Loading...
2f. MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL C;lf REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn ' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al -Jaff, and Scott Harr ' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the following ' Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Appraiser Selection for the RALF Program. ' b. Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code Concerning Firearms and City Shooting Boundary Map Revision, Final Reading. ' C. Resolution #94 -56: Approval of Temporary Gambling Permit Request, St. Hubert's Church. d. Approval of Landscaping Plan for Market Square Second Addition. ' f. Approve Development Contract and Plans and Specifications for Lot 5, Block 1, Sun Ridge Addition, Project 93 -33. ' i. Resolution #94 -57: Accept Public Utility Improvements in Trotters Ridge, Project 93 -18. 1. Resolution #94 -58: Call Public Hearing Date on Lake Lucy Road Street and Utility Extension Project ' 92 -12. m. Approval of Bills. ' n. City Council Minutes dated May 23, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 18, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 1, 1994 ' Public Safety Commission Minutes dated May 12, 1994 o. Amendment to Section 19 -28 of City Code regarding Sprinkling Restrictions, First Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. L� . I City Council Meeting -Tune 13, 1994 I G. MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS. LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council. You should have before you tonight a revised copy. There were some clerical, grammatical type errors, if you will, with the development contract and the ' conditions of approval with the final plat. I've highlighted on that copy what the changes are. Basically, in summary, page 1. There was a correction to the listed name of the developer on the development contract. On page 2 there was a typo on the zip code. On page 3, item (h). Landscaping and berming will be allowed. Or no berming and landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way other than cul -de -sac islands or median on the Landings Drive. And on page SP -5. A condition Z is added where the developer may use Oudot B as a temporary access to the site... Mayor Chmiel: Good. With those additions to that particular proposal, I would so move that. Councilman Mason: Second. ' Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Final Plat, Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for Minnewashta Landings as amended by the City Engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' H. REQUEST FOR A WAIVER FROM STANDARD WORK HOURS, THE MEADOWS AT LONGACRES, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. ' Charles Folch: This item was a request for a waiver to the standard work hours for construction. It's a request by the developer. Notices were sent out to all the properties at the time of the construction site. Staff did receive a few phone calls as of late last week and today concerning this time frame and mainly their concern is ' for the, not so much the noise of the construction vehicles but the actual safety beeper that's on them when they're in the reverse mode. But the few that did call, we talked and we discussed the issue with them about, can came to the resolution that maybe it would be a good idea to put this as a full week temporary situation. If at such time there would be complaints and it's not working out, then basically this work extension variance would be rescinded and the calls that we did get, those residents were happy with that compromise of one week's. Unless there's a problem... ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Mason: With that condition on that, I'd move approval of item 1(h). Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. ' Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the request for waiver from standard work hours at the Meadows at Longacres, Lundgren Brothers Construction as amended by the City Engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. r K. APPROVE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE. Councilman Senn: I talked with Roger and I can't say that I disagree with Roger's conclusions as it relates to ' kind of the money versus time that would be wasted or whatever. I think with the changes we kind of have to I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 take it in the shorts on the ark fees on I think the only property in Chanhassen where the government's going to ' P Y Pr Pe Y 8 8 g be paid $30.00 a square foot base rent. That's $500,000.00 a year and I just, I hope we make it up on the other end where we have the assessor establish the value for the property. I'd like staff to kind of follow up on that with the assessor. Mayor Chmiel: I think that basically what I was saying, in the court systems and we wouldn't come out on this. It'd be a losing proposition for us. With the kinds of agreements that we're finally talking about, I think that his recommendation I sort of concur with him only because of the fact that nobody wins outside the attorneys, excuse me Roger, when you go to court. The city comes on the short end, even though we might win. Whatever it might be. But in this particular case, I think the agreement with that, the conditions that were in there, relating to the purchase and the selling of that property for that period of time and we came in with our fees later on. I can understand from that as well. But with that, if you'd like to move that particular item. Councilman Senn: Yeah, so moved. , Councilman Mason: Second. I Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Modified Development Contract for the National Weather Service. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: 1 Steve Kern: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Steve Kern. I live at 6540 Devonshire Drive in Chanhassen and I'm here tonight representing the Chanhassen congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Real briefly, I was ' wondering if I could first just give Council and the Mayor a handout to look at another time or ... now. The main thought is carried on page 2 and goes back to a letter dated May 21, 1993 from City Hall and the history behind the letter is that before we purchased our land there in the Chanhassen Business Center, Lot 1, Block 1, we ' approached treasury and another individual in the fall of '92 and asked what our assessments would be. Audubon Road, 15. Bluff Creek, 17.9. Then before closing on the land we asked for this letter dated May 21st, so some 6 months later so everyone knew that we had not closed on the land yet but we asked again because of our responsibilities for the congregation, what would the numbers be for the Bluff Creek assessment for our 2 acres. In the letter, towards the end of the first paragraph, on page 2, they quote $7,700.00 plus the $10,200.00 or about $17,900.00. And since that time, after or during the closing and from that point forward, in our file, what the front page shows and now it's actually a solid bond has taken place at 10 years at 8% but the lot is ' charged with $28,079.00. And we're just asking that the rest of the package be reviewed at a future time for the history of this and our request really is at the very last paragraph on that front page. That the Chanhassen congregation is therefore requesting a reduced interest payment on Bluff Creek in 1995. A reduction of interest of $2,246.34 and that the length of the bond and Bluff Creek term be 15 years. Well that part, I don't know if it's possible at 15 years now that's ... 10 years but as you can see, and when we were again with treasury today to make sure, 1994 has an interest of $1,874.00. 1995 it's payable in '95. The 2486 and the principle of 2807 for a total of 6926. Audubon Road is $3,000.00. So due and payable next year, 1995, will be the $10,011.00 and it's quite a bit more than what we were understanding it to be and beyond what the congregation feels they can handle. So we were just approaching Council for the possibility of some relief on that or some discussion in the future. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What we'll do is accept the information that you've provided to us and I would ask our attorney to prepare a response for our next agenda So this would be on June 27th. ' 3 1 1 u City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Steve Kern: Good, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING: NEUMANN SUBDIVISION LOCATED SOUTH OF SANDPIPER LANE AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE LANE, ARNOLD AND ANN WEIMERSKIRCH: A. VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY ON MINNEWASHTA AVENUE. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25.9 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT; AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION OF A WETLAND. Public Present; Name Address Olive Neumann Anne Weimerskirch Art Johnsen Ken Adolf Harry D. Peters 2841 Sandpiper Trail 2831 Sandpiper Trail 18300 Minnetonka Blvd. Schoell & Madson, Inc. 18300 Minnetonka Blvd. L� II 1 Mayor Chmiel: I would like to open this public hearing at this time and if I could have staff indicate what the concerns are. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. The applicants are proposing a 9 lot, single family subdivision and it's located on the north side of Lake Minnewashta. It's an old subdivision. It's a replat of a subdivision that goes back to the late 1800's. This subdivision also includes a request to vacate ... Access to the site via a 360 foot cul- de -sac which comes off of Tanager's Lane. We believe that the way the subdivision has been modified, it's really a superior layout. This did go to the Planning Commission twice... recommended to table to resolve some design issues. Specifically the location of the storm water pond. A little more information on the tree survey and elimination of some variance requests. Access into the subdivision is a little difficult. It's pinched between the existing wetland here and the existing house. So access into the site, staff is recommending a 50 foot right - of -way through this area but we are requesting a 60 foot radius cul -de -sac be provided. There are two variances requested as I indicated in order to get through the wetland with the street. It does pinch between the existing house and the wetlands so we're requesting variances for the two existing homes which we feel is warranted Other than that, the rest of the lots meet requirements. We are requesting that Lots 1 and 2 be combined. That's these lots. One lot really is kind of topographically separated. It's access would come off of Piper Ridge Lane and Lot 2. Staff is recommending that those be combined. The one off of Piper Ridge Lane has a driveway of 16 feet. The home would be up on a knoll and the other home is almost at grade with the wetlands so the integrity of that lot really isn't there so we feel that it makes more sense to combine those lots... applicant's support that. This subdivision does fall within the shoreland district which means all lots abutting... 20,000 square foot minimum lot size, which they do. There is a natural wetland I think around the entire subdivision. It's upland area in the lots... The wetland follows, this is the lake here. The wetland follows around. This is the natural wetland. The entire subdivision. The applicant's are proposing a conditional use for recreational beachlot. The beachlot itself meets the standards...of over 45,000 square feet. They would be 4 I I I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1' Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and I allowed, based on the size of square footage ... to have 9 boat slips. We are recommending that there be one common dock with the 9 slips. The DNR supports that, although they are requiring, because there are going to be more than 4 boats, a marina permit. But they do support the 9 ... As I mentioned, this did go to the Planning Commission twice. Staff does recommend approval of the four actions. The final action that you'd be looking at would be the street vacation, as I indicated of the old plat. The old Minnewashta Avenue. As you recall, we looked at this as part of the beachlot that we had at the end of the subdivision for Minnewashta Manor. At the end of this is Minnewashta Manor. That's actually in that location. There's four actions that you'd be looking at tonight. One would be the preliminary plat. We are recommending approval with those conditions. They have been modified and the Planning Commission modifications are shown in bold and anything else shaded would be a strike out. The conditional use for the recreational beachlot. The wetland alteration permit and then ' four is the street vacation. I'll leave this picture of the map and the street vacation at the very end and that's... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. Is the applicant or the anyone wishing to indicate any concerns regarding the proposal? Ken Adolf: Your honor, members of the Council. My name is Ken Adolf. I'm with Schoell and Madson. We're engineers for the applicant. The applicant has worked with the planning staff and they have agreed to the ' conditions. I guess I'd just like to highlight a couple items. First of all on item 22, which is regarding the cul- de -sac island. The applicant...without the island—On the item 23. That refers to some deferred assessments for sewer and water some years ago. The applicant had requested that those assessments were going to be forgiven ' because they're on the portion of the property which is wetland... spreading the assessments over the entire parcel. And then again, the highlight of item 12, what the applicant's request was was to exempt the lot of the two existing homes from your requirements for the storm water fees. It's my understanding that those fees ' would not apply to the existing homes and therefore we could ... two existing homes in this subdivision should be exempt as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Kate, would you address those. First of all the island. Kate Aanenson: Certainly. It's been a policy. We've been requested recently for the landscaped islands we had at Longacres. That they do put an island in. The Fire Marshal's requesting that based on the fact that they can't get a fire truck around them. And especially the fact that their beachlot at the, that there's parking down there, we can't get emergency vehicles around the islands. Whether they're parked on the inside or the outside of that island. We certainly see that as a desirable feature to have but the safety just overrides that. If they choose not to do that, when it comes for final plat then that condition will just not be carried... Other than that, they do ' want to put it in as it was requested they ... per the Fire Marshal's request. The second one, number 23 was, from my understanding there's two assessments still outstanding that are approximately $18,000.00 and they're requesting the one assessment be waived and that's the one on Sandpiper Lane. It's the opinion of the engineering department that based on the fact that we still have to pay for the costs of bringing this service down Sandpiper Lane into the two homes there, that both assessments still should be paid by the applicant. So what we're saying of this is, if they choose to spread those out over these new lots, that we would look at that. But at this point we would not support having those... Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Kate. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to address this proposal? This is your opportunity to come forward and indicate your concerns, if there are any. Is there anyone wishing to come forward? If not, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and I ,' City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ' the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Councilman Wing: Kate, just the only question I've got at all on this is the dock. It goes through kind of a natural area and then goes into an existing channel that has been closed throttle. It's a very natural area. And as the dock is shown, it kind of comes into a real back water area. And in being in there today, we had to paddle ' out with an inboard. It was all muck and weeds. How far out can they go? Kate Aanenson: With this specification here is not necessarily how it's going to be laid out. In working with the DNR, they provided the staff with depths of how the dock can be laid out and the DNR's flexible on how ' we lay that out. And they provided that information so it's, I think it can be laid out certainly with an L shape or something else. Councilman Wing: Yeah, I don't mind the dock shape or if that's the case. How far out can they go? I mean to get enough depth, they're almost going to be into the channel. ' Kate Aanenson: The ordinance allows you to go up to 4 foot in depth. To bring your dock out as far to get 4 feet in depth. Normally it's 50 feet or as far as you need to get to 4 feet in depth. But as you know on that side of the lake, there's some docks that go out 200 feet. ...showed us one I believe he was talking about 190 length of dock. Councilman Wing: Okay but it's a very narrow, navigable channel. If you're in the middle, it's a little deeper because the boats over the years have dug it out literally and then to either side you're in the mud. ' Kate Aanenson: Yeah. They provided us with, I didn't put it in here but they provided us with depths to show us how that L works. We did review that. ' Mayor Chmiel: You're saying it's workable and viable? Kate Aanenson: Yes. And they'll have to work with the DNR again because they're having more than 4 slips. Councilman Wing: Without going into the channel? ' Kate Aanenson: Well, there's the channel. Councilman Wing: That probably shows it. Let me just get up here a minute Kate because I want to make sure this is clear. This is all heavy vegetation going through here. And there's a very narrow area that you can actually navigate this. The way you're showing it is the beachlot kind of comes through here and the dock kind of comes into here. It's sort of, I don't have any trouble with that but as soon as you go up along this artificial shoreline here, where you go through this little back water area, to get 4 feet of depth, you could be out into this ' channel and at that point this becomes unacceptable. I just want to know how far to get to that 4 feet will it put it in the channel and if that's the case it's. If it stays in this back water area, it really isn't going to affect that area at all. If it goes beyond that into the channel area, then it's really becoming a major. Do you think that's accurate? Kate Aanenson: With the depth... Councilman Wing: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. 1 I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ,' Mayor Chmiel: Question answered. Any other? Councilman Wing: No, that's all. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. It's a boardwalk. Do you have any idea? I can't tell where it starts. I mean it's a very long pathway. Kate Aanenson: There is a long pathway, correct. It starts at the edge of the wetland would be the boardwalk ' portion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And there are no restrictions? Oh I see. ' Kate Aanenson: That was part of the wetland alteration permit. Putting the boardwalk instead of just a regular dock. Put it up above the vegetation. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: The drawing of these slips look a little better than the other ones in terms of accessibility. And I have a question about, there are an awful lot of trees there that are going to need to be taken down and I do like the way that, in this report it was shown that you gave a square foot loss of trees. , That's easier for me to visualize than number of trees. Anyway. My question is, has the canopy approach been working in other subdivisions or is it too early to tell? Kate Aanenson: This is, we're just coming through with a couple subdivisions using the canopy. What we're finding is we've got a good handle maintaining the existing canopy and replacing. What we're having a little bit of trouble with is providing easements on how to make that work. I think the applicants have done a great job in meeting with the staff and trying to address our concerns. They're very willing to meet the terms that we , have. What we're trying to resolve now, what we put in the staff report is trying to come to some resolution. We've had one meeting already. We're just coming to you for final plat to come forward with the, what we put in here originally was the 10,000 square foot area. Buildable area. But these homes are going to be custom graded and it's difficult and they're real reluctant to ... so we're talking about the limited flexibility for that so they can work with individual home buyers but yet we've got the easements in place so when they're buying a lot...what needs to be preserved. So we've bounced around a couple ideas and that's where we've having the downfall in the canopy ordinance. So as far as maintaining the existing trees and maintaining the canopy , coverage, this subdivision does that. Now getting into some of the individual trees in the tree easement, that's what we're trying to resolve before we reach the final plat. They seem very willing to work with us. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks. That's all. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Any questions? , Councilman Mason: No. I think everyone's been working well on this. It looks good. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: No, it looks fine. I .1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that, this is oin to be a four art motion. And the rust being for the preliminary g g P S Pre nary plat. Can I have a motion for that? Councilman Wing: I'll move that. ' Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded that this be accepted with, #94 -3 for 25.9 acres into 9 single family lots with variances as shown on the plans stamped June 7th subject to the following conditions. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Preliminary Plat #94 -3 of 25.95 acres into 9 single family lots with variances as shown on the plans stamped June 7, 1994 and subject to the ' following conditions: 1. A 13 foot front yard setback variance for Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard setback variance on ' Lot 3, Block 2. 2. Approval of the vacation of Minnewashta Avenue at the time of final plat. ' 3. Approval of the 50 foot right -of -way for street. The radius of the cul -de -sac shall be 60 feet. 4. Lots 1 and 2 Block 1 shall be combined into one lot. ' 5. Relocation of the storm water retention pond from the rear of Lot 3, Block 2 to between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. 6. Erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 7. The two existing homes within the plat are required to be connected to city sewer within 30 days after the sanitary sewer line becomes operational. The homes may continue to utilize their existing wells until the well fails. ' 8. The street shall be named Tanagers Lane or Tanagers Court and the two existing homes shall be required to change their addresses to correspond to the plat's street name and city's address grid. 9. Tree conservatton easemen : shall be laced on, all 1ots outside of t� <�0:0,00 : 4.1 of biM& as .. a towt Cttt the free canopy ply. Staff will work with the applicant to create a woodland management plan including tree conservation easements. Some lots may require custom grading plans. 10. Lowest floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the wetland areas shall be two feet above the wetland's ordinary high water level. 11. The grading plan shall be revised to show the appropriate site grading to achieve buildable house pad elevations adjacent to the wetlands. Individual grading and drainage plans will be required for all treed lots. The plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 12. The applicant shall a the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees or provide storm water ' PP pay aPP Pn q Y q tY Pr management improvements in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. If the storm water fees have not been formally adopted by the time final plat is to be recorded, then a letter of credit ' or cash dedication will be escrowed with the City until the SWMP plan has been formally adopted by the City and the fees adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment methodology. Staff will evaluate the fees according to the SWMP plan recommendations and , review the exemptions of the two existing homes. 13. Storm water calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and , approval. All storm water ponds shall meet Walker standards. The storm sewer shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event. 14. The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grading and drainage plan. Erosion ' control measures shall be employed in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 15. All retaining walls shall be built outside the City's right -of -way and maintained by the property owner. ' 16. All utility and street installation for public improvements shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. ' 17. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final ' platting. 18. As a result of platting the two existing homes may be required to change the addresses to correspond to the final plat and the City's address grid system. The new street name shall be subject to approval by the City's Public Safety Department. 19. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, DNR, MWCC, MPCA, Minnesota Dept. of Health, etc. 20. Submit street name to Public Safety Department for review prior to final plat approval. , 21. Accept full park and trail dedication fees for the Neumann Subdivision in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction. One -third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued: rate in effect for residential single family property when a building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid. 22. The cul -de- sac - island shall be posted and signed as per the Fire Marshal for no parking. 23. Upon platting of the property, the city typically spreads these deferred assessments over the newly created plat on a per lot basis. Staff is open to alternative methods in respreading the deferred assessments if desired by the property owner." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' 9 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Conditional use permit. Can I have a motion on that. Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. ' Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council approves the conditional use permit #94 -2 for the recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions: ' 1. Receive DNR approval for dock with more than 4 slips. 2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock. 3. The dock shall have a maximum of 9 boat slips. ' 4. The recreational beachlot shall meet all of the General Issuance Standards of Section 20 -232, conditional uses." ' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Mason: I move approval of the wetland alteration permit #94 -2 for mitigation of the wetland subject to conditions as stated in the report. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. ' Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council approves the wetland alteration permit #94 -2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following conditions: 1. The area of mitigation shall be located on the north or eastern portion of the wetland adjacent to the ' ag/urban wetland on Sandpiper Lane. 2. A replacement plan is necessary for any impacts to the wetland at a minimum size wetland replacement ' ratio of 2:1. 3. The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires authorization under ' Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers. 4. The following wetland setbacks shall be maintained: Natural wetland 10' -30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback ' Ag/urban wetland 0 -30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback" All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: Street vacation. Councilman Wing: So moved. ' 10 I City ouncil Meeting - June 13, 1994 , ty g Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution #94 -59: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council ' approve the request for vacation of Minnewashta Avenue subject to final plat approval of Neumann Subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. , PUBLIC HEARING: LYMAN BOULEVARD_ STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN SECTIONS 13 AND 24, PROJECT 93 -32. ' Public Present: Name Address Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Gary Skalberg 510 Lyman Blvd. ' Richard Chadwick 9530 Foxford Road Bailey & Mary Lou Janssen 500 Lyman Blvd. Daniel Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd. Russell & Orletta F. Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd. ' Diane Riegert 520 Lyman Blvd. Eunice Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. Robert H. Peterson 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. , Gerald & Rosemary Luebke 8526 Great Plains Blvd. Marc Anderson 420 Merrimac Lane, Plymouth , Charles Folch: Thank Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As indicated in the staff report, this capital improvement project is a joint petition project by land owners and/or developers massing 1 to 3 acres in Sections 13 and 24 in Chanhassen. This particular report was received by the Council approximately a month ago. Last Monday we followed it up with a neighborhood meeting where all the affected property owners were invited. , Tonight at the public hearing, we have our project consultant engineers from OSM, David Mitchell and Wayne Houle to provide a presentation of the feasibility study consistent of project elements, cost and method of financing the project. So with that I'll turn it over to OSM. , David Mitchell: Thanks Charles. Your Honor, members of the Council. As Wayne set this up I'd like to point out a couple of typographical errors in the report and to just clarify a couple of items. I don't know if anyone , has the report with them but in the executive summary we made a statement that funding for the reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard, north of Lake Riley Boulevard, includes 7% special assessments. That should be corrected to 71% special assessments. To the benefitted properties. 25% municipal state aid funds and 4% from the city's ' drainage funds. The second typographical errors, they're on page 17 of the report. Under cost estimates. The first paragraph. These costs. The report states these costs do include. That should say, these costs do not include land or easement acquisition costs or cost of wetland mitigation. With that I will open the presentation by discussing basically the study area of the proposed land use. I want to make sure this is showing up on the ' monitors for the public. Basically the study area extends from Highway 5 at the north down to Trunk Highway 101, Kiowa Trail area. Then from east to west, from the east side of, from the city limits to currently Chanhassen Hills addition west of Trunk Highway 101. Primarily this area is zoned single family residential ' through this area. There is some mixed use along the primary corridors through the area. There's also some 11 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 high density residential, medium density residential zoning areas. You may remember a number of years ago, 3 ' or 4 years ago, our firm was before this Council with a similar study. At that point these lands through here and the current Rogers - Dolejsi property was under a green acres status. Therefore he was unassessable at that time. There are current developments proposed in those areas at that time the green acres would be lifted as a part of those developments. With that I will introduce Wayne Houle who is very familiar with the proposed ' improvements and he will discuss some of the alternatives that were looked at as a part of this study. Wayne Houle: Thanks Dave. Mr. Mayor and Council and residents of the study area. As Dave said, my name is Wayne. I'm with the engineering firm of OSM and right now I'm going to basically cover the—cover the existing conditions, the proposed conditions, and some of the other items that were addressed in the study. First off, all the items that I'm going to be covering on are covered in the comprehensive plan for the city of Chanhassen... different than the actual comprehensive plans that were stated before. The watermain portion, trunk ' watermain portion of this project consists of, the actually existing portion of this project is all the, the whole study area is on a well system right now. So what we're proposing to do is extend a trunk watermain along the proposed Lake Drive and then down existing, or actually Market Boulevard to the existing TH 101 and then tying into Lyman Boulevard and looping around the system. In looking at the watermain issues, we separated them into two different segments. Actually two different alternatives but about 4 different segments. The first part is we'd be tying in up by Lake Drive and Great Plains Blvd. And then carrying it through on Lake Drive ' and then down to the, where Great Plains Blvd hooks up with Market Blvd. The other alternative would be to go down the existing Great Plains Blvd. The reason why we chose the recommended route was there'd be a lot of tree loss along the existing Great Plains Blvd and this street here hasn't been constructed yet but the ease of construction, it'd be quite simple to extend that through. But also put in a looping system with the existing ' water system. The second segment that we looked at were basically from Great Plains Blvd down to 86th Street. Now we follow the existing TH 101 construction, actually the proposed TH 101 construction because of the timeliness of the new TH 101 proposed. 'i he third segments that we looked at were down, either down the ' proposed TH 101 construction to 86th Street or through the existing TH 101 highway. As you recall back in, I believe it was '86 or '88. The existing, we had plans out for from 86th down to Lake Susan Drive and ..but that was not constructed at that time. So what we're proposing to do is just follow the same route that the plans had covered before. Then when we go east on Lyman Blvd, we continue the trunk system out to the city limits and then also loop the system through the proposed Lake Riley Hills area and up through 86th Street, through the Mission Hills Addition and up to 86th Street. The Lake Riley Boulevard area and the Sunnyslope Addition would be served also by this trunk line. As one part of the study that we covered, the Lake Riley Blvd area ' was, the residents were sent a survey and about 72% of them were in favor of looking into extending the watermain to their residences. The next item that we looked at was the sanitary sewer. The existing portions of the sanitary system is the Lake Ann Interceptor, which is a MWCC line and residents along Lake Susan were ' also—drainage to the Lake Ann Interceptor was the gravity system. The people along Lake Riley Blvd, the Sunnyslope Addition, about half of them drain down to the lift station or up to another lift station which is at Lake Riley Blvd and Lyman Blvd. The force main is then pumped up to about Lakeview Hills Apartment complex. From there it's a gravity system which also serves the people on the Tigua Lane area. Those tie into ' existing Lake Ann Interceptor. What we're proposing per the comprehensive sanitary plan is to extend a trunk line down to Lyman Blvd. There's two different alternatives that we also studied there. One is to place the line along the proposed Highway 101 extension or alignment, or else follow the existing. Since the watermain was placed along the existing and also some depth restrictions along the new TH 101, we're recommending the alternative 2 which is along the existing TH 101 alignment. This would be also a gravity line from the Lyman and the Highway 101 intersection to the Lake Ann Interceptor. Also part of the sanitary system would be ' improving the lift station, which is at Lake Riley Blvd and Lyman Blvd. Right now the existing lift station can only handle an addition, I believe it's 34 services before it needs to be improved so that's one of the reasons that 1 12 I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 i L , that lift station was looked into. Another reason is this line that, the gravity line from o Lakeview Hills Apartments to the Lake Ann Interceptor is actually through this marshy area is in pretty bad shape and needs to ' be placed in or upgraded and if we were to force any more sewage into that line. This lift station, well actually over what we're proposing to do is reroute the force main along Lyman Blvd to the new trunk sanitary sewer and Lake Ann Interceptor. Also along the Lyman Blvd would be a gravity system which would go down in ... lift station and back up to the force main to that intersection. One other thing. The Lakeview Hills Apartments, this ' line would be abandoned and the Lakeview Hills Apartments would basically turn around to the gravity system with the new line so the lift station and then up ... This on the north is ... and this is Lyman Blvd. One item that was also looked into was the reconstruction of Lyman Blvd. Currently it's a 24 foot wide roadway. It's in very ' poor shape with a lot of areas in need of repair. The vertical curves for the traffic that's on that road right now do not meet MnDot's State Aid funding or requirements for that width of a roadway. So part of the feasibility report was to look into the realignment of Lake Riley and Lyman Blvd, both horizontally and vertically. The existing daily, average daily traffic is 1,069 cars per day. In the year 2010, according to Carver County ' Transportation Study, the ... would increase to 7,400 vehicles per day. So taking that all into account, we're proposing to expand the width of the roadway to a 52 foot width from the intersection of the existing balance of proposed Highway 101 to the entrance or the area of the entrance of the Lakeview Hills Apartments. The , Lakeview Hills Apartment, it was reduced back down to about a 36 foot roadway section. This 52 foot roadway section would accomplish striping for 2 lanes of traffic with left turn treatments at all the major intersections that could be put into the proposed development and also the realignment of Lake Riley Blvd. And also left turns into the Lakeview Hills Apartments. Also along the south side of the Lyman Blvd. would be an 8 foot trail, ' pathway or bikeway. This is also covered in the Chanhassen trails comprehensive trail plan. This road would be, another portion of the roadway would be concrete curb and gutter—and also no parking the entire length of the roadway. You'd have storm applications, storm drainage applications throughout and also... That pretty ' much wraps up the project elements... Dave can go over the cost. David Mitchell: There is a much more detailed cost estimate found in the report. If there's any members of the ' audience that want to see that breakdown, you can look at that but at this point what we're looking at is estimated project costs for Lyman Blvd. reconstruction is approximately $1.55 or $1.6 million. A watermain, which would include the, all the trunk improvements for watermain would be $1.35 million. Sanitary sewer is $974,000.00 and the Lake Riley Blvd watermain, which would be the watermain that Wayne showed coming ' down Lake Riley Blvd and looping around Sunnyslope area, would have a project cost of $251,000.00 for a total estimated project for the area encompassed with the study of $4.144.2 million. The assessments for this area become quite complicated. I guess Wayne's got me set up here. The assessment area for the watermain area is ' shown, is shaded here. The trunk area primarily involves everything except the Lake Riley Hills area or Shore Acres I should say and Sunnyslope area. Areas that are shaded or cross hatched in blue indicate some trunk benefit to properties with lateral benefits—properties in front directly onto trunk watermain. Therefore they are ' assessed an additional amount that is standard for, for example ... here would have additional lateral benefit to these areas. We would assess lateral benefit in a similar manner. The proposed line on Lake Riley Blvd would also be assessed as a lateral. Another area that would show some lateral benefit would be the area along Lake Susan and the short area along the proposed Missions Hills plat. ' Councilman Wing: Why is the Kiowa, maybe I missed that earlier. Why is Kiowa excluded there? David Mitchell: Kiowa Trail currently has sanitary sewer within the system. There's no provisions to loop the ' watermain through this area at this point. So we did not include them in the study ... end up being a very long, dead end lines along this area. I'm not sure if they're, are they actually in the service area? I 13 1 L City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Charles Folch: Yes. They're in the service area but we did not receive any indication from any property owners that they were interested like we did from Lake Riley Hills. We did receive a few phone calls and there was some interest in that. Basically that area can be served with a lateral line at any time in the future coming off of the proposed subdivision that Lundgren Bros is doing so at which time they would decide to have water so but it didn't necessarily need to be at this time. David Mitchell: Similarly the sanitary sewer... includes areas of Mission Hills on the north to Bandimere Park and the Lundgren proposal on the Rogers - Dolejsi property. Currently Shore Acres, Sunnyslope area along Lake Riley Blvd has sanitary sewer and has been assessed for that or as part of that whole project. I think Kiowa Trail the same thing. Some of the areas here are shaded. Lakeview Hills Apartments has been assessed a portion for the units that are in place ... Again, these areas are all served with the existing systems. The assessment area for the sanitary sewer is shown and is highlighted. Similarly there are some lateral benefits along Lyman Blvd for gravity systems for the individuals that front directly on Lyman Blvd will realize benefits from those segments. Lyman Blvd reconstruction. The assessment area for that is again shown in the shaded. The proposed area really has no other collector route out of their designated areas. Therefore they're being assessed for the entry of Lyman Blvd. Lyman Blvd itself is a state aid route. 