Loading...
1 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2000 Chairwoman Lash called tile meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Fred Berg, Mike Howe, Jim Manders, David Moes, Jay Karlovich, and Rod Franks MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; and Tracy Peterson, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Approved as presented. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Hoffman: City Council on behalf of the City of Chanhassen accepted this photograph that you see there oil the screen from the Chaska and the Chan/Chaska Soccer Club. The engraving says thanks for your support and cooperation in developing the Bandimere Soccer Complex, the Chan/Chaska Soccer Club, August 1,2000. It was taken by one of their members and then fi'amed and presented to tile City Council at their last meeting as a sign of their appreciation. The next photograph I think we'll need is the Rec Center. Lash: Okay, thanks. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Franks moved, Moes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated July 25, 2000 as presented. All voted in favor and tile motion carried unanimously. REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6900 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY~ WHITE OAK ADDITION~ COFFMAN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES~ INC. TOdd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Lash: Before we get audience comments, is there anyone on the commission who has a question for Todd? Okay, we'll open it up for public comments. If you'd like to address the commission, if you could please come up to the podium and talk into the mics so that the tape picks it up for the record. Kyle Heitkamp: Hello everybody. My name's Kyle Heitkamp and I'm a resident at 4021 White Oak Lane in Oaks Minnewashta. Basically our intent tonight is to, we want to provide feedback on the White Oak Addition and also we'd like to submit a petition that we have with the residents of Oaks Minnewashta and neighborhoods north showing that overwhehning they definitely want the park Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 connector not at this location but somewhere in this development. We definitely wanted everyone to know that we are in great support of the addition. We're not fighting the cul-de-sac. We're not fighting the new homes coming out there. We think that would be a benefit to us, but what we're looking for is to have the park connector and mainly it's because of a safety issue for our children. So with that in mind, as you can see by the map here, our only access that we have into the park is from the south and east and our neighborhood is actually blocked off from the east side so really all we have is the south. And so what that means is we have to go all the way around on Country Oaks Road and Kings Road which are very busy streets and, not busy in standards of Highway 5 or anything like that but that's where all through traffic of the neighborhood goes. And by coincidence yesterday a different group in our neighborhood, they were putting out fliers also stating the same thing. That some of your neighbors have taken notice on say traffic speed along Leslee Curve, Country Oaks Road and Kings Road so the same roads that we have a concern with, and because of the connecting to the park, the same ones that this group had brought to the attention also. And they are not affiliated with our petition. They have not supported our petitions so I don't want you to feel that we're jumping off that one. You know with that, there's also another concern that I personally just ran into this weekend. 1 was bringing my kids down to the park and so we went down Country Oaks Road and before taking the left to go down on Kings Road, if you have, I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old. The 4 year old on a bike, 2 year old that was being pushed in a stroller, and so if you're trying to maneuver the stroller and keep a child in front of you on a bike and the sidewalk actually curves and then so, if you're not holding onto your child, it's going, it could easily go out into the street there and in light of everything that's been going on in Apple Valley this week, and that's one thing that you know I want to make sure that at least we are addressing this so we don't have any unfortunate deaths or anything with the traffic there. And with that in mind we actually went out and got a petition from our neighbors and I'll give you all a copy of this petition and unfortunately our 2 year old got a hold of it so there's a few scribbles on it and so 1 apologize for that. But when we started the petition out we decided that we wanted to get 30 names. That was the goal and we started at 3:00 yesterday so we knew that iii order to make the lneeting it was going to have to be done last night. And so we started out going down White Oak Lane all the way from our development, across Country Oaks Road and down and right now there's 22 homes along that street and we have, there were 17 homes that we contacted by the homes. There was no one home at the residence and of the 17, 16 of them signed it. And there's actually some that asked if they could both sign it. The husband and the wife because they felt so strongly that they wanted this. And the one person, or one household that didn't is Jim Larson and we feel, all the neighbors along here feel for Jim also. We don't want it to go on their property because they built their home without this path in mind so we don't want this to get pushed onto them so we completely understand that and I'm sure Jim's going to step up and say some comments so I'm not going to, out of respect for Jim l'm not going to try to speak for him. Then we also, to get to the remainder we went into the neighborhood to the north and they, every household that again one, signed the petition. That one household, they were empty nesters and they said they'd never step foot in a park so at this time they don't feel that they ever would so they did not want to be involved in it so. With that in mind, 1 really, I think we have a lot of options here. By all means I'm not a city developer and I'm not going to stand up here and act like any of them. But I do have contacts, people that do this on a daily basis and have done this for years and I had a few conversations with them and they said there's different ways of doing this. There is, I know a city doesn't like to hear this but there's way of lessening the width of the easement. There's not trying to put the lot on one lot. You can split it up into two lots or for that matter you can take 4 feet from a number of lots and try to make up the room for it. And you know again what we're trying to do is look at this in a way so it's for the people that buy the homes in the future know it's there. They accept it's there and so we don't have to throw it on their backs after they've already purchased the home. I don't know, do you want me to read the petition or is it fine if I just leave it with you. