: There' s a lot of people down by Bandimere. There' s a big ' development down there. Mady: The access to the Lyman site would be the north end and in our decision analysis, we indicated that Lyman would be the upper edge of the south park. So the main entrance of that park would be facing the people who it' s not supposedly going for , the south. Schroers : Supposedly but generally what we' re looking at that for is our youth area. We' re developing active areas for the youth and they would be coming from all parts of town so I don' t think that would be that big of a deal . Boyt : Jan , do you want to give us your comments? We' ll go down the line. Lash: Okay. I think Bandi.mere. . . lake property great but if it is more grading or would be more expensive in the end to try and get it set up for ballfields, that' s the down side. For me the down side is if this is supposed to be for youth things, and I don' t know if that ' s been decided for sure or not and if we think logically people have 2-3-4 kids and you have a bunch of kids in sports and you 've got one playing over in Minnetonka at the same time as the one that' s playing way down in TH 101 and you' re trying to get kids all over town where it would be easier if it was a little closer to say City Park and Lake Ann if you' re shuttling kids all over . But if it ' s to service the people in southern Chanhassen, then you want to go further south. You have to determine I guess what you think the actual useage is going to be. If it' s to service the people down there, you want it down there. ' II Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 37 IIHasek: That is the point . The point is to service southern Chanhassen but our line of demarkation was Lyman Blvd. so both actually fall within I that and from that standpoint they' re equal . If we were to say it had to be, we gave it more weight for being farther south of Lyman Blvd . , that'd be one thing but they' re both south of Lyman so they both are equal with that. IMady: And that was a must and not a want . ILash : I still have mixed feelings. I like the lake access but I think the other one is more easily accessible to the majority of people in town. I Erhart : I think the biggest drawback with the Bandimere piece of property is the road access. I think that will be a problem. Then also with the neighbors east of there. You have more neighbors to deal with whereas the property off of Lyman, you only have the one neighbor and a better access IIonto Lyman Blvd . . But I think we should still try to look into Bandimere property because I agree with Al . I think he could make a few phone calls and it would be gone real quick then we ' ll only have one choice. I still IIlike Bandimere best but I can see a lot of drawbacks . Hasek: How about heads is Bandimere and tails is. . . IMady: No way. Schroers : Maybe we should each just cast a little individual vote . 1 Mady: I ' ve got some comments. Concern over the neighbors. Going through the referendum process , people we talked in the south park, they want a I park bad. Real bad. They were promised a park back in the late 60' s , early 70 ' s. Whenever Lake Ann was first bought . It never happened . They don't care. They want it bad. You' re not going to be seeing lights on this field for 20 years . Those people are going to be long gone out of Ithere by the time this park will have lights on it and I don ' t think the neighbors are really going to be a problem. I really see these people saying this is nothing but positive. Anyplace in south Chanhassen is I going to be positive for a park. The access on TH 101 . I think there ' s some opportunities there that can be addressed and I think the City Engineer can probably come up with that pretty quickly. He can get a feel for that pretty easily. The development issue, which one' s easier to II develop, we' ve said all along the Corps of Engineer ' s Reserve is more than willing to come up here and for the price of their fuel , they will do whatever grading we need done on the property, the rough grading . As long I as you give them a year and a half notice, they can do it free basically. So whichever site we ' re doing , we ' re going to have to do it that way because we do not have the funds to develop that park. There' s no way Iwe ' re going to have $200, 000. 00 to $500, 000. 