25% of the project cost will be paid for with state aid funds. Enforcement of the cost for the storm sewer will be paid for out of the city's storm water funds and the remainder will be assessed back to the properties. If I can switch gears here and move over to the overhead, the assessments rates are shown here and a majority of the assessments are actually realized from the trunk utility charges that are in place from the comprehensive plan that the city updates on an annual basis. Each resident equivalent unit is assessed $1,050.00 per resident equivalent unit for sanitary sewer or approximately $2,100.00 per acre and the trunk watermain is $1,375.00 per resident equivalent unit or approximately $2,750.00 per acre. The total trunk funds generated from this project would be $1,032,150.00. Total trunk water funds generated would be $1,986,875.00. Assessments for lateral sanitary sewer service, a total of $27,000.00. Those were the areas shown on Lyman Blvd. Additional lateral watermain assessment of $142,686.00 would be received from the trunk watermain itself that benefits abutting properties. Lateral watermain assessments to Lake Riley Blvd would be $2,500.00 per lot. Similarly that would be the same assessment for the lateral benefit throughout the entire study area and those areas up along Lake Susan. But that number is included in the $142,000.00 but along Lake Riley Blvd would be $100,000.00. The Lyman Blvd assessments, each unit shown in the shaded area would be assessed $800.00. The areas that front directly on Lyman Blvd, including the development areas, would be assessed another $819.00 per unit, primarily because of their frontage on Lyman Blvd. So the areas along Lake Riley Blvd would be assessed $800.00. These areas along here would be assessed approximately $1,600.00 per residential unit. Lyman Blvd funding basically comes down to $1.1 million from assessments. Another $394,000.00 from municipal state aid funds and another $62,000.00 for storm drainage funds for a total of $1,576,000.00 for round numbers. As we add these together, this would be the total funding for the project. Assessments would be $4.4 million. Of that, $122,800.00 would be deferred assessments which would be collected as future hook -ups. Those areas are primarily the 2 to 10 acre hobby farm areas north of Lyman Blvd. Approximately halfway between TH 101 and Lake Riley Blvd. Primarily these areas H,1, J, K, L, M, N, O, Q, R and S. The city funds needed for this project would be approximately $119,300.00. City storm drainage fund would contribute $61,900.00. Municipal state aid funding would be $394,000.00 for a total amount of funds generated of $4.9 or approximately $5 million. As stated in the report, there is the assessments collected are larger than the total project costs. The reason for that is the trunk utility charge. The trunk funds are then put into the bank, so to speak and would be used for future updates to wells, storage systems, sanitary sewer, lift stations. Those types of items so that is an area charged throughout the city. Proposed schedule. As Wayne mentioned, there are plans that have been done for approximately, or a portion of this project between the existing additions to the west of TH 101. Chanhassen Hills and 86th Street. Some of these plans have been drawn. Those may be, it may be possible to bring parts of 14 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 those on line prior to this, what this schedule shows but basically to run through it quickly. Council received or first saw this feasibility report back on May 9th. Ordered a public hearing at that time. As Charles indicated, ' we had a public informational meeting last week with a public hearing tonight. We would anticipate Council authorizing preparation of plans and specifications either at this meeting or the following meeting on June 27th. September, end of September we would hope to have the plans complete and come back to Council for authorization for bids. Bid opening would be in October. We would anticipate beginning construction in , November. Completing construction November of '95 with a final wearing course put on the roadway in '96. Assessment hearing in '96 and first payment on real estate taxes in May of '97. With that, that basically concludes our presentation for the evening. I'd like to open it up to Council, if they have any questions at this ' point. Or turn it back over to the Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think what I'd like to do is open this up for the balance of the public hearing that we have this for and maybe listen to some of the residents that are adjacent to this with some concerns they may have and at least get some of those things, some of those answers addressed. Is there anyone at this time wishing to come forward and express your concerns regarding this specific proposal? Please state your name and address. ' Al Klingelhutz: Al Klingelhutz, 8600 Great Plains Blvd. I guess I'm not against the project but I'm against what it's going to cost. After the neighborhood meeting last week ... some figures and I've seen 3 different figures and the total is $548,000.00 against my property. Now I don't know if those figures are right or not but ' it looks to me like that's about 1/8 the cost of the whole project. I've got a total of 70 acres there and the highway's going to take about 25 of it. They said there's over 300 acres in the project and it just doesn't seem right. A year and a half or two years ago there was another feasibility study done on the project and it was just ' to put the water line in. At that time the total cost for the water line along, the trunk charge for the water line on my property was $85,000.00. 1 think if you go back in the Minutes, there's a statement there exactly showing that. And there was some discussion on the property being green acres and it was even talked about deferring the interest on it until such time as development could occur. I believe those things are all in the ' Minutes. I don't know if they took into consideration that the house on the farm had been hooked onto city sewer for at least 12 years. Sewer line runs through part of my property. At the present time there's an 8 inch line serving the house. I notice that with all the checks marks to be assessed, I didn't know if it was just for ' water or just for sewer or what. I paid assessments on that once before. Something said the other night that instead of following TH 101 on the north side of my property, they were going to cut across the section corner and then go south. And that again would be a detriment to my property because looking into the future of ' sometime a project developing that land, if you sever that property would ruin the three lots on the property... But getting back to that $85,000.00 proposed trunk charge. Less than 2 years ago I believe it was, for water and I understand that the sewer trunk charge is somewhat less than the water. But if you put the $85,000.00 and add 75 to it, you'd come up with about $170,000.00 instead of $548,000.00. 1 just can't figure out where all those ' dollars came from. You might remember some of that land was zoned commercial and for sure there's no commercial development going to come there if Highway 212 don't come in. I understand you're leaving some of the 10 acre parcels and 5 acre parcels on Lyman Blvd getting by for 1 unit. Well I paid for 1 unit on the ' balance of my property except it's 20 some acres was sold to Mission Hills. I don't know why people can be treated differently. I'm willing to pay when development comes but when you're looking at 42 years on the Highway 212 committee and there's no highway there yet. And you might be looking at another 42 years before ' it comes. It might never come. I don't know about placing an assessment on that property that can't be used at this time. I guess that's about all I've got to say except I'll be dead against the property, the sewer or water line going down on a section line instead of following TH 101. Thank you. I 15 1 1-� �I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Al. Is there anyone else? Gerald Luebke: Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you like to come forward? Gerald Luebke: Mayor, Council. I'm Gerald Luebke. I live at 8526 Great Plains Blvd. Our property abuts this township line that Al spoke of and would like to know why the water is being routed down along that township line. Section line, excuse me. I see where the, if the water does go along the section line and having talked with Al a long time before I even bought the property and understood what his plans were, that it will sever 3 of his lots. It will also run through a small grove of trees which I and wife paid handsomely for and I think it would kill all of those trees. I see absolutely no reason, I would be the only one that that water would be servicing and see no reason for it. I'd like to talk with whoever the designers were and try to get an understanding for why that water's running where it's proposed. I am definitely, the wife and I, are definitely in disagreement with that decision. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Bailey Janssen: Bailey Janssen from 500 Lyman Blvd and I'm against the project. I think the cost is way too high and I live on Lyman and I think we're being penalized because we live on Lyman. They're double charging us for the widening of the road. They can't give us any definite direction on which way it's going to go when they widen it and if we're going to be losing trees and taking retaining walls and things like that, I think we should know. I think there's a lot of people in the area that are against the project. I don't know if they're going to come up and say or not but the benefit that we were told last week is that we're going to have sewer and water and the road is going to be widened. The benefit is not to us. We don't need the road wider. We already have good wells and most the septics are working fine around there. The benefit is to the developers. Let's let them pay for it. Not the homeowners that are there. That covers it. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Richard Chadwick: My name is Richard Chadwick. I have property on Lyman Blvd. 420 Lyman Blvd. I presently live over on Lake Riley. 9530 Foxford Road. I agree that the cost to the property owners along Lyman Blvd and along TH 101 appear to be substantially higher than any benefit that we would ever receive from the construction of the water and sewer systems. The property in there is all tied up with the proposed Highway 212. There's not much that can be done with any of the property, whether it be Al's or some of the others. People that are actually living there and have good water and sewer, it's not benefitting anybody except the large developers that may be coming up on the south side of TH 101. Or pardon me, the south side of Lyman Blvd or some of the other areas in here. I would be against the development of the project. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? This is your opportunity to express your opinion. Russ Frederick: I'm Russ Frederick. I live at 540 Lyman Blvd. I'm not directly affected on the road but will be affected by the assessments and so on. It seems to me, as they had stated, that the costs are on the extremely high side and it seems to me that it's way ahead of it's time. I don't see the need for a major reconstruction at this time. I agree there is a water loop they wanted to put in a couple years ago and there's also a sewer line that's ... I don't see any sign that this is going to accomplish the water loop that they wanted 2 years ago and the sewer line, I haven't had the chance to get into this deep enough. I can't state that other than the cost are very 16 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 high. It's something that I support to people that are on the line. I think it's been handled very efficiently because there's been what was thought to be the issue resolved 2 years ago and roadway right -of -way was ' adjusted ... on both sides of the road. It comes back this year like it was a brand new issue. I guess it don't make sense to me. I'd like to see a little more common sense in tying together of the effort. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else? Marc Anderson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Marc Anderson. I'm with Lundgren Bros Construction. We've have an approved preliminary plat—south of Lyman Blvd... We believe the time is right ' for this project and that we've seen a lot of demand for housing in the west area here and in Chanhassen and we look forward to ... As we've seen that land in Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and places like that are unavailable there. They're basically... Secondly, regarding the costs ... that costs associated with these lots are basically in line with other kinds of developments we see. They're a little over 54,000.00 per unit. We find that those are acceptable costs... Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Going once. Going twice. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? ' Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Mayor Chmiel: Charles, this has been sitting around for quite some time. Some of the questions that had been asked this evening, I'm just wondering if we shouldn't just try to answer them and get back to each one with respect to those questions and get the answers for each of those things. And probably have this come back again ' to Council, unless Council has any other direction that they'd like to go and look at it one more time. And I would suggest that we, I don't know how long it would take you to respond to those answers. I'll set a time line for you to come up with the date that we can review this. , Charles Folch: I think we can get a copy of the Minutes when they're available and respond to each question as they had come up. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What would you be looking at? The 27th of June or are you looking at more like July. ' It takes at least, what a week to hopefully get these Minutes pulled together from the meeting. Charles Folch: I think given the numbers that we have to deal with tonight, we could pull it together by the ' 27th. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I Councilman Wing: Can you keep the road construction on Lyman kind of independent. Let's look at sewer and water and then let's look at that road construction and widening and upgrading maybe as a separate issue. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I want to look at that 52 feet in some areas and some in 36 feet and others. Charles Folch: One thing that probably is important to keep in mind is the amount of units that are proposed to , go out there that we've seen the basic drawings for. The conceptual plans if you will. Lyman would be a very hazardous situation to introduce that much traffic without doing any type of improvements that need to be done ' on that type of roadway. Getting that standard to an urban design. But we do have the costs broken out and the 17 1 I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 I assessments broken out between what's utility assessments, trunk and lateral and what is roadway assessment. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. I have a couple of detail questions. I agree we need to bring it back. Get some of those questions answered but on the north side, where instead of following, on the very north part of the project, instead of following current TH 101, we're going to cut across. Right up abutting Highway 5 and then go down Market where it meets up with TH 101. Seeing that we don't have anything currently coming in to the city about what's going to happen with that parking lot. I forget the people's name on that. Charles Folch: The Ward property? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. The Ward property, thank you. Have we heard anything from them? Do we know what their opinion is? I Charles Folch: We've not had recent contact with the Ward's. Basically—that we would attempt to either acquire right -of -way or acquire the utility easement needed to bring that line across and follow the alignment that's anticipated for future Lake Drive. The importance of getting that line connected back along Lake Drive to Great Plains, from a surprise standpoint. We've got 3 wells located ... by the park off of TH 101 and we just completed a 20 inch trunk line, if you will, that crosses Highway 5 and ... basically stub out by the Legion there and we really need to get to that, connected to that system to provide the amount of flow we need for development that's going on down there. So that is an important link in getting... Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay. Following the current TH 101 alignment, I assume that there's no problem. Well if and when we do the new TH 101. I mean those lines can stay there and there won't be any problem. If we do put it in, will there be construction, any delays through there on the current TH 101? Charles Folch: We're anticipating that we'd do most of these improvements off road on TH 101. There may be times where the shoulders might be compromised during the day when we have to have appropriate barricades and such but we would be shutting the road down. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And then my last question is, doing a traffic study on Lyman and then necessity or the finding out if we do need to increase. Does that take into consideration TH 212? The possible TH 212 or is that independent and does what? Charles Folch: No, that's correct. It does. Basically the numbers we've been working off of for the Eastern study that was done back in '89 -'90. The Eastern Carver County transportation study which took into account the TH 101 improvement and Trunk Highway 212 and basically growth in the region and forecasted improvements to Highway 5 accordingly. And again, we're always integrating into that the amount of units that we're seeing there could come on line conceivably over the next couple years. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay, thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Not at this time. I saw these questions need to be answered... Mayor Chmiel: Mark. 18 v City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ' 19 1 ' Councilman Senn: No. Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: I would like to carry this meeting over then to June 27th. Mark that down because we hopefully will get back to the questions that are asked and get your answers to that. Maybe we can look at this in a little more detail. Al? Would you like to come up to the mic so we can pick this up please. AI Klingelhutz: It's kind of hard to judge when there's no really price tag attached. I'm just wondering when you have a hearing like this if each individual that's going to be assessed shouldn't be able to find out what the proposed assessment's going to be. I didn't sleep well the night after that meeting, after I found out it was going to be a $548,000.00 assessment. I guess a lot of you wouldn't either. That's over half a million bucks. I'm getting kind of old to worry about some of those things. So it would be helpful I think to, for everybody involved, if we would know ahead of time what the proposed assessments would be. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Charles. Charles Folch: Each property that's proposed to be assessed is listed in the feasibility study and broken out in terms of what portion of assessment and type of improvement, whether it be trunk sewer, water, lateral, street. ' Every property owner affected in this project was notified of the public hearing tonight. Each property owner affected by the project was notified of the neighborhood meeting we held last Monday. The letter also included an invitation that if anybody wanted to come up to City Hall during daytime hours to look at the study and look at costs, the information is certainly available to anybody who's interested in seeing it. It's all here in the report. Councilman Senn: Charles, that raises a good point though when we send that letter out. Why can't we include in that letter, here's what your assessment is? I mean to tell them to come to a public hearing and that all the , books and records are available at City Hall, I mean that's. Councilman Mason: Pretty intimidating. , Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean can't we add a paragraph to the letter that notifies them of what their assessment is and, you know we have a problem like at the neighborhood meetings I know and you've ' commented before of getting people out and stuff and I think if people had something more personalized to identify with, I think they would. I think that would sure go a long way in doing that. Charles Folch: Yeah and these are proposed assessments and as you all know the official assessment hearing , wouldn't be held until the project is completed and at that time we send out notices which give the exact numbers. But if you so wish, we could certainly do something like that. ' Councilman Mason: I think that would certainly get people's attention a little bit more. I think that's a real good point. do like that like, I I ' Charles Folch: In light of that, I guess if that's the Council's desire to something guess would recommend maybe tabling this for another 2 weeks past that to allow a mailing to go out with the costs and such and maybe continue this on the fast meeting in July. Mayor Chmiel: Which would be July 11th. Scratch the date of the 27th and it will be July the 11th. Continuation. 19 1 I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ' Gerald Luebke: Who makes the ultimate decision as to the routing of the water line, i.e. whether or not it runs down the section line or...TH 101. ' Mayor Chmiel: ...the city does. Any discussion... Is that right Charles? ' Charles Folch: Pardon me. Mayor Chmiel: My statement that I made basically is with the city. Charles Folch: Correct. The decision lies ... by staff's recommendation. Mayor Chmiel: So with that. Gerald Luebke: Is the decision final then? ' Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me. Gerald Luebke: Will you be making a final decision? ' Mayor Chmiel: On the 11th of July? Gerald Luebke: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Conceivably we could. ' Gerald Luebke: So if we wanted to bring legal counsel, that'd be the time to do it? Thank you. David Mitchell: Mr. Mayor, one point that I think should be made is that the exact alignment would not be defined. That we would be more than willing to work with individual property owners as far as the, Al brings up a good point. You don't want to bisect properties and those type of situations we want to avoid so we would be more than willing to work with individuals then have those type of concerns. And that's when we get into a detailed design. ' Mayor Chmiel: Right, and I would think that that discussion can take place once we get answers to the questions that have been risen. Okay, so this specific public hearing will be carried over to July 11th and you'll be noted as to the time. Hopefully everyone who is here for this has signed in so we know who to send this ' to. In fact if all the people on that list that Charles has will be sent that information as well. So this will be carved over until July 11th. ' Councilman Senn: Do we need a motion then to do that? To table it or what. Mayor Chmiel: I would ask for that motion that I'm going to come up with right now. Can I have a motion to table? Councilman Senn: To July 11th. Mayor Chmiel: July 11th. 1 20 I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 , . Councilman Senn: So moved. ' Councilman Mason: Second. ' Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table action on the Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements in Sections 13 and 24, Project 93 -32 until July 11, 1994 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE LUCY ROAD STREET AND UTILITY EXTENSION, PROJECT 92 -12. Public Present: t Name Address 1 Bill Engelhardt Wm R. Engelhardt & Assoc. Ed & Mary Ryan 6730 Galpin Blvd. ' David Gestach 8001 Acorn Circle Brian Klingelhutz 8860 Co. Rd. 10 E Lee Paulson 8880 Wildwood Avenue ' Sam & Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You may recall that last week about this time we had two public hearings on this proposed project. At that time the project stalled out due to one of the originally ' petitioning property owners withdrawing the petition and they were an integral part of the getting the road alignment across the property. Since that time there's been new ownership, new acquisition of that property and we did have two property owners that petitioned for the road improvement. Subsequent to that we had the , project engineer prepare a supplemental report or update if you will to that original feasibility study. There are some revisions to that specifically related to the road alignment. We do think, at least coming out, the portion coming off of Trunk Highway 41 is a much better alignment in terms of reducing the grading ... and tonight we ' have the project engineer here to provide a presentation of that—elements of cost and method of financing for the project. With that I'll turn it over to Bill Engelhardt. Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. I'm Bill Engelhardt with William Engelhardt Associates. , We've been working on this project for a couple of years with the individual property owners in trying to determine an alignment for the Lake Lucy Road connection. As Charles gave you some of the background, the history of the project. Gestach - Paulson property is situated in this area. After they purchased the property they ' sold off a piece of property in roughly this area to the Westside Baptist Church. Those two property owners petitioned for Lake Lucy Road. A study was done to determine for alignment purposes only, from TH 41 over to Lake Lucy Road. What you see underneath the underlying drawing here is what was originally shown as the ' alignment to the Lake Lucy Road. As part of the consideration for the alignment for Lake Lucy Road we have 2, 3 basic criteria. One was to work with the church area and how that property would be bisected when the church was involved. And then a sketch plan that Gestach - Paulson have had in the works for about 8 to 9 years for the development of their property. The purpose of that sketch plan back in 1985 was that the Lake Ann Interceptor was running through their property and they wanted some idea of how the property could be developed and accommodate the Lake Ann Interceptor. So what you see in the dashed line is that sketch plan that was done some number of years ago. It gave us an indication on how many lots, how many units that that ' 21 1 1 r. J 1 I� City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 property could be assessed at that time. At the first meeting, or at the last meeting, Mr. Jerome Carlson who owns this large tract of land and the Ryan's who own this tract and the Mancino's who own this tract, spoke at the public hearing. Mr. Carlson asked that this roadway be shifted to more accommodate his property. We went out and staked the alignments. We worked with Mr. Carlson but that alignment was never brought to the Council simply because at that time the Westside Baptist Church still did not agree to it. They did, Westside Baptist Church did pull out of the project and Mr. Carlson has now purchased their property so petitioners are Jerome Carlson and Gestach- Paulson and we're focusing basically on the alignment for Lake Lucy Road for the development of the Gestach - Paulson property and the Carlson property. In consideration of the Ryan's, they have brought forward or they've shown us a sketch plan that they had prepared for their property. Lakeview Road should go through their property. Initially they objected to the road basically bisecting their property, although you have to understand that this line that's shown here is wetlands. Everything within this area is a wetland. What we attempted to do is hang to the south or to the north edge of the wetlands and then bring the road directly over to the intersection of Lake Lucy Road. The Council instructed us to meet with the property owners involved and what we basically call a fast phase of the construction which again is the Gestach - Paulson and the Jerome Carlson property. We met with those individuals and they requested that the alignment of the roadway be shifted to accommodate the trunk sewer to Lake Ann Interceptor as closely as possible. The Lake Ann Interceptor is shown in this location and then the roadway would be adjacent to that simply because of the terrain up in here and it doesn't work to be right on top of it. But these two, this alignment through these two properties is agreeable to both property owners. When we met with Mr. Carlson and with the Gestach - Paulson people, our objective in the meeting was to determine how the cost of this roadway section was to be divided between those properties. An agreement was formed. It's a draft of an agreement that their attorneys drafted on how the cost would be shared for that roadway and that is part of the project. The Ryan's, with their concern of bringing the roadway into the souther, or into the middle of their property. The northern edge of the wetland. The southern edge of basically the buildable property of the Gestach - Paulson property. Gestach and Paulson agreed that they would, when they plat this property that they would leave this area as an outlot which would give the maximum flexibility to the Ryan's when their property would come in and be platted and at that time you could determine how the alignment could go through their property. Whether it would be to the north of what we show as Option 2. Or the south, which was the original option. That does give the Ryan's the flexibility to design their plat. It doesn't hinder them by locking in at this point. Gestach and Paulson feel that that's, that it works well with them. They're not interested in doing all the lots at one time. They would be able to plat the balance of their property and leave that until sometime in the future when this alignment would actually be fixed. As part of the project we're also looking at the extension of lateral sanitary sewer. Again we're focusing only on the petitioner's project, Gestach - Paulson and Jerome Carlson. Jerome Carlson has direct access to Lake Ann Interceptor and Gestach - Paulson would construct lateral lines down to the interceptor and they're shown in red. We have not shown any additional sewer. That's a completely separate issue. They need to come in with a preliminary plat. They have to have preliminary engineering and final engineering of any plat that they do. Again, that's just a graphic representation that was shown in 1985 on how that property could be subdivided. The original report did not address watermains. Basically the water main was looked at as a secondary issue. The watermain could have been placed outside of the roadway in the boulevard area. It's a 80 foot right -of -way for a collector street versus a 60 foot right -of -way. But as part of the supplemental report and the eminent desire of these properties to develop, we have included the cost for watermain which would be bringing a trunk line down Highway 41. Crossing 41 and running a trunk line all the way to wherever the roadway would stop. It's basically proposed that the roadway would stop at this outlot line and then the extension of the utilities would take place in the future when the properties to the east would develop. Storm sewer again would be only for the properties within the development area. There'd be a ... to maintain drainage in this area and then storm sewer from about this location or from the intersection of where this cul-de -sac would be located down to a point on the roadway where it can be discharged to ponding areas prior to the water body 22 I. City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ' 23 1 that's shown right in here. The total cost of the project, the total project cost is $525,000.00. That's including all of the overhead costs. We use a 30% factor in estimating. The assessments have been broken down for each portion and for each property that had petitioned. The only people proposed to be assessed at this time where roadway would be assessed in their property, would be the Gestach - Paulson, Jerome Carlson property. They , again through agreement between these two property owners, it's been defined how many lineal feet of the street would be assessed. The storm sewer is a split and city policy is 50% city and 50% developer when building a collector street and this is a split of 50% of the storm sewer going drainage areas for each property. We call it a ' sidewalk. It's actually a bituminous trail which would be an extension ultimately of the Lake Lucy, ultimately of the Lake Lucy Road east of Galpin as the trail align. This trail would continue on through this property, through this alignment, through the total alignment and ultimately you would have a trail. Ultimately you would have a trail from all the way from Lake Lucy Road to this existing trail. The ultimate trail would then follow the ' alignment all the way to TH 41 which is not too far from the Minnewashta Park. That trail's been shown as part of the project would be constructed. And 50% of the trail, the cost of the trail would be paid by state aid funds. 50% of it would be assessed. Watermain is 100% assessable to the benefitted properties. Two property owners. ' Sanitary sewer. Mr. Carlson would have direct access to the Lake Ann Interceptor. They would not be, he would not be bearing any of the costs of the lateral. The Gestach- Paulson development would pay $42,809.00 of the cost. The ... funds, local funds which include trunk oversizing of the watermain... construction would fall into ' a watermain in lieu of an 8 inch watermain. The developer's cost would be $61,067.16. Again, 50% of the trail cost and 50% of the storm sewer cost and this is basically the over sizing of the street cost for the street for development of that nature would be constructed to city standards of 28 feet as a collector. It would be 34 feet so the state aid would pick up the 6 feet difference in sizing. So we have total assessments, total project assessments of $347,720.56 and state aid local funds would be $177,948.44. Both properties would be assessed at this time for trunk water. It's a policy that when a trunk watermain goes in, that those trunk water units are paid as part of the assessments. That's $1,375.00 per unit. We've used 24 lots for the Gestach property. Jerome Carlson is unplatted. As sketch plans we've used 2 units per net acre on him and he has 6.31 acres for a total of $17,352.50. Trunk sanitary sewer is $25,200.00 for Gestach and $13,251.00 for Jerome Carlson. That's basically the project. Again our task was to originally was to determine an alignment through there. Work with the petitioning property owners at the time to come to some kind of agreement for the alignment for what we call the first phase or the first stage of the project. During the course of a year, year and a half, the property owners have changed. Those property owners now agree. The new property owners agree on the alignment and legal documents have been drafted between the parties to cost share the project cost. And we've left flexibility , on the east end so as the property to the east would be developed, that they'd be able to tie that in either way anywhere along that alignment. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Bill. This is a public hearing, as I mentioned previously. Do you have any concerns regarding this proposal, this is your opportunity to come forward and express those concerns. Just state your name and your address. Is there anyone at this time? Ed Ryan: My name is Ed Ryan and my wife and I are both here tonight. We are on the property, I guess the east side as Bill has referred to. We were involved in this project about a year ago. We were informed that the Lake Lucy extension was going to come through our piece of property and so since that time what we've done is ' put together a sketch plan based on potentially where that benefit would be best served for our piece of property. We didn't really have any intentions of developing but felt that given that the touch down spots for that border was going to defined, we felt that we needed to do so. We provided that sketch plan to the city and I think to ' Bill in that meeting and he has basically accommodated our concerns regarding that touch down spot. When we did our sketch plan we looked at the preservation of trees. Some of the grading issues and so forth and we're going to be, continue to work on that plan. That plan basically has a touch down spot further north where the ' 23 1 f 1 I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 corner of this, the property here bordering Mancino's property, what we did is, over the past 3 months we put together 2 or 3 plans based on trying to preserve the tree lines. We have a large clump of trees in the very middle of where the road was proposed to go through. We also looked at the grading, the hills and so forth. We also looked at preserving the lots that would border, the potential lots that would border some of that wetland that Bill has referred to and basically we're going to continue to pursue that plan with the city and work through the planning departments and so forth in order to improve that design and assure that the properties developed in this is adequate. So I guess that was our initial concern. We felt we needed to get involved to make sure the property was reasonably developed but we don't have any plans to develop at this time but again, that touch down spot would impact our property and so we had gone ahead and developed the plans necessary to address that touch down spot so. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? Sam Mancino: Hi. I'm Sam and Nancy Mancino and we are slightly to the north of the Ryan's property. There's a couple things that we'd like to talk about for a minute. First, on a more pressing matter of the western portion of the Gestach- Paulson. We'd like to see how in that north, I guess it'd be the eastern corner, we would have access to tie a road system into the road system that's platted there. Otherwise we'll be somewhat landlocked in the property and if we need to, in the future plat ... would address that. As it relates to what Ed calls the touch down site or the alternate platting or moving of the roadway, the proposed roadway north. There was a meeting evidentally on May 18th with Gestach - Paulson, the Carlsons and the Ryans at which we were not a party to this. We didn't know about it, they had met until today, so we really. Nancy Mancino: 9:00 this morning. Sam Mancino: 9:00 this morning's the first time we've actually seen these plans so we really don't know all the implications about this. We, unlike the Ryans, have not known about this and we have not platted anything. We haven't looked at any alternative plans but we probably are going to need to do that soon. But since it's in an official document now and has some official momentum, we feel we need to comment on it. Last year when this topic of the road alignment came up, we've always been under the understanding it was a relatively straight shot to align the current point where Lake Lucy Road intersects Galpin Blvd and go directly to, fairly due west until it comes to TH 41 to avoid the top area there. When we asked the question or the question came up last year about that northern swing of that property, Bill Engelhardt's opinion was that it was not practical because the cost to grade issues and so we aren't sure exactly how this particular alignment fits into that opinion. We'd like a little bit more information on that. As it is shown on that northern swing, the radius, the northern most radius of that road, would virtually touch us between about 50 and 60 feet from where our house is right now. So this would be several hundred feet away, as we've always understood it to be ... which raises the issue of if that becomes our point of access to -the road system, does the road system then go through our house? How do deal with that? So we need some more information on that. There are some financial implications that being if we had the northern alignment, it would financially affect us seriously. Seriously devalue the property value of our house, let along the development aspect of it. And we have a question about the assessment portion. If the road is artificially pushed that far north to parallel or abut our property line, does that mean that we are now liable for the assessment portion of it? It seems to me that when that original property was purchased by the Ryans ... that the road was going through there at one time. Whatever financial impact of -a pending assessment was dealt with at that time. The property was valued for that price and purchased at that. We have never anticipated having to pay a complete parallel road assessment to our property line so we need a little more information about that. I guess in sum total, we'd like to say for the record we're against a northern alignment. 24 I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ' Nancy Mancino: What happens next? My question is, I guess Charles and I talked this morning. This is the fast that I had heard about it. It will, the road will bring us closer over to the western roadway using our extension, will go in TH 41 to the where the cul -de -sac goes north? Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. Charles Folch: It will stop at that point leaving about, approximately 400 feet of land to reach the east/west property line with the Ryan's which allows basically either alignment will be shown there. It would be potentially an option at this time that we would go through the process of studying it to determine which alignment would be more feasible so, the developers have proposed to work with staff and the engineer to at least stage the first stage of this project which does not preclude any future options for stage 2 so that's, you're basically right. It stops at the cul-de -sac. Nancy Mancino: So we'll be back in to talk about the next project. Since this is a sketch plan, there's not a ' preliminary plat, I mean that may change, mighten it? The cul -de -sac may not come out of Lake Lucy Road there. in ' Charles Folch: It will likely come out somewhere in that general area. There aren't a whole lot of options terms of getting a road up into that area. It's more of a long tract of land that's actually developable so it's in all likelihood a north/south route would have to go up in there. Going through the site plan approval, it's conceivable that maybe the actual touchdown point with the road could move 50 feet either direction but it's likely going to end up right in that general ballpark. Nancy Mancino: And how long is that cul -de -sac? t Charles Folch: I think that cul -de -sac is about 650 -700 feet. ' Nancy Mancino: Any questions for us? Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? ' Ed Ryan: Just a follow up issue on Sam and Nancy's concerns. I think you find yourselves in the same position Mary and I did a year ago and that is that we were informed that there was a road coming through our property. I don't know who perhaps put it in this form ... when we acquired the property 10 years ago that this ' was the direct line of Lake Lucy going through our property. We find ourselves in the very same situation as your's. We'd prefer not to have the road through us but find that this is the situation we're in. We'd prefer not to have the road at all on our property. You know we'd rather have a collector road to the south of us or north ' but this is where we're at too so all we have done is to say, if this is what is coming at us, that we're going to have to look at the alternative based on what the property can support and I guess I feel very much, I feel very similar to you do but I feel like here it is, what am I going to do about it. So. ' Sam Mancino: Well, it's probably not for the Council but at the meeting, at the Council meeting last year when this came up, because the momentum was building to put the road in, the topic came up, should we... should we plat it or lock it in with that alignment and I think it was our point, in deference to your concerns, to say gee. ' Don't put a gun to their head. If you don't need the road now, let them have their options and now that's coming back to bite us. You know we were hoping to be able to give the flexibility to avoid having to have the road go in right away. I guess I do feel a little bit ... as if this is not working in our best interest to have the road ' 25 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 come up and ... right where our house is. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Brian Klingelhutz: I'm Brian Klingelhutz. Charlie and a lot of the guys came out. How long have we been trying to get this through? So we did everything we could to make it that the road could go either way you know after this, after get done with our property so we just don't want something that could happen in 4 -5 years down the road delay us anymore because if we don't get going on this project real soon, it won't happen this year. We left all the options open so it could go either spot and that's something that just has to be decided later. So that's all... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else? Lee Paulson: I'm Lee Paulson. I live in St. Boni, Minnesota. I just wanted to say that we've been trying to develop this piece of property since 1985 and it always, every time I come up here we kind of get beat back and we just would like to get this thing on the road. We've been waiting about 10 years for this and we think it's time for the city to move on because we've accommodated all the neighbors and we'd just like to move on with it. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: I did receive a call from Mr. Carlson on Friday. He apologized for not being able to be here this evening. He had an event with his daughter and it was quite an honor for him but he did relate, he wanted me to relay that he appreciates being able to work with Bill. I understand there were some subsequent meetings in here and he's happy with the outcomes of those meetings and the current position of where the road stands and he would hope that the Council would support the project. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else? Seeing none, let's close the public hearing. Can I have a motion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any questions that anyone may have of Bill at this particular time? Councilman Senn: Bill, I'm just curious. Why did the alignment end up departing so much from what we were talking about before of more or less starting so far to the north and then taking such a dip to the south? Bill Engelhardt: This one. This alignment versus this alignment? Councilman Senn: Yeah. See but, well no. What I'm going back to is also our previous conversation where I thought the option being discussed was actually moving the road from the original suggested location to the south rather than the north. Now it seems to me that we're jumping it way up north rather than going south and we're creating a lot of additional roadway to do it. 26 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 27 Bill Engelhardt: Okay, you're talking about this section in here? Councilman Senn: That section there. Originally this is, I thought they were talking about moving the road right here. Now that's gone and all of a sudden we're way up here. ' Bill Engelhardt: Yeah. The original alignment underneath was what the Baptist church alignment wanted to follow recognizing that they were, we were severing their property and that gave them enough room to get their t church, their facility on this site so that's why the alignment was placed here. Then when Mr. Carlson got into the picture, he wanted the alignment more along his property line and it was basically to save some trees and it gave him better access. Then after Carlson purchased this property from the Baptist church, it went back to follow the original alignment for the sewer. If you recall from the sewer map. This is pretty close to being the ' sewer so if we had the road here and the sewer here, it limits his buildability. So by putting the road as close to the sewer, it gives him more flexibility for this section and more flexibility for this section so that he can tie this area in to the balance of his property down here. So he was looking, Carlson was looking at more of a ' development that would tie this parcel together versus something in here. Councilman Senn: But again, why are we, again. The sewer stays north but there's a big dip. Why are we dipping down so far south? Bill Engelhardt: This dip in here is to accommodate any lots that Gestach- Paulson may be able to develop along here so that they would have frontage. If we were going to put the road through here, it basically eliminates any ' buildability and so you're building a section of road from here to here without providing any benefit to anybody and I don't believe that you really want to do that because you'll probably get into a situation where you're severing this property and you'd probably be paying more for right -of -way and that type of thing. ' Councilman Senn: So you couldn't move it further to the north and just have the lots on the south side of the road? ' Bill Engelhardt: No. Councilman Senn: Because the sewer effectively that's in the way? Okay. Alright. ' Bill Engelhardt: Plus the grade in here. The grade of this comes down. Councilman Wing: Bill, tell me about that north alignment. I thought there was something when we talked about that before, there was some grade issues and it got pretty high. Is the north feasible? Could you just basically sketch in where this might go? Bill Engelhardt: Okay, I can do a combination here. I don't know if this will work but we'll try it. Councilman Wing: Both wetlands and elevations. ' Bill Engelhardt: My original alignment was staying close to this wetlands in here. Basically because this area goes up hill and what I tried to do is plot the contours. If you look on this map, this would be the alignment that would fit right in here. There's kind of a ravine system and there's a wooded area here and I believe that it would be more expensive to bring that alignment to the north. But again, you want to leave the flexibility so that the Ryan's do have a chance. We aren't fixing those alignments. The original task was just to map a 27 I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 course so we'd have somewhat of an idea of where we're going to go. If I was going to do it from an engineering standpoint, I would probably stay south. But it's totally up to the Ryan's and their planners and what they feel would be more agreeable but I think I would stay south, if I was going to do it. ...and how you would match in. And it may be that it doesn't go north, it doesn't go south, it might go right through the middle. But with that outlot in there, they can go wherever they want. There is only so much room there to get it through there. That's all there is so somewhere in here it's going to go, whether it's north or south. Councilman Wing: Do we need to map that road now? Would there be any reason to map that road now and is there any connection between the east and the west? I mean if we approve the development to the west, is there any reason to even worry or think about where the alignments are going to be and what happens on the east side? ' Bill Engelhardt: Not really. Originally it was shown in your comprehensive plan that there would be a collector through there. It really has no bearing on the eastern end of it. Where we stop or where Gestach - Paulson would plan to stop, I think it was indicated earlier that they had like a narrow finger of property. There is really ' nothing else they can do with that property other than have a cul -de -sac go up. Whether that's extended to the Mancino property, that's a preliminary plat issue at a future date. But it would stop here. By stopping back here, the grade would work either way. It can be done anywhere in there. And anything to the east is really a moot issue. ' Councilman Wing: So both Mancino's and Ryan's at this point would be protected. ri i� Bill Engelhardt: Absolutely. Councilman Wing: And it'd be a whole other set of public hearings. Bill Engelhardt: Absolutely, yeah. Councilman Wing: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess that was my issue as well. The action before us tonight, required before us tonight is pretty straight forward and the option 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5, whatever is decided, needs to be discussed between the Ryan's and Mancino's and Gestach, etc. And that's for future discussions so I have no problem with the western mapping of this tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Michael. Councilman Mason: I concur. With what's going on here. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: Well, I don't have a problem with it as far as it goes for the time being. Mayor Chmiel: Nor do I. I did have some concerns about the wetlands but Richard asked that question for me. This proposal as we have for the road, street and utility extensions, is there anyone that would like to make a motion? 28 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 Councilman Wing: I move to approve Project 92 -12 as it relates to the west portion of this parcel. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. ' Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Resolution #94 -60: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the , supplement report to the feasibility study for Lake Lucy Road Extension Project No. 92 -12 dated May 25, 1994, and authorize Engelhardt & Associates to prepare the project plans and specifications. All voted in ' favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON PREPARATION OF A DEVELOPM PROJECT FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.3 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX ' INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 -1. Public Present: ' Name Address Jim Paulette DataSery Corporation ' Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Honorable Council. At our last meeting ... to allow DataSery Companies to come ' back in and review their tax increment advantage and tonight I handed out a letter prior to the meeting from the DataSery people. In that letter they're asking for some additional public assistance for some public improvement projects. Of those 5 items, staff feels that there's probably about 2 items in there that you could use tax ' increment for. Landscaping a boulevard and also matching the paths to arterial systems. However those would have to, the DataSery people would have to grant us an easement to go in there and construct those and maintain them. At this point I would just take citizen comments from the citizenry. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there any citizenry here that would like to make comment in regards to this proposal? We did give a time extension for DataSery at that time because of some concerns that they had. They didn't quite understand what we had going with their acceptance... really no other discussion regarding this. ' So is there anyone else wishing to address this particular issue? As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. If there's something you'd like to say this evening. We do have the letter which I think pretty well spells it out. Is there anyone else wishing to say anything? ' Jim Paulette: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As you may recall, my name is Jim Paulette. I'm here representing DataSery tonight and I'm here also, my purpose for being here is to voice DataServ's support for the establishment of the tax increment district, which includes our property and we look forward to working with ' you on this project And as you mentioned, I guess you do have the letter and I guess I'm here just to answer any questions you might have about some of the requests that we had. Our feeling is just that as a property owner there, that we would like to see the increment dollars that are generated by that site, by the district to be ' used in that district as much as possible. And this is what we were trying to point out in this letter that these are some of the things that we thought about that we'd like to do on the property. If anybody has any questions about any of those, please let me know if I can answer them. I 29 1 I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. There doesn't seem to be questions. Thank Y Y Y you. Y ' Jim Paulette: Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anybody else? I don't believe we closed the public hearing the last time. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion regarding this proposal? If there's not, I'd like a motion. Councilman Senn: I'd move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. ' Resolution #94 -61: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the program for the Development District No. 3 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing Plan No. 3 -1 in accordance with the overall development community. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' AWARD OF BIDS: 1994 SANITARY SEWER TELEVISING PROGRAM, PROJECT 94 -9 -1. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. We've programmed again this year to do televising ' programs that we can set up a ... sewer rehab program for 1994 ... we'd recommend award of this quote or contract for the 1994 ... in the whole contract amount of $2,320.00. Solidication has performed televising work in the city in the past and they do have a proven, acceptable track record with the city. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there any discussion? Councilman Mason: One quick question. What channel will this be on? ' Charles Folch: Late, late, late night. ' Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there a motion to accept the award of bids for the 94 -9? Councilman Mason: So moved. t Councilman Senn: Second. Resolution #94 -62: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the 1994 Sanitary Sewer ' Televising Program, Project 94 -9 -1 contract be awarded to Solidication Inc. at a proposal contract amount of $2,320.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' ABRA AND GOODYEAR, 40 AND 50 LAKE DRIVE EAST, DOLPHIN DEVELOPMENT: A. SIGN PLAN REVIEW. B. MATERIALS USE ON GOODYEAR BUILDING. 1 30 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 , Sharmin Al -Jaffa This will be, the roof will be the second item that we will address. 1 31 1 , Sharmin Al -Jaffa This plan appeared before you 2 ears ago. You a S P aPPe Y Y 8 approved the monument sign for Abra and Goodyear. While the issues that were discussed at the time was the height of the monument sign. You approved a variance for an additional 4 feet to the permitted 8 foot height. You also requested that you review , all the signage before it is constructed. The applicant is proposing to locate 3 directional signs as permitted by ordinance, as well as one monument sign which you just saw. The monument sign meets the setback requirement as well as the area. There have been some revisions since this appeared before the Planning Commission. The height of the directional signs did not meet the requirements at this time. This has been ' revised since and it was in compliance with ordinance. Abra is proposing to have two wall mounted signs and Goodyear is proposing to have two wall mounted signs. Both buildings will have signage that meets the requirement. This is Abra on two elevations. The south as well as the north. So one will be facing Highway 5 ' and the other one will be facing Lake Drive. And Goodyear is proposing to have two, like mentioned earlier. One is going to be along the north elevation and the second one would be along the west elevation. We're recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant here this evening? Joel Harding: Yes. Mr. Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Joel Harding. My address is 530 ' West 79th Street. That's our business office. I'm with Dolphin Development and Construction. We've been there about 15 years. I only have 3 quick comments on the signs that are proposed through the staff report. They are two comments on the monument sign. I thought we straighten this out at Planning but the sign is ' perpendicular to Highway 5 as opposed to facing Highway 5 and it is 60 feet. That is 3 signs of 20 square feet each on the monument. Well they're double sides so it's really 120 feet. But that is, as opposed to each individual 3 lots having monuments of 8 so we're well below the quota we otherwise could have. And then the second point is, the directional signs in the staff report indicate that there should be a brick pedestal associated , with the signs and our plan was to have them, 1 foot by 4 foot with a metal post. Around Chanhassen today there's not very many examples of directional signs and the ones that I can point to, and I took pictures of them if you're not familiar with them. I'll be glad to pass these around. But over at Chanhassen Bank they have the ' directional signs and they're not meant to make an architectural statement as much as they are to help people get in and out of the parking lots and so forth to get to the right place. When we met with the Planning Commission about a month ago there was a reference made to the directional signs out at the SA at TH 41 and ' TH 7 and that brick pedestal. That brick pedestal is really more of a monument type sign that advertises the gas price and the location. Their pedestal signs or their directional signs out there are much similar to the ones you see across the way here. So the only point I wanted to make, it wasn't our plan to, we did not want to build these signs with a brick pedestal and we'd like your consideration on that. If there's any questions, I'll be glad ' to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Richard. ' Councilman Wing: What are we working on? Just site plan review. the , Mayor Chmiel: Sign plan review for Abra, yeah. And a couple other things too that are there with sign plan. Councilman Wing: Sharmin, what happened to that roof? Is that roof under construction or finished? On the ' Goodyear building. Sharmin Al -Jaffa This will be, the roof will be the second item that we will address. 1 31 1 I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Kate Aanenson: We tried to keep the two separate. One is just the sign permit application and the other one ' will address the... Councilman Wing: Okay, sign plan review. On the sign issue, I guess I concur with the developer. I don't have a problem with those directional signs being minimized. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What do you think of the fact being brick portion being around? ' Councilman Wing: On the directional signs? I think it would emphasize the signs more than de- emphasize them. Mayor Chmiel: Any other comment? Councilman Wing: No. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have a problem with the directional signs being on metal poles. Otherwise ' I don't have problems with those either. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. t Councilman Mason: Boring night. I agree with what's being said. Sorry. Mayor Chmiel: You're right. I don't disagree. Mark. ' Councilman Senn: The monument sign, now that's illuminated? ' Sharmin Al -Jaffa Yes. Councilman Senn: And the building sign's illuminated and then the directional signs are illuminated too? ' Sharmin Al -Jaffa The building signs facing the residential area, across the street from Lake Drive East, should not be illuminated. That's what we're recommending. Councilman Senn: So only the. Sharmin Al -Jaffa Anything facing east to west or north. ' Councilman Senn: Would be illuminated. Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct. ' Councilman Senn: Okay. And the directionals which would be closest to the residential neighborhood. Sharmin AI -Jaffa Are going to be 5 feet high. They won't be visible from the residential area. 32 u City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 33 1 Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Some of my concerns with down lighting and so forth... residential area and that should not ' really take place is what you're saying. Okay. Alright, any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move approval of the sign plan review. , Councilman Mason: Striking the sentence in item number 8. Brick shall be used to cover the poles? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes, thank you. ' Councilman Mason: You're so welcome. I'll second it. for Abra and ' Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the sign plans Goodyear as shown on the attached plans dated April 18, 1994, with the following conditions: 1. The monument sign which will face Highway 5 shall be 12 feet high and contain only the names of the ' occupants of Lots 1, 2 and 3. The material and color of brick used shall be consistent with brick and colors used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings. The sign shall be located 10 feet from the north property line as shown on the attached landscaping plan dated April 18, 1994. ' 2. All businesses built on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall share one monument sign. 3. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display ' areas shall not exceed 80 square feet. 4. All signs require a separate permit. ' 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. Lake ' 6. No illuminated signs facing south may be viewed from the residential section located south of Drive East. Only back lit individual letter signs are ' 7. permitted. 8. The area of all directional signs shall not exceed 4 square feet and the height shall not exceed 5 feet. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: The other portion, Shartnin. ' Sharmin Al -Jaffa When you approved the site plan for Goodyear, one of the conditions. Well actually the conditions of approval were that this area would be made out of brick material. This would remain as proposed and that louvers would be built on Goodyear as proposed on those plans. When the applicant appeared, applied ' for the building permit he asked if they could change the material from stucco to block. Concrete block. And if he could change the pattern and we said no. Please stay with what the Council approved. Well, they are requesting the change so their changes would include eliminating the louvers. Using cracked face block rather ' 33 1 J City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ' than the drivit for accent and then changing the pattern of the decorative strip. And what we're saying is, if the Council is agreeable with this, then we will allow the changes so it's entirely up to your discretion. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I believe everybody had an opportunity to go out there and look at it today. I know I did and I look at that building and it just sort of appalls me. I don't like the color of the roof that's with that ' gray. You've got different grays with the block that you put in. I don't think that really blends to that building at all. Aesthetically I think it has changed immensely from what we indicated we wanted to see. In comparison as to what's there. What can be done with that right now? ' Sharmin AI -Jaffa We issued a stop work order and the applicant stated that everything could be corrected and as approved by the City Council. ' Mayor Chmiel: It really looks, and I don't like using the word, but it looks to me like a cheap building. It wasn't completely from what I envisioned. I think that's one of the things I didn't approve on in seeing exactly what our products are coming to us and knowing full well and good what it is just as not to meet my ' expectations from what I thought it was going to be. But that gray roofing that's up there, number one, doesn't blend in with any of the exterior portions of the brick or even that gray, it's introducing another color as well. And it just to me doesn't have the aesthetics that it should. Richard. ' Councilman Wing: Well I concur with the Mayor. I guess my first comment would be, no changes. We've got a deal. If they want to go back to the Planning Commission and bring in new drawings and new sketches and, go ahead. Bring in new materials. We didn't agree to this and I'm not interested in any changes. I can't, I ' thought the roof was still under construction. I thought it was just roughed in roof. I guess my third comment would be, are those all really working pipes or are they just dummies to make it look bad? I've never seen a roof anywhere with that many vents, pipes, aluminum crap sitting all over. I thought it must be just stuck up there with glue to aggravate us. That is really, you said it all. I would not have used the work appalling. I'm t glad the Mayor did. It saves me from having to have it on the record. It's a cheap building. I don't like it. I hope we're learning. I hope this is why I feel so good about that ordinance we passed requiring better graphics and drawings because we're getting smarter and smarter and these things aren't going to happen. This isn't the ' Eden Prairie building that Goodyear put up. Somehow Eden Prairie extracted some quality and some architectural standard and a proper roof. We didn't get away with that somehow. They got by us here and so I kind of don't want to hear any changes. The louvers stay. The stucco's stays and is there anything we can do ' with those roof? Why there'd be gray on a brick building, they must have picked it up at a garage sale. Nobody would have done that intentionally. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Colleen. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. No comment. ' Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: The deal was made. Yeah, I see, yeah. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: Well, isn't the roof as it was approved? I guess basically the roof we insisted on, if I remember right. Or that somebody insisted on. 34 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct, but the accents were going to. Councilman Senn: No, I understand but I'm just saying from a roof standpoint, the roof is as some people ' insisted on basically. Versus going to a flat roof or whatever. This roof was put on there and that's what shows. I don't know. Going out and looking at it, and dealing with the issues separately, I think the, you know if I visualize the accent strip and say the accent strip is either going to be stucco as approved or it's going to be ' the rock faced block. Quite honestly I think the rock face block is an improvement. It's a texture. I think if you go back to the stucco you're going to have flat against flat and it's even going to be worse. At the same time I'd like to see something done with color though as it relates to that accent band rather than the gray. The ' change in the pattern on the decorative stripe I don't think, I mean that to me just seems so inconsequential that it wasn't going to have a big impact one way or the other. As far as the louvers go, I'm in agreement just to, there should be no change there. I mean that's part of the element I think that the whole thing's missing right now. I think that's part of what also makes the roof so noticeable because you have absolutely no break at all ' basically between that accent band and then going up, which leads you right to the roof. So I think, I would really like to see the louvers go in. The rock faced block, again from a texturing standpoint, I'd like to see that stay. Maybe some color added there. The change of pattern I don't have a problem with. As far as the roof ' issue goes, I think I'm not sure what the answer is to fixing it up but I think it would look a lot better once the louvers were put in but again, I don't know how we do a lot of changing there because again, they built what we asked them to build. I'm not going to say it was the best thing to build except we asked them to build it. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? ' Councilman Wing: I don't disagree with Mark on the texture. I think that's valid but we tried to get a brick building which was kind of a small sizing, if you will. And suddenly the block comes in and block is block. I ' like texture but here's this brick building and all of a sudden it looks like there's bricks holding up these great big blocks that sit and cement blocks are cement block. And that's, I agree with Mark. ' Councilman Senn: The stucco's going to look the same way Dick, that's the problem. I think it's really going to look worse because I mean all it's going to do is then you're going to look like. I mean I hate to say it but if you take a flat block and compare it to the stucco, that's in affect the texture you're going to have and look like, ' so it's going to look like it's holding up a flat block versus a textured block and to me that's why I think the texture really ends up helping it because it's providing some break in that space. Councilman Wing: If it had texture and wasn't flat I wouldn't mind it but the texture is part of cement blocks ' and it looks like cement blocks really ... so it was real noticeable to me. Just blocks that seemed out of place with the brick. I like the texture, I agree. ' Councilman Senn: Some color added to that textured block. If you took an earth tone that was a nice contrast but—brick or something, then I think it could really end up enhancing it but. And that's not that difficult. to be ' Mayor Chmiel: I don't disagree with that too much there but I think one of the things that we seem missing for the buildings coming in. I think this community itself is sort of a traditional kind of buildings. As I was driving back down the service road and I happened to look at the Lutheran Church... church there. That to me is a traditional kind of building. And those are the things that I think we should, at least in my opinion, start ' looking for in construction of what's going to be going in with any kinds of service buildings as such. And again a little more appearance to give that softer touch and make it look more appealing. I think everybody within this community sort of leans to that ... and maybe a few here and there that are not, that like modernistic ' 35 1 .t City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ' aspects of buildings and that's all well and good and everybody in their own taste but I think from what we look for for the community, with the amount of people that we have within the community, they approach it from that aspect. Councilman Mason: I wonder if some kind of compromise might be in order here. I don't think there's anyone ' here that particularly likes the way the roof looks right now, at least on this side of the bench. Or chair. Whatever you want to call it. I'm hearing some ambivalence about the rock face and the decorative stripe but I think we're all kind of in agreement about the louvers. I'm wondering if this could go back with staff and Goodyear and see if anything can be done about the roof and the louvers go up and the other stuff can stay. I'm ' just throwing it out. Councilman Senn: It would mean re- roofing it. ' Councilman Mason: Well I don't know. Yeah, maybe that's not an option. Mayor Chmiel: It's an introduction of another color that just. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I mean maybe it wouldn't work but I guess I'm just trying to throw some stuff out here. Councilman Senn: Well the roof could be, I mean the roof could be dealt with again through coloring. ' Mayor Chmiel: Which is a problem. ...doesn't accept it and those crystals that are contained on there ... and the other colors are still showing. It's frightful. Councilman Senn: A lot of it would depend on how you take that and tie it together with the color down in the ' accents. And the accent stripe and so I really think we need to add some color to that stripe. Again, I really hate getting into this because all of us are sitting here talking about what my color preference versus somebody else's color preference is and I think that's ridiculous. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well that's true. Colors are not part of our portion but when you look at it just from a, carry your own color chart. ' Councilman Wing: That means—Planning Commission and tell us what kind of shingle it's going to be and what color it's going to be, etc, etc, etc, etc. I guess we got to start doing it. Start building the buildings because if we leave it to people up on the hill, where I change my oil, and this is another example. They don't ' go in our, well anyway. Councilman Senn: How about if we did something like, you know say the louvers have to be added Use of the rock face with some color added and the decorative pattern are okay contingent upon staff finding a way to tie it together with the rough structure and get us out of it and let them solve that part of it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I like that. Mayor Chmiel: I think that'd be an acceptable part of that. Councilman Senn: Is that a responsibility you are willing to. 1 36 n City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 rt in this? We're asking ' Councilman Wing: But we get Council support g y ou to do that and would that mean we wouldn't approve this tonight pending that? Bring it back. Councilman Senn: No, I'd say we approve it contingent upon that being satisfactory to them. Mayor Chmiel: I would say on staff's review and if you so choose to get back and at least for those of us who ' were interested, to each Councilmember and let us know what the direction's going to be. Councilman Wing: And if they can't work it out, they have a right to bring it back. ' Mayor Chmiel. Okay, with that. Councilman Senn: So moved. , Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the materials used on the Goodyear ' building to include adding louvers, use of the rock face with some color added and the decorative pattern is okay contingent upon the applicant and staff finding a way to tie it together with the rough structure. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' REZONING OF 846 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TORSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELINIINARY PLAT INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, LOCATED AT 8221 GALPIN BOULEVARD, PATRICK_MINGER. Public Present: ' Name Address Peter Knaeble 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd, Edina ' Patrick & Karen Minger 8221 Galpin Blvd. Kate Aanenson: The applicant is proposing to divide 8.46 acres into 17 single family residential lots. The property is currently zoned A2 and is guided for single family residential. This item did appear before the Planning Commission twice. They went through all the—issues. There's a significant amount of trees on the site and that was one of the issues before the Planning Commission. Also ... the home of Pat and Karen Minger ' which is located in the northeast corner of the site ... by Timberwood Estates which is a large lot subdivision to the south. The city has the parkland that's part of the Stone Creek addition and the city cemetery is located just to the north of this plat adjacent to the... Access to the subdivision will be via Galpin Boulevard. There is another home in this area that accesses off a drive, that is the Dempsey property. One of the issues that I indicated that the Planning Commission looked at was loss of trees and access to the site and the adjacency of the road adjacent to the southern lot with the Timberwood homes. The staff looked at moving the street from a 60 foot right -of -way to a 50 foot in order to save trees and a variance from the 30 foot setback to a 20. We did look at, one reason why this was tabled at the Planning Commission was looking at the possibility of using a private drive. 4 homes can be used on a private drive and the potential of saving additional trees. But with the lot configuration and grading ... it was determined that additional tree preservation would not be accomplished and 37 1 i C C I I r � City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 therefore we recommended staying with the public street. Outlot A, which is located in the southern portion of the plat. At the end of the first cul -de -sac will be provide access to the park. Again, that was indicated at Stone Creek. The first cul-de-sac ... you can see that little area of red that I've shaded in. That cul-de -sac accesses by the existing Dempsey property. There's a ghost plat shown on this but his property is not being platted at this time but that is how ... and we see access being off of that cul-de -sac. ...as far as streets is that when he develops his property, that additional area shown in red will have to be developed plus an additional 10 feet to get that total street right -of -way. What we're recommending now at this point is that you...via a private drive. 4 homes off that private drive so it will not be developed at this time. When utilities go in, the existing utilities for those ghost plats along Mr. Jensen's property so we're indicating as part of this report that whoever develops the Dempsey property, whether it's W. Dempsey or somebody else buys it, that they'd be responsible for that segment of road. Another issue that was raised as a part of this was the applicant's... utilities, that they be reimbursed for those service utilities. The Engineering Department is looking at doing that. We have...on previous plats. One of the biggest issues then was the preservation of the woodland areas indicated on brown. Preservation on the backs of lots. Just as a general rule we looked at 50 feet around the backs of all the lots. There are some instances where we looked at 40 and 30. As far as the woodland management plan, they're allowed to take up to slightly over 5 acres and that's what they are taking out so they're following... with the conservation easement...and layout looks as best at preserving natural. We are recommending as part of the plat that the ... on Galpin that there be a streetscape. In addition, that any trees that would not have, any lots that would not have trees, they would have to provide that. Again, what we're recommending in order to preserve trees is that we go the 50 foot right -of -way and the homes be allowed a 20 foot setback instead of the 30. Grading and drainage, there was some drainage issues that were raised by the residents. There is a swaled area that goes along the back of some of the lots in Timberwood. Some of that drainage will continue but this subdivision should correct a lot of the drainage problems that currently exist. There is a swale area between Lots 13, Lots 12, 11 and 13. What we're recommending... is the installation of drainage tiles for this swaled area to make sure that we don't have water problems with those homes. Park and open spaces. I indicated the Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that Outlot A be platted for trails and access purposes in order to get to the park. The had their meeting on...Based on that, staff is recommending that City Council approve the plat and the recommendations in the staff report. We do have one condition that is, we did address it in the staff report although it's not specifically listed as a condition and that would be condition number 21. And that'd be the cul -de -sac adjacent to the Dempsey property, the most westerly cul-de -sac will be developed but right now it will be a private street so it will be developed to a full street, along with 50 foot street right -of -way with the Dempsey property development at the expense of whoever develops the Dempsey property. What we're saying now is it should just be left as a private street with the specs that we have for the 30 foot right -of -way. Excuse me, we'll get the right -of -way but only the 20 foot... Mayor Chmiel: Kate, will we also post something there to let developers or people who develop their properties, where that proposed street's going to go? Kate Aanenson: We'll somehow put that...but there are negotiations between the two parties because... The Mingers have had to work with the Dempsey's and maybe it'd be ... can answer that more closely but there is some cross easements to some other areas. We'll have to put that on...so the next person knows and that's the intent of putting that as a condition. I guess what we're saying there is these 4 homes already have access and to go back and assess them later ... are enjoying the access to their property and trying to go back and assess them would be difficult. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that it? G: 11 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is the applicant here? Is there anything you'd like to say? Peter Knaeble: No. We agree with the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. And could I have your name please. Peter Knaeble: My name's Peter Knaeble. I'm the engineer for the applicant. I'm here tonight with Pat Minger and Karen Minger, the owners of the property. They're also here. We've been working with city staff since last fall on this project. We've gone through a number of gyrations on the development but we've tried to fine tune it as best we could given ... a plan that satisfies all the conditions that we ... so we're here tonight just to answer any additional questions. Mayor Chmiel: Can you answer the question that I asked Kate previously? Peter Knaeble: Yes. In regards to, well there are two issues. One would be signing that private driveway to make sure the people that live there ... will be extended to a public street and cul -de -sac. That can be done as a part of our final construction plans... The other would be to put the Dempsey property on what is... Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Are there any questions? Richard. Councilman Wing: No sir. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Given that this is a preliminary plat and we need input about what I think of this development and the density and the layout, etc. I have a lot of problems with the density issues given that it's bordered by Timberwood which are large lot estates. The cemetery, a park and other low density uses and especially given the tree coverage in here. It makes me sick when I drive across the street from this development to Trotters Ridge and see what's gone in there and the hardwoods that have been taken out of that and I don't want to see it happen across the street. This is too dense given the surrounding uses and the amount of trees that will have to be taken out to accomplish these number of homes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else? Councilman Wing: Do you have a solution to that? I say this every time as I bring it up, I say... Councilwoman Dockendorf: I know you want an ordinance. I know. Councilman Wing: What's the solution to prevent these concerns? Do you have any ideas? Councilwoman Dockendorf. No. Because I don't agree with your position that we need to change our ordinances. I mean this is not a PUD. This is a regular. Councilman Wing: Oh no, no. No. No relationship. If we take you at your word and for that issue, is there any way we can approve that to accomplish your concerns? 39 .1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf. I don't know. You know it's hard to vote against something if they meet all the ' requirements in the ordinance, etc. All I can say from my gut is I do not like this. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. ' Councilman Mason: Given Colleen's concern, I think that's kind of the price we pay living in a city that's growing as rapidly as the city of Chanhassen is growing. I don't in this particular instance, I don't share some. I share the concerns that Colleen has but it seems to me that they're following our guidelines for the canopy. The tree canopy and following everything else so I don't, you know unless we're going to change what we have in place, I'm hard pressed you know. I mean it looks, you know when I hear the applicants agree with the staff report and staff's obviously worked hard at it, it's telling me that everybody's apparently working pretty well together on the project so that to me is a good sign. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Could I ask a point? ' Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Kate, did you hear from I believe it's the Richardson's who live to the north of ' where there will be 4 homes abutting their property? Or Bielski or something like that Kate Aanenson: I believe at the first Planning Commission, those neighbors were there. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And they didn't have concerns about 4 homes in their backyard? Kate Aanenson: Oh yeah they did but that same issue came up with Stone Creek and it came up with Heritage. What we looked at too is, there's not a lot of woods in the back there and they're set back quite a ways. It goes back to when we looked at the comprehensive plan, that's what it was guided for. I share your concern ... That's why we put the 50 foot tree conservation easement. We felt that really based on the fact that they're set back ' quite a ways and the 50 foot conservation easement adjacent to Timberwood, it really should be an effective screen. So the house won't be... ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. I thought that was a good solution for a lack of trees... Kate Aanenson: We spent a lot of time trying to resolve ... There was a concern about that. With the cemetery, it loses some of those trees. I think it compromises trying to protect those homes ... or it came up in the Minutes. ' How far was the setback. It was a substantial distance. I think with the preservation area, we should be able to... ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess this is preliminary plat. I guess I'd like to think about it some more before final. ' We keep coming up against these I guess two different ways. One way we keep coming up against them is we keep coming up and saying we need more affordable lots to create more affordable housing. On the other end you know we come up with other situations where we say we need bigger lots. It's just going to take us exactly the opposite way but at the same time makes the development pretty unaffordable sometimes for the landowner. You've got to be able to get certain densities out of a piece of property to afford all the public systems and 1 40 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 w ' everything else that we require them to put m. I guess I don't have any magic answers for it but I guess haven't had a Council meeting lately where this hasn't come up so maybe we should concentrate on it and look at it a little more diligently before we start wrapping these up. Don, I agree 100% with your comment and ' we've got to stick some kind of safeguard in there so we don't end up with another one of those where people come back later and say I didn't know that. I'd really like to throw that one to staff or city attorney or somebody and just I mean really have it etched in something so there's definitely no possibility of them coming ' back later and saying, you know. Oh, nobody told us that 5 years ago or whatever. I think the surest way to do that is somehow or another get attached to the title there or whatever but I don't know. I don't know. Turn that over to the experts and I'd love to see something done on that. ' Mayor Chmiel: I guess there's not too much that I can really add to this too and I talked to Kate this afternoon. I talked to Bob about this earlier today and I had most of my questions answered in relationship to what I had in here. So with that I would like to have a motion. ' Councilman Mason: I will move. Mayor Chmiel: To accept preliminary plat. , Councilman Mason: So moved. ' Mayor Chmiel: And condition number 21. Councilman Mason: As stated ' Mayor Chmiel: As previously indicated. Councilman Mason: So moved. ' Mayor Chmiel: Second? I'll second Councilman Senn: I'm sorry. I'm just hesitating. Now 21 is the addition of the notification or some way to. Kate Aanenson: Right. That...Dempsey property ... that cul -de -sac. ' Councilman Senn: Alright. Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approves 93 -25 Subdivision and 94 -1 Rezoning ' providing for the preliminary plat on 9.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots, rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single - Family Residential, RSF and a front yard setback variance of ten (10) feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet throughout the development subject to , the following conditions: 1. Accept full park and trail dedication fees as prescribed by city ordinance for the Minger ' subdivision in lieu of land acquisition. 2. Provide a 20 ft. trail easement to the west of Lot 17 for connection to the city park and construct ' an 8 ft. wide asphalt trail stub within this easement. The city shall reimburse the developer for 41 1 J City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ' this construction. In addition, design an adequate landscape buffer between this easement and the home which will be constructed on Lot 17. ' 3. Prior to final platting, the applicant will be required to provide a boulevard landscaping plan for the first 300 feet of the entrance road into the development in order to replace the existing ' vegetation that will be removed as part of the road and utility grading into the site. A Woodland Management Plan shall be developed for the subdivision prior to the final platting of the property. This plan shall comply with section 18 -61 (d) (3) of the City Code. t 4. Incorporate a fifty (50) foot tree conservation area be dedicated along the perimeter of the plat, except for Lot 7 where a thirty (30) foot easement will be required and Lot 8 along the easterly property line where a forty (40) foot easement will be required. Within this area only selective ' thinning to promote the health and survivability of trees will be permitted or such other clearing or preventative care measures as delineated in the woodland management plan. Additionally, this area, especially along the northern border of the plat could be used as a forestation or replacement area for trees. Thinning, forestation, and tree replacement are conditioned on the development of a ' Woodland Management Plan by a forestry professional that would address these issues. The following tree conservation easements would also be dedicated as part of the plat: a fefty (49) feet easement r-,Rwor-pa AR t e eominen jet lines of Lots 2 and 3, and Lots 4 and 5 a twenty (20) feet easement th ' ; a fifty (50) foot easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 10, 11 and 15: a fbi4y (40) feet easement along the south lAs lino of ]At -2 a forty (40) foot easement along the easterly property line of Lot 14; an easement ' over the southern 115 feet of Lot 13; and an eighty (80) foot easement along the east lot line of Lot 16. No construction activity of any kind will be permitted within these easements except the drainage tile installation in the rear yards of Lots 10 and 11, the removal of the existing driveway in Lots 1, 2, and 3, and the placement of small sheds, storage structures, or play equipment under guidelines ' incorporated in the Woodland Management Plan. The applicant shall work with staff on the adjustment of easements and house pads on individual lots to save additional trees. ' 5. The applicant shall include runoff from the cemetery in the proposed pond design and construction. 6. Remove the applicant's existing private driveway once the street is paved with the fast lift of asphalt. ' 7. Provide water quantity/quality ponding according to SWMP requirements. 8. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls to save the 34 -inch oak and 28 -inch oak on Lot 1, ' Block 1. 9. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for review prior to ' final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review and approval. The existing homes will be required to change their addresses consistent with the new street names and numbering system ' 10. Compliance with the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum from Bill Weckman, Assistant Carver County Engineer to Bob Generous dated 4/25/94. i 42 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 11. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the public improvements will be required for , submittal with final plat approval. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval. ' 12. Prior to the city signing the final plat, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public ' improvements and conditions of approval. 13. The Minger's house shall be connected to sanitary sewer within 30 days after the line becomes operational. The Dempsey's house will have to connect to sanitary sewer within 12 months after ' connection becomes available. The homes may utilize their existing wells until they fail, then the parcels must connect to city water. The existing septic systems shall be abandoned per state and/or local codes. ' 14. The applicant shall apply and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as MPCA, health department, watershed district, DNR and Carver County Highway Department. 15. The developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. 16. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond ' volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10 -year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. ' 17. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. ' 18. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claims that the ' assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 19. Depending on the storm ponding calculations, if the development is not meeting the City SWMP for water quantity, then the applicant will be required to contribute into the City's SWMP program. The ' proposed rate per acre for single family is $1,980 /acre excluding wetlands. 20. Applicant shall shift the westerly cul -de -sac ten to fifteen feet east at the intersection to mo t he ' roadway away from the existing house. 21. The most westerly cul -de -sac adjacent to the Dempsey property will be a private street at this time. However, when the Dempsey property develops further, it will then be improved to a public ' street with 50 foot street right -of -way at the expense of whoever develops the Dempsey property. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of ' 43 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 4to1. ' Roger Knutson: You have to rezone. Mayor Chmiel: Oh yes. We have to rezone on that one. It is a preliminary plat and rezoning of the property. ' Let me rephrase that as a motion. I'll recall the previous motion. Roger Knutson: Previous motion to rezone. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's make a proposal to rezone. ' SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACILITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAYCARE CENTER IN AN IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STAT HIGHWAY 5, MARCUS CORPORATION. ' Public Present: ' Name Address ' John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins Doug Chesnut 1 Gardner Lane, Dellwood 55110 Greg Eswine 850 Lecroy , Atlanta, GA John Finnemore 800 Roosevelt, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 ' Carol Riddle 4000 Leslee Curve Sharmin Al -Jaffa The applicant is proposing to construct a daycare facility and expand the warehouse and press ' room of the Press building. Mayor Chmiel: Just a minute. Mark, maybe you'd like to step down. ' Councilman Senn: Well for the time being I'm going to hang tight right here. Mayor Chmiel: I think according to what the rules would be ... do not have to step down rather than sitting in ' Council's position. Roger Knutson: I spoke earlier on the telephone and ... formally they have no financial interest in this project ' whatsoever. Mayor Chmiel: Good. That has changed from previously. ' Councilman Senn: No. It's always been that way. If you'll recall the last Council meeting, that was also stated Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ...you're on deck. 44 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 1 Sharmin give her staff report? ' Kate Aanenson: Do you want to et g Mayor Chmiel: Oh no, Sharmin. I'm sorry. I'm trying to move this too quick. 11:00 is coming quick. I Sharmin Al -Jaffa Okay. I promise I'll be done... Okay, full access to the site is being from 77th Street and 187th Avenue West. There's also proposed a right -in, right -out only for Kindercare via Dell Road. There is an accompanying subdivision request to replat the site into 3 parcels. Lot 1 is being expanded to accommodate the ' Press expansion. Lot 2 is reserved for future development. We are not aware of any pending development on that parcel and Lot 3 is for the proposed Kindercare. The proposed Press expansion will utilize scored concrete panels. An identical material to that used on the existing building. The Kindercare building... ceramic tile, a ' canopy and will have a pitched roof. One of the advantages resulting from the expansion on the Press site is that currently their existing loading docks that can be viewed from Highway 5. With the proposed expansion, everything is being pushed to the north facing 77th Street so that would provide better views of the building. ' For the proposed landscaping plan, and berming, certain areas will be screened from views from the highway. Staff is recommending approval of this application. This item appeared before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Press expansion. However, they denied the Kindercare facility. They base their denial on first of all their electric magnetic field running parallel to Highway 5. No. ' There are electric lines running parallel to Highway 5. Councilman Mason: It's those electric magnetic fields that are doing it. Just kidding. ' Sharmin Al -Jaffa Electric lines create electric magnetic fields. Staff doesn't have the expertise on electric magnetic fields. However, we have contacted different agencies and ordered their studies. Those studies are enclosed in your packets. Kindercare has a policy not to locate their buildings next to electric lines that radiate ' electro magnetic fields. When we read the studies, we have to admit, they were inconclusive and the State doesn't have a policy regarding this issue. One of the other things that the Planning Commission wanted was to see the building and the parking lot flip flopped to where the building would be facing Highway 5 and the ' parking lot would be far from the Highway 5, screened completely by the building. Well that created an issue with Kindercare. As well as some of the commissioners felt that if there is an issue with electro magnetic fields, then there's an environmental issue and are they creating a future problem with the children. Third issue was ' parking circulation. The Planning Commission felt uncomfortable with the parking and felt strongly that traffic leaving the Press building would just cut through the Kindercare parking area using it as a shortcut. To address this problem the applicant has introduced a median that would separate the parking lot of the Press from the Kindercare. Architectural style of Kindercare was another issue. Planning Commission felt it didn't fit in with ' the industrial park. And one last issue was, the access point. The access point onto West 77th Street. We measured the turning radius off of Dell Road. We measured the turning radius on this access point and we believe that, we know that a fire truck will not be able to make this turn unless the Kindercare building was ' shifted back at least 40 feet to accommodate a straight alignment for, rather than having this meandering access point. With that we are recommending approval of this application. If the City Council elects to deny it, you might want to adopt the ... Planning Commission recommendations. Otherwise, staff is recommending approval of ' the subdivision, conditional use permit and site plan with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: We'll go to the developer first and then we'll come back. Okay. I'd like to, if you have anything more pertinent than the previous discussions. I think we've gone through the process a couple different ' times so I'll let you lead with that. John Dietrich: Thank you Mayor. John Dietrich from RLK Associates representing the Press and Kindercare I 45 1 1 I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ' facility for the proposed site plan review, preliminary plat and conditional use permit for the joint application. Also tonight is John Finnemore and Greg...of Kindercare so if there are specific questions in regards to the ' facility of the Kindercare, they will be able to address those. I'll be able to address any of the specific issues in regards to the site plan and layout of the site for the two facilities. What I'd like to do is utilize the overhead projector here and maybe keep that up. If I could just keep that up so that we have an opportunity to refer to ' that. This plan is the culmination of the comments that were made at previous meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council and it is in response to some of the issues in terms of access from Dell Road and also in regards to the access for cut thru traffic from the Press facility into the Kindercare ... development. The site plan also reflects... immediate proposed expansion for the Press facility and it identifies a secondary ' expansion for the proposed press room and in that regards the parking lot has taken on a slightly different configuration around the architectural buildings of the Press. So that the future expansion of the Press would be done in two phases versus one and the site plan and parking lot have responded to this immediate request for the ' proposed warehouse expansion along the north side of the parking lot. A couple of issues I would just like to refer to and I'd like John to respond to any of the Kindercare issues. One, that this is a joint application from the Press and the Kindercare. That the application from the Press facility, that is a 13 year office /warehouse ' manufacturing facility in the city of Chanhassen. It employs approximately 325 people. And the Kindercare facility is a nationally recognized chain which will also be able to provide a service to the daycare community, users in this area where there's an expressed need for that type of facility at this time. We are proposing that the site plan be expanded according to city codes and that this would need to be a joint application in order to ' move forward. The property ownership north of the Kindercare is reported to be still owned by the Press for future options on that site. Kindercare would be purchasing the southwest corner of this lot and they would be the sole owners of that lot. It will be a joint facility by means of the access coming from West 77th Street. Joint access will take off some of the pressure for potential U tunas at 77th and Dell and allow access into this facility from both the Press parking area and users of the Kindercare. The added landscape buffer area along the east side of the Press parking lot will help and eliminate we feel the cut thru traffic that was potentially coming through the Press parking lot. Also the access onto Dell Road has been modified slightly to provide a larger radius so that it will be more accommodating to larger service and school and educational facility type vehicles. The landscaped areas around the site will be constructed according to the landscape plans that were submitted and we would also like to continue to work with staff to add the landscaping to the eastern island of the parking ' lot according to the standards that are already proposed. In addition, the landscape plan that was proposed for the Kindercare will provide a strong screened element as a complimentary back drop for a proposed entry element ... if so desired by the City Council and staff. The landscaped berm would screen all of the parking from Highway 5 so that individuals driving west or east along Highway 5 would not have an opportunity to see the parking lot. We do have one cross section perspective that indicates an existing condition today from Highway 5 looking north into the site. That this berm that is currently out there would be continued to the east so that it ' would screen the parking that is further back than the current Press parking is today. The landscaped area for the Kindercare ranges from 45 feet to 75 feet to the property line. Along the south side of the site. In addition, if we took from the proposed parking lot area to the back of the existing bituminous trail, the area for planting expands from 110 feet to 130 feet. We feel an opportunity is here for the city and Council, if they so desire, ' that this area has the potential to be incorporated into an entry element for landscaping at this site with the amount of area that is being proposed. The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with staff to modify the changed landscaped plans necessary so that it would be able to incorporate an entry node design if so ' desired. And I should note that if this application was approved, the landscaping would be the last element to go in and I anticipate that would be the spring of '95 so there's still time to work on getting something put together. Comments from the ... staff report in regard to the building location of the EMF, electro magnetic frequencies. I'd like John to speak to those... 1 46 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 John Fmnemore. y am M name is John Finnemore. I'm the Construction Manager for Kindercare. In reference to , some of the comments from the, the reasons for denial by the Planning Commission. The issue of the electro magnetic field. It's correct what staff said. There are really no conclusive studies on electro magnetic fields. However, it is a very well studied and debated topic. And what Kindercare has done as a company, in the event there are rulings and federal guidelines to come out about electro magnetic fields, what has been thrown about is a reading of 2.0 milogaust or greater as being the level where electro magnetic fields are a problem. So what we t have done is, I have what is known as a gaust meter that measures electro magnetic fields in milogaust and we, that's why we've set the building back where we have. To the point where our building is the point where the reading is 2.0 or lower. So we are trying to address the potential of this electro magnetic field. If anything is ever proven about it and it's not something ... it is a highly debated topic. And most of the studies, although they ' are inconclusive, have indicated that if there are any ill effects, those ill effects are increased when it comes to children. So we as a child care company have to be cognizant of that. And that is why we've located the building at the point we have. As far as just flipping the building and the parking for the sake of doing so, there's not a development up and down throughout the plan that doesn't have the parking in front so to just take that up here, it doesn't seem like the proper location to do it. That, compounded with the electro magnetic field potentials. As far as the circulation, I believe that the island that's been added.. will help with the cut thru , traffic. If a fire truck needs to access our facility, they can do so off of West 77th Street. And also as far as the architectural look of Kindercare. We are bringing a commercial type facility into an industrial area. I believe that we enhance the area as opposed to bringing a detriment to it. It's a good transition from the residential uses behind us to the industrial areas as you continue on down going west on TH 5. So I believe we would be a benefit to the community and help provide much needed child care in the area. John Dietrich: Just ... City Council, we will be available for questions and we respectfully request that we receive ' approval for the applications that are in front of you tonight with the modifications that staff have recommended and your proposed staff, proposed modifications that are in the staff report for the site plan review, preliminary plat and the conditional use permit to allow a daycare facility in an IOP district. Thank you. , Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Carol Riddle: Mr. Mayor and the Council. I'm Carol Riddle. I've live in Chanhassen for about 20 years and I , know you've had a long night and I won't keep you long but I come from a completely different perspective tonight about the Kindercare issue. I work with parents who are looking for daycare in the Chanhassen area. I'm employed by the Keff Agency. We serve Carver and Scott Counties as well as Dakota County. One of the programs that I'm involved with is..xeferral and we work with parents who call us looking for child care. The Chanhassen area is very lacking in the necessary child care. You have prepared all the subdivisions. I've listened here tonight. All the new subdivisions coming in. The young families. This is a people issue and that's the way I'm addressing you tonight. I'm not coming here on behalf of either side as far as the pros and , cons of whether, where it should be. The daycare center should be located. I'm merely coming to tell you that there is a desperate need for more daycare in Chanhassen. We, in Chanhassen at the present time there are 48 family daycare providers and 2 centers who take infants all through school age for child care. 41 of those 48 ' child care providers care for infants. The others choose not to. The other 7. Of those 41, they can only, are only allowed 5. DHS rules that govern daycare, to take 2 children under a year old. Infants I should say. Usually these daycare providers, family daycare providers I'm speaking now, are young mothers who are staying home with their children and many of them have infants so that lessens the spot to maybe 1 per provider. 48 spots. Of the centers, one center is licensed for I believe 15 infants. One center is licensed for 20. One of the centers has a waiting list, their next projected infant opening is August of 1995. So there are just very, very many people looking for care that's not there. In the last 3 months, 47 parents who have moved into the 47 1 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Chanhassen area have called our office looking for care. Just Chanhassen. Of those 47, 26 were looking for infant care. As of today I had, including spaces in centers and spaces in daycare homes, I had a total of 8 slots. That's 8 options that I could offer parents. Well, we check our openings with our providers and with our centers on a regular basis. You can imagine how far that's going to go. And look at all the places you have opened up tonight for young families to come. I was working with, I worked with a colleague in Minneapolis and she called me last week looking for a client of her's who needed care. Who was moving into Chanhassen and needed care for 2 young children. One was an infant. And I said, not much here and I gave her the spots I had. 3 daycare homes and 5 slots otherwise. And she said, can you imagine why anyone would want to move into an area with a young family or if they were preparing to have a young family and find that there would be no daycare there. That would be one of the things you would want to look at fast. And you know you'd have to ask yourselves that same question. How many young families are going to choose not to come here? I've lived here for 20 years. I've seen the growth of Chanhassen. I've seen it grow from just a little town to the nice things we have today. We have the Target. We have the Byerly's soon. We have the industrial park. We have many, many nice things. We have the trails and the parks. We have good schools. But we have to do something for these youngest members of our community, and one of them is to get affordable and plenty of the daycare. We need to get as much daycare as we can do. We are working through resource and referral, we work with lots of things. We are trying to improve the new home daycare providers. If you have the opportunity to find a spot in Chanhassen for a center that is willing to come here and would serve our young people. Our young children, then I certainly would urge you to consider that because if we don't have a spot for these youngest members of our community, I'm afraid that that will limit the growth of our city. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other questions? Council may have. Before we get into that, Mark just a, in looking through the brochure. Information that's been prepared by RLK, just make me feel better. It says on here ... Kindercare, Press site plan approval submission, March 7, 1994. Prepared for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota The developer, Marcus Corporation. Councilman Senn: There effectively is no, I mean it's a name only Don. There is no developer. I mean as far as any developer or construction on the Press, that will be done by Opus Corporation. And as far as any on the Kindercare, that's done by Doug, I forget the name of your company. I'm sorry. Doug Chestnut: Real Estate Diversified. Councilman Senn: Real Estate Diversified. So, we aren't involved in that at all. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's no involvement by you whatsoever? Councilman Senn: Not personally. Mayor Chmiel: Within. I just don't understand why the portion of the, the development portion, your corporation is on it. That's why I'm. Councilman Senn: Well probably because I'm the one who facilitated it, as I explained. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any specific questions, as I asked before. Councilman Wing: I just wanted to check. I can't remember from the Planning Commission meeting a month or so ago. The number of cars delivering morning and night. Wasn't it something like 100 cars coming M. City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ,, between 6:00 and 8:00 and 100 cars coming between 4:00 and 6:00? , Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct. Councilman Wing: So very large traffic volumes during these pick -up and drop off. John Finnemore: It'd be 84 inbound and 72 outbound, a.m. peak. ' Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let me state first what I don't have a problem with. I think the use is fine in an industrial area. It's not more odd than a Jehovah Witness church is in an IOP. And I don't have a problem with that. The parking in front, I don't have a problem with either seeing that we've got a parking lot right next door and I have both from a car and on foot looked at the perspectives from Highway 5 and that sidewalk and ' there truly is indeed a decent sized berm that will screen that parking. The materials that the building will be built with, I don't have a problem with. I take the develop, well I mean nobody knows about the electro magnetic fields so it's hard to comment on that issue. The issues I do see is number one, the circulation , between the Press parking lot and the Kindercare parking lot. I know we've added a center island or an island there and you do have a little bit of a dip with a gutter but has it ever been considered just cutting that off altogether? And if not, what are the reasons for not considering that? Sharmin Al -Jaffa Colleen, you're asking about this? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. I'm asking on the other side. The connection to the Press parking. For ' completely cutting that off. I mean I think there will be a lot of cutting through. A tremendous amount of cutting through. Sharmin Al -Jaffa You just need another access point. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So that's the reason, you need two accesses to any public building, is that it? Sharmin Al -Jaffa Again, I mean this is right- in/right -out only. There is a median right here so that's going to. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, I get it. Sharmin Al -Jaffa It's eliminating the access, exactly. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And I'm also concerned about the U turns that will take place. But I'm , very frustrated that, I mean these issues just don't seem insurmountable to me and yet they have not been resolved. And I'm not saying I have a solution for them. I'm just saying I have a concern about cutting ' through. I guess that's my basic concern and just getting in and out of the facility. I don't have a problem with the use at all, the placement of the parking lot and I guess if there are no better ways to resolve getting in and out, then between the balance of the pros and cons, I'm willing to let the project go forward. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything more? a Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. I 49 1 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: I don't understand what some of the problems have been with this project to begin with. I share the frustrations of Colleen. I'm set to move on it. I do think some of the problems have been because, for whatever reason, Marcus Corporation's name is on it and I think that raises some other issues that perhaps we need to take a look at. But in terms of this project, I don't have any trouble with it. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess all I'd like to say is I went and talked Kindercare into coming here because I think we really had an extreme shortage of daycare, okay. I facilitated, I don't know if you want to call it a marriage or a meeting or whatever between Kindercare and the Press because I thought I saw it as a win -win for everybody. The reason I saw it as a win -win was it enabled the Press to go ahead with an expansion. They had been contemplating but economically hadn't really found a way to do. I saw it as a win because it took some very, I'm going to say undesirable elements and hid them by basically getting rid of a lot of I'm going to say truck trailers that are being used for warehousing. Invisible because of a current way out. I thought it was also a good marriage because in effect getting both to move would bring more employment, more jobs, both in terms of the Kindercare and the Press to Chanhassen. And you know all those elements together I think is and would be and would continue to be a win -win for the city. I'd really like to see the project go forward and I don't really quite understand all of the specific issues that have been raised because I think most of them have been raised and dealt with over a period of time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess in looking at the entirety of the project I've been trying to keep an open mind with this as well. The electro magnetic fields, I can sit and talk on that probably the hours but I'm not going to. The thing that I did not like about the project in itself was the accessibility out to Dell Road. I think if Dell Road was sealed off completely, because I do envision seeing a lot of vehicles going in and through that particular area from the Press, and let me back up one or two. I don't think we've had any problem at all with the Press in doing their proposed warehouse expansion at any given time. This was brought in and as John indicated, it would have to be a joint application. And I still don't understand that. Making that warehouse capacity space, I'd say all well and good. Let's move ahead. I don't have any problem with that. But it seemed like something else was being pushed to get both things in at one given time and I think that's probably some of the concerns that we're hearing. But I do see, as I mentioned, the access of the employees coming out and getting off Dell Road to reach the stop and go light in that location. I also see some of the other businesses on down that line possibly using that same exit as well. Creating more traffic. Not just the Press, but you have two other businesses right along there which is going to, as Colleen mentioned, I have some concern with that. And I really do, because there's going to be a lot more traffic moving in this location and going back to the normal flow and going back in there around the Press on 77th Street and exiting out onto Dell Road. I see that as one of my real concerns and it's been that way since... Richard. Councilman Wing: Let me ask a question... Mayor Chmiel: No, go ahead. Councilman Wing: I take a little, maybe a couple other little off beat approaches here. We just got done tonight talking about a building we're really frustrated with across the street and the use of block and it's roof and so on and so forth. And if we look at items 1 thru 10, the daycare issue I mean is very significant. I would agree 50 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I 51 1 with that and I support daycare anyplace we can get et it. I think there is a need for that but I'm not willing to try and put it someplace it doesn't belong nor am I willing to drop my development standards to get it there. And that's kind of how I felt. As this thing evolved we were talking about cars careening out of control. I'll bring up a tank truck careening out of control at Dell Road or a haz mat spill or incident at Dell Road. It's a 55 mph highway. We're worried about traffic going out of control and then the power line issue came up. So this didn't turn out to be a very warm, fuzzy, cozy corner for a daycare center all of a sudden. If it had been moved to the north lot I wouldn't have questioned the building, it's style, anything. I think it's a great idea. But ' suddenly we had kind of a home like structure coming into an IOP district, which I agree with Colleen. May be no different than the church going but this is on our highway. It's not second tier or off our highway. They're tucked down in an industrial path somewhere down the road. This is our gateway lot to our city so we're trying , to put a daycare center under power lines with heavy traffic with a traffic flow that doesn't, apparently doesn't work real well. Planning Commission hasn't felt so. And it just, I started to back off you know. Would I want to put my children here? Well I started to say, no. I don't think I would approve this because I don't think I'd ' put my children there if we're talking about cars that can go out of control and power line issues that we can't resolve because we don't know, and I'm not going to use those as excuses because I don't think either one are real big issues. So daycare I support but I guess I don't' support it in this lot. With the health issues that were brought up. With the access issues that were brought up. With the Highway 5 corridor study and it's desire to ' have parking lots and everything behind. The building's forward. The building forward. All the parking lot and elements behind the highway and that wasn't met. And then I went out and I looked at 4 Kindercare buildings, and if you thought the Goodyear was appalling, I was really set back by what I saw in Bloomington and Eden Prairie and I took pictures of the roofs and I brought them back to Planning and I said, if nothing else, if you approve this, at least improve the roofs. Get rid of, I mean just the straight linear roof has been an issue. And they're just not qualify buildings. You can call them commercial but there's homes in the area that I think are of better quality. So I didn't see this compatible in an IOP district. As a matter of fact, if I could digress just to a New Yorker cartoon where it has the little old lady with the shotgun across her lap. Sitting in her little Victorian house rocking and on all sides of her are these enormous skyscrapers and she says, I'm not going to sell. I kind of looked at this building up against the quality building of the Press, it's kind of that same style. I ' mean it's sort of, it just didn't go together so for me this just didn't sell. And the Planning Commission I think just did everything possible to try and extract the quality we have a right to deserve on Highway 5. Again, if this was second tier I wouldn't question it but this is the front tier of Highway 5 and I think they did a good job. ' I think they had every angle they could. They tried to do the best they could. I could just pick a page at random here, which I just did and they talked about not fitting in and the problems with the traffic. That daycare isn't dependent on being on a major highway. It doesn't need that exposure. I mean there's a desire there. They could fill it up tomorrow. I mean they've got all these applications in. We're trying to work ' something in that just doesn't fit. Circulation wise. So I agree and I guess what this boils down to, and let me just get it into one sentence. I just guess in this case I really do support the Planning Commission recommendations and would approve the Press. I have no problem other than with that wall ... seeing that design ' and if you elect to go with this Kindercare, then I at least think we ought to extract something off this roof. We've got a mistake across the street and I think the roofline on this building, based on what I've seen of the other buildings, is very poor. So I support the Planning Commission recommendations. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Greg Eswine: Mr. Mayor, I would like to respond directly to a few of the comments please. r Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I 51 1 I I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Greg Eswine: My name is Greg Eswine and I'm Director of Real Estate for Kindercare and I was the person who chose this site, as I have many others throughout the United States. I've been doing this for approximately 10 1/2 years. I've done major consulting with a lot of corporations, companies that utilize childcare throughout the country as well. In speaking to the traffic issue, again traffic circulation and traffic is always a main concern for us because anytime we're selecting a site, probably the most primary concern that we look at is ingress and egress and how, about the safety and how easy and accessibility it is for the parents. Because parents, when they're choosing child care, besides the fact the lack of facilities, is how easily they can get in and out of a facility and on their way to work and vice versa coming home to pick up their children. When we talk about capacity of building and Mr. Mayor, you were responding directly to you. You see a major flow and for some reason conceptually people think because you have 100 child capacity center, all 100 children you know converge on this piece of property all at one time. In other municipalities we've done studies where basically, because in our business, we actually have sign in and sign out sheets. We don't have a drop off area where children can get out. They have to sign in and sign out on these sheets and studies in the past, what we have done, and we do have peak hours. We have peak hours from basically 6:30 to probably 8:30 and then in the afternoons from again probably 4:30 to 6:00 or 4:00 to 6:00, depending on what area of the country that we're in. In those studies we have found that typically the number of students that you're talking about on the sizability and capacity, probably any given half hour no more than 28 to 32 cars per a half hour period. And again, it may vary on this particular building as to capacity but again, when people start relating in half hour segments and the fact that these people, and a lot of people do go to work at many of the same times and some at different times and I'm not arguing what the traffic studies and any of it's case. The other thing they don't take into consideration is a big majority of our capacity is after school children which we do a pick -up scenario at the schools and the location which takes up a large percentage of those children as well. Now in the afternoon, yes. They are being picked up but also those percentage of children also, when you're looking at traffic and cars, you're also looking at a percentage of those that are two children families which again, reduces the number of cars. I'm not saying traffic. Traffic is a consideration but it's not, it's not as mass congestion as what you're talking about. The reason that we selected and had initially in this plan more parking spaces than was last recommended by the plans is the fact that we try to have the sufficient parking spaces and even the drawings on this plan, what it does take in large consideration. You don't have stacking problems when you come in off of Highway 5 taking, whether you're heading west or heading east. You go to 77th Street and take a left and come down again the Press Inc. combination drop. Now in our demographic studies, and you know your own neighborhoods but to the north we expect a lot of children from this neighborhood, which we feel again Dell Road, and having the right -in and right -out, we feel is a benefit and alleviates some of the problems and makes the access to get in and out very easily. As far as some of the other things that we're talking about, when it comes to building and I'm getting off of traffic but I looked at, and again I'm not talking about other child care. I've looked at the competition that we would look at just like they would look at us. You know New Horizon is right off the Highway 5 traffic circulation and again, I realize this is what you're saying. You want to make sire that everything is better than what's been allowed before. You want to improve the aesthetics and the accessibility for the community. But speaking circulation problems, this is probably about 250% over that. You go up north of this site. There's a child care up near the little strip center with gas pumps and you pull into the little strip center and everybody's going in and out of the store and talk about access again. This is probably 250% better and we're counting on the accessibility being much better and safer and so forth for our parents. Mr. Wing, in chatting with you about the building. Again, I can't always tell you that all our older facilities around the country has been state of the art. In fact the sites that we do select nowadays we probably view for the practice of investment and everything else. We probably go to more so commercial sites. We are a public company and there are concerns from a public standpoint in our investments. But the building that we have, and I've been told numerous times of the comments and I've heard your comments before and again, they're well respected. I mean the aesthetics and the concerns that you guys are putting for us are the same 52 t City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 53 1 1 ' thins that we want. We don't want to o into an area where the area goes down. Our investment goes away. I S g g 8 mean many times we're concerned and just as much as you are, about the same thing. To me the industrial area, again I realize we're going for a special use to get into this part of it. How you can say that our building is detrimental or less than what the Press Inc or any of them sitting there, and this again, the Press Inc. is very viable and valuable to us as well in reaching say a partnership. Well not a partnership but there's still some cross items that we all have to agree to. I feel our building's very compatible and actually I feel our building's even aesthetically better and to have a gateway to the area as opposed to an institutionalized building, I feel it is, as John had indicated, a very good building transition wise. The roofline, and I've got some recent photos of our current building, and I'm sorry if you folks have not received these but yes we do have some venting on the roof line. It is painted and we try to be brought in the color scheme with the roof line where it doesn't stick out. , That there are certain things from licensing from state agencies and so forth, that we do have to vent to have proper bathrooms and the different things that we require to have in these facilities. And I've got so many, I'd like to just, there's a couple looks of our building and our current, that's one of our newer buildings. If you would like to, front and back. I'm not sure ideally what it is you're looking for and again, I guess we can all say you can go to a certain extreme and everything's better but also the fact is that we do have to look at the economics and affordability from the parents side in providing this. We feel that we're providing a start of the art building. The setbacks of this building from a major highway and the signalization that you have in slowing and controlling traffic is ideal as far as we're concerned. Having the equipment and the different things there, we feel again it's all very beneficial. I mean we're not looking to build something that's not viable and acceptable to parents. That would be the worse thing that we could possibly do. Chanhassen's very important to ' us. We want to get into this community and I can assure you that if we succeed in this situation, we know there's another school site that's being built and so we look to probably sometime within another 18 months put another facility in. And we're doing things throughout the Minneapolis community. Again, when they talk about electro magnetic fields, I don't want to get into all of that but basically, as John indicated, we're looking at ' these things for future investment, not only in our property and our buildings but for the children's future as well. And I think being a very aggressive company, we only have to be able to address those things. A couple other items just very quickly is I noticed there was a comment about turning radius. Again, having a street ' that's parallel going in to the Press Inc and also Dell Road, you know fine trucks and different things as far as turning radius I feel has again as probably as good of access, more so than any of the other child care facilities. And again, I'm not comparing. It's like comparing yourself to something that's less than what you expect and ' I'm not trying to do that. In fact we try to better our conditions and even some of our own buildings I can assure you ... even our monetary efforts to be able to do so to select better sites. Back a number of years ago we were not capable of what we are not today so. Again, I didn't mean to go into a long speech here but I did feel. it was necessary to note some of the things. Not that it changes anything in your mind. But again I do feel that , we have addressed and looked at all the issues that you say. There's probably a few things if we could make everything absolutely ideal, we could probably change a couple of those items but where do we do that. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think really what I was saying, I'm sure you need the accessibility for parents and easy access in and out but what I'm saying too is you're looking at approximately 3, 5, maybe 600 total employees that work on that particular road who would possibly use this entrance for an exit coming from the west going ' east to get onto Dell Road. And that's where I see a lot of flow that would be there. Including the Press people. There's no way you're going to stand there. You can make that appeal to your employees to not use it and that might work for 2 weeks but after that it's gone. Greg Eswine: I can understand that. We do have relationships ... universities, hospitals. We have two sites down at Disney World which we have a lot of the very same type circumstances and in those cases those companies ... I don't know how that would be quicker in getting out but again, I understand what you're talking about ... I won't ' 53 1 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 rationalize a way. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and as far as the lines that are there, the magnetic fields, I have more concern with the S02 content that's there coming from those vehicles more than anything else as well. Greg Eswine: I'm sorry, the what? Mayor Chmiel: The S02 that you're getting from your vehicles. And there's a lot of vehicles moving up and down Highway 5 on a continuous basis. Something—looked at. Richard. Councilman Wing: Kate, you know even if this moves ahead and approve I've got to ask a couple of questions here. I've been to every Council meeting and we're talking Highway 5. We're talking quality. And again when I back up tonight and we're frustrated with what's happened to Goodyear. I have never seen, I've gone out and looked at 4 Kindercares and other numerous daycares, and you've eluded to your older buildings. I won't question a minute that those are older buildings but I don't want them in my neighborhood. Greg Eswine: You don't want what? Councilman Wing: I don't want the buildings I saw, Kindercare buildings in my neighborhood. I don't want them to happen on my shift and I would, I'll grant you they were older buildings. Kate, I'm sitting here as a Council member. I have never seen a drawings. A sketch. A picture. I have seen nothing to do with this building. I'd like to know more about roof design. It says here that no roof top equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street. The pictures we saw are loaded with stuff. Fences. Fence colors. One daycare had some wrought iron fence on the main road side and then the chain link on others. I mean there's just, the fence, the landscaping, what about the landscaping issues? Have those been resolved on this great big wall the Planning Commission was talking about? Are the trees there and where are the landscape plans for this? You're coming at us here with absolutely nothing. That's the only drawing I've ever seen in 2 months. That's not very impressive and then you present the pictures tonight. I've never seen that building before tonight. How can we be looking at a gateway project without any information whatsoever? I mean we really, if those of us here that care about quality and design in some of these issues, aside from the daycare issue, where is the information? I didn't attend two of the Planning Commission meetings, mainly in deference to Mark. I didn't want to be there and confuse his presentation and put pressure or stress on him so I relied on what was coming tonight. And you needn't go any further but I haven't seen this building. I haven't seen a picture of it, a design of it or a drawing of it. And I'm, if I approve it tonight I'd just be saying okay. I'd rather have daycare. I don't care about these other issues. Daycare's all that matters. Councilman Mason: Isn't this site plan review and preliminary though Richard? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Mason: I mean this stuff typically follows later. I mean these are discussions that, these are discussions. Councilman Wing: Well no. Councilman Mason: Well these are. 54 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 Councilman Wing: Next time it's final. It's done. I 55 1 ' Councilman Mason: These are discussions that I know have been problems with Planning Commission in expecting everything on the fast round and I don't think we're being fair if we expect everything. Councilman Wing: Next one could go on the consent agenda Mike. ' Councilman Mason: No. Not final plat approval. Councilman Wing: What's going to be different? Are you guys going to come in here with more presentations? For what reason? Who would ask for them or deny them? Councilman Mason: Dick, Dick. What I'm saying is, and this is the discussions I've had with people in the city ' and what not and why would a developer who is entertaining an idea of coming to the city spend all the money and all the time knowing that they might get turned down. This stuff, unless I'm incorrect, this stuff comes later down the line. , Mayor Chmiel: Some of it does, yes. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I would think staff knows that in a project like this we would see it on a second round and it wouldn't go on a consent agenda. Councilman Wing: What are we going to see different than we saw tonight? ' Kate Aanenson: Well it was included in your site, all the renderings and building elevations are included in your packet. There wasn't at Planning Commission pictures that were available and a lot more detail or spent on ' architectural. I guess if you wanted us to go through that part in more detail in the staff report we could. That was a rendering that was represented that showed the building elevations. What you see from Highway 5. Councilman Wing: The only thing it really shows maybe what we're doing is the pictures themselves which. , Kate Aanenson: Right. There's all those materials were shown at the Planning Commission... building and architectural stuff if you want. ' Councilman Wing: For some reason then Planning didn't buy this. Kate Aanenson: Well we listed the reasons in the report why the Planning Commission. ' Councilman Wing: And architectural standards and IOP compatibility were a couple of them. Kate Aanenson: Well I think it's clear what Sharmin put in here. Maybe Commissioner Mancino may want to , address it but I think architectural style was discussed and I think the focus was incompatibility between the Press building and the Kindercare. I'm not talking about... ' Councilman Mason: You know we talk about a gateway and we talk about, I'm getting, I don't know. Maybe the frustration level is high tonight but what better sign for people coming into Chanhassen. You know I'm not even saying I'm for or against this project. But I'm hearing this doesn't fit in. This is gateway. This is this. ' 55 1 i City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ' This is that. You know, my kids are older now so I won't use it but on the other hand, drivin g into town and seeing child care right there, what kind of message is that for people driving through Chanhassen? ' Councilman Wing: Daycare was my number one consideration. No problem. I'm talking quality. Architectural design. Standards, etc, etc. I don't want to drop those standards to get daycare on that corner. I'm not opposed ' to the use. Councilman Mason: I don't think anyone's saying those standards are necessarily going to get dropped. I'm hearing they've got all this room they're going to give us to landscape or put in some kind of monument. I ' mean I'm not, it's like I'm hearing some mixed messages here. Maybe it's just me not hearing right. Councilman Wing: I haven't seen or heard any of that. It's theory. And I'm basing everything again on having ' gone around to tour daycare centers. No one showed me where this is going to be a quality building. Compatible with an IOP district. Compatible to. Mayor Chmiel: But not only with that preliminary you also have a conditional use. You're approving a conditional use. You then approve it with conditions contained within. Councilman Senn: Those are the same plans that were submitted to the Planning Commission several months ago. Greg Eswine: Mr. Wing, I'm standing here before you and listening to you and I heard you address and actually ' you've seen the very same items... cancelled meeting approximately 30 days ago. In fact I was very irritated when I came back and saying how can we get to this stage after going through all the number of things that we did for you not to have seen pictures of our building. To be referring to the things that we do and when I asked ' these questions and so forth, I was told that it was all in the packages and it was before staff and the packages, I assume from you guys, had not been looked at at this point because it hadn't gotten to you. I asked the question at that time, and I do this all over the country. Do I need to go before these people and again, because this project is special for us. Do I need to personally address, and I'll be glad to show you any renderings or ' anything that is necessary? I'm told that your procedure is such that you review each and every bit of that and that your staff does a complete job and that they have these things to be able to show you. I'm not sitting here and I don't want to be argumentative but the same questions you're asking... ' Mayor Chmiel: I'm ready to hit my gavel with the position that you're taking and I don't particularly like that. I think you should just settle back and go back and sit down and let us finish our discussions. ' Greg Eswine: Yes sir, I'll be glad to. I didn't realize I was being disrespectful. I apologize. Mayor Chmiel: To a certain point you were. ' Greg Eswine: I didn't intend to be. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just a comment that I would. I would fully expect to see this not come back on a consent agenda. That we get one more look at it to make sure all the is are dotted and is are crossed. And that we're completely happy. If we do pass it tonight. That it come back. ' 56 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 Councilman Wing: Colleen, if you do pass it tonight, I've got just a couple comments I'd just like you to consider. Number one, next to the Burnet building in Eden Prairie, I don't like that building but right next to it ' is that medical office building. It's a brick building with glass. That roofline, something about it is real quality. It's got some breaks in it and it's got some shadowing too. I don't know what they've done or how they've done it or what kind of roof element it is but I'd like to make sure we're capturing that type of quality on this building. Other than that I don't, the daycare center and the building itself I don't have a problem with but let's , not put on the Goodyear roof. We made a mistake. Let's get this, and I want to make sure staff specifically goes down and looks at that one building because for some reason it's a good looking building. It's not cluttered up. The second thing, the fence issues, let's not just put in chainlink fence. Let's do something that's ' got some quality to it. The traffic issues, I don't know how to address that. And also, what are you doing with that wall on the Press? Is it landscaped? Are the trees? Do we have numbers and stuff? All that's coming back to us? Is that large wall being cared for the way the Planning requested with trees and architectural breaks? Sharmin Al -Jaffa Yes it is. Councilman Wing: You don't have to go over that now. We've dragged this out far enough. ' Sharmin Al -Jaffa There is landscaping being introduced. ' Nancy Mancino: Mr. Mayor, I was wondering. The Planning Commission, if I could give you any of our thoughts, etc. I'm not talking from a personal point of view ... Planning Commission as a whole. There were ... and 2 who did. I can tell you on one issue that had to do with architectural issues, that we were all in agreement of ' the roof of Kindercare. The massive roof and not fitting in with the roofs already there and not being compatible. So that was one area we did want Kindercare to go back and look at the roofline because it was so massive and when you leave Eden Prairie and come into Chanhassen, on both the north and south side, if you look at DataServ, if you look at the Press and the other buildings in that area, there's more of a flat roof. There ' is not a roof that's real visible so all of a sudden when the Kindercare, and there was such a massive roof. There's no breakup or anything. To us did not feel like a transition. It was something that just felt very incompatible. So we did ask them to go back and look at that. And we didn't get any... Technically circulation, , I think that became a public issue for us as far as having any sort of depressed—going to and egress from the Kindercare lot. We were concerned with toddlers that were being picked up or dropped off and you know a lot of times you have 2 and 3 year olds, they won't stay with you. They just kind of go running off ...whether it's to ' the car or to the building that they're taken to. So that's why we were concerned with having that opening from the Press parking lot out to Dell Road. That we just felt that we wanted to make sure that that didn't happen. And we didn't want to happen once an accident. We didn't want everybody to say, here's an accident that happened. We should have shut it off. We were concerned, and I think that we need your leadership and vision ' here. We did talk about the Highway 5 ... because in there it very specifically says that parking lots are to be not on the highway side. I mean very specifically. It also talks about architectural compatibility. It doesn't say that we want all of our buildings to look alike. To be exactly the same. We want character. We want a difference ' but this one, I can tell you from the Planning Commission, we just didn't feel was compatible so we need your leadership if we are going to go with the Highway 5 guidelines, what that means to you because we just didn't feel that this fit in with them. And that is, and all the way up and down Highway 5 so we would like to hear from you ... about that because we look at it with those guides. We have two of us who are intimately aware in it...very well the comprehensive guide plan. So if we're not going to follow it, tell us what to do. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Okay. I think there's been a lot of discussion on this. And there's been a lot ' 57 1 J i 1 fl City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 of verbiage that has been put down as to the Council's basic concerns. If we move on this, this evening, to give that preliminary plat approval, I think somehow with the conditional use permit, that we put some specifics in there and maybe some of those specifics can be taken from discussion that we've done and be part of that conditional use. If they don't meet those specific requirements as to what we're looking for, then it's not approved. Once a conditional use is issued, it's pretty hard to... You just can't do it but somehow I think I'd like to see some, Roger. Would there be any kinds of conditions that we could put within that conditional use to make sure that discussion that was done tonight would cover much of the concerns? Councilman Wing: Don, they're all in here under staff recommendations. Mayor Chmiel: I know. I know. But there could be more than what was really related to in that part of what we were talking about. Roger Knutson: One suggestion I have Mayor is that certain points in the recommendations it says, this is an example. The applicant will provide plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials. Where it says revise and do something, rather than having the staff approve it. If you wanted to, you could have that come back to yourselves for approval. If you wanted discussion to revise a landscape..., you want to see it back yourself, you can make that as a condition. But if you drop back and ... But I haven't gone through all these items. Where that exists in conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any discussion on that? Councilman Wing: Shingle type style and quality. Mayor Chmiel: As an additional? Councilman Wing: Well let's see. Proportion. Number 24. Proportion of the roof size of the building, wall height is incompatible. Architectural plans must be revised to reflect compatibility. The applicant shall bring in architectural drawings of the Kindercare building to make it compatible with surrounding buildings in the area. That's a big order. I guess I'd just, roofing material shall be of highest quality. I mean the recommendations we've got are pretty stiff. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and of course some of the concerns that we had. You know one of the things that's not really being addressed is the parking issue as well. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'd like to throw out an idea. My big concern, I'm thinking how I would get out of the Press parking lot or even some of the businesses to the west. If right here we ended this, end here. Have this ... I think it'd get rid of a lot of the traffic that would shoot through here and there would be some that would come from here. We still wouldn't get access, although someone could if they really wanted to get out there but we might be able to make ... cut off these areas. Could that be a.. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think it has but that has some potential. The existing parking on that side of the building. Councilwoman Dockendorf: We did have another option ... that they recommended that they show you... Sharmin AI -Jaffa Engineering department suggested close off this access and instead between the playground City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 area and proposed Lot 2, have a drive. This is going to be an out only. Right -in, right -out only. Councilwoman Dockendorf. So you're planning on cutting off. Sharmin Al -Jaffa So you're cutting off this one. So traffic that will be circulating within this area is going to be Kindercare strictly. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why wasn't this idea developed further? I mean this seems to solve a lot of. Sharmin Al -Jaffa It is in the staff report. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. I mean that solves a lot of problems for me. Sharmin Al -Jaffa You could make it a condition of approval. ' Councilman Wing: But then you, I know the building, they want the building where it is. If it went further to , the south and the playground moves on the side and the parking lot to the north, does that get too close to the wires? Sharmin Al -Jaff: We played with this. ' Councilman Wing: It's the flip flop I'm speaking of. John Dietrich: We did look at trying to turn the building and place the lot areas to the side and circulating it like this...by going further to the west with the amount of parking that was still necessary for the Press to make those numbers work so the lot was ... for this type of site plan. , Councilwoman Dockendorf. What do you think about moving the road to the north? John Dietrich: I think your first suggestion of actually closing this off would be a preferred option so that ' there's still access directly into the parking lot of the Kindercare and out because we're setting up a roadway here not knowing what this use is. That may not even be...to the north parcel but I think it would be important to still have direct access of right -in and right -out for the number of vehicles that are coming from the north into ' the daycare facility and still allow direct access into the Press. Councilwoman Dockendorf. So there's absolutely no concepts of what may go in that north parcel? , John Dietrich: None that I'm aware of. Mayor Chmiel: Well, they could also put another expansion onto the warehouse facility in itself. ' Kate Aanenson: It could be parking. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would entertain a motion. And also incorporate into that motion, I'd like some of ' those things that were brought out by Roger to bring back to Council. We had that brought under the conditions. I would probably think maybe Roger, should that be under the conditional use permit? I 59 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Roger Knutson: Under all three. Site plan review and preliminary plat. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I will move that adding a condition 26 that that comer be blocked off and made additional green space instead of the road there. And on condition 3, I don't think the last 5 words are needed in that paragraph, unless that specifically references something that you need. I've never seen us do something like that. Councilman Wing: Whoever Mancino is. I know what coniferous trees are. Councilwoman Dockendorf. And I guess also, I don't know if this is a condition but I do want to see this come back in front of Council. Mayor Chmiel: That should also be in there. Councilwoman Dockendorf. That we need to see it again. And I do trust that staff is aware of our concerns. Kate Aanenson: So you're tabling it and you want to see it again? Councilwoman Dockendorf. The final. Just on the final. I don't want to see it a consent agenda item. I want to see it. Kate Aanenson: ...only do the site plan review once. I understand you want to see it back things that are missing but you want to see all of it come back? Councilman Wing: Well there's 26 conditions on here. One of them is that they have to redesign the roof. Those are major issues that have to come back. And I want to see the landscape plan. Kate Aanenson: Shouldn't that be a tabling? Roger Knutson: What they're giving is concept. Essentially concept approval. Kate Aanenson: Do we have a concept...? Mayor Chmiel: Well, that's a questionable thing too. Should this be tabled rather than giving concept or come back? Roger Knutson: Mayor, it's your call. You could do it, either one does the same thing. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess it doesn't really matter to me. One way or the other. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well I'd rather do a concept site approval than a tabling. Whatever that hybrid is. A concept site approval. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Councilman Wing: Second. A City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: It's been seconded. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to conceptually approve Site Plan Review ' #94 -1 as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, and revised on June 1, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of ' materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. ' 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The monument sign on the Kinder Care site shall utilize brick as a base for the sign rather than metal poles. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating , the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. There shall be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary , financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal's memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing (with relief) to break up the long wall masses. ' 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, ' Watershed District, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being , relocated. 11. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kinder Care site off of , Dell Road. 12. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be ' prohibited. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should ' be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet and two way 61 1 I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 I Councilman Mason: Where does abstaining fit into this? I'm abstaining from this vote. 1 62 traffic. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway ' apron detail. ' 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. 17. An island or a speed bump shall be placed between the Press and Kinder Care site to slow down and t discourage traffic from cutting through the Kinder Care site. 18. No roof top equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street West. ' 19. Brick shall be used on the Kinder Care facade to resemble the building shown in the submitted photographs. 20. The traffic circulation and parking lot layout shall be revised as shown on the revised plan prepared by Strgar - Roscoe - Fausch, Inc. Access to Dell Road shall be revised to a right -out only to eliminate short cuts. The maximum number of parking stalls will be limited to 33. ' 21. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees associated with the traffic study prepared by SRF. 22. There shall be a landscaping easement of 30 feet running parallel to Highway 5 and then north ' parallel to Dell Road a distance of 75 feet. A significant number of trees shall be placed on the southeast corner for an entryway. Plantings around the building as well as interior parking shall be provided. ' 23. Staff shall review an east/west connection. 24. Proportion of the roof size to the building wall height is incompatible. Architectural plans must be revised to reflect compatibility. The applicant shall bring in architectural drawings of the Kinder Care building making it compatible with buildings in the surrounding area. ' 25. The applicant shall move the Kinder Care building 40 feet to the north to realign the driveway access onto Dell Road to accommodate emergency vehicle and school bus turning movements." ' 26. The corner will be blocked off and made into additional green space. 27. The City Council will review the final plans as an agenda item. ' All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn who abstained, and the motion carried. I Councilman Mason: Where does abstaining fit into this? I'm abstaining from this vote. 1 62 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 Councilman Senn: I will too. I Councilman Mason: I guess I want to go on the record as abstaining. I Councilman Senn: Sown I. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, two abstentions and three who... I Don Ashworth: Just a clarification. I think what staff is treating this as, a vote by the Council telling the ' developer to either work this stuff out if we're going to approve these things. It really has no other meaning than that. It's just kind of a rough, an initial approval that's putting the challenge back to them to work this out. Councilman Wing: Well if we go with this hybrid, I guess I would gone along with staff recommendation for ' the preliminary plat with the 26 conditions. But still to get to final you have to have all 26 conditions met, right? To me it doesn't make it, and I don't care what you choose to do. Either one is fine with me. And I can approve this as is but 26 conditions have to be met. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll move on. CITY CODE SECTION 18 -57, STREETS, BY AMENDING (N) AND (0) TO INCLUDE STANDARDS ' FOR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS SERVING R4, R8, R12, R16 AND NON - RESIDENTIAL USES. Sharmin Al -Jaffa One of the reasons why we're trying to develop standards for private streets is because we ' have three applications coming in. Planned unit developments for multi - family projects which are Mission Hills, Chan Corporate Center and Heritage Development that will be utilizing private driveways. Frankly we don't have any standards for them. We do have standards for residential single family. Up to 4 single family homes ' can utilize a private street. Those conditions have been a result of meetings between planning, engineering and the fire department. We are recommending approval of this ordinance. Planning Commission reviewed this item. They approved it. There were a couple of issues that they looked at which was impact of this ordinance on affordable housing. And because it narrows the width of those, you're going to have less cost associated. , Also, the impact of hard surface... surface coverage and again, that's going to be less because your streets are going to be narrower. We are recommending approval with the ... shown in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you're saying they're going to be narrower. From what to what now? From 30 to 24? ' Whatever it was in here. Sharmin Al -Jaff: Well, assuming that we go with a typical street section, then it's 60 feet versus the widest you I will find on this ordinance is 36 feet Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I Councilman Wing: For a private street driveway. Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct. ' Kate Aanenson: This is typical what you find in, like Opus has ... and some of the individuals to get to the apartment complex there are private streets that are servicing those. So typically they're just found in, as 63 1 i i City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Sharmin mentioned, in multi family projects. Mayor Chmiel: To who's benefit is this going to be done for? Is it a benefit for the city or is it going to be a benefit for developers? Kate Aanenson: I think it's mutually beneficial. I don't think we want to be in the business of vacating a lot of those private developments. They're homeowner associations...The only part it addresses, as Sharmin indicated, is single family section of the code. What we're looking at... multi family, what we're doing is trying to get some standards that we should be applied. Councilman Wing: What about some of these people that have these big parcels like some of these people off of Galpin where they have a driveway that goes back in for half a mile but you can't get emergency in to. Does this widen that? That doesn't affect those at all? Kate Aanenson: No. No, really what we're trying to do with this one is to look at the new developments as Sharmin indicated, the multi family project. We still wouldn't want more than 4 off a single family. And I believe the way our plan is right now, I just saw it tonight, when there's preservation of natural features. Otherwise we certainly want to encourage public streets. Mayor Chmiel: I know that some of the developers are pushing for narrower streets because it benefits them. They get a little bit more and then on these it's a little different. But I guess I don't always see that done in the regular kinds of developments. Kate Aanenson: You'll be reviewing those too. The only other instances would be, if you had such as the future development of Outlot B on the Target plat, if that was a private street between the 3 outlots there. Whether that would be a public street. Again, this gives us standards for that to look at ... in conjunction with the fire department making safe and adequate access... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Hearing none, I'll call for a motion. All those in favor. Do you have a question? Councilman Wing: No, I was just going to move Section 18 -57 Zoning Code Amendment. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 18 -57, Streets, by amending Sections (n) and (o) to include Standards for Private Streets serving R -4, R-8, R -12, R -16, and Non - Residential Uses and Amendment to Article XXIV, Ott' Street Parking and Loading. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES. Don Ashworth: It is late ... we're supposed to be meeting a week from today. That's on the senior housing. Is that alright with everybody? I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 Councilman Mason: What time? Don Ashworth: Would everybody be available for early or would you rather do the 7:00? ' Councilman Mason: Well I've got soccer from, I coach. I've got a game at 6:00 so that goes from 6:00 until 7:00. 7:15. , Councilman Senn: Is that on the 20th you're talking about? Councilman Mason: What I was thinking is we could really do the rest of these next week. If everyone's in ' agreement, we'll do the 20th then at 7:00. Senior housing. Councilman Wing: I'm going to play firemen that night. I'll be the only one missing. ' Councilman Senn: I don't think I'm going to be here either. Or at least I'll be late. Councilwoman Dockendorf. And you're not going to be here until 7:15? , Councilman Mason: Well yeah. It will be 7:15 by the time I'll get here but I'll be here. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Let's do 7:30 then. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. 7:30. ' Don Ashworth: And the only other item was, what did Council think of my idea to have a sub - committee to do interviews on the Youth Commission thing. Or do you want to simply do it Mayor or do others wish to join? ' Or do you want to get the Council involved? They wanted something... Mayor Chmiel: The Council as a whole probably just, whatever the Council desires. Councilman Senn: How many applicants are there? Don Ashworth: Four and we'll be interviewing them before the City Council meeting on the 27th. ' Mayor Chmiel: We can do it then. Don Ashworth: Probably start at like 6:30. I don't know if we've got a Board meeting that night or not ... IT ' put this on for next week. I I (b) we don't need to talk about, do we Kate? Kate Aanenson: Well that's basically FYI. If you have any questions. , Councilman Wing: ...Council presentations? Mayor Chmiel: Alright, yes Richard. ' Councilman Wing: Well it was on your list. I'll be happy to, what are we going to do with it? I mean I caught ' a lot of heat from friends on Christmas Lake. 65 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilman Mason: For? Councilman Wing: Frank Beddor organized Christmas Lake and a neighborhood meeting. Really hit them hard and they called me with all sorts of accusations. Councilman Mason: I'd kind of like to see the Judge's comments put in the Villager quite honestly. I'd even chip in a couple of bucks for it. I mean that kind of says it all. Don Ashworth: Well do you want me to convince them they should do an article or do you want to do a letter to the editor? Mayor Chmiel: I think somehow so the rest of the residents within the city with concerns with it, it can be addressed... We can do it either way. Councilman Mason: Yeah the trouble, I don't know about a letter to the editor. Councilman Senn: Then you'll have a counter letter to the editor. Councilman Mason: I think it might be kind of nice for the editor to... Don Ashworth: I'll talk to Trippler. Roger Knutson: Just for your information, we received a phone call today. The plaintiffs, Mr. Beddor ... change his mind. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim W. F1 1 11 V CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 24, 1994 Chairman Andrews called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Andrews, Dave Huffman, Jan Lash, Jane Meger, Ron Roeser, Jim Manders and Fred Berg MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meger moved, Huffman seconded to approve the Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 26, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATION: DICK BROWN, CHANHASSEN AMERICAN LEGION. Dick Brown: My name is Dick Brown. I'm here on behalf of the Chanhassen American Legion baseball program. In short, and I'll get into it a little bit later. I'm asking for specified times for our team to practice on Lake Susan. My understanding, and this is just on weekends. I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, that on Saturday and Sunday Lake Susan is open to the public, first come, first serve. Okay. The American Legion program in Chanhassen is sponsored of course by the Chan Legion and it's been in existence probably for about 15 years now. I think it's a pretty important program and I think it's a real asset to any community. Legion baseball like this. I think we have a young man here who's a graduate from the legion program and he's a good example of what can happen when you play Legion baseball. In addition to running the Legion program for Chanhassen, I'm also a sub - district director for the State of Minnesota. I run an 8 team conference in this side of town. Side of the county if you will. 7 county area. One of the things I insist on, in running this, is that each community or each legion sponsoring a team provide a good baseball field within their ability, or if they can't, to find some near neighbor who will provide that field. And also I ask that they provide ample structured practice time for the kids too. Now the reason I do this with all of the teams in the conference is that the kids in this baseball program are ages 16 to 18 and the big share of them, especially the 17 -18 year old kids work a job. Part time, full time, whatever. And I think it's important that the kids 0 in the program be given a specific time that they have to practice in addition to the game times so that they can work around their schedule. I don't know if anybody, is everybody familiar with the way Legion baseball works? It's in it's 75th now. I think it's important because it's ... and the principles under which it operates develops good people. Not only good ball players but good people. The problem we've had in the past here, and these 2 gentlemen can testify to this, is that if we go down on a Saturday or Sunday and try to practice, we've had a confrontation or two with people who happen to be there at the same time. And I would like to avoid this. I don't think it's necessary to the times that I would like to practice, first of all. I'd like to practice Saturday from 10:00 to 1:00 and on Sunday from 4:00 to 7:00. For your information Jerry, I changed that time and I picked these times to try to avoid the times that I feel the field would get the least amount of use from the general public. 