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Lash: You can just turn it in. Kyle Heitkamp: Okay. Lash: Can | ask you a couple quick questions? Kyle Heitkamp: Sure. Lash: Can you just point out on the map, when you're referring to the different streets, you said Country Oaks aud where specifically is your neighborhood that you're referring to? Kyle Heitkamp: My home would be right here. Right across the street, we're on the north side of White Oak. So right now to get to the park we come down and we go along Country Oaks, down here. Here's the corner where, 1 really would recommend all of you to look at this corner right here. The other thing that really concerns me is this Kings Road isn't even developed yet...and we have numerous occasions now where the police are out at this park constantly because these kids are running. You know they're high school kids are running up and down that road, you know vehicles and Elaine mentioned on the way over that last year there was kids on the skating rink with a sports utility vehicles doing, while kids xvere out there skating. So you kno~v it just, for a safety issue lbr if I'm playing with my kids, I feel that it'd be very beneficial for us to be able to have a connector through there and not subject thegn to everything else that's going out there. Audience: There's that handicap ramp is what you're talking about under tile window. Kyle Heitkamp: That goes out to the road. I'm talking about the sidewalk that comes down and then it meets the other sidewalk. It's at an angle so the handicap goes forward. Audience: I know...kids getting off on Kings Road. Kyle Heitkamp: Well the hill itself is going to because you curve this way and this way. Because you have two hills right there. See if you come this way and then go around and that's what's pushing things out. And as for property values also, I did some homework on this and I also gave you three articles here. Two came from the Minneapolis Star Tribune. One is reference to a real estate consulting company sayiug that, a company called American Lies. It's a real estate industry research firm that they say that walking and bike paths rank third among 39 features identified by home buyers. And so the article is here saying that access to parks and trails actually increase tile value, not decrease the value. And they also reference a study about trails so 1 also included that also. Lash: Well you're preaching to the choir here when you're on that so. We're not anti trailsjust so you know. Kyle Heitkamp: So again, with that in mind we are not trying, we definitely don't want the Larson's to suffer for this. Or anyone else in our neighborhood for that matter who have existing homes so no, it's not what we're requesting. We feel that there's an opportunity here. There's a lot of land there. There's a lot of opportunity to get that connector into that park and ! guess that's it and thanks for the time and I really please and I urge you to help us protect our kids. Manders: Can I ask you a question? Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Kyle Heitkamp: Sure. Manders: Again referring to the map, what area do you estimate would be using this connector? Just kind of a half moon or whatever. However you want to point out on there. Kyle Heitkamp: Anywhere from, right now this is, the way it's laying that's where the 16 or 17 homes that we talked to. And then it also goes up to Hallgren, up in here and we did not, like I said, the intent was to get 30 signatures just to show that there was support. 1 guess we were surprised that every home that we went to agreed with us so we didn't keep going farther and farther north to. Manders: But what area did you cover, I guess I'm still unclear. Kyle Heitkamp: It's right here. It's White Oak and it's Hallgren Lane. Manders: Okay, those two. Kyle Heitkamp: It's those two so it's Oaks Minnewashta and what's the other area development. Oak Ridge. And again, we stopped at 30 signatures...so l'm not trying to say that might represent a sample is that we talked to 5 people. They all voted yes. Or actually talked to 6 people. They all signed a petition. I'm not saying that that percentage is going to go forward throughout that whole neighborhood. That's not what l'm trying to do. Lash: When you said you see that there are lots of options of places where we could do this, can you show us? You know the area better than we do. Where do you fbresee that this could happen? Karlovich: You wouldn't care if it was between Lots 3 and 4 if it didn't have anything to do with the existing home would you? If the trail connector was between Lots 3 and 4 and connected up with the cul-de-sac. Kyle Heitkamp: I'd be wide open to all that. Karlovich: And then the two 93 foot lots weren't tile same, maybe they could take a little away from the large lot 2 and move that over 20 feet. Kvle Heitkamp: We would actually, if it wasn't for Ji~n and Ann, we would be open to have it where it was proposed but I guess what we're saying is for neighborhood unity and for everything involved here, we don't want this to be crammed down then throw it up here... Berg: How far is it from where the trail was proposed, tile connector was proposed to Minnewashta Parkway? Lash: Are you talking about from west to east? Berg: Yeah. Hoffinan: 600 feet. Lash: Would there be a possibility of getting easement or the rights to run the trail from the end of the cul-de-sac out to Minnewashta? So it's across the end of the lots instead of. 4 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Berg: And then come up Minnewashta? Lash: Right. Franks: On the north side of Lot 17 Manders: Well it'd be the parkway there. Lash: It hits the trail right on the parkway. Manders: I mean that's what you're saying, hook up to this trail? Lash: Right. Berg: That's what I'm asking, if that's a possibility. Hoffman: Sure, any one of those is a possibility but all those lots are narrow so it's not going to be, it's a tight situation in all cases. Lash: No, they're narrow but they're deep, right. Along the northern boundary. Karlovich: It seems like the whole development is maybe narroxv but the whole development is just to accommodate the existing house and garage ou Lot 2. The reason why everything else was so narrow. Hoffman: I think the applicant can speak to that when he has a chance. Kyle Heitkamp: I also just want to add that you've been very thorough on this too I mean so. Lash: Okay. Does anyone have any other questions for Mr. Heitkamp? Franks: Yeah just one. So what I understand you saying, although I haven't heard you directly say it, is you're really looking to have the trail connector take, connect from the cul-de-sac ou Oak Lane down to the trail. Somewhere in this. Kyle Heitkamp: Down to the park? Franks: Down to the park. Somewhere in this proposed development. Kyle Heitkamp: Right. Franks: And what you're saying is you'd like to see a restructuring of the lots to accommodate a sized lot that would allow the trail to go through, is that? Kyle Heitkamp: Yes. Franks: So when you say there's options. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Kyle Heitkamp: Right, that there's options. You know Ed has, you guys might want to jump up here. 1 mean to answer your question, yes. Yes. Ed Harrington: I'm Ed Harrington, 4041 White Oak Lane and looking at this earlier, at the plan, l just kind of doodled at home. If you look at, between 2 and 3, if there was something here that, there's an actual path right now that comes right up to here. The property is pretty well...my drawing here is pretty exaggerated but if something could come between 2 and 3, it will stake down and connect the two of theln, it would be a natural pathway right up through and it's pretty level so that was one suggestion that we worked out... Lash: Okay. Does anybody have a question? Thanks. Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the commission on this particular issue? Ji~n Larson: I just want to say a couple words. My name's Jim Larson. I live at 4000. I want to say, 1 don't mind that's my house and everybody knows that but what's happening in general, 1 have one concern and that is there is a lot going on down at that park late at night on weekends. There's a lot of noise. Saturday night | couldn't believe the amount of noise coming from the park and we're afraid that even with a path, you know yeah we want to keep our children safe and there is a walk that goes all the way around and it's less convenient obviously but there is a path to get there. Secondly, we don't want the people from the park that are partying late at night, when the sheriff does come and they have been around there a couple times, or once in particular where they were coming up and down all the streets with their lights going and everybody's going, what's going on? What's going on in our quiet neighborhood? Well, there is drinking going on down there. There is lots going on down there and we don't want to give them a gateway to our street. And so I would just as soon, you know although it's convenient, it's also convenient for people coming the other way. People that we don't want in our neighborhood so. Lash: Thank you. Bill Coffman: Members of the commission, my name is Bill Coffinan. I'm the President of Coffinan Development. With me tonight I have Larry and Nancy Wenzel who have lived...neighbors up until this point I suppose. 