00 to grade either one of these sites in the very near future so I see that development is going to happen through the use of free labor . I think Bandimere aesthetically has it heads and tails over the other site. The other site is a nice square IIpiece of land and with the hill maybe provides a little bit of wind protection but that' s all . It' s ultimately going to have possibly two roads going through it and you ' re going to lose some pieces of parkland . II am - -- Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 38 , At 40 acres or 35 acres , whatever it is, we' re not going to be able to give a whole lot of land. We' re going to need every bit of it since we ultimately wanted 50 to 100 acres and now we' re looking at 30 to 40 acres because of price. Bandimere provides us those unique little things that you want in a park. The aesthetics. The natural areas that you' re not going to get in the other one. When it comes down to it, Bandimere' s got the better park. It' s near to where the majority of the neighbors are right now. It' s closer to them. Boyt: I like Bandimere too because it' s not near where the new highway is going through. I did not want a park on a major highway. I think that detracts from the park and it' s aesthetically more pleasing . Hasek: TH 212 is going to go within 2 blocks of Bandimere? Boyt : Well , it' s not going through i.t . Hasek: That's true. Hoffman: Farther than that . Mile. Half a mile. Boyt: We have the possibility of acquiring property adjacent to Bandimere Heights and I think that ' s pretty important. Hasek: But that also exists with the other park as well . There' s going to be property eventually developing south of there so there' s an acquisition possibility there too. Like I said, Bandimere I think is in the appropriate location. More appropriate location even though Lyman Blvd . . . . I just hope that we don' t have to spend a lot of money because the Corps of Engineer ' s dies on grading Bandimere, that' s all . I can see goofing on a grader out there and spend more money to regrade it, and I 'm being facetious now. I guess I would personally vote to go ahead with Bandimere. Schroers : Is that a motion? Hasek: We' re taking a straw poll here. ' Boyt : Larry' s ready to move here. Schroers : I would like to move that we recommend pursuing the acquisition 1 of the Bandimere property in both cases and direct staff to work with Al . Sietsema: What I hear you saying is that you want to recommend that we proceed with negotiations to acquire the two Bandimere pieces? Schroers : That ' s it . Hasek: Second . Mady: I 'd like to add to that . Include in the motion to direct staff at the same time to review the access question . 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 39 ISietsema : I already have that down. ISchroers moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to proceed with negotiations to acquire the two pieces of the Bandimere property and to direct staff to look into the access situation . IAll voted in favor and the motion carried . I Mady: I 'd also like to recommend to staff that we hold a public hearing at our next meeting and notify the south area as much as we can. I 'm not sure how we do that but I think we need to move quickly with this and we need to get a public hearing done on the south park and maybe just notify Ithrough the paper or something but an article in the paper would do it. Hasek: The reason just to see what they want? IIMady: Get their input before the contract actually gets signed . IHasek: Why would that affect the purchase price? Mady: It didn' t sound like the purchase price was, Al has a fairly solid purchase price right now. It was $6, 500. 00 an acre for this parcel . IISietsema: For the record it was $6 , 300. 00. It was $210, 000. 00 for the 33 acres. ISchroers : I 'd like to see us get along with the acquisition and then open it up. IBoyt : Once that' s taken care of. Sietsema: I think we can do a purchase order contingent upon a lot of Idifferent things. Lash : I would like to see something done that is a committal , a definite Icommittal so in case, I don' t want to go into this thinking everybody' s going to think it' s great and then have 50 people in here. . . they don' t want it in their back yard. We have to be committed to it. IIHasek: We talked about that but , I think if we write in the proper contingencies . I Sietsema : I just am hesitant to schedule a public hearing that quickly in the process. Besides that, our next agenda, we' ll have the room full on our next agenda already. IBoyt : It ' s almost an emergency situation and we have to act and if we don' t, we could lose it right away and if everybody knows about it, is that the best way to go about it too? ISchroers : This situation is not going to differ no matter where it is or what piece of property or what. There are going to be those that think II III Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 40 1 it ' s great and those that are adamantly opposed and that' s something that we' re going to have to deal with at the time and we can' t let that determine whether or not we get property that ' s available when it ' s available. We' ll end up with nothing. Lash: I 'd stil be interested in seeing if we can ' t get some kind of an agreement with the seller saying we' re definitely interested. We want to do some investigations into other options . If you get another offer , please contact us first before and see if we couldn ' t get an agreement like that. That would be tied up. We wouldn' t have any money invested but a definite commitment then if we wanted to get input from people down there of what