4:00 to 7:00 on Sunday generally is a quiet time. There's not people out there and I've kind of monitored this well a little bit last year and then I've done some this year. It seems to me that these two specific times would avoid most people being there on a consistent basis anyway and would provide a good ... for my kids to practice too. My background, I guess to give you a little background. I've been in Chanhassen for 24 years myself. I've worked hard at this program and we've had a real difficult time probably in the last 5 years in getting what I call a Chan element in our program because our baseball program frankly hasn't been very good. The coaching hasn't been good. It's getting better. I think we have now, and I don't know, the number's probably 600 plus kids in our system coming through. So I see in the years to come a good strong program. A lot of opportunity for kids and my dad, you don't have to stick with just one legion program, or baseball team. If you have enough kids, you can have 2 teams so we're not limiting the American Legion program to just 1 team. You can have 2 teams of 18 kids if you have enough kids who are qualified to play and if you have qualified coaches. I see probably in 5 to 7 years those things coming to pass. I work with the coaches as much as I can to try to implement this to get the kids coming through the system, and we do include girls too so, I'm not just here saying it's just for boys. I think it's just as important for the girls too. I guess in essence what I'm looking for or asking I should say is those two times that I talked about so we can give the kids time I think they deserve. And to avoid confrontation with the general public. Does anybody have any questions I can answer? Berg: Yeah Mr. Brown, how many kids are involved in your, are we talking about here in your program? Dick Brown: Our team consists of 18 players. Lash: Where do they play their games now? In Chanhassen. Dick Brown: Lake Susan. Berg: When are the games? We play our games on Monday and Wednesday and what I do in scheduling the 8 team conference, I use Monday Wednesday so everybody can have a fixed time. The Monday or Wednesday that we're not home I make sure that these fellows 2 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 know those days are available so we can make the best use of the field possible. And I think right now the Monday or Wednesday we're not home, I think we're scheduling probably 16 year old kids. Does that answer your question? Lash: Who's using it, are the 16 year olds using it the other nights? The Tuesday and Thursday? Ruegemer: Yeah. That area is being utilized by the Chaska, the district wide baseball program and then also the 12 -13 year old program ... so the field is being used every night of the week so, and weekends. Lash: The 12 and 13 year olds are using it? Ruegemer: ...it's their baseball program. Dick Brown: The 12 and 13 year olds have to use the 45 foot base pad. Huffman: What kind of confrontations did you say you had...? Dick Brown: I think last year and I wasn't there when it happened but Todd's real familiar with it. And I don't want to get into the details but basically what happened was, there were some people picnicking I believe and using the field and the coach came to practice and I can't recall the time and put a stop on them so the people thought he was there too early or didn't deserve to be there or whatever. They got into it a little bit and she threw a bucket of water on him. Todd, is that right? Berg: Jerry I've got some questions maybe you can answer. What kind of public use is this park getting during these times? Do we have any idea? Ruegemer: As far as Lake Susan is one of our nicer or one of our second I guess picnic pavilion covered areas so it is being used on the weekends for picnics and that type of thing. Generally for our picnics are typically starting like around 11:00 or 12:00 timeframe and then they're wrapping down between about 5:00 and they're leaving. There are people that want to take advantage of the afternoon type of thing. Some might go a little bit longer. Some might go a little bit shorter. It's just on an average throughout the course of the day on Sundays. Typically on Saturdays it's about the same time frame. Maybe a little bit earlier ... on Saturdays because people go to church, that type of thing but generally on the weekends it's again, like an 11:00 or 12:00 time starting and some may go until 8:00 or 9:00 at night. 3 l 7 �I �I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Berg: Has anybody ever, anybody else ever asked for this type of arrangement? Being able to reserve a park like Lake Susan for baseball. Ruegemer: For practices? Berg: For practice. Ruegemer: Sure. Sure. You know every year we have, with the new baseball programs in town, with the games being utilized on the fields during the week at the legion field on Highway 5, Lake Ann and also Lake Susan, we're running short of baseball fields in town here and that's really the most, in the policy that we've established, games have priority over practices and those practices are getting pushed back so a lot of teams aren't having practices. So it's important that teams have to practice too so I guess that's why Dick was asked I guess or Dick asked to present this information tonight. Manders: Mr. Brown did you mention earlier, when I just walked in about the usage of the ' legion field is the problem that there's overlapping times or you can't use the legion field or how does that factor into this? Dick Brown: What do you mean by legion field? ' Ruegemer: The one up on Highway 5? Manders: Yeah. Ruegemer: Really the use of that field is the most conducive to Mr. Brown's needs. ' Manders: Oh it's too small? Dick Brown: It's too small and too close to the highway. We have big kids and we'd be ' hitting foul balls over the gas station. We did do that until it became evident that ... move the highway back towards the Legion and then I think the city cut a deal with the Legion for letting the smaller kids use it. Lash: Are there any other fields in the city that meet the specs for legion ball besides Lake Susan? 1 Ruegemer: No. Lake Ann possibly but really the legion field is really the best suitable area for this particular program because of the older aged kids. 4 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Huffman: We've got an item also here on 11 tonight ... what has been the policy of using the park? If somebody comes into a picnic area and says we want to use Lake Susan. Are they using all the facilities? Do they want to come in and use the ballfields and park area? How is that space defined? Ruegemer: Typically when people make a picnic reservation, what's included in that reservation fee is the picnic site itself. Along with the fireplace, the electricity and the bathrooms and things. All the other general amenities are not included in within that picnic fee so those are subject then to use by the general public. Huffman: Has it been historically proven that when people come there they want to have access to those other facilities and amenities though? They want the baseball field available if they're bringing 200 people and those sort of stuff. Ruegemer: You know I'd say a higher percentage would like to use the field if it would be available but some it isn't an issue but most of it is. Hoffman: We would certainly want to make those people out at Lake Susan aware of any type of scheduled activities in that ballfield because it is the single ballfield at Lake Susan. Whereas Lake Ann you have the availability of #7 plus #6 plus #5 too so if the commission saw fit to approve your request, then we would want to communicate with them, tell the reservation people... picnicking, playing softball or what have you. Lash: I don't think that is being a conflict for this because I too feel if somebody's scheduling a company picnic, they're going to be assuming that they can ball if they want to. And I would be more comfortable with discussing this request at either the times limited to times that aren't generally book by the public for picnics, which would be pretty much a.m. hours, before noon and after 5:00 or else suggesting that they try to make the best of it at Lake Ann where there are more fields available so then if there are groups there ... needs met. Is that something that would work for you? Dick Brown: It won't work at all and I'll tell you why. Why I would like Lake Susan. Number one, the way the park is set up, it's safe so nobody's going to get hurt. People in the parameters, including the people picnicking are far enough away so they're not going to get hit by a foul ball. We used to play at Lake Ann and we constantly had foul balls going into other fields and it got to the point where I wouldn't do it anymore. I just wouldn't have practice because I didn't want somebody getting hurt. I'd rather avoid the injury if I can. Lash: What about having the practices be before noon and after 5:00? 5 1 I I I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 ' Dick Brown: I'm askin g for before noon and after 5:00. ' Lash: I thought you wanted 10:00 to 1:00 and 4:00 to 7:00 which if picnics start at 12:00 and go to 5:00, then we're cutting in at the beginning and the end. ' Dick Brown: We could go 10:00 to 12:00 I suppose, sure. ' Andrews: I have a couple questions and comments. I'm very concerned about this partly because I see the weekend as one of the few times that some families have an opportunity to use the parks at all. I would be against this proposal unless, in particular on Saturday, we ' moved the practice time out of the picnicking hour. My suggestion would be, and I know this would be inconvenient but I think this is a situation where you need to accommodate us instead of the other way around. Dick Brown: I understand. ' Andrews: Because I think that the public has, the general public has a right to use the facilities like Lake Ann without being imposed upon by scheduled activities. You know it's been a prior park. ' Dick Brown: We're not talking about Lake Ann. n 1 Andrews: Or Lake Susan, pardon me. My suggestion would be, and I don't know if this is workable, would it be possible to have baseball practice starting as early as 8:00 and out of there by 11:00 so that picnickers could use the park? Dick Brown: Well I could certainly try it ... players and see. I have a real problem, have you spent any time down there to see when people come and go? Andrews: No. Dick Brown: I have. And I can assure you from my observations only, and this is only my own opinion, the time from 10:00 until 1:00 there are very few people on the field. Any Saturday you go down there. There may be a game scheduled I think sometimes. 13, 15 year olds. I've seen them. But the general public, I haven't seen that happen. And the 4:00 to 7:00 is the same. That's why I picked these times. Andrews: I can see the Sunday time probably as a more likely time to have light traffic but I guess if I were coming down there. Let's say my neighbors and I packed up our cars and our 0 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 picnic baskets and drove down there on Saturday at noon and we couldn't get on that field, I'd be real ticked. I mean as a taxpaying citizen. I would say it'd be much likely to have anybody come down there with organized baseball as a spontaneous or casual activity between 8:00 and you know, before the lunching hour or picnic hour. Dick Brown: ...that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to take over the general public's. Andrews: No, but that would be a. Dick Brown: I am part of the general public. Andrews: I understand but it would be a potential consequence and you're here tonight asking for the schedule time. What will inevitably happen is somebody will come here later and say, we went down there for a neighborhood picnic and we couldn't even use the ballfield because there was a scheduled practice. How come? What are you going to do about it? So we have to balance both issues and later on in our packet tonight we have a letter from a young fellow from up in the North Lotus Lake area who sent us a letter complaining that he wanted to use the park and he couldn't use it because there were organized teams using his park so we have both sides of the issue we have to balance. I look at Lake Ann and Lake Susan as parks that we have tried to, in particular trying to keep the organized activities off of on the weekends so. It's a concern that we start to do this and then, you know I've very active in soccer. Not in baseball but then the same things will come up there. We need, we're out of field space too. We've got 30 teams practicing a night sometimes. Where do they go? Do they practice then from 1:00 to 3:00 on a field and somebody else from 3:00 to 4:00. Pretty soon you have no time left at all for anybody just to come and use our parks and I don't want that to happen. Dick Brown: And I don't intend to argue with that. I think they do deserve, just what you say is true. From my perspective, I happen to think the American Legion baseball team is a community asset and in that respect deserves a little more consideration than maybe you're going to give them. Because it represents a community. Meger: I want to ask I guess Jerry a question along the same lines as what kind of precedent we might be setting then for additional community type teams. Maybe not an American Legion team but all of the other teams as far as them starting to call and wanting to reserve ballfields as well. That I think is my main concern is once we start reserving for one, then are the phone calls really going to start flooding in saying what's going to be my time. Ruegemer: I think in going through this whole process, I think you have to take a look at 7 I I 1 I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 that aspect of it too. In going through your thought process, I think those issues need to be reviewed. It's certainly a possibility. Andrews: We have a shortage of facilities. I mean we recognize that and. Dick Brown: Sure, everybody does. You're not alone. Andrews: And we're all struggling to find more field space for all activities. Manders: You're talking about reserving time basically Sunday or Saturday and Sunday? Dick Brown: Saturday and Sunday. That's what I'm asking for. I'm just simply asking. Manders: It seems to me that I could certainly live with Sunday morning. I don't have any problem with that at all. Hoffman: Sunday afternoon 4:00 to 7:00 is what they're asking for. Berg: What's the time line Dick? I mean how long. Now through. Dick Brown: Well probably no later than let's say July 18th maybe. Hoffman: Certainly for everybody's benefit. Picnics aren't up and running now so there wouldn't be a conflict probably this weekend but as the summer gets rolling, that's going to be. Dick Brown: We do have a short season. Roeser: I think I'd be willing to have a go at this too but earlier hours too. I think maybe 8:00 to 10:00, 8:00 to 11:00 but this seems like you're really hit, on Saturday, you're really hitting the middle of the day to me now. Maybe it doesn't to you and the same way with Sunday. Perhaps a little bit later. Say start practice at 6:00. I think Sundays, people start to melt away late in the afternoon where you probably wouldn't have as many conflicts on Sunday late in the afternoon and Saturday early in the morning. Dick Brown: Well and another thing is—they play 2 games a week. Sometimes 3 and weekends I hate to keep them out until 8:00 -9:00 at night. They should be home. Berg: But we're talking juniors and seniors during the summer. They're not going to be 8 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 home anyway. Dick Brown: I raised 5, I know what they're like. Berg: I don't think there's going to be a lot of them that will have to be home before 8:00. I guess my concern is the one that's been raised before too and to leave them start dealing with scheduling CAA teams at Rice Marsh Lake and others on Saturdays and Sundays and are we opening up a whole Pandora's Box here in terms of scheduling practices on weekends and I guess I see the issue as something we have to discuss as a commission and I'm not prepared to make a decision tonight just because I see a shift in philosophy that I think needs to be discussed. Lash: I think it would be wise to heed one of the comments in here about making a distinction between community parks and neighborhood parks and trying to eliminate scheduling in the neighborhood parks and try to contain it to the community parks. And contain it to the non - reservation times. If it's a facility that can be reserved for picnicking like Susan, and Lake Ann. Although Lake Ann's different because there are so many fields there but if they tend to reserve a block of time, let's say it's from 11:00 or noon, to 5:00, then that time I think should not be scheduled with league activities because I think people who are booking that, paid money for that have the right to expect the usage of the facilities, whether it's written ... or not. Huffman: It's more implied. I'm bringing a group. You want to have. Lash: And if they want to come back the next year and they've had a bad experience by having a run in with a team and not having fields to play in and all that, they're not going to want to book it again next year. Dick Brown: Can I ask a question in that regards? So this young gentleman who wrote because he couldn't get on the fields, really doesn't have any more right than the community at large right? And I agree with what you're saying. It should with the community, just because he lives in close proximity doesn't mean it's his park. Lash: That's what he. Andrews: He was there first. Lash: He was there first and didn't need to leave. Dick Brown: What you call a neighborhood, is it a neighborhood? 6 l I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 I Lash: That was a neighborhood park. Huffman: We have a very definitely distinction between community and neighborhood parks. ' Dick Brown: Do we have neighborhood parks here? Lash: Most of them are neighborhood parks. ' Dick Brown: Now does that give the neighbors their use? ' Andrews: No, no, no. It's a term, not a restriction. It's a smaller facility. Lash: It's the philosophy of usage. And having the amenities there. Dick Brown: Okay. I don't know, I get the feeling that I'm going to lose this request. ' Andrews: I'm not sure we're prepared to give you your answer tonight. I mean this is. ' Dick Brown: I don't expect you. No, I don't expect your answer. In fact I don't want your answer because I think I know what it is. In the meantime, whoever's first come, first serve. You know we can still use the fields. ' Andrews: Yes. I think this will come up again on an agenda because the facility demand, not only by baseball but by virtually every field sport is just pressing this issue harder and harder every season and we don't have space to take care of everybody. And each year the programs grow and it gets worse and worse. ' Dick Brown: Do you folks set the policies as to field usage? Andrews: Yes. ' Dick Brown: So you may have to make a decision someday and tell the people at large that these general usages and this is why we're doing it. Andrews: That's correct. Each season the decisions are getting harder and harder to make. More and more conflict between organized uses and passive or unorganized uses. And it's ' always hard to make that distinction or make that decision because organized teams appear to be more efficient in their use of a space but then again the person that just happens to walk to the park wants to be able to use it and should they have less of a right because they don't happen to have 9 people with the same colored uniforms on? Or 11 in the case of soccer. 1 10 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 1 No, they shouldn't. Dick Brown: Takes away the incentive for the organized people though. Andrews: Well but all the taxpayers have contributed to our system and they have a right to I expect facilities too. Roeser: You do use the fields for your games right? So they are available. It isn't like ' we're cutting him completely off from the fields. You do get the use of the fields. Dick Brown: Oh that's, yeah I agree. I think we should be thankful for what we get. The thing I really have a, I strongly ... the other 7 teams in the conference do manage to find practice time, structured facilities for these teams. Why they do and you can't, I don't know. Andrews: Well we haven't made a decision at all et. I personally could support a Sunda Y P Y PP Y use as a try -out. I would be hesitant to give a Saturday. I'm just scared that we're opening a Pandora's Box here that could really bite us. I realize that if we put this into a future agenda, , by the time we do it, your need's already passed. So it's either do something now or the season's essentially gone for you. ' Lash: I would go along with that too if we had time restriction for Sunday before 11:00 and after 6:00 and then you can make your schedule according to the needs of your guys. If ' some weekends they want to have it in the evening, and some Sundays they want to have it in the morning, you have a little flexibility. Andrews: Let's not reserve the space though and not have a team there to use it. Lash: No, but it would be, they have to come up with a schedule and give it to Jerry and I then Jerry would know when it's going to be. Dick Brown: What was your comment? I didn't understand. I Andrews: That we don't want to reserve both before 11:00 and after 6:00 if you're only going to use it one time per day. Dick Brown: And that's all we would. Lash: You wouldn't want it both morning and evening. It would just be there one time. Dick Brown: No. He just said it himself, or somebody did here that organized teams have I 11 1 w Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 better efficient, or had more efficient use of their time. Believe me. When we get the kids down there and say start at 4:00, they'd better be there at 4:00. When the time comes to quit, they pick up and they'd better be gone. That's the way we run the program with this bunch. I just feel pretty strongly about the Legion program. I've worked hard to try to make it what ' it is and I'd sure like to continue to make it even better. The reason I feel so strongly is I think this is a necessary thing for the kids to do. ' Lash: And I think we all agree with that. You know and I'm sure that we would all congratulate you on all the work you've put into it but then, but we're always in a spot because there are so many people who want so many of the spaces. We just can't provide it to everybody. Dick Brown: And I'm not asking for ... time. Huffman: Well those of us who played American Legion baseball, I mean we can appreciate it. I was a bad third baseman but I understand what you're going through and that's what ' you're saying is that, this is a community park with needs and reservations and we're going to have another, as I mentioned earlier, another group come here and have specific needs for that park at specific times and if we're going to cut them out of some of their needs and wants, yeah. This commission's going to have to make some hard decisions. ' Dick Brown: And certainly I don't intend to make my time at somebody else's expense. That's not what I'm here for. Can I ask a question, the fellow that played legion baseball. Did you have practice time? Huffman: I can't remember that far back. Roeser: It was so far back, yeah. Eden Prairie's entire school system was held in one school. And they had a ballpark right behind it and we had all the time we wanted on it. Dick Brown: Well I appreciate your time. And I think you know my feelings and I sure hope you can help me. Andrews: Would your preference, if we were to pick one of the two weekend days, would a Saturday morning or Sunday. Dick Brown: Can I speak? If I had a preference and only one day, I would prefer 4:00 to 7:00 on Sunday. Andrews: Okay. 12 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 1 Dick Brown: Now that's what we did last year I think pretty much and that worked. Manders: Is what you did last year was basically on this first come, first serve basis is what ' you're saying? And you went down there and you're saying that that doesn't work now because you can't get in. ' Dick Brown: That's what you're thinking but my thought, I really had 4:00 to 7:00 last year. Nobody ever showed up. We were the only ones there ever. ' Manders: Well that's what I'm asking. Roeser: You had it reserved 4:00 to 7:00. Manders: 4:00 to 7:00 and it really wasn't a problem then. Dick Brown: Let me explain. I understand, last year ... there were no times that you could reserve, is that right Todd? Or last year was no different than this year. We showed up every Sunday at 4:00 until 7:00. I think we had one confrontation. Other than that, there was nobody there. Even when there were people having picnics and there were a lot of times where people, families. Small groups. Not large groups. You know maybe ... never anybody on the field. Berg: Why do you feel the need now to reserve then? , Dick Brown: I don't want another confrontation... ' Ruegemer: I believe the confrontation was more than, it wasn't last year. I believe it was the year before so, that's how quick time. ' Dick Brown: My how time goes. No, I just thought in the best interest of everybody to do it the way it should be done. I think I've got an excellent program and I've got a great bunch ' of kids. Good sponsor. Good city. I just don't have the time, that's all. Manders: Personally I'd be in favor of one of these times and then if there's feedback in terms of people that reserve that space saying that something isn't working right here. We reserved this park and paying x dollars for it and we can't use it, then we should be able to come back and say, this isn't working. We're got to try something else. ' Andrews: I'm going to ask that somebody make a motion for some action here and that I would ask that that motion, this is my request, that that motion mention that our action would 13 1 t Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 I be temporary in nature and not a permanent change of park policy. So if somebody's willing to put forth something specific, let's see if we can do it. Meger: And which did you say, Saturday or Sunday? Dick Brown: Sunday, 4:00 to 7:00. ' Lash: Can you live with 5:00? Dick Brown: Well I'll live 5:00 or whatever you give me and if it works, it works. And if it ' doesn't, it doesn't. Lash: Alright. I would move that on a temporary basis we approve the use, the reservation of Lake Susan ballfield for the Legion baseball team on Sundays from 5:00 to 8:00. Andrews: Is there a second? ' Roeser: I'll second that. ' Andrews: Any further discussion? Huffman: That is a trial basis? Berg: Yeah, did you have a trial basis mentioned in our motion? g Y Y ' Meger: I would add on a temporary basis. Dick Brown: You know you could add to the motion and I would agree to this. I want no problems with anybody. I mean if we cause a problem for anybody, we'll take our basketballs and go home. I mean that's. i Andrews: Yeah, that's assumed. Any other discussion? ' Lash moved, Roeser seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission grant on a temporary basis that the Chanhassen American Legion baseball team may reserve the baseball field at Lake Susan on Sundays from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. for practice. All voted ' in favor and the motion carried. Andrews: Continuing on with visitor presentations. Is Dan, and I can't pronounce the last ' name. 1 14 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 1 Dan Doenges: Doenges. Andrews: If you'd like to address the commission, please do so. Dan Doenges: ...what this all boils down to is that ... parks. I love them. I'm from Indiana. ' Moved to Minnesota 7 years ago and we didn't have parks like this. We'd have a lake and trails. The quality of the parks. This thing that really ... from my park experience and the experience of others that I've talked to at the park is the cigarette smoking that's at the park. ' My most recent experience, latest experience was just last weekend. Went out fishing. First time with my 3 year old boy and we walked up to the pier ... the smell, the smoke was... towards us so well, I'll have to put boat in and go to the boat ramp. We went there and then the people who were fishing end up walking down and playing with a frisbee with their cigarettes in their hands. You can't escape it ... if you want to. The concerts last summer that you had in the park. You pick out a nice spot for you and your family to enjoy an experience this park sponsored activity and the person next to you, you have no control over. Sits down and starts puffing away. We all know about that health habit is, whether it's indoors or outdoors, it's still smoke is smoke. Looking around also you see the cigarette butts floating in the boat ramps. You see them in the creek. You've got to ... in the creek and eventually into the lake itself. So what I'm asking for is that I want to know if there's a way we could better enjoy our parks by having an ordinance which would not allow smoking in ' our parks. That's all the parks—neighborhood parks as well. We go to the neighborhood parks quite a bit as well and, which really is there for the playground and the parents come along are smoking there as well. And the...I've chosen, I end up walking away. Often times , making short our park experience. I don't feel that that's necessary. So I called the city earlier this week, or early last week and talked to Todd briefly. He suggested I come down and present this to the park. I know it's asking a lot. It's asking an awful lot really ... I think, and maybe you can correct me on this. That Chanhassen's the first city or town in the state to prohibit cigarette vending machines in public places. So I know the city has ... in the past. It'd be great if it could happen again in the parks. ' Andrews: Todd, I think this should be something we should put on a future agenda. I think , this is something I'd want to have to ask for input from interested public. I, myself am allergic to smoke. I hate it but I'm not sure I'm prepared to tackle this one tonight. I think it deserves a lot of, it's going to have some discussion I think, pro and con. I think we ought ' to invite that. Dan Doenges: I understand that. This has been... Andrews: I appreciate that and without any other objections from any other commission members, I think this should be put on as a future agenda item for park policy discussion. , 15 1 l Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Dan Doenges: Could I be included? Andrews: You'll be notified. Absolutely. Alright, thank you. Item 3 is a land development proposal. Lash: Did you want to check to see if there's any other? ' Andrews: Oh I'm sorry. Are there any other visitor presentations here for tonight? Do we have more visitor presentations? One more, okay. Come on up. Please state your name and address for the record. L� I J Connie Deafenbaugh: I'm Connie Deafenbaugh and I live at 8115 Erie Circle in Chanhassen. Our home is situated adjacent to Rice Lake Marsh. Rice Marsh Lake Park. And we live on a corner lot and the trail system, the new trail system is going between our house. Our's is the final linkage to the trail that goes behind the new homes in Eden Prairie. Around the border of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. Up above Rice Marsh Lake. And our linkage will be finalized with Lake Susan trail, which crosses TH 101. My family and I have lived in our home for 12 years and the reason we moved there was because of the privacy and the serenity of the area and now that, it's taken me a long time to get used to the fact that the trail is going through and now I am used to that. So, but what has happened in the last couple of weeks is that literally hundreds of people have been going down that trail and it has caused a lot of anxiety and I guess we are very, you know it's very difficult to get used to. The people that are going along the trail are you know, normal every day people but it has, it is so busy. It is unbelievable and we can't have a private back yard anymore. I'm asking the park board members if they would consider financial support for a type of hedge, a privacy hedge that would go along our back yard, along the trail. I have talked to several landscape artists and what I got from them is the idea that a certain type of hedge which is called a catoniaster is a very dense hedge. It grows tall but it doesn't grow out like a lilac or dogwood... cover the trail. It would cause ... they'd have to be chopped every once in a while. So I really am pleading for some financial support for this. I talked to Jay up at Lotus Lawn and Garden and for just the normal consumer he would charge $14.99 per bush in a 2 gallon container and he figured that approximately 30, about 32 bushes would be needed and that comes to about $480.00. And I was just wondering if you would all please consider this and try to put yourselves in my situation. 1 know Dave had this same situation a couple of years ago and a trail went behind his home. My home is located in kind of a bottleneck of the area because we're adjacent to the park and people are just congregating there and I invite you all to come over to my home on the weekend and experience this. It's quite emotional. I mean the activity is very tremendous. So I would, I'll wait for you ... tonight or if you could consider this, I would appreciate it. 16 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 1 Huffman: If I can throw a quick light on her problem. I don't know what you've done in the past on the trail system. We did have a trail system that was moved back. We got an easement moved that would have gone through our basement and at least had it moved back to the wetland area. Connie's house is basically the entrance to Rice Marsh Lake Park. When you come down, there's a narrowing of the road into the asphalt park. Her's is the , house on the left and as you come onto the trail you have to come back up the driveway, take a right, and basically go along her fence line along the back yard. The second house next to her sits back up on the hill. Everybody then begins sitting back farther up on the hill. There , is sumac and a lot of real nice natural areas the rest of the way. If you go early enough, you can watch the kids get ready for school, and you do a nice job, by the way, of getting them ready. It is, they have a real interesting problem there because their yard is on the trail and while the trail is going in, I mean it's not stopping. I don't know if you've ever done anything or anything like that but I would offer the fact that you seriously consider it because this is something that nobody else in the city is going to look at is going to face. They have a real dousy of a problem there. I don't know if you've ever done it or if a hedge, like I say, if it's been done in the past but I would surely offer that this may be a unique situation. Berg: That's basically this, the 30 to 32 plants would be on our property? We're not g Y P Y talking about other neighbors or. , Connie Deafenbaugh: No. ...they would be butted right on the edge of the trail and that would cause a privacy hedge. , Berg: But I guess what I'm asking is, it's a privacy hedge that would basically serve you. Just for point of information, we're not talking 5 other houses either. We're just talking basically your's because of it's unique location. Connie Deafenbaugh: Absolutely. I Manders: Is there concern with any of the other residents similar to your's? Connie Deafenbaugh: Well, my next door neighbor who lives well, right next door to me, they go away every weekend and they are gone the entire—because she's a teacher and they have a cabin up north and they are gone all summer. And last weekend they were home and Tim came over to me and he said, was it this busy last weekend? And he was very quite surprised that it was that busy. You know I don't want to move. I love it here. I enjoy all my neighbors. But it really is becoming quite ... and the trail is not even completed yet as I understand the rest of the trail which goes up near the new homes. I can't remember the name of the area. It goes along Highway 5. All those new homes there. That's going to hook up with New Brighton I believe. Eventually it is going to go, I've talked with Todd ' 17 1 I I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 about it. That our trail by my house is going to hook with Eden Prairie and then go down ' Dell Road and then into New Brighton. And all over into that area. I mean eventually it's going to be just a huge long... ' Hoffman: The trail system will connect with Eden Prairie's trail system and where you can go from there is certainly you know leading, not in New Brighton but to any adjoining city. ' Connie Deafenbaugh: Okay. And our trail isn't even completed yet and it's tremendously busy. Andrews: A couple questions for Todd. Maybe my recollection is faulty here but I believe we have attempted to provide some screening in other park projects where we had some possible detractions or not. Do you recall us doing something like this before? Hoffman: As a part of our master plan of the park there's buffering that we put in in certain instances. I would caution the commission, this is certainly not the only instance where we put trails next to residences. You've had a difficult time in doing that. To my knowledge, in my time here, we have not paid for buffering specific in a case such a this. And that's again, ' we talked about precedent earlier, this would be a precedent for sure. You really need to weigh the benefits of subsidizing $450.00 worth of shrubbery for what might entail ... The city's park system, or the city's trail system is dust beginning and we would certainly have additional issues very similar to this one with that happening. Andrews: Yes, and I'm well aware of proposed trail linkages that would have much more of ' an impact than what we're talking about here. And there was not discussion of providing financial assistance to those property owners to compensate them. ' Connie Deafenbaugh: Did they come to the park board meeting and? Andrews: Oh yes. Those trails haven't been built yet and they may not be built for a long ' time but those people were talking trails less than 50 feet from their kitchen windows. It was considerably less than 50 feet. 0 Berg: Is there any way that the location of this could be considered an improvement to the park itself? Hoffman: The location of? Berg: Of this potential hedge. In a CIP for Rice Marsh Lake Park. 18 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 , Hoffman: If you wanted to do something of that nature I would put the two homes which are there, as Dave mentioned, in a diagram or a picture were prepared for the conservation would help. But the two are unique. They are just kind of right up to the current road which is there, the gravel road and there is a fairly substantial piece of property which is the city property which is maintained by the residents ... to do that. But that's what is there and the ' Deafenbaugh back yard is actually on ... city property and again, that's not uncommon. So if you put up the privacy screen—down both property lines and if it would be a benefit to your ' discussion... Connie Deafenbaugh: I would take full responsibility as far as, you know if this were to , happen, to maintain the hedge. Water so that it keeps on living and keeps growing higher and higher. Manders: I guess personally I'd like to see the area or see some type of diagram to ' understand it better. I mean not to say that that is going to answer the issues with precedence and things like that. But I might appreciate better where you're coming from. Connie Deafenbaugh: And you know I have also talked to Todd about putting up some signs as far as keeping the people dog's on their leashes and keeping them on the trail and so the ' signs are ... but there is a big problem with dogs in the park and along the trail here. You know that it causes very unsanitary conditions and I've talked to many people personally that have asked him about that. But this would also be a hinderance...Thank you for your time. ' Appreciate it. Andrews: Are there any other visitor presentations tonight? If not, let's move on to item 3. , LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, PATRICK MINGER FOR THE REZONING OF 8.46 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL , SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT LOCATED AT 8221 GALPIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES. I Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Pat Min er: Yes I'm Pat Min er. I live at 8221 and I'm the developer. When Todd, when g � g P we put the development together he requested that he commit into the park, future park to the ' south. Everything, I just got this Saturday and have been working with the city staff. I was under the, the only ... I was under the understanding that we'd get a credit on the park fee for donating land and that's to be negotiated I guess. That's the only question that I had. I 19 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Lash: Donating what land? Pat Minger: For the trail. The 20 foot wide. Andrews: Todd, isn't it customary that the developer would be credited for that land taken for the trail? ' Hoffman: On trails, a 20 foot wide trail easement typically, the commission and council has not issued credit in that regard. When we talked Outlot A we were adding a little piece of the property to the parkland and that could be considered for credit but as far as he ' mentioned—really a passive to the new development which is being proposed there and just for easements, for... Andrews: Thank you for that Pat Minger: The only other thing that a developer that's ... we preferred not to have it because of a privacy issue that we had earlier. I don't know .... if the city wants it, they can... Andrews: I think it's an asset but I think it's also vitally important that if it's put on the plat, that the developer not only discloses it but advertises that it's there because what we don't want is somebody taking possession of a property or a home and saying, geez. Nobody ever told me there was a trail here. And somehow that seems to happen. Pat Minger: Well I live in this corner. I live on that corner. I'm going to be living in the development and in talking with the Planning Commission, the parcel to the west of me is really open—and how I got that little triangle at the bottom is beyond me but it just happened you know so, and Tim Dempsey is the owner. Tim, Mr. Dempsey. You know that probably can be sold to them just because I have no use for it. And I don't think it would help the park at all either... Hoffman: In regard to Lot 17, I would certainly defer to you and ... orient the house in such a manner that the garage is on that side and do landscaping that's appropriate for that and potentially inbetween Lots 16 and 17, move that lot line over and provide a little bit more space on Lot 17. I think as long as you do that and the house is oriented correctly, then you can steer away from any potential problems. From a planning perspective, that's just good planning. Pat Minger: Lot 16 is... Andrews: Todd, would we normally build that trail or just take the easement with future 20 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 ' build, construction? I guess my hope is that when the roads get built, it'd be sure nice to put the trail in right away before the houses are even up so it's there the day somebody drives in I and sees it. That that trail's already there. Hoffman: Past practice for a number of years has been to sub that out so it's there and the I landscaping can go in and it can be developed as part of the... Andrews: I would hope that the Council would ask for that to happen. I Pat Minger: You want it built you're saying too? Andrews: No, I'm just saying that so when the future property owners purchase the lots, that ' the trail's already there. That they see it the day they drive in. It's already there so there's no surprises. ' Lash: You know given the direction of this conversation I hate to even say this but personally I would like to see another... ' Andrews: I knew you were going to say that. Lash: If I lived in Lot 7 and to et to the park, I'm going oin to have to go out onto the street ' g and go all the way up and around and back onto the other cul -de -sac to get to the park that's only one lot away from my house is a whole lot of wasted energy. You know when I'm ' going to the park to get...go for a long walk first. Andrews: Not that many lots. I think one is reasonable. Two would be nice but one is reasonable. Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak about this proposed development? , Hoffman: If the commission sees fit to have that constructed, obviously we... Pat Minger: Part of the negotiations to build this is that Mr. Dempsey would like his ' privacy ... and we can, as part of the city code, say that we can have 4 houses on the private road. And I just think you should be made aware of that And... essentially it's going to be a private drive so when Mr. Dempsey sometime goes from, it depends on what day you talk to him. 3 year to 20 years. Lash: Where does Mr. Dempsey live? ' Hoffman: Right here. I 21 1 I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 1 Pat Minger: Right there and I respect his privacy also. I Lash: So you're saying that. ' Pat Minger: That cul -de -sac where the trail is going to be going. Lash: Is a private. Hoffman: You're going to build a private drive here? ' Pat Minger: Basically. It's not going to be a full street. It's going to be part of Mr. Dempsey's requirement when he develops ... The builder's requested that the curb and gutter get put on where the new houses are on this side and Mr. Dempsey has requested that, and ' I'm trying to please everybody. And he likes as much privacy as possible so in the negotiations, what we're doing is just basically making that a private drive. The right -of -way is all going to be there and he just doesn't want a bunch of people going down along the ' property. So it's going to be there...it's not going to be a full street. Lash: With that information, would we be better moving this up to the trail? Andrews: That's a concern. I mean are we oin to be able to get maintenance vehicles in g g there or is it going to be a plowed road? Hoffman: The private drive issues, it's not in our purview. That would be discussed by engineering. It's allowable under the ordinance to have 4 houses onto that. I would be concerned though, we've had the situation where we've taken the easement, the 20 foot easement and there's about a 50/50 shot once everything's built and done that we come back ' and want to put our trail in... Again, it has been practice that we put those in, be constructed. Put blacktop down and we pave that. Then everybody knows up front what's going on... ' Andrews: Well being that this is termed a private drive, does that mean property owners could restrict general public people from walking on the road? ' Pat Minger: No. It's a public access. I mean it's a public street. We're just keeping it narrow. ' Andrews: Temporarily. Pat Minger: Temporarily. 22 1� Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Andrews: Okay. Pat Minger: Yeah, I mean a public right -of -way, the 50 foot right -of -way is going to be there. That's just to accommodate you know, there's a few trees along that property line... Manders: So that's a temporary. , Pat Minger: This is a temporary deal that's currently written into the ... if those lots were ever , developed and Mr. Dempsey, he's responsible for finishing that cul -de -sac. Berg: And taking down the rest of the trees. ' Pat Minger: Where is the trail going because if you go to the far back cul -de -sac, there's a pretty steep hill going down to the creek. And up the other side. ' Lash: Are you talking about the other cul -de -sac? , Pat Minger: No. Well, the trail in the park. Hoffman: This is what has been planned. The concept, the park concept they have ... number i 7. That was a concern Pat that ... If you go to the east cul -de -sac as you can see on this plan, it'd be difficult because it'd be dropping into this location... location of the bridge and come , down this grade and cross here. Lash: Does this one ... on 17? 17 is here or 17 is... I Hoffman: This is the one cul -de -sac. The other cul -de -sac is over here ... As the topography stands, the current alignment is... I Manders: Where does this development sit according to this park? Hoffman: Right to the north. The entire north boundary line. So this is your park here and the entire north boundary line would actually be park. Andrews: Ready to go on this one? Yeah, can I have a motion to take action? Are there ' any more questions or comments to be made to the developer here? If not, is there a motion that can be made for action please? ' Berg: I move that we ask the Park, or the City Council to accept park and trail dedication fees for the Minger Subdivision in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction. One- ' 23 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 third of the said park and trail cash contributions shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Rate in effect for residential single family property when a building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid. Do you need the amounts in ' there too? Hoffman: No. It's nice to have ... you should include something about the easement and if we ' want construction of that trail. Andrews: To read back a little bit, prior to where he started there. Berg: I don't have any idea where to put it. I'm a good reader. ' Andrews: On the front of the page it talks about the trail connection. If you would add that to your motion, then we'd be okay. ' Berg: The second sentence for the trail comprehensive plan? Andrews: Flip it over Fred. Berg: I would add to the motion the applicant would prefer to dedicate, that the 20 foot easement be dedicated on the westerly edge of Lot 17 for trail purposes. Sorry I'm so dense. ' Andrews: Would you like to recommend that that trail be actually constructed? ' Berg: That's a good idea. I'd like to recommend also that that trail be constructed. Lash: And to allow for a buffer? Berg: And allow for a buffer. You got a crayon so I can write this down? ' Meger: I'd second that motion. Berg: Don't ask me to repeat it please. Andrews: A motion's been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Berg moved, Meger seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to ' accept park and trail dedication fees for the Minger Subdivision in lieu of parkland 1 24 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 1 L dedication and /or trail construction. One -third of the said park and trail cash contributions shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued: Name rate in effect for residential single family property when a building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid. A 20 foot trail easement will be dedicated on the , westerly edge of Lot 17 for trail purposes with the applicant allowing for a buffer. All Paul Harstad voted in favor and the motion carried. Larry & Nancy Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: HARSTAD COMPANIES TO SUBDIVIDE Janet Carlson 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 38 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON ' PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED 4031 Kings Road NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, THE Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. OAKS AT MINNEWASHTA. Public Present: ' Name Address Paul Harstad 2191 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton Larry & Nancy Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Janet Carlson 4141 Kings Road ' Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. , Andrews: Thank you Todd. Is there a representative of the developer here? I Paul Harstad: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Paul Harstad of Harstad Companies. I'm pleased to report that this time we have far more favorable news than , previously. We'd prefer to see it this way too. I guess Todd and Kate and our company have had some good talks during the last month and I think we've made a lot of progress. I believe we've laid the thing out in a good fashion that is favorable to we think everyone. I think it will work out real well. I'm glad that Todd showed some of the changes proposed at last week's Planning Commission. There would be 2 additional lots which would reduce the size of your park and as I understand it, improve the configuration and make the design ' probably a little bit easier. I know originally you were shooting for approximately 10 acres and now it looks as if that's more or less what it would become. That would also increase the amount that we would dedicate since we have 2 more lots. So the numbers that you see ' 25 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 will probably improve somewhat. Also the pond on the original, or the latest preliminary plat, the pond was shown in your park and as Todd mentioned, and his report mentions, that would be either an outlot or an extension of those lots that abut that. So we don't have any problem with any of those issues. I think those are very good design changes. There's one other thing and that is the land to the south of Kings Road. Originally the map that Todd put up earlier, that had shown 2 lots. That design was done by the previous engineer. Previous planner and they knew at the time that that was probably unlikely. They were relatively certain they could get 1 lot out of there but without having had a wetland delineation and looking closer at the DNR rules, they weren't sure. So they brought it in as two. Well as soon as we reconfigured the project, we did a wetland delineation. It's the dotted line on that map and that shows a square footage upland of I think it's about 16,000 or 17,000 square feet which does not meet minimum requirements for a lot within the 1,000 foot line of the DNR protected wetland. If you have any further questions on that, I can comment. But the DNR does have some specific rules but they also have some leeway as to the actual size. As I understand it, the city of Chanhassen has maybe Todd can help me on this, but has agreed to follow the DNR rules. The point I'm trying to make here is that while they do have a 20,000 square foot rule for the lots, we spoke with them this week and they indicated that there is some room for leeway on that as long as the average lot is in excess of, or is 20,000 square feet or more. And they took one look at this project and said, oh it looks great. I can't imagine you having a problem. For some of those lots where the 1,000 foot line goes through a lot, let's say only a quarter or so of the lot is within the 1,000 foot line. The DNR may allow to lower the square footage of that lot. So the point I'm trying to make here is that while it is still possible that we could get - a lot out of that, it's probably not in the best interest of the general public or us. The reason it wouldn't be in the best interest for us is because it's kind of a long shot. There's no sense in trying to twist arms at the DNR level and certainly at the city level. We found that doesn't work real well. But I would like to open for suggestions the possibility of considering that land in your final park design. I don't know if you would have any use for it. If you could use it as parking or as, whether or not you could even get access to Lake St. Joe but we would be more than happy to consider that in the final design. Other than that I have no questions and I'm willing to answer any questions you have. Lash: You know I think I was looking down on this when I should have been looking up because I don't know where you're talking about. Can you point it out on there? Hoffman: These two lots here. They extend all the way to the south of Lake St. Joe. Lash: Aren't there houses already there? Resident: No, they are sheds. Animal sheds. F Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 ' 1 Lash: Oh. So these little rectangle shapes on here aren't existing houses? Hoffman: No. I Lash: Okay. I Andrews: But they're part of this plat? Or they intended to be part of this plat? Hoffman: That property is part of the plat. What it's eventual use would be is undetermined ' at this time. Paul Harstad: When we purchased this from Heritage Development, the plat had shown two ' lots there. We more or less assumed that that would be the case. Well at least one. Well now we're finding it probably won't get any. However it's still part of our purchase , agreement so we are committed to purchasing it. So I don't know that we have a use for it. If we can't use it as parkland, then we would probably do some finagling in hopes of getting either a variance from the city or approval from the DNR or whatever is required. I'm , certain that it's not worth our time, especially if the park commission... Andrews: I'm not sure if we'd prefer to have in lieu of the other land. ' Paul Harstad: Oh, up on the north side? I Andrews: Yeah. Because we want to have the largest piece possible. Lash: You're talking about in addition to what we already, in addition to the plan? Paul Harstad: Right. Lash: Right. Paul Harstad: I know the designs we've had didn't show anything south of Kings Road. Andrews: How wide of a frontage are we talking about there, just to give me an idea of I scale here? Paul Harstad: If you have a ruler. I think it's about 200, maybe 220 feet of frontage and , then the wetland line extends back anywhere from, I want to say 75 feet to about 100 feet where it hits the property south. So it's about 60,000 square feet. That's my rough guess. I'd have to calculate that out precisely. ' 27 ' II' 7 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Andrews: I hate to get into a discussion about those two lots because as far as I want to say, I think it's just going to bog us down here. Paul Harstad: It's not worth finagling anything at this point. I don't know if in the future we could come back and make a request. Hoffman: You can use it all as part of the park plan. Paul Harstad: My interest is getting the whole... Andrews: That's our interest too. Does anybody on the commission have any questions for the developer? If not, is there anyone from the audience here that would like to speak about this development? Please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan and I live at 4031 Kings Road, which is this property right here. That interfaces the park here and also this property that was under discussion by Mr. Harstad. Something that came up in the City Council meeting was that, if this is going to be a holding pond, there needs to be somewhere for this pond to drain. Right now all this area is draintile and it drains across our property into Lake St. Joe. If this is going to be a holding pond for all of these properties, it needs to drain somewhere into Lake St. Joe and they are proposing that it drains into this area here. So in that case this would not be buildable because they're thinking about putting some type of drainage pipe which then leads this into Lake St. Joe for runoff. So just to point that out. That it just can't fit here. It has to go somewhere. Also, our concern is that we do live here, that this situation be taken care of as far as drainage. Right now as I mentioned, this field drains across our property into Lake St. Joe and they seem to have resolved it by putting a pond here and draining it around here but we just want to make sure that that happens. Because without permission from us, Paul Harstad... Also I have a couple of questions about access into the park area. You mentioned that there would be access here and they mentioned of access from Lake Minnewashta. Is there going to be an entrance? Is there going to parking? How do people get into this park? Where do they park when they come here? Hoffman: Chairman, we can only comment on the planning process which typically takes place. You can at least mention where the access is shown on the concept plan. Andrews: I don't recall but what's typical of plans I guess is that neighborhood input is always solicited in design of the park and traffic concerns are normally the number one concern of any park that's being considered for construction. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 ' 1 Sue Morgan: Okay, so at this point it's too early to consider that? Lash: We have a concept plan in our packet but that's basically all it is is a concept plan. It ' could be open to all kinds of changes between now and when it's finished. But at this point in time what the concept plan shows, it's a somewhat small parking lot that would be ' accessed out to Kings Road just off from the ... Kings Road entrance. And like Jim said, this is something that we will work with the neighbors on ... and making it something that will be enjoyable for all. ' Sue Morgan: So the actual structure of the park is something that, you guys are still... Andrews: That's correct. Sue Morgan: And what is the status of the lakeshore area of this across Minnewashta? I've ' heard various opinions as to whether it's big enough for a beach or too small for a beach or, do you know what's happening in that area at all? Andrews: I know that's being considered as part of the park purchase. I think in our preliminary discussions we have looked at that as maintained as passive use. There's not enough adequate access for a safe swimming beach. We couldn't get emergency vehicles in ' there. There's not enough parking so the intent was not to develop that as an active use beach. Sue Morgan: Like a bench and you just sit...? g Y J Andrews: That's somewhat open. There could be a canoe rack or two but. ' Lash: I don't recall that conversation. Andrews: Yeah, we talked about that some. Roeser: Yeah, I'm sure we did too. I don't think it was ever considered as. Lash: I guess I always kind of had it envisioned that there'd be a small swimming beach I there. Public access to the lake. That's, as you can tell, I don't... Andrews: And that again would be part of the discussion about the park design. I mean we weigh the pros and cons. If there's going to be, I don't know, how many houses in this development but if you put a small swimming beach, then there's the complaints it's not big enough. It's almost better not to have any beach than to have one that's too small from our ' 29 1 P 1 J Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 regulating efforts. Sue Morgan: And then one other question. Do the people in the development, do they have priority over the use of the services of the utilities? Andrews: No. Lash: Were you here earlier? Sue Morgan: I just wanted to make sure. And how would this be designated? Is it a community park or a neighborhood park? Lash: I believe this would be designated neighborhood, wouldn't it Todd? Andrews: It's a large neighborhood park. Hoffman: Yeah, that's correct. It will have some differences in that requests are already coming in to treat it a little bit more like a community park because of it's location and because of it's isolation from the rest of the community. For these people west of Lake Minnewashta. At least a percentage of them that live there have their own community sized park like the tennis court policy and ballfield policy. Those type of things. They would like to be treated a little bit more as a community park and from that respect what you actually label it. I certainly think this will end up in the neighborhood park category. Andrews: I kind of look at this sort of similar to North Lotus Lake Park which has some community uses and some neighborhood uses. Berg: Meadow Green's the same way. Andrews: Same thing, yeah. Sue Morgan: Just a personal concern in that we are directly across from the park and a big percentage of the park. That some privacy be maintained as far as trees, vegetation. I don't know if there's going to be tall lights or anything of that sort on the ballfields. Andrews: No. This would not be, we would not consider lighting fields on the neighborhood park and the preliminary plat does show preservation of trees and foliage where possible. Lash: And if you look at the concept plan that Paul just showed, that there's vegetation ... and that's pretty much right across the street from your houses. 30 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 ' Sue Morgan: There's just one little area that ... we stretch almost from here to here and there doesn't seem to be any... ' (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Andrews: We've planted trees at North Lotus to add vegetation too so we're pretty ambitious about that. ' Sue Morgan: At the Council meeting last week, there's still some dispute about Kings Road and how it's going to be developed and where the lines are and ... and it looks as though a lot of the trees that are existing will be taken out when that road is developed. Off of the north side of the road so the vegetation would have to be put back in. I just wanted to make sure... and that's all I had to say. Thanks. ' Larry Wenzel: I'm Larry Wenzel. I live at 6900 Minnewashta Parkway and own property at 6880 Minnewashta Parkway. That property is just, where you see the red cul-de-sac coming in, that would be on our property. Everything south from the park would be the property. ' We have no objection to the park. Kids do have to have a place to play and it's good if we do have some insurance out there for potential people problems can come from it. One major concern is how the south property line will be buffered from the park and potentially west back from the corner. The major area of concern to us is that of the beach area. So that we wouldn't get people that would be migrating or children who would be migrating onto our beach property and potentially out onto the docks. It'd have to be something I assume there ' to control that. The park will be maintained by the city of Chanhassen I assume as far as clean-up and police patrol for parties and all that as a potential problem. We have found, unfortunately we have that big Chinese wall in front of our place that we inherited when they ' widened the road and ... and it's a place for beer cans and pop cans that are flipped up and trail walkers, an easy place to throw stuff out of sight which is kind of a surprise to us but, so obviously they'd have to have some type of a collection control or that type of thing in the park. I guess the, not understanding what your potential was for the beach, we have some concerns about it being used as a swimming beach and how kids would cross the road. We ' didn't know how that would be accommodate so that it would be safe ... there. I guess at the time that the park would be open is also somewhat of our concerns. We understand now it's sunrise to sunset. Something like that that's going to be established. So it's not at night? Andrews: That's correct. , Lash: They all close at 10:00. I 31 F U I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Larry Wenzel: Okay. Being that this park potentially is going to be having a lot of ' residences around it, close by, are they planning any kind of emergency phone service for 911 there? Andrews: Again, that would be something that's discussed when we design that final park design. Larry Wenzel: The final. I think it's something that should be considered. It's going to be a relatively large park. It's got about 10 acres and a lot of potential opportunities for somebody to get hurt playing ball or whatever. ' Andrews: There's a large number of active uses planned there. My guess is that there would be a public phone put in. Larry Wenzel: Yeah. Someway somehow that people can get, you know it's kind of a catch 22. You're sitting on a fine line because there's a certain amount of positive things in the ' park and then there's always the nervous reaction that you get from people that are next to it being if you know the sun sets, who is there. What's going on? And everybody gets a little ' spooky today. We didn't have that problem years ago. Those are the basic questions that I had I believe. The cul -de -sac coming into the back side for future development of the—was kind of a surprise to us. That certainly is the Planning Commission and not the Park 1 Commission. I don't know how they came up with that potential concept. But that's all our concern. Thank you. Andrews: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak about this development from the audience? If not, why don't we start with Fred's end and we'll just work our way down with any comments we want to add about this and then we'll proceed. Berg: I don't have any specific comments other than I'm very happy that we were able to work something out. It's nice to see that we've come to an accommodation here where it ' appears that most parties are at least satisfied and have most, if not all of their needs met. Manders: I guess one main comment I would have is the usage of that property south of ' Kings Road I think is pretty minimal and I don't think that the commission would be real interested in it. Andrews: Ron. Roeser: Well just that the people who are concerned are living out in that area. We're a ' long ways from finishing this park. We have to buy it first and then you certainly will be 1 32 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 1 consulted as far as the development of the park is concerned. You'll hear from us. , Andrews: I agree that we're years away. When this purchase goes through, we're going to be so broke we won't be able to ... This is really a good example I think of a win -win and I want to thank Harstad for coming back to us with this. I think this is such an improvement ' over where we started, both in design and also cooperation. I really think we've come an awful long ways so I'm excited to see this coming to fruition. Huffman: I do, I'm brand new, about 3 months, 2 months on this commission and don't know everything that you've gone through but your comments and your concerns about what will go onto the park, the people there, I know these people are very concerned about that ' and you'll take an active part in it so we appreciate you coming tonight and we'll be right along with you every step of the way. Meger: I don't have much more to add. Lash: I too am glad this is getting wrapped up but I do have a couple questions, I think more ' for Todd ... where it talks about the potential pond is located in the park which will result in a net ... I don't understand that. Hoffman: The city park property will also add a liability for drainage, for storm water drainage so the park, the calculations were made and where it's draining to the pond which is to be constructed as a part of the development, that we are benefitting from that. We have calculations through the engineering department which we charge applicant's, you know if they've added to a pond which the city maintains, this would be a reserve of that scenario. We would owe them and providing for that benefit. So where they're first taking a look at it, we have not put the time into making those calculations prematurely but that would certainly be a case when you move to preliminary plat and final plat. ' Lash: Okay. And then my other question was, when it comes time for this... demolition of the existing buildings, I would certainly like the commission to be involved in that... ' Hoffman: Sure. Roeser: You want the round house? Andrews: Are we ready for a motion then? Let's move ahead here. Well this one probably should be paraphrased being that we have potentially an A or a B option here of the final plat so. I guess I can do it. I would move that the Park and Rec Commission adopt the preliminary plat. That we encourage the City Council and the Planning Commission to work 33 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 with the developer for final plat design. That we are requesting the acquisition of parkland, ' approximately 1.52 acres to be dedicated and an additional 8.48 acres to be purchased. This acquisition shall be a condition of the final plat approval and that a purchase agreement will be negotiated by the City Attorney's office contingent upon City Council's approval. Full ' park fee credit be granted as part of this condition. For trails, the acceptance of full trail dedication fees per city ordinance is recommended. Current trail fees are $300.00 per residential unit and also that the applicant shall construct a trail stub linking to the park through Lots 4 and 5 off of Country Oaks Road, if that design is adapted as part of the final plat, as approved by the Council. 1 I I L I 1 Lash: I would second that. Andrews: Any further discussions? Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat as presented with the inclusion of the 10± acre park. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication (1.52± acres and purchase of 8.48± acres). This acquisition shall be a condition of final plat approval. A purchase agreement shall be negotiated by the City Attorney's office contingent upon City Council approval. Full park fee credit ($34,200.00 on 38 homes) is to be granted as a part of this condition. Acceptance of full trail dedication fees per city ordinance is also recommended. Current trail fees are $300.00 per single family residential unit. The applicant shall construct a trail stub from Country Oaks Road through the park between Lots 4 and 5 as a part of the public improvement undertaken in this project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Andrews: Thank you everybody for coming on this one. I'm really happy to see this one going through. This has been many, many years we've been waiting for on this one. Hoffman: I would as well have to thank ... property owners and thus listed Dave Headla ... they were not listed on these plans... represented by Robert Morehouse, the realtor... REQUEST FOR STREET LIGHT, CARVER BEACH PARK. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Andrews: I guess I'm wondering, is a light going to have exactly the opposite effect they're looking for here because now you're going to provide enough light so if people do want to mess around, they can see a little bit better to mess around longer. 34 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Roeser: Yeah but they can be seen messing around. Hoffman: I did note that I did ask for the opinion of both the City Engineer who referred me to Northern States Power and then Public Safety Director. Public Safety Director had a comment which certainly can be effective on certain circumstances. But this is 5% of the total park area so you're going to be lighting up the parking lot. Once you drop below the hill, you're back down into the dark area of the park. There are no street lights in Carver Beach Park in any other locations. ' Andrews: I just don't see how they can do this personally. It's very limited benefit, as Todd just said. I mean you're lighting an area of about 100 square feet or a couple hundred square ' feet that's visible with a light. That's my opinion. It also puts us in the position of lighting more areas and more parks. Berg: When I was going through it I guess I felt the opposite way in that it would discourage I think people from parking there which would discourage them from going down below. Otherwise they'd have to walk a considerable distance but I'm hearing now the potential costs is what's scaring me a little bit away. Lash: I didn't hear a potential cost for the overhead line would run. Hoffman: Again minimal, the first 100 feet of that cable gone overhead, we would receive ' that free so that would be probably under $500.00 for that first. But in the opinion of the NSP representative, it's not very attractive to string 125 foot cable from one pole draping across the street and into your parking lot. ' Berg: Well he might be selling another produce though too. Hoffman: Well. Lash: I guess I don't have problems with doing it ... What I guess I have a problem with is a request from one person but it has a bigger effect on people who live around there. Like you said, there are some people who like street lights and there are some people who don't like street lights and unless we knew for sure what would resolve the problem down there, we , could be putting in something that's going to be bothersome to 5 or 6 people on the request of one person. So maybe, I would feel more comfortable before we took any action to find out what some of the other residents down there felt. If they have a problem with a street ' light, we need to know that before we would move ahead with it. And if they all think it would be a good idea, we need to know that too. ' 35 1 L 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Roeser: I think you should encourage them to call the police every time there's a problem ' down there and find out how often this really happens you know. Sometimes it's probably not as serious as they think it is. But if it is, if they have to call the police every week or two, then it is a problem and then maybe we should look at it again and decide. It shouldn't be, you know why don't we check with the public safety department and see how it's going. Tell those people to call the police. ' Hoffman: It's not the first time that I've talked with this resident. Obviously they're directly across—the park and each time I discuss it with them, I encourage them to, as you noted in their letter. They indicated that they don't call the police every time it occurs and it's ' difficult to judge... exactly what those incidents are and how bothersome they may be. Lash: I guess I'd be interested in hearing more about it. Getting also specifically a copy of the calls that have been made and how many times the police have been called there. Roeser: And what happens and what's going on. ' Lash: If it happens 3 times a year. If it happens in the summer. 3 times in the summer or if it happens 30 times in the summer, that's going to give us an idea too of how much. Andrews: How about if we try this. That we gather that data. Send a letter to like the 5 adjoining property owners north and south with a scheduled agenda night and see what we ' attract. If they're not motivated enough to come in and say we really are interested in this. Or we're very much opposed to it, then I think it's a non issue to me. ' Lash: Or encourage them to at least call you and tell you how they feel. 1 Andrews: Yeah. Is that satisfactory? Okay. I'd like to jump off the agenda here and apologize to Connie, who I still see sitting here. My intention was that I'd like to see more information brought to us about the affect on your property. I don't know, in talking to the ' other commission members, I think we would need some time to either go down there and look at it or have some photographs taken and I personally think it would take our own personal time to go down there and look at what it's like. So I'd like to put it on a future agenda for your item as well. Is that acceptable? Is one month enough time or do we need more than one month to get down there to look at it? 1 Berg: That should be more than enough time. Andrews: Alright, let's put it on for next month again. Thank you. I'm sorry I kept you waiting. Can we jump ahead for Fred here? Would that be okay and we'll come back. 1 36 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 1 Let's jump ahead to item 8 here so that, we'll come back. Or item 9, yes. That's what I meant. Item 9. ' SPECIAL REPORT, FRED HOISINGTON, VISION 2002, COMMUNITY CENTER SITE, HOISINGTON - KOEGLER GROUP, RED -E -MIX SITE. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Fred Hoisington: Thank you Todd. Mr. Chair, members of the Park Board. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to be here. It's a little earlier than I'm normally on the Planning Commission agenda. They know that when I'm coming to speak to the Planning ' Commission, I never get on until midnight so this is very much appreciated tonight. There are a lot of important things that we're in the process of doing as far as Vision 2002 is concerned and what we're doing at this point, even though we're not yet near the end. We've got about 2 more months to run. Sometime in July before we have anything we can put together and be ready to ... in a significant fashion to the public how it wants to respond to this plan. But, let me kind of tell you a little bit about what it's about and then I want to ' show you some things and get some feedback. It's important for us to not get to a point where we're ready to ask for some approvals and not have the Park Board's input in this case. We're already been to the Senior Commission. We've been to the Chamber of ' Commerce. One of the committees we again served on. We'll be going to the Planning Commission next week. We went to HRA. The City Council so what we're doing is kind of shopping this around and asking for suggestions and ideas and input on all aspects of all the ' plan. For those, how many of you have been involved with the Vision 2002 process so far and having some of the focus group sessions? We've had 3 of those and we've had some fairly good participation there. Not as much as we had hoped we would get but nonetheless a ' lot of people have had input. And then we've had an, what we call an ad hoc committee that has met 5 times. They have at least 1 or 2 times more to meet before they'll be ready to kind of sign off on this and suggest something to each one of the boards and commissions. But here is what it's all about. The purpose of Vision 2002 is to create a shared vision for the city center. It's as simple as that. Now as you know it's not as easy to do because from the very earliest beginnings of redevelopment that has occurred here, there have been disputes ' over some of the things that have taken place. And there have been corrections made in some of the street and some of the streetscape and those sorts of things. All for the better I think. So we want to make sure that when we finish the downtown, which pretty much has to be done before the turn of the century, that it's right and that we have agreement and that people can share that vision and we think we're a long ways toward that end. There are a , number of unfinished parts to the city center. Just let me tell you which ones those are. Principally public facilities but commercial is coming and we needn't be too concerned about whether there will be enough of that. There will be more commercial than the downtown can ' 37 1 ■ I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 accommodate and there will be a line still of people trying to get in. But we have a number ' of public facilities that we need to be accommodated in some fashion and you already know that because you go to some of them. One of them happens to be the post office. The post office currently has about 3,300 square feet and it needs twice that amount of space currently, just to run the operation that's it running today. The building was never designed for the capacities that are expected to run through that building today. Really the post office could use as much as 10,000 square feet or 3 times what it has by the turn of the century and now ' we think there are going to be some major changes in the way the postal service runs also between now and then so that might be pushing a little bit but nonetheless, most of you know what kind of changes we're seeing there. Another public facility that we're trying to resolve ' is the library which all of you know also has a deficient space. There are times when this library has tons of people and they're overflowing into this space and that's good. There's a shared use opportunity here that is important and that we expect maybe to continue into the future. But we need to address that because the library will be a ... to this community and library space or the demand for the use of a library is increasing at about 15% per year rate. Now that's not going to continue at that rate because libraries are also going to change. But at least there is a need to address the one we have because it only has 2,600 square feet and that's way too small for what they'll need in the future. Another facility is senior housing and the Senior Commission has been very active in looking at the number of locations in the city center and we've been looking at many of those same ones and we have I think reached some accord with the Senior Commission. Where senior housing probably ought to go. And what we're trying to do is steer most all of these uses to non - retail locations because we don't ' have much retail left. And some of the things see in newsletters and in the larger scaled drawings do show some of those facilities in those kinds of locations. Retail but we're ' gradually trying to pull those back out of there because of the deficiency of retail space today. And finally, the community center. Community center which has been turned down twice and at this point I'm not even really able to define. I don't know where the community ' center of Chanhassen will be. If you were to ask me if it were to be built today, what it's definition might be, Todd and I can talk a little bit about that but frankly until the folks out there vote a third time, the chances are fairly good that none of will know what that , community center is. Now we don't think that's important to what we're doing right now. ' What we've been asked to do is locate it. If there is to be a community center in Chanhassen, and the focus group people told us that one of the important building blocks in the city center ought to be community center. So we've looked at a number of different locations and I will tell you a little bit about where we've settled at this point. Now about 2 or 3 years ago there were ample dollars to deal with all of these things. It appeared in the ' way of tax increment. That's not the case today. As most of you know in reading the papers and so forth and ... dollars are less available today than they were 2 or 3 years ago. ...go through bond issues and if the public says no, we need to be concerned about it but if we don't have the locations for them identified in advance, we'll close options. We won't have 1 38 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 ' 1 those doors open to us in the future. So that's one of the major reasons that we've involved here is in the face of limited resources, which are we going to build first. Which can we ' afford and how can we build or provide for each one of these needed facilities in the future. And then we're going to be seeking public support. We're going to be doing another newsletter. Not quite like this one. One with some explanation. This one doesn't stand very ' well on it's own because it's an intermediate stage. And then the HRA and Park Board and City Council have to move ahead with ... make all these things happen. So let me tell you a little bit about some of the elements that are of importance to you. We know that the whole ' city center is of importance to you but these are the things that have been talked about in the past. City Center Park. The park that has been discussed as taking place in front of City Hall. It's still part of our concept. We're not quite sure how you feel about that and what ' the Park Board's response might be to that but let me say that the city center park would tend to be a smaller kind of urban park. More hard surface. At least that's the way we envision it today with something that may define the street. Create an enclosure. In a sense but not meet for large groups. It would tend to be more something that you would build a city hall complex around rather than a large park facility. Another park already exists and that's the school park. And we see that as a very important part of the future city center and we expect perhaps over some period of time that it might change if the school use were to change but that at least in the short term, it would continue to be used for more athletic types of facilities and perhaps evolve in later years into something that would be a bit less active. A little more passive but part of the park is already like that so it isn't like it's a major change from what's there