3 or 4 years ago this same commission found that a trail connection probably wasn't needed from the Harsted project, the 45 lot folks at Minnewashta plat and now we're coming through with a 5 lot plat to accommodate a larger plat that was done a few years back. Our plat doesn't benefit at all fi'om this trail. Not that that really matters, but it actually is a hardship on our plat because it does in fact decrease property values to the homes that are adjacent to the trail. Nobody wants to live next to a trail, as Jim Larson just said. They don't want it next to them, and 1 believe some of the other neighbors probably would not want it next to them as well. Secondly, the 20 foot easement doesn't fit anywhere on our plat. We originally started out 100 foot wide lots which would go down to a 80 foot building pad. As you can see here we're down to 93 foot lots which puts us at a bare ~ninimum of 73 foot building pads. We plan on this being an upscale, very high end neighborhood with a lake lot, park lots. Very expensive homes. We want walkout ramblers to be able to be placed on these lots. If we lose 10 feet off of two of these lots, you've just decreased property values enormously. It's a huge hardship on the Wenzel's. Furthermore, if in fact somehow or another we could shoe horn a trail somewhere in the plat coming through the Wenzel's front yard or side yard or right by their house for that matter, there's no sidewalks connecting up to this trail. So what we end up doing. Berg: While you're doing that, I'm sorry for my ignorance. The Wenzel's are where? 6 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Bill Coffinan: The land owner. Berg: They're I and 2 here? Otherwise the existing house in 2? Bill Coffman: Yes. They will be living on Lot 2 for the remainder. Berg: And that existing garage is their's then too? Bill Coffinan: That is correct. Berg: Sorry to interrupt. Bill Coffinan: No, that's quite alright. As you can see, here is the property right here. There's only three homes that actually would be benefiting, from my opinion, from a trail connector. There is a sidewalk that runs north and south along Country Oaks Road. There's no sidewalk on White Oak. So if any of these people up here wanted to use this trail connection, they xvould end up having to walk on the street instead of using the sidewalk which runs north and south aud east and west along Kings Road. That's obviously what this commission intended to happen. People use the sidewalks, not the street. So why bring all of these neighbors into the street along White Oak Lane? Basically, and fi~rtherlnore that late night activity is another problem. Is on occasion the cops have been called out here and with a trail connection up, that could bring the hooligans into the White Oak Lane neighborhood. I don't think that's a desirable thing as well. It really isn't much further for these people to walk over to White Oak or Country Oaks Road. The only people that really would benefit would be these three landowners, 1, 2 and 3. Because anyone else in feet would just about be equal distance to come down this way, down this way, and up to the facility as opposed to if you lived here, you end up going like this. If you lived here, it's not that much difference. It's only a couple hundred extra feet and you're on sidewalks instead of walking down the middle of the road. So the bottom line is, this trail was an after thought and it's a huge hardship on the Wenzel's 5 lot plat that receives absolutely no benefit from the trail. And really it ends up taking value away from the Weuzel's probably costing them an entire lot. And I'd be available to, 1 guess I agree with staff's recommendations is to vote no to this trail connection and l'd be available for any questions. Howe: Can you explain Lot 1 ? Does Lot 1 have, you have the same map I do. You have a 1 there that's. Manders: That's the block number. Bill Coffman: Lot I is a flag lot and has beach, or lake access. Howe: Okay. Franks: Is Lot I accessed off the cul-de-sac? Bill Coffman: Yes it is. Long driveway. And that's considered a lake lot. It has the advantages ora dock on the lake. A very valuable, build a very large house on that lot. Berg: Todd, what about the idea of a trail connector from the end of/he cul-de-sac there to Minnewashta Parkway? Is that a feasibility Todd? Hoffman: Feasibility? Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Berg: Is that at all practical here? Hoffman: I don't think it's any more practical than putting it between 4 and 5. Berg: Except you're not running 2 feet away from somebody's back window. Hoffman: ...Do you know the side yard setback from the house from this north lot line? Bill Coffman: It will be a 10 foot setback. That's 100, the minimum width on that lot is 100 feet. We are at minimum width of 100 feet for a flag lot. Bare minimum. That's city ordinance. Berg: How close would the home be to a trail running where I'm suggesting? Bill Coffman: It would be 2 feet. Hoffman: 2 feet, yeah. Same as the others. Berg: Is that close to the front of the lot? Lash: Well this would be the front of the lot. Hoffman: The house would sit this way on this lot. Bill Coffman: That's correct. A will walkout with views of the lake. Walking out towards the lake. Hoffinan: So the trail would come right along this north side of the homes similar to. Berg: Within 2 feet. Bill Coffman: I can guarantee you the Headla's, who live to the no~h, would be adamantly opposed to that as well. I know them quite well. ltjust doesn't fit. A 20 foot easement is an after thought for this small five lot plat. This commission didn't want it 3-4 years ago because of the sidewalks going up and down Country Oaks Road and Kings Road. It's a hardship on the Wenzel's. It truly is. We just don't have the space. This not a loose plat as you can tell. Everything is tight. That is the truth. Moes: So what happens if you turn it into a four plat lot then? Or Addition. Bill Coffman: Yeah, if we were to lose a lot, then we would have the space but that in itself would probably be considered a taking on the city's part so l'm not so sure we want to go there. Moes: Help me with a taking. Bill Coffman: Well we've got these lots sold at this point and if, and correct me if I'm wrong. You have to, you need to compensate the landowners if you're going to take value away from their property. Is that not correct? Karlovich: i don't think it would be a taking. I think there'd be a logical nexus between an easement here or not. l don't think you should start threatening the commission that you're going to. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Bill Coffman: I didn't want to go there, like I said. ljust, you know if we lose a lot, it's a. Franks: You went there. Bill Coffinan: Yeah I know, but if we lose a lot it is a big deal. It really is. Karlovich: I think you should stick with the argument with the sidewalks. I think that was more persuasive. Bill Coffinan: Well, 1 agree. I certainly agree. Lash: You know 1 do think that when you look at the larger' plau, there are ~nore people who would benefit from this than just those people on the one street. Everyone north of that. I mean it would be a short cut to the park. That's all it ~vould be. Bill Coffinan: A couple hundred feet, yeah. But then those sidewalks. Lash: Well when you walk, you know personally I'm not all that worried when I walk doxvn a street that has 4 houses on it that I'm going to get run over'. Berg: I've lived in a neighborhood without a sidewalk for 20 years and we haven't had any appreciable danger at all so. Lash: I mean it's not like it's a major thoroughfare. It's a little dead end street. Bill Coffinan: No, there will be what, maybe a dozen homes down that cul-de-sac. Maybe 16 total once everything's developed out. So no, there won't be, not a lot of traffic. Lash: Anyone else have a question for Mr. Coffinan? Franks: I'm just looking at the garage that sits on the Wenzel's property. The existing garage and if you could just enlighten me about the distance from the garage to the lot line between Lots 2 and 3. Bill Coffinan: We originally started out with 100 foot wide lots and we had to reduce those lot widths to 93 feet in order to get a 30 foot rear yard setback fi'om that garage to the property line to Lot 3. So that 30 foot setback is minimum and if you look to the north of that existing garage, there's a 10 foot minimum side yard setback to the property line to Lot 1. So those are minimum setbacks per city ordiuance. That's tight also. I mean right at the minimum. Berg: Did you answer his question? Franks: 30 feet. Berg: 30 feet. Franks: Was it ever explored to pursuing a setback variance? 