they want . Hasek: We' ve got a problem that Jim just brought up and that is the fact that Council ' s not going to act on this until when? Two weeks? Sietsema: Right . I ' ll talk to Don and our City Attorney and find out . , Mady: We may not have the luxury of a time period . Boyt: We might have to get together before then just to act on this. Hasek: We would like to make the offer before it comes on the market . There ' s no question about that. If that could be accomplished before 1 Monday or Tuesday of next week, that ' s what we want to do. Mady: Because the price is out there. ' Hasek: You bet you. If it hits the market, you ' re going to have a Gagne or somebody, especially if they know there' s another interested , they' re going to buy that piece of property. Erhart : . . . real estate before , I did have somebody call me, a personal friend who has a relative that' s a developer and they were asking me about that property so there are people out there that are interested . Schroers: I ' ve got to believe there' s a whole bunch of developers that would just love to get a hold of that . Mady: Lori , will you talk to Don Ashworth tomorrow about this parcel? Sietsema: Yes, and he' s aware of the situation. Mady: I would hate to see us lose it . ' (A tape change occurred at this point in the meeting . ) COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS : Hoffman : . . . this year those 3 businesses combined gave $400. 00 . 1 Rosemount declined to give money. McGlynn Bakeries has not responded yet. The trend is to scale down on corporate donations . I ma I . . Park and Rec Commission Meeting IIApril 11, 1989 - Page 41 IIMady: Update us on last night' s consent agenda. The Eagle Scout project and the basketball court. IISietsema: Both passed . Hasek: What was the configuration of the basketball? Are we putting them IIon one side so we can keep one. . .? Sietsema : It hasn' t really been determined yet. I 've got to have Dale I take a closer look at that and see but generally we know we' re not going to have the poles inside the fence . We can get the poles to mount outside the fence and then come up and over so that nobody runs into a pole. Then I think it will work fine. And I talked to the guy that wrote the request Iand he thought that would be fine too. The only concern I have is the two posts that hold the net up. If you' re playing basketball , that ' s about groin high and that might be a problem. IHasek: Well if you paint the stripe there. Sietsema: No, we don' t plan to stripe anything . I Mady: If you put the hoops up they' ll be happy. ISietsema: They don' t even want to play a full court. They just want to be able to shoot baskets . They said they' re old . That they don' t want to sweat. IIBoyt : If we' re going to put two baskets up, and we talked about it before, we want it regulation height and not for kids . ISietsema: Todd has another item from Admi.nstrative Presentation if you would just bear with us a little longer here. IHoffman : This item came in. It ' s addressed to Mayor Chmiel and then it passed through the circuit on down to me because it is a recreation program item so I was not able to put it on the agenda . The key Iparagraphs here are the third paragraphs . This is a program through the Carver County Historical Society and it ' s a youth program which they have done in Waconia at their local home site there. It' s been very successful . I was aware of it last year . I was aware of it again this Iyear and was going to advertise it for the Waconia location. Now they' ve offered to hold it here in Chanhassen. It ' s a week long program. Five 90 minute segments. Children go for an hour and a half and they do old time, Iif you will , type activities . Making butter . Making bread . Making candles. Doing that type of thing. A little pioneerish type activities . I think we have a good setting for it in our Heritage Park down in the old City Hall . That building is not being used yet. It would be an ideal I setting for this type of program. It has a price tag associated with it of $250. 00 for that week. Just a lump sum fee to pay them to come out here and sponsor this program. I 'm just bringing this item to the ICommission for some feedback. Some of your thoughts . II 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 11, 1989 - Page 42 1 Boyt: I ' ve been through the program with the kids . It' s wonderful . , $250. 00 is a pretty good deal . They' re entertaining. They tell stories while they teach the kids . Mady: The room at Heritage Park, is that going to be big enough to handle it? Hoffman : 20-25 kids. Yes . ' Boyt : In Waconia , it' s done outside sitting in the grass . Schroers: What are you looking for Todd, an approval? Hoffman : Yes . , Hasek moved , Boyt seconded to direct -staff to initiate the Carver County Historical Society youth program. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Mady moved , Schroers seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim I 1 r