today. Another park is Heritage Square where we have a very urban park currently. Just to the east of the Pauly's and that park we would see expanding modestly. A little bit to ' the west, and I'd better define the west edge because Pauly's won't always be there you know. There's another 18 months to run on the lease. The new lease which means that ' Pauly's will be there perhaps that long, unless they find another location in the meantime. If they do, then of course that site will be cleaned up and the HRA already owns it. So the tables will ... The AVR site, and I'm going to show you something. I hate to call it a plan ' because it's not but I want to show you some thinking that we've put into that because we're talking about a number of different concepts for that and finally the community center. I want to talk about a little bit tonight. But I'd like to concentrate kind on the last two and ' spend some time on the community center because that's kind of an important part of this whole concept. If the public is willing to support it. The locations that we've considered for a community center, at least when we started out in this process, were the Frontier site or what you might term Filly's site. Where it was turned down the first time. And the reason we felt at least reasonably comfortable throwing that into the inventory was this. That one of the reasons it was turned down was because of Filly's. And of course Filly's isn't anything t today like it was 4 years ago. So we don't have a serious conflict with that location. However, one of the things that some of the people on the ad hoc committee still carried feeling location. So it for around was this negative about that after considering a period of 39 1 n Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 time and kind of going through the initial evaluation of it, we concluded that it ought to be dropped. We weren't willing to go back and revisit that location because it simply didn't appear to us that the public was willing to support a community center in that location. It would have been nice for this reason. That we would have had a way to get from, bring people back behind those buildings. Have a destination type use back there and that's been one of the difficulties we've had in the past, is trying to find a way to get people to come around to the back side and actually create sort of a front on the back. Another location that we have given a lot more consideration and would be one that would put the community center as part of this complex, not unlike the second referendum when it was on the school site south and there was a strong linkage between City Hall, the elementary school and shared facilities and a very good concept as a matter of fact. What we concluded in recent times however is that this site will not accommodate everything that will be asked of. We cannot put a library for example, the city hall, a senior center, a park and a community center on this site unless, you can't. I don't want to say never but what we can, what we concluded is that you have to put 300 parking spaces underground in order to be able to do that and it would cost about a million six and we could quite see people of Chanhassen paying a million six to put parking underground and therefore felt is there was vacant land and appropriate locations elsewhere, that was a better choice than trying to deal with putting it all in one location. An exciting concept. I get goosebumps over thinking about how urban and how neat a complex like that could be. But it's something that would be typically more likely to be built in Minneapolis or in one of the first tier suburbs and is not likely to be built in the city of Chanhassen. So we've kind of concluded that that may not be the best location for that kind of facility. And the third location that we have given the most consideration to, but I have to ... this very carefully because I'm under some pressure on this particular one to make sure that everybody understands what this means. The third one is some condemnation of the Eckankar site, the Lake Ann site and perhaps the Gorra, who ... to the west. Any one of those sites could accommodate a community center, which we would think of in that location as being somewhat larger than it would were it right in the city center itself. We really like the Eckankar site because what it does is it's creates sort of a westerly anchor for a community center, should it be built and we'd—great sense of creating an identity at the west end of what we define as the city center. Eckankar doesn't want it there. Probably we'll have to tell them ... one square inch of their property and they told us that. In fact I got a call last night about 5:00 as I was ready to leave the office, from their attorney wondering, had apparently gotten ... and he was talking about a map that he had or that they had that I didn't know they had. So I didn't know what map they could possibly be talking about at that point but today I know, since everybody else knows, and so I am ... to at least explain that and what I would explain to them once again is that we aren't necessarily intending to press yet there to the point where we have to go to court to do it but that we still think that's the best location and that we do not expect to see a community center built for the next 5 years frankly. I do not think that we'll see anything of that nature for 5 years anyway. The need is 40 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 1 1 here. I'm convinced that the need is here but I'm not sure the will and the resources are here currently to want to do that. And if it were to happen sooner than later, I suspect we may ' have ... cost before we pressed it on the Eckankar site. If it goes into Lake Ann, we may be faced with loosing ballfields, and that's a concern to us at this point. We don't have an over abundance of ballfields to begin with so these are a serious concern. And on the Gorra piece, , we know Mr. Gorra doesn't care for us much either so it's one of those things that doesn't seem to fit but let me tell you that we're tending towards the west end of the city center and that's kind of where we're hoping that we'll be able to anchor the city center at some ' manner, form and the closer we get to CR 17, the better. That's where we'd like to be able to put it. So we're still struggling with that We just don't want to disrupt the whole community and end up with a war over where that's going to be when we don't know that it's going to be built for a long period of time either. Again, as I indicated, we don't really know what it will be but if it's built today, it will be different than if it's built 5 years from now. I'm certain of that-expect that kind of change to occur. Do you have any questions, comments, suggestions... Andrews: Is the Filly's site really a closed issue completely? Because I know the Planning i Commission and the Highway 5 and lots of groups have looked at that property and a lot of them think that the only use that can be supported there would be some sort of a civic use. Lash: There was a plan done about a year ago or whatever that. Andrews: HRA did that one. ' Lash: And it really redid Filly's to the extent that I don't think the level of concern of the residents would be what it was in the past Fred Hoisington: I agree. I ... in that case. On the other hand, you should know that the ' Bloomberg properties' interest do have a plan that will be coming forth fairly soon for renovation on the existing bowling center. It will be a much significant improvement over what's there today and given the absence, at least immediately of dollars through tax increment to press that issue or stop that and press the community center issue is probably not likely. A few years ago they were willing to do that. Now they're really not able to do that. So as long as ... wants to work and as long as there's a need for commercial or retail space, I'm not sure that we would press them anymore. If that were kind of at a point where we're saying that would not be possible. Lash: Are you at liberty to say what's going to be involved in that development? Fred Hoisington: Well let me say that it is, it would be much in keeping with the 1 41 1 L Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 entertainment concept that we see for that whole lot. It could have a restaurant and theater or theaters. Lash: Movie theaters? Fred Hoisington: Movie theaters. It could have sort of a small amount of retail as part of it and I think the marketplace is working in favor of that for the first time in a long time. I think they've happen to have a lot of interest. A lot more interest than you've seen so it's probably going to happen this time. Andrews: I guess the only other comment I had was, is that we consider Lake Ann to be holy ground for the park board. Fred Hoisington: I understand that. I feel the same way but that's the way you have to kind of look at that. Lash: You'd have to put a parking lot underground. Berg: Yeah, before you take one ballfield, you'll have to do it underground. Manders: This may be pretty premature but do you have some general concept for the amount of space that this community center would require? Acre? 2 acres? 10 acres? What are you looking at? ' Fred Hoisington: Well Todd and I talked about that. If, when we were at least contemplating it on the two of the more urban sites of course we ... to the small space as possible. If it were to be built where land is available, then we think we would probably ' build a different kind of community center in that case. We might think in terms of it being let's say 30,000 to 50,000 square feet ... and that it would, depending on whether an outdoor park is an element of it, it could take from 10 to 20 acres total. So if it were kind of anchoring the west end and had an outdoor park, we could expect to use at least ... Let me go on to AVR and talk a little bit about what we're doing there. ' Andrews: Yeah, please. Todd Hoffman made a statement that wasn't picked up clearly on the tape. Fred Hoisington: The interesting thing is that Mark is, Mark and Bruce are the ... I'm not the park people but I'm ... so you're saddled with a person that's not really best able to talk about parks but all I'm going to do is give you some very preliminary thinking about what we're 42 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 kind of talking about as far as AVR is concerned. Because it's an important element. You all did look at your brochures or your newsletters and you did see the plan. The overall plan. Let me just explain a couple things here. There are 3, there are going to be 3 important entries to the city center here. The 3 are at the existing or new TH 101 and Highway 5 or the Apple Valley Red -E -Mix site. The second one will be the Market Boulevard entrance and that will probably be the most important entrance to the city center because it's kind of a crossroads. It picks up TH 5 but it also picks up TH 101 to the south. And the third one will be County Road 17. The Council has given us very specific directions about those 3 entrances. They said those are the only 3 they want us to deal with as far as entry is concerned and they only want anything that has sort of signage or monument, and I hate to even use that term, at Market Boulevard and they don't want ... 3 years ago. Now these 3 areas, we're expecting the 3 entries will have 3 different themes and maybe I can kind of point out what some of those, what those themes are. On the west end, or County Road 17, you'll note that we are talking about an oak theme. In other words, we're drawing in these cases from a natural environment for the meaning of entry to the city center. As opposed to contriving an artificial entry we're looking at creating entries that have already existing meaning here. And if for those of you who know the top of the hill, the James property up on top of the hill, and where the housing project has been approved and so forth, and where there are townhouses already under construction, there is, it's a high hill and it falls off on the back side down to the knoll or down into a swale with oaks lining that entire edge. And then there are some wonderful oaks up on the top, one of which is not going to survive but because it's jacked way up in the air and there's been about a 10 to 15 foot cut around it, which is unfortunate but it probably was the only, I'm not sure why they saved the tree because I don't think there's any chance for it live there. But what we're trying to do is draw from that area out to Highway 5 and CR 17, that whole idea of an oak entry at the west end. The center or the Market Boulevard entrance is already, already has 3 wetlands around 3 of the quadrants of the intersection. Of course you know one with the fountain in it. The one to the south is simply a cattail marsh and then the one on the northeast corner there is a sort of an excavated pond that was for drainage purposes and there is no wetland on the southeast quadrant. But what we're talking about and what Bill Morrish talked about here was sort of the wetland circle. Completing that circle and actually even embracing in some manner or form a fourth intersection or the fourth quadrant of the intersection and creating the circle of wetlands around that intersection. At this one there would be some sort of monument or signage to let people know that they've somehow arrived at the city center. The east end, on the other hand, is drawing from the maple that exists in the residential area to the east of St. Hubert's. And as you drive into the city of Chanhassen sometime, look over there and at least during this time of year, or during the whole summer, what you principally see there is maple. Maple trees. You don't see many houses. You see trees. And that's an important entry statement to make and what we're going to do is draw again on the natural features there into this intersection. Sort of the center entry concept of the maples that 43 I � 1 u I' a il 'I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 already exist up on the hill. So those are the 3 vegetation themes that we're talking about at the intersections. Let me talk more about the Apple Valley Red -E -Mix. The site was purchased by the city because of it's very poor access to TH 101. The rebuilding of TH 101 or relocation of it to this current location, left us with or has a right -in, right -out opportunity right at this point just north of Highway 5 and just south of the railroad tracks but as you can see there is an island in there and what, the fellow who owns the Red -E -Mix plant told us was, I can get those trucks to make U turns around that ... and I think you can. If you can figure out a way to do that. Our concern was that it was not going to be safe. It was a bad idea and the only way we could make that right was to actually buy the property and were very successful in buying it for an expensive but right price and I won't tell you why that it was the right price. The concept here then, and this is where the maple stands exist. Is to draw this into this intersection and to create in this park the circular groves of maples. That's the Morrish concept. The original Highway 5 broad brush concept was to create the circular groves in this area. So we're likely to see a circular grove here, one here, one in this corner and another one up here and then we want to be able to penetrate that more with prairie type materials inbetween. So that what you get is when you come down the highway, you get this view of trees, overstory vegetation. But when you get to a certain point you'll be able to see or penetrate through that. Again, this entire thing will tend to be more of a passive park. Would actually have a trail connection through it. Perhaps grabbing a hold of some of the concepts that Morrish picked up west of town. The hedge row concept perhaps blending into this park as such and then all the connecting, the pedestrian bridge crossing here and the parking in a fashion at the end of the cul -de -sac which would provide people with at least a limited amount of access into this park. It's not a park where we expect large numbers of people to congregate. We don't want them there in large numbers but it's a linkage. It's a connection to a lot of different places in the community and therefore it's an important one to allow access to but not expect that we'll have a 100 people there because if you do, we have no way to get them there other than parking on the street. The idea here is to screen completely or as nearly completely as we can the Hanus building and so what we will have is a succession of vegetation from the circular grove, a circular grove of maple and then we will have a circular grove of coniferous vegetation that will be on a slope up there. It will actually be a berm so when you come down the highway you will not see the Hanus building in the future. Now when the roof is built, you'll probably see the top of the roof. But if it's not built, for the most part you won't see that building so the ... exposure it has today to the highway will not exist in the future. You'll still see the end of the Hanus building when you come down here but this will have a very intense screening and all of the messy stuff that occurs in that parking lot now will be screened in the future. You'll see ... because I suspect we're still going to have but I don't think that's a problem. That would be an acceptable kind of, but that's what we're thinking about as far as this intersection is concerned. It's sort of a natural treatment. Nothing contrived. More growing on the features that exist here and creating a neat entry to the east end of the gateway to Chan. 44 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 ' Andrews: It looks good. It's a touch piece of property, I know that. The railroad cuts it right in half so. Is there going to be a pedestrian crossing for the railroad track through the park area? Fred Hoisington: Well what we're thinking, with limited dollars I'm a little concerned about ' whether we'll ever see it. At least the idea is to allow or to encourage some sort of crossing right here. The grade is right for it. It doesn't take the acreage that it takes to get across the highway. It would be a relatively small bridge and yes, we're expecting to link up the West ' 78th Street instead of having permanent access, pedestrian access here, we'd like to see it go on 78th because it's a much more personal scale. Lash: How much space is actually there? ' Fred Hoisington: Within this area? ' Lash: Yes. Fred YP re ttYq Hoisington: Oh gosh. This is really quick and rough stuff. We've been thinking ' g g about this for a long time but we haven't really put it down on paper until the last few days. I'm not sure what the total acreage would be. It's about 100 feet wide so if it's about 100 feet wide and it's 400 -500 feet long. Maybe 4 acres. Very long and narrow 4 acres. Any concerns? Andrews: I think it looks, we haven't come up with anything any better, put it that way. We've tried but I know at one time Highway 5 had talked about some sort of a garden plot ' area for seniors or whatever, clubs to work on. That's no longer part of this concept? Fred Hoisington: No. One of the things that we are, probably not gardens but one of the things that we're thinking may occur here is, because somebody's requested it and I guess maybe it's a good thing for you to be thinking about. Is that there could be memorial trees planted here by ... community may wish to honor someone. But it would have to be done in ' accordance with a plan but nonetheless that is a possibility here. As far as actually gardens, Jim no. We haven't anticipated that here. Seniors don't like this end of town. They don't want to be down at this end. Lash: It's the wrong side of the tracks. Fred Hoisington: Well, the wrong side of the cemetery. Well what we'll do is we'll come back to you again. As we get closer to the end of these things, we're still much in concept form and as we get to the point where ... more detail, we'll let you know and we'll talk and see , 45 1 1 i Park and ':ec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 where we go from here. Manders: One question I have is, kind of getting back to this Highway 5 corridor idea and kind of the notion of an entrance into the city from the west down at TH 41 and we're talking about the city center idea here and from the east, I don't know if there's been much discussion. It seems to me like this is probably the east entrance definition that we're trying to build and I don't see that there's really much opportunity to go much further east. Fred Hoisington: Well no, I think of course Dell Road would be an appropriate location to either sign or do something to let people know that they've entered Chanhassen. Manders: Yeah but you really start defining much. Like this I think would be a real nice definition. Fred Hoisington: Oh yes. No question about that. I think there would be much different, every location and it turns out to be just in the type of treatments but we were, we know Highway 5 ... and we've been keeping close track of it and we were kind of instructed to begin to think in terms of about 5 different intersections from TH 41 all the way back to Dell Road but the Council ... real nicely on this and we were real happy about that. We'd just as soon kind of stick with the, if something's to be done at either one of the east or west ends, that will be a different feature and probably by somebody else. Andrews: Thank you very much. Fred Hoisington: Thank you for having me and we'll be coming back again when we get something more complete. Andrews: Alright, we'll try to move into sprint mode here because it's getting late. RE UEST FOR FISHING PIER, LOTUS LAKE. Todd Hoffman gave the staff report on this item. Andrews: I've been a frequent user of South Lotus Lake Park for wind surfing and also boating and that's a very congested area to try to squeeze another use at the lakefront in and Todd and I talked a little bit before the meeting. I don't know how we could provide access to another area there on the lakefront. Manders: Yeah I just drove there and it is real tight. 46 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Roeser: Yeah, it'd create more demand on the parking lot by doing that. Andrews: On the weekends you can't park there anyway for boats. You have to launch the boat and drive the trailer back to the house and get a ride back later ... but, it's a nice idea but we don't have the space. We just don't have the space. If we're going to spend money for the fishing pier, it should be on Lake Susan. Lash: There is one. Andrews: There are plenty of places to park. Lash: Where? Andrews: That's good then. Any other comments on this one? Lash: There's a little fishing dock isn't there over at Carver Beach? Hoffman: Carver Beach has a fishing dock. Lash: It's not a big pier. Hoffman: And it's not accessible to North Lotus Lake neighborhood. Andrews: Well they can ride around Pleasant View and up and around. Manders: What kind of a, there really isn't any other opportunity around that lake for a more convenient access for shore fishing type. Hoffman: Not for this half of the lake. Carver Beach Park provides all sorts of access. The kids use it in 10 different locations along that park frontage there for fishing. There's one particular downed tree which reaches out about 35 feet. They hang in that thing 6 at a time and fish crappies so they're having fun on that side of the lake. On the opposite side of the lake, due to the frontage which we own and then the wetland vegetation which is present, the opportunity is not there. The commission is very familiar with how land locked that portion of our community is. It's very similar to west Lake Minnewashta. They can't get anywhere via the trails. Even if we put the access...you still can't get there from North Lotus Lake Park. Andrews: This is being presented as an idea. I guess we don't need to make a motion because we're not doing anything. I think we should respond to the Battani's again that this 47 J 1 r I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 doesn't appear to be practical at this time. Is that. There's about 60 feet of frontage there ' that's improved and most of that's being used for the boat turn around and the ramp and then there's a dock right there where you can put your boats while you're launching them and that's it. I mean there's just no other room. The rest of it's brush and it's very tight. I mean ' the lake narrows down there and there's just not room. If you were fishing there, you'd be fighting with the boats every second anyway. It's bad as it is. Are we all in agreement? Let's move on. ' LAKE ANN PARK 1994 PARKING PERMIT FEES. 1 - 1 L Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item. Andrews: To refresh our memory the revenue we generate out of this is about how much? Ruegemer: As you look on the previous, that was listed on the previous page. Or the previous item. The gate attendant report for 1993 revenues which listed. Andrews: Oh I see it, okay. Ruegemer: Revenues, excluding softball from last year was $14,947.00... and that was a combination of daily use, picnics, participants coming to athletic events for adults, and that type of use. Andrews: I don't see how we can decline that revenue. Hoffman: You'll note that in the next column it takes away $7,800.00 of it for the wages but those include both the attendant at Lake Susan, or excuse me... Andrews: And I think, even if we were to drop the fee we'd still want an attendant there anyway. Hoffman: We've had that discussion before. Lash: But we've got a lot more people... Huffman: Why do you need an attendant to get into a city park? Andrews: To just keep an eye on things basically. If there's problems, they want people to know where they can go to get it taken care of. 48 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Huffman: Then you'll have people who will be using the parks or the beaches or down at the water front or, I mean those are heavily staffed down there aren't they? Lash: They didn't used to be. Huffman: But they are now. Lifeguards. Concession stand. Things like that. Meger: Full access down there. Huffman: ...go to Lake Susan, there's nobody telling me where the bathroom is there. Berg: I think it might help to maintain a little control when you've got all the softball games and stuff going on up above too. There's a sense that there's somebody there in charge too. A lot of the people you're talking about are down below down by the lake. Whereas if there's someone here, if there's a need be, there's a sense of control having this person there with the softballers. Huffman: A 16 year old at the gate with a book? Well I don't know, is it? Lash: Well we've had this discussion every year. Huffman: I'm for education here. Lash: No, I know. You bring up a good point because we've gone around and around about it every year and ... hadn't done it this year. Huffman: I apologize. It's late Jim. I will not bring this up any farther... discussion. Lash: Well I mean I don't think it would hard at all for us to figure, we're not going to change it this year. I mean people already have their permits but we, but I think there are some new people with probably new ideas and new feelings, that we could schedule it on another night for next year. We can't change it this year. Andrews: Well we've got to do it early but, to be honest, each year that goes by I become more convinced that we ought not to have a fee for Lake Ann. Manders: I would follow that, yes. Andrews: Because I look at my own use patterns. I don't have a pass and I don't go because I don't have a pass. I think geez, that's kind of stupid to have the nicest park in town that I don't go to because I don't have a pass. 49 Ll I I I ' Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Lash: And you're too cheap to buy one. ' Andrews: Yeah. I mean I've got state passes and county passes but I don't have that one. ' Roeser: You've got a pass for where they've got a gate attendant. Huffman: Yeah, it's a good item for March. Roeser: Yeah, I think so too. Let's table it until March. ' Andrews: I think we want to set this on a January 1st policy date I would think so that means it's a November item then really because it's got to be acted on. Let's move on. Item 9. ' Lash: That it be tabled? ' Hoffman: You might approve the 1994 fees. Lash: Okay. I move that we approve the 1994 fees as established and that discussion takes ' place on the agenda, January agenda for 1995. ' Huffman: Second. Lash moved, Huffman seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission set the Lake Ann Park 1994 parking permit fees as presented and that the item be placed on an upcoming agenda for action on January 1, 1995. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW STONE CREEK SUBDIVISION PARK LAND CONCEPTS. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Andrews: This again is viewed as a neighborhood park. Therefore no need for any off street ' parking? Hoffman: There's no room for it. Andrews: Okay. It's that's simple. Lash: So what do you want us to do? A recommendation... 1 50 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 , Jan Lash made a statement that was not picked up on the tape. I Hoffman: If you can't provide, you don't need to but if we took the, if we could provide and we didn't, we're in trouble. ' Hoffman: ...talk about a plan and look to the future and picture yourself in that meeting where you were talking to the residents... what staff was recommending and would be in ' essence approving at least in a very conceptual stage so we can grade the site. If you think you're happy with this—and throw the whole works out ... If you don't even want to consider ' it, then we need to simple leave it as is and grade the park... , Lash: It's getting late and I'm getting really dense here. Are you talking about connecting these two play areas with some kind of a slide? ' Hoffman: Yes. At grade slide. ' That radin that we would be doing would be only in this active use area. We're Andrews. grading g not going to be up on top of the hill there doing anything up there. ' Hoffman: No. On top of t h e hill , it has the curvature of there of the road. Andrews: And that top of the hill, I know at one time we talked about potentially some uses ' on top. That option is still preserved with what we're doing tonight? Okay. Hoffman: The picnic area and the tot play area would essentially be on the top side. ' Lash: Is this trail going to be something that is going to functional or is it just going to be ...? ' Hoffman: It would be functional. It would have... throughout the entire system because we have to cross the creek and ... down there. You may have to help with the first locations... It's ' not going to be ADA accessible. Jan Lash made a statement that was not picked up on the tape. I Hoffman: If you can't provide, you don't need to but if we took the, if we could provide and we didn't, we're in trouble. ' Andrews: That makes sense. Being that there's only one alternative and I don't think we're eliminating any future action by going ahead with it, I move that we approve the Concept #3 ' as proposed by staff. Roeser: Second. ' Andrews: Any further discussion? 51 ' 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 ' Andrews moved, Roeser seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve Concept #3 for the Stone Creek Subdivision parkland concepts. All voted in favor and the motion carved. ' PROGRAM REPORTS: A. 4TH OF JULY Jerry Ruegemer gave a update on this item and asked for any questions from the commission. Andrews: When will you have the sign up sheets for the booths? Is that next meeting? Ruegemer: For the trade fair? Andrews: No, for us to work, worker bees here. Ruegemer: I can put you down right now. Andrews: Don't do that. Bring a list next meeting ... same places we were. You guys are doing the prize board? Berg: I like the prize board. Roeser: I'm not touching the prize board... Andrews: Order please. Let's move along. Ruegemer: It's been an idea brought up in the past as far as having the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission staff like a trade fair table during the trade fair and I guess I'm just going to throw that out to see what kind of interest we have in that. In possibly participating in the 1994 trade fair for that. I know there still is tables available for that and I know I've been discussing it, there'd be a small fee assessed to participate in that but since we are Chamber members. So I'm just throwing that out. If there's any interest in that, I can certainly pursue that. Lash: So would it be manned by commissioners or staff? Ruegemer: I think that would be a great way for the commission to hand out literature and give information about our department throughout the city. 52 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 1 Lash: So that would probably be a big fee. Andrews: Then we can't do ring toss. Lemme: You would definitely get a t- shirt. I Berg: Which we've got locked up anyway. Lemme: One idea we had for that is, and we talked a little bit about this last year, was to do ' some kind of a game. Maybe like a wheel of parks or something and people could play and guess trivia about our park system... something to attract people to the booth. Not that you ' wouldn't be an attraction. To make it more fun. Andrews: So what do we think here? ' Ruegemer: You can let me know about that. Andrews: We have that now YP P are right? How man people going to be here over the 4th of , g g g July weekend? I don't know yet so. If we could get assistance from Park and Rec staff on ' helping with that, I think that's a good idea. I think there is an under awareness of what we have for parks in the city and I think would help get support for. Roeser: Now when is that trade fair? ' Ruegemer: It's Saturday, July 2nd. I Berg: It'd be nice if we could somehow coordinate the prize board with it and kill 2 birds with 1 stone. I Lash: I don't think we could handle that. Berg: You don't think we could handle all those things at one time? I remember the fishing ' contest. We couldn't handle that. We had enough trouble with that... Andrews: Let's move on. I want to get home. Lash: Are you going to plan Septemberfest? I know that's not even on here or anything but ' I heard a lot of people asking about sweatshirts or they wanted long sleeve shirts so you might want to think about that. 53 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 LIFEGUARD OLYMPICS, LAKE ANN BEACH. Jerry Ruegemer: Last year the commission allowed Minnetonka Community Services to hold their Lifeguard Olympics down at Lake Ann Park during a Sunday last year. We did it late in July. John Raby with Minnetonka Community Services would like to request that again. If that is possible. Here's just some of the, with the date listed for Sunday, July 31st this year from 8:00 to 12:00. Some of the events or competition events are listed down below as to what is going to be happening down at that day. I know last year a concern was about closing the beach and we didn't allow that last year. That wasn't an issue that ... That will be staffed with lifeguards for general use that day if anybody should choose to come down there during the competition. So that will be covered as far as that goes but according to John last year, and I was down there as well, a lot of the general public was more interested in watching the competition than participating in swimming activities at that time. But just to cover that portion of it, that will be staffed by lifeguards at that time and I guess at this time I'm looking to the commission to, if there's any questions on this from last year. Or from last year to this year. And see if there's approval on this item. Roeser: It sounds like last year went pretty smooth. Ruegemer: It did. Andrews: Let's do it. I move to approve staff recommendation. Lash: Second. Andrews moved, Lash seconded to approve the request to hold the Lifeguard Olympics at Lake Ann Park on Sunday, July 31, 1994 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PARK PRIDE DAY. Ruegemer: Park Pride Day was postponed from April when we had our big snowstorm. We had to postpone that until this past Saturday, May 21st. We did have all the groups that were going to participate that day, they did participate on Saturday. We had a total of about 5 or 6 groups participate with that. We had over 50 to 60 participants on Saturday to participate in that program. We cleaned up Meadow Green Park and down that little gully ditch. That was extensive down in that area. Meger: Did they win? 54 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Ruegemer: They did win. They did win. That area. There was 4 Brownie troops down in that area and they did collect the most. They collected 22 bags of garbage ... and they got a maple tree for first place so we'll be coordinating that with that group and they're talking about planting it at the Chanhassen Elementary School this year. So we'll coordinate the planting of that with the School District or ... we'll get that taken care of and everything went just fine. It was a great day on Saturday. We served hotdogs and plenty of pop and I think everybody had a good time so it will be mentioned in the Villager this week with pictures and some general information. Andrews: Very good. Let's move on to item 12. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A. FIRST QUARTER PARK AND TRAIL FEE REVENUE REPORT. Hoffman: First quarter park and trail fees. Big smile there. Andrews: Okay, let's move on to 12(b). B. MCGLYNN COMPANY PICNIC. Ruegemer: Working with McGlynn Bakeries, this year they would like to have a company picnic out at Lake Susan. Ms. Gayle Davis with McGlynn Bakeries was concerned about the parking spaces down at Lake Susan and she was wondering if it could be possible to close down the park specifically for the use of their picnic for that day and I know we all have mixed emotions about that and I did inform her at that time that it is a public park for general use. However, I did agree to bring it to the commission's attention for overall approval or discussion at this time and that's ... it also requests to use the beach area down there for general swimming during that day. That is not a maintained beach ... for bringing in sand or combing the beach areas. Really the swimming area down there is really not recommended so ... decision on that as well. Berg: I don't know that there's any mixed feelings at all Jerry. This is a public park period. Roeser: Why don't they arrange to park at their own parking lot at McGlynn and run shuttles? I mean to take up everybody's parking space down there really is, 200 to 300 people is a lot. There's goes all the parking, right? Andrews: They can buy stickers and park at Lake Ann. 55 0 0 L L FI �7, I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Roeser: Or even across like you did for the winter festival. Maybe they could make some ' arrangements with those businesses across the street but I don't think we should close the park. ' Lash: No. Andrews: I think we're probably unanimous on that. Again, this brings up a future agenda ' item though. What do we do as these questions come up again and again? I mean we do have a formal policy. Do we need to revisit it? Personally I don't think we need to but. ' Lash: What about the swimming though? Andrews: We can't do that, in my opinion. ' Berg: Do we have a liability question with that too? ' Lash: Well that was mine. If they were to have to sign some kind of a liability waiver, there's no problem. If we've got people who are going to swim or kids who are going to go in there anyway, and then there's no lifeguards there. ' Andrews: You're okay with that though if it's marked as no guards. I guess the other thing that I think about, if people going by there see people swimming, then they're going to think ' wow, that's a swimming beach. I can swim too and how do you explain to people, well McGlynn can swim there but you can't. ' Lash: If they want to swim and they've got that many people, why don't they book Lake Ann? ' Ruegemer: Because they like the close" proximity of Lake Susan a lot better with the playground facilities and everything in close proximity. Last year they did have it at Lake ' Ann. They felt that was a little bit more spread out than what they would like. They would like to have that closer to create more of a, I don't want to picnic atmosphere but—promote. ' Lash: Family. Huffman: The reality is though, if they put up a sign up here that says McGlynn Party, if ' I'm walking down there and I see that the park's full, I'm going away. But you can't deny somebody the right to go in there and use the facilities. The reality is, if they go and have 200 people there, more likely than not to go away. 56 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 Hoffman: Is the commission interested at hosting that large of company picnics at this site? Lash: I don't think that site accommodates that large a group, does it? Ruegemer: We can go up to like 250 -300. ' Hoffman: ...consulting the city attorney, he said you don't have to advocate it but if they want to swim in a public place. ' Andrews: It's at their own risk. Roeser: Let them just do their own thing with that. ' Hoffman: It will be a pretty ugly swimming beach by July 31 st. ' Andrews: Why doesn't somebody else make the motion here but. Hoffman: I don't think we need one. We can take the no back to them and Jerry and I will ' discuss... ' Ruegemer: Just an FYI real quick. That is really a growing concern I guess with me personally with taking on picnic reservations. As we go through the last couple years now, ' there is a growing and increasing amount now of picnics this size coming into Chanhassen. The word is really getting out that we do have quality facilities and we're booking a lot of non - Chanhassen picnics already for this year. People coming from Bloomington, Minnetonka, ' Minneapolis. There's a lot of those groups that are coming out here now because Lake Ann is such a premiere park so that's a growing concern to think about for the future as part of the CIP program. Maybe to look at an additional picnic pavilion that can accommodate large ' amounts of people. Andrews: I thought we just spent half a million dollars building one of those. I Ruegemer: It's being used about every weekend too... Lash: I don't know how excited I am about paying ... bucks for a pavilion so people from ' Minneapolis can come to it... Andrews: Well Dawn, you've been here for 3 hours. It's finally your turn. Make it quick. ' 57 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 24, 1994 LAKE ANN CONCESSION STAND. ' Lemme: Thank you. Do you have any questions regarding this item? I wanted you to be aware that we're—Right now it's open on weekends. ' Huffman: Some bait may be available? What kind of bait? ' Lemme: Worms. Andrews: Let's move on to a fun one here, 12(d). ' SUMMER INTERN. Lemme: Another person who's been waiting here for 3 hours. And learning a lot ... and her credentials are attached. A fine education and we're really excited to have her in the park and recreation department. We haven't totally overwhelmed her but we're getting close... ' Manders: The only question I have is do you think you have enough things for her to do? Yq Y Y g g ' Andrews: Welcome to town. Welcome from all of us so I'm sure we'll keep you busy. Let's move on. 1 COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: ' A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROOFREADING. Andrews: Item 13. Is there much to do on that one? Lash: I have one quick question. That is where... ' Andrews: Could you ask that forester to contact me. Please. Lash: Me too. What's your's. The ask tree. Andrews: The Dutch elm. I've got elm trees that are not coming down. (Taping of the meeting ended at this point.) Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Coordinator 58 Prepared by Nann 8pheim