9 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Bill Coffman: Yes. That Bob Generous basically gave that a thumbs down from the get go. We approached him right off, our first application showed the lot line being closer to the garage and that was, he nixed that quite rapidly. Lash: I'm sorry, how far was it from? Franks: 30 feet from the garage to the lot line. Lash: So if you put an 8 foot trail right along there, you'd still have 22 feet on the side of the garage. Franks: But you'd run into the flag... Bill Coffman: Any further questions? Manders: How does the existing garage follow that access? Will that access that cul-de-sac? Bill Coffinan: No. It's accessed from their driveway which is in place at this point. Manders: It goes out to Minnewashta? Bill Coffinan: That's correct. This driveway here, and they have a turn around basically right in this area. Manders: Oh okay. So it actually works quite well the way it's designed. Karlovich: 1 just had a question about the cul-de-sac. How does that get built with that being part on the property to the north? How is that being staged? Bill Coffman: What has been negotiated with staff, and we came to the Planning Commission a few weeks ago with a half street and we were basically, we basically redesigned it in order to build the entire right-of-way in this point and then we're building what, 2/3 of the bubble to the south with the remainder of the bubble being built when Headla develops to the north. They're not quite ready at this point to develop. But engineering is comfortable with the 60 foot radius turn around. 2/3 ora bubble. Lash: Anyone else with a question for Mr. Coffman? Franks: I'm looking at what looks like a preliminary plat but you mentioned that these lots are all sold already? Bill Coffinan: Well, we've got a handshake agreement with a builder who I've done business with for several years so they're in the process, once we have an approved plat. If we're successful I should say. We've got, it's a very beautiful piece of property. Off the park and lake and so forth. I'm quite excited about it. It's too bad that, you know when. Lash: We see this with developers all the time and you have a beautiful piece of property and then you just cram as many houses as you can and make the minimum lot sizes and then we have problems like this. You know ifI was going to build a $500,000 house, l'd like more than 10 feet on the side of my house to the edge of my yard, but that's just me. 10 Park and Rec Comlnission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Bill Coffman: Yeah I've done several very high end projects. Olivewood on the other side of Lake Minnewashta is another subdivision 1 did. Shadow Ridge on Lake Lucy Road is another project. All 100 foot lots or 120 foot lots. We start at 100 foot lots and now we're down to 93 feet. That's why, ! mean... that's where it's at. Franks: The side yard setbacks on Lot 3 for the house pad are 10 feet also? Bill Coffman: Correct. Franks: And could you, yeah right here on the drawing here. Could you kind of just site the house pad for me on Lot 3? Proposed. Bill Coffman: Fm guessing... Franks: Yeah, we all understand it's a guess. Bill Coffman: You know like this. And there's a potential of the garage coining out like that a little bit. It's hard to say at this point. Franks: Sure. Sure. Is the setback from tile cul-de-sac is 50 feet? Bill Coffinan: 30. Franks: 30. Bill Coffinan: The front setback is 30. The sides are both 10. Manders: The proposal that the gentleman had earlier about the trail coming off of the end of the cul-de- sac and then crossing the tip of Lot 3, coming down on Lot 2 1 think it was. How was that received? 1 mean l'm sure unfavorably but I mean, in terms of the hardship that that presents. Bill Coffman: Well first off it goes right through the Wenzel's garage and it cuts right through their back yard. Manders: But I mean if that pushed over so that it's closer to the lot lines than about into the garage. Lash: When you get close you can't see. Bill Coffman: Then it would not meet tile minimum setback per ordinance to tile garage. Lash: Yeah, that's the one right along here where their drivexvay's going to be for Lot I is and then right down here, that would take from 3. It would take 8 feet fi'om there which still leaves 22 feet to their garage. And it doesn't screw tip your 93 foot lot. Bill Coffinan: What it does though, it makes a variance required for the, as far as for the rear setback to the garage and it's already been... Franks: When you applied for the variance though a trail connector wasn't a part of that application. 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Bill Coffman: That is true. That is correct. Manders: So assuming that a variance is achieved or could be achieved, in terms of the hardship that it presents, it's just that you don't have your 30 foot setback but aside from that, what other kinds of issues does it present? Bill Coffman: Well it does, if you were to center the trail on Lot 3 and Lot 2. Manders: Well I'm not saying center it. Wherever it fits. Bill Coffman: Put it all on Lot 3, yes. It doesn't hurt, we'd put the entire 20 foot on Lot 2. No, it does not hurt to set that situation on Lot 3. What it does do, it hurts the setback situation for Lot 2 to the existing garage. Manders: To the garage. Bill Coffman: That's correct. Plus it puts it into Wenzel's back yard as opposed to a side yard, which is even worse than putting it down to the side yard. Manders: Well I'm just trying to look at options. Lash: Right, but if it didn't meander the way the drawing shows. If it just went right along the lot line. Bill Coffinan: Right. This is, the Wenzel's live here. This is considered their front yard, whatever. And this is where, you know they use this area the most. I mean this is where they barbeque. This is their back yard. So basically it'd be putting the trail right in the back yard. It's their back yard, not their side yard. Manders: And how is the landscaping or the terrain there? Is it flat or is it hilly or what is it like? Bill Coffinan: It gently slopes down. 1 mean it would be fun on Rollerblades ! guess but you'd be safe on a bike. Lash: How far would it be, how far is it now from the back of their house to their back, where the lot line would be? Bill Coffman: Well this was 30 feet. l'd say it's maybe 8 feet. That's roughly. Do you concur with that Larry? Larry Wenzel: That's pretty close. Lash: Anyone else with a question? Okay, thanks Mr. Cofflnan. Larry Wenzel: Yeah I'm Larry Wenzel. This is my wife Nancy. And of course we live at 6900 where all the debate's coming from. 1 guess it's from our standpoint, we've gone through the application once. Got turned down. Where they made us change the lot sizes. The minimum on those lots back there is 90 feet on 3, 4 and 5. Or they won't let us use that type ora road. To put the trail in behind our house, our existing house is rather discouraging being that this could have been eliminated 4 years ago when we sold the 7 ½ acres to the back. And now that we're just finishing out the front, then to come in with it at 12 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 this time is a little difficult for us to handle. Part of the reason that we've been attempting to save as much property as we can in the back is to be able just to, we have some storage back there for a pontoon boat and whatever on our own property. We end up with a trailer and then of course that presents a whole new problem for us there. And l just, to our way of thinking it just doesn't fit. We just have to go back to the Planning Commission with a whole new problem. And I don't know that it would work. 1 just don't think we've got the room to be able to do that and still get it through the Planning Commission and that's all | have to say. Nancy Wenzel: I don't have a lot of say. I am surprised that they would encourage a path up to that cul- de-sac. One of the reasons I would be opposed if! lived on White Oak is because kids do drive cars on the paths in the park in the winter time. In the summer time too. They drive their automobiles through there. They will drive through there and down White Oak Lane l'm sure. | don't know who these children are but they have been a problem. I don't think Jim and Ann have been at all restrictive about people from their street cutting through their property to go to the park. I believe that they've allowed this and they don't have a problem with it. I just, l'm really disappointed with this path idea. I feel it is a hardship for us. Larry Wenzel: Thank you. Lash: Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Ed Harrin~on. Just say one last thing. Kings Road is a 30 mph speed limit. 50 is typical on that road .... trucks come down from the other end of it daily. My kids are 12 and 13. They're pretty stable. Most the kids in the neighborhood are 2 to 6, 7 or in there. They do come down the sidewalk. They do go down to the end. I agree with privacy. I agree with all that part of it. I like privacy in my street. I like it quiet. I like a dead end street. If you use bollards and things of that nature on this path way it will prevent cars from going up there. Who's going to run over a bollard that's steel and cement, l'm sorry, I'm not much of a public speaker but, and my kids are the ones that were on the ice skating rink last year when the kids were doing donuts out there so I have a lot of things to say about that. And I'm sorry but the hardship to the builder and everybody else but I'm just looking at it purely from a safety point of view and nothing else. And if I have more foot traffic on my street, the kids going down there and they're safer by that, that's great. No one wants to mourn a child. That's all ! want to say. Lash: Okay. Can you just state your name one more time? Ed Harrington: Ed Harrington. Lash: Thank you. Anyone else from the audience? Okay, we'll close public comments now and take it back to the commission. Mike, can we start down at your end? Howe: Sure. I know I came here late but I did read all the e-mails this morning and I caught up. I feel for you but l just don't see a way that it's going to fit on this plat right now. It's unfortunate and I've been in this park and I haven't witnessed any of the behavior. That's probably another meeting. That's another issue that we should probably address but I don't see there's a way to put a trail on that lot. I don't think people wanted to develop their homes are going to do it. That's all I have. Lash: Okay, thanks. David. 13 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Moes: After listening to both sides of it and you always try and figure out what some of the options and solutions are you know overall in totality but that's the way the plats are laid out. It sounds like ~ve are in the minimum width in regards to all those and it sounds like we'd be talking to some of the, any variances that might be possible to incorporate into a path type solution. And without causing the hardships that we've heard, l'm not comfortable trying to implement a...across the new development there. It does sound like we've got access through the other roads and understanding that there is the traffic issue there and as Mike stated, it sounds like it might be another session and another discussion in regards to dealing with that issue. However looking strictly at the access to the park issue, I'm not finding an appropriate alternative to putting a path in there for the cul-de-sac right now so, that's all I've got. Lash: Okay, thanks Dave. Rod. Franks: Todd, just a question for you to help me out with my map here, although it looks like it should have the elevation markings on it. I can't read them but l'm wondering about what the grade is like in the back in the middle between Lots 3 and 4. ! know the play structure is sited somewhere in there with the retaining wall but. Hoffman: Generally it would be gentle sloping from the cul~de-sac to this location and then we have a large hill right here that backs the play structure right at that location. And so the natural area to connect tile trail is either here or essentially here. But you dead end right into a steep hill here. You go either this way or that way. Franks: Is that, let's just say that you were going to go either olle of those two directions. Is that, is it doable to do for a trail along the specifications that we do or is it cost prohibitive to deal with that kind of a slope? Hoffman: No, you could build... Franks: Well 1 personally, you know the Larson's already have their home there and the Wenzel's already have their home on the other side and to put the trail either right next to the Larson's house or right through the back yard of the Wenzel's home is not particularly palatable to me. I'm certainly less sympathetic to the...more towards the garage and then freeing up some space between Lots 3 and 4 to run the trail straight down from the bottom of the cul-de-sac. It also to me looks like that's the shortest space between the cul-de-sac and the park of any of the alternatives which you know I think would be the least disruptive, if we were going to look at it. I don't know exactly how planning staffwould feel about doing that kind of shift in granting some kind of variance to accommodate a trail easement between Lots 3 and 4. By shifting the line between 1 and 3 closer, or 2 and 3 closer to the garage. But meandering trail, you know that we talked about, I can't envision that. ! like the safety of the sidewalks but I also live ill a neighborhood that doesn't have any and in 10 years we have yet to have any kind of accident so. I don't know Todd if you can give an opinion or if you feel comfortable giving an opinion about what the use of such a connector would be. Hoffman: What the use would be? Franks: Yeah. Hoffman: The one thing that's nice about connectors is it gives you options but, you know so that there's going to be some neighborhood use. Is there going to be some people walking the parkway and so you're 14 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 going to walk the parkway and then they walk through the park and then they want to go back to their neighborhood to the north and so many of those type of folks may use that. But one drawback between Lot 3 and 4 is that you also have to run it not only in the side yard of 4 but then through the back yard of 4 and then kind of through the back yard of 5. They're all fairly close there to get it over the trail. And so there's some additional impact with that design. Manders: Taking Rod's philosophy, what if you shifted 3 and 4 over aud went between 4 and 5? Lash: it doesn't really sound like they can do any shifting. Manders: Well I think they could shift 3 over. They could shift 3 and 4 over. I'm not saying they can but if they can, then you don't deal with that back. I don't know. Hofi'man: The realities of 20 feet is there's just not a whole lot of room for shifting. I mean I don't know, if you think about your own home and is your side yard 20 feet from your neighbor's garage or the side of your garage, and this is a different product. And it's not a very wide lot. Lash: Do you have anything else Rod? Franks: Well you know I'm trying because I'm sympathetic to the concern but this park does have access to it. It does have the sidewalks and so the alternatives don't appear to be real workable. Although I'd like to give it a shot. That's it for me. Lash: I guess I'd agree. I don't really have too much I can add. It'd be nice to be able to run it through there and have a short cut but I don't see how we can do it and I wouldn't do it to the Headla's. Or the Wenzel's, or the Headla's. I don't think it's fair for people who have lived here to all ora sudden have a trail go through the back of their yard. None of us would want it so I wouldn't want to do it to anybody else, so that's I guess all ! can say about it. Berg: Do you have the overhead Todd that shows the neighborhood to the north? The existing neighborhood. Lash: Sure. Berg: Now can you plot to me, with one of the existiug homes, how they now get to, froln xvhere they live to Kings Road and then into Round House Park. ltoffman: Sure. From the cul-de-sac that we're talking about? Berg: Yeah. Hoffman: They start here and they walk down here to Kings Road and into the park. Berg: Now is there any way of making a connector somewhere along that north/south line into Round House Park? Hoffinan: No. That was part at the time the plat was developed. There's also a storm water pond that runs from here all the way to this Lot 1. 15 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Berg: Okay. So that's impossible. I guess I find myself then coming down with everyone else. I certainly understand the plight of the concern for safety and I think we do have an issue here that sounds like we need to talk about. I feel we have a type of good faith agreement with the Wenzel's. Not with the developer but with the Wenzel's. To change the rules at this point in the game I think would be terribly unfair. But I don't see an alternative either. I'm waiting for one to just miraculously appear. That's all. Lash: Okay, thanks. Jay. Karlovich: l'd like to start out with a question for Todd. Where was the trail connector going to be in the prior plat? Hoffman: Right here. The shortest point. Karlovich: And it was decided against by the prior? The only comments that I have to make to the neighborhood is, I wasn't on that...at that time and I do agree that it was a mistake. I was swayed very much by the fact that the sidewalk system is down the north/south road and then along Kings Road. And you know if you look at this, it is a hardship on a 5 lot plat and you put it between 3 and 4, it's going to hurt but it will still get sold but it will hurt. I'm just, l'm leaning against it due to the fact that that trail connector was bypassed at an earlier date and there are sidewalks that get you to it and it just doesn't look like it's going to work. Lash: Okay, Jim. Manders: l'ln running out of original thoughts here. So the, Fin trying to recall, and I don't remember what the reasoning was for not putting in the connector that you indicate there. Hoffman: At the time I believe we were just coining offsome of the conversations with, in other circulnstances where these were going in and people were not happy and I think the commission at that time was a little bit apprehensive to put in these inbetween lots. And I know at the time we talked about widening them out and again the applicant says I don't have to widen it out. If you have a trail connector, put it in and it was decided not to. Again, it's the same conversations happen. How much farther is it to walk around versus cutting through. The city had a perfect opportunity here. We were dealing with the same owner on the park and the development and we master planned the park and the trail before the plat was approved so. There's some water over the dam that, one thing I had numerous conversations with many or all the people in the audience and, or at least those representing different sides and one thing 1 said is, this is going to be a wonderful learning experience this evening. Park and Rec Commission about old history and how it comes back to face you again so. Lash: Okay. Anybody else? Mike. Howe: One thing. There was mention about the sidewalk at the intersection of Country Oaks and Kings Road being a tight turn. Is that something we'd be in charge of?. Can we kick that up to public works or something? I haven't seen that corner. It sounded like it was a steep turn, you said with bikes. That's one we can do there. Hoffman: I walked this today. You're coming down a hill, an incline at that location and you have to take a 90 degree turn to get down into Kings Road so you're coining down a slight incline here and then 16 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 you turn to go, and if you've got a 3, or 4 or 5 year old on a bike you're going to want to be close to him because they may not make that corner. Resident: Even if they switch the direction of the handicap access, because the handicap access continues to go down the hill with the direction of Country Oaks. So the kids are coming...and trying to make that turn, then they get in the flow of the handicap access. Howe: Okay, so a curve there would be better or something that would block them? Resident: Yeah. Or you kno~v switch the handicap to the other. Just switch it around to the other side of the corner. Hoffman: The other program that people have been referring to tonight is the Project Leadfoot, which is a new program by the law enforcement folks in the city on troublesome streets with speeding and nuisance traps and those type of things. And Mr .... right here on the corner, he's probably in my top spot in iny phone call in the city because of issues that have to do with Kings Road and the park so he keeps me informed about what's going on so it's no secret that there's issues and that kind of activity. And Project Leadfoot has been very successful if you're familiar with Pleasant View Road. Some of you are, you live in those neighborhoods. It's done a great done on Pleasant View and 1 think it will do tile same out here. Lash: Okay. Any other comments? Seeing no further comments, is there someone who, do we require a motion on this or not? Because actually. HotTman: Make a recommendation to approve, well to recommend the City Council accept the White Oak plat with full park and trail dedication fees in lieu of trail construction and park acquisition. Lash: Okay, is there a motion? Berg: I move that we recommend to the City Council that, you'll have to help me ~vith the wording for this Todd. Tile collection of trails fees. Hoffinan: Park fees. Berg: Park fees. Hoffinan: In lieu of land dedication... Berg: Right. Lash: ls there a second to that? Howe: Second. Berg moved, Howe seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council accept the White Oak plat with full park and trail dedication fees in lieu of trail construction and park acquisition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 17 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 REZONING REQUEST FROM A-2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT~ A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBDIVISION OF 120.93 ACRES AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (383 UNITS) CONSISTING OF CLUB HOMES~ MANOR HOMES~ COACH HOMES~ VILLAGE HOMES AND RENTAL TOWNHOMES ON 89.5 ACRES AND 2.9 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES AND ON PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND 41~ ARBORETUM VILLAGE~ PULTE HOMES. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Lash: As a part of this, is there a trail that's around the wetland that connects up north somewhere? Hoffinan: This trail? Lash: Yes. Hofflnan: Yep. And then you would connect, we have one piece that's left out. 1 call show you on the city map. And I believe Lundgren has an option on the property to the east. So this trail would be wrapping around in a configuration something like this. Of this property line, and then we have a trail connector that comes right down across here at this point from the trail that's on the north side of the wetland. And then it comes across and then we would stop here and then when this land is up for development we would make that filial connector down to that location. So very nice trail in the future for the residents in that area. Manders: So that comes out of the park off of Galpin? Hoffman: Let me blow it up a little bit here. It's in the area Jim but not connected yet. This trail dead ends right here and there's a property, well it dead ends right there. And there's a property yet to be developed here and then this road would probably wind on through and then this trail would connect up over to the underpass right there at Galpin which is going to be constructed as part of the frontage road. And then you would go up into the park by that direction. Here's how things develop, and still as kind of a side note. This road stub right here, if you've noticed, it points into about a 5 acre lot that they just put a couple hundred thousand dollar horse barn right in the middle of the road so I don't think it's going to happen any time in the near future. That road will probably not go through there for some time. Lash: And then doesn't the trail take off north out of the park? Hoffman: Yep. Lash: And go up through. Hoffinan: On Galpin, yeah. Lash: Oh, just on Galpin. I was thinking it went, I thought it went up through tile back up into the Lundgren development. 18 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Hoffman: No, it would be offstreet. Berg: That's Sugarbush, right? Hoffman: Yep. Sugarbush Park. Moes: And what would the distance be from, I guess the development we're talking about, even following your path Todd there up to Sugarbush. I inean do you have an estimate? 3 miles? 2 miles? Hoffman: Oh no. A mile. Moes: Okay. Once the path is indicated. Manders: And the wetland is basically your encircled trail area? Hofl'man: Yep. It's a large wetland down here. Manders: Okay. Hoflhlan: And then another one...property lille here. Lash: Okay. Well it's unfortunate that file applicant isn't here because after our last meeting I took it upon myself to go to tile totlot at the Pulte development in Shakopee and it is not acceptable. Kartovich: It is not what? Lash: Acceptable. As a totlot. It is, well. Berg: ...one tot? Lash: Hardly. It's very, very, it wouldn't fill the need of more than a couple of kids, 1 can tell you that. A couple of little bitty kids. So I think we'd have to have some kind of condition of, I mean already I thiuk it's not meeting what we've asked for. We've asked for some bigger parcels. We've asked for them to be in other kind of locations. Things like that. And I would want to see for sure how he's planning on equipping these because if the plan is to do it like the one in Shakopee, it would not meet the needs of the people in this area. Do you have anything Mike? Howe: Todd. The 8 acres of parkland versus, is it $500,000? Hoffinan: Yes. It's approximate fees on the site. Howe: Okay. Lash: And that would be a different issue than Outlot E, right? Hoffinan: Yes. Lash: Okay. 19 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Howe: Yeah, it is too bad that the applicant isn't here. I'll make a note to go look at that totlot sometime. Lash: Do you know where it is? Howe: It's off of 169 there isn't it? Lash: Yeah, and 17. Where that new Target's going in and the new St. Francis Hospital. It won't take you long. Howe: I'll bring my tot. Everything I read, you know most people from the city side are impressed with what they've done. Pulte, they've done a good job and they've met the requirements. I tried to read the environmental stuff and it looks like they covered a lot of ground. ! mean totlots notwithstanding but I mean it's been a pretty good process for these people. They have made changes. They did take some of our suggestions from last year. Hoffman: I think more of the suggestions is coming out of the City Council and Planning Commission, yeah. 1 don't think they're focusing on a 2 ½ acre open space park area. I'm assuming they feel that what they've left open as part of their PUD is something that the City would desire but again, it leaves something to be desired. Howe: That's all I have. Lash: David. Moes: Well I think with the size of this type ora development it's definitely...have a few more activities to play versus a small totlot and that just being two individuals, I'm trying to think of the many more children that would be in there, probably in that same age category that'd be looking for something a little bit more active to play in. So I think it's definitely appropriate that in this development we pursue something along the lines of a larger park facility versus the totlots that are currently proposed. Lash: Rod. Franks: Well this is a time when I'm glad the Minutes for our commission meetings are verbatim because I want to make this clear. Unacceptable. And I hope that the developers and Pulte get to read my comments on this. And I'm not just disappointed they're not here today to talk about the development, l'm a little ticked off about it. We made some suggestions. I think we tried to work with thegn and offer some ideas and do some things. What we've come back, looks like to me is, what ! remember I think they even discussed 4 totlots when they were here the first time and now we're down to 2. So. Howe: 3. Franks: 3. Next time they come back there will be 2. You know when I think of this intersection also being a gateway into our community and looking that they have their 12 to 14 unit whatever they call them, village homes and their rental townhomes, right on the corner and they're looking like the 3 story side poking right up there, is not necessarily kind of the view shed that l'd want to create coming into our town as well. You know we've at first talked about a 2 ½ acre lot and I know that some of us even felt we were compromising at that and agonizing about how to deal with their issues of density so they could pull out the development but you know this is very disappointing to see this come through. I was just 20 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 visiting a similar townhome development in Eagan and the place was over run with children and they're playing in the driveways and in the streets because there's no place for them to be, and even in their own material here they're suggesting that there's going to be children living here. So I would really like to see some work done on this. I'm hoping that their not being here tonight isn't an indication of where they feel this development is going to go through as far as the planning department and especially City Council, and 1'11 make that comment seeing you out in the audience Mayor. I hope they're just not feeling that this is a done deal because ! think at least from my perspective being on the park and rec commission, that this is not at all going to serve the needs of the people that are living there. 1 could rant on a little bit longer but I think I've run out of breath. Lash: I think you ~nade your point. Franks: Do you want me to try again? Lash: Have you made your point? Franks: Yes. Lash: Okay. I guess I would agree with Rod on his comments. I really would want to see some kind ora plan of what they're proposing for the totlot before | xvould xvant to make any kind of recommendation that this be approved. I do like that they have tried to incorporate a few little green spaces in here, but my fear is that this will turn out like Mission Hills over on 101 and I think we've had the opportunity to drive through there as a commissiou a couple of times and see how that's over run ~vith children and you get into a development like this, an association, and there are so many rules. You can't have a basketball net by your garage. You can't have any kind ora play structure if you even have any kind ora yard, which a lot of them don't. So really the only thing for any of those kids to do is to go and find some kind of a little playground and they need to be easily accessible and they need to be of adequate size and they need to be adequately equipped. And l'm not convinced at this point that they've met any of those just yet. However, I would like to make also as a part of our discussion the look at Outlot E as far as the, how did you say that was going to be operated Todd? Hoffman: Conservation easement. Lash: Conservation easement, which means? lfoffman: Can't be developed in the future. Lash: By anyone? Hoffman: Correct. Lash: I ~vould like to see if there would be some opportunity for us to pursue Outlot E in a different avenue rather than a conservation easement, but end up with the potential of city ownership of that. And I'm not sure what's involved with that but I'd like to see what could happen. Okay? And 1 would be done. Fred. Berg: We've had so many developers come through here and tell us that you don't need to have any play areas because it's going to be empty nesters. You don't need to have any play areas because there's only going to be 2.3 people living in every one of these things and you don't need to have any worry about it 21 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 because we built these things before and they're successful all across the country. We need to, I think we have an obligation to the people who are going to be living in these 383 units, and if they are park deficient, and we do set that as a priority, which obviously we do, I think we have to sit down with this developer and, like we've done with other developers, hash things out and come to some sort of win/win situation if at all possible. And right now it's the city and the citizens in this area lose. That's all. Lash: Thank you. This may be meeting City Council's request from last time or the Planning Com~nission's request from last time. I do not feel like this is meeting the Park and Rec's request from last time so that can go onto whoever is going to look at this. Jay. Karlovich: I think at the last time that Pulte was here I had at least as strong opinion. It appears as though that Outlot E is a triangulated piece of property that 1 don't even know if it's served by sewer and water. I don't know if Route 41 is the MUSA but even if it isn't, it's obviously something they don't want to spend any money on and want to give us the triangulated piece across of Highway 41. It looks nice to get $500,000 but I think our comprehensive plan tells us that we should be, instead of grabbing $500,000 and using it someplace else, we should be getting at least 5 acres here and providing those children with a park plan. And I think a good example of that is Longacres to the north. They put in two parks, even though they're right next to Galpin Park so this is just totally inadequate and I don't understand why Pulte wouldn't even show up at this meeting. That's it. Lash: Thanks Jay. Jim. Manders: Following in the line of the half mile radius in terms of being the other kind of a service area, makes it all the more important that we adequately service this area. And in terms of bordering developments. If! look across 5 to the east it's going to be industrial or whatever in that area. If you look to the west it's the Arboretum which is likely not going to be developed. And you look all the way around it, there isn't a lot of other development other than this in terms of residential in that area so, I think that focus has to be in this area. And looking at the design of how this is set up, minimally I would say you want two sizeable areas, one on either side of that West 78th because that's going to be a busy enough road so you'd want some kind of an area on one side of that and another area on the other side. Unless you're going to make one big area, then you've got to pick and choose where you're going to put it and then the people have to cross the street and you're going to have complaints there so, either you're going to have complaints one way or you're going to have one big area. But minimally we have to service this group I think within this area and 1 don't see that happening right now. So I totally reject it. Lash: Anybody need to say anything else? Franks: Todd, on Outlot E. We talked about the wooded area and the wetland area. How much of that Outlot E is developable in any way? Hoffman: 75%. Franks: And that's what, about 11 acres? Outlot E. Hoffman: You look at it there and also 75% of it is fully wooded. This triangle was identified as one of the sites in the park and open space acquisition study for acquisition for preservation of woods. So it was looked at as a desirable parcel by park task force 3, 4, 5 years ago. 22 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Franks: And that's what I understand from what I read. That they're getting their value out ofOutlot E by transferring density. Hoffman: Yes. Karlovich: Just seeing the developers that I work with with regards to multi family housing like this, the value of their property once they get their approvals through, it's on a per unit basis and depending on how many units they can possibly squeeze into here, that drives up the value but as a park and recreation commission member 1 would think that I would be willing to give up, give them more density. At least give us a park though in this area to service the 400, about 400 units and all the children in there. And ! think that's part of our comprehensive plan that we need to have some place for them to go. They're not going to go across 41. They can't get through to Longacres. They can't get across Highway 5. The only other options is to earmark the property to the east and say we're going to let this guy go and xve're going to take a park from the property to the east. Hoffman: And the property to the east will be single family most like. Perhaps not but that xvould be more difficult. It's going to be a very similar discussion that you had this evening. Karlovich: It just appears as though we'd really be shurking our duties to let this go without a park and then just pocket the $500,000 but, and 1 know it'd be nice. We have a lot of other places and trails and different things that we can spend that on but we'd be doing a disservice to 400 units here and. Hoffman: To get another viewpoint on it, our park standard is 1 acre per 75 people at the essential nexus and if you think about 380 units, you're going to have 600 folks, you know give or take. Your acreage is about 6 acres per our park standard. Manders: And a typical neighborhood park is, size wise, 8 acres. Hoffman: Minimum 5. Smnething like Sugarbush where we've got 5 acres. Hoxve: Is there anything in Chanhassen that's similar to this size right noxv? Mission Hills isn't as big as it.9 Hoffman: No. Franks: It's 200. Howe: Not even close. Lash: Well what happened in Mission Hills as far as park facilities for that area is,just a crime. And it's so easy to see now. So for that mistake to be repeated would be. Hoffinan: Remember how hard you fought just to get what you got? Lash: Right. Manders: In terms of this Outlot E. In terms of the accessibility and usability of that, it just seems to me, unless you have an underpass going under 41 that you're never going to use that area. 23 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Hoffman: No. Manders: And that probably won't happen either. Isn't there an underpass planned further up the road or something? Hoffman: Potentially yeah. It's supposed to go to. Manders: No, further up 41. Berg: Oh, yeah. The regional park. Lash: Well they have no desire really to build on that, do they? Hoffman: This triangle? Lash: Yes. Hoffinan: No. Manders: No, but I mean for the city to use it somehow. How are we going to use it other than look at it and drive by? I'm not saying there's a proble~n with that but I mean in terms of using it for this area, we can't. Franks: Well they can't build on it. Hoffman: No. Under the current scenario it ~vould be owned by the association under a couservation ease~nent and there's all sorts of, you play that out, there's all sorts of, you know will it go tax forfeiture. What value would they see in it? Why would the association ~vant to own it into the fnture? So would it come back to the City as a tax forfeit parcel? And if you don't put a conservation easement over it, 10 years from now somebody can come in and say hey. Why don't we, let's do something down in that corner you know. There's nothing going on there and convince future city elected officials or appointed officials that they should be able to do that. So a conservation easement is the minimum. If you look to city ownership, then the applicant is going to say well, you can obtain some value from that in the future and so we want to be compensated for that. That will be their initial response but. Manders: All l'm thinking is, is there any way that we can utilize that space to service this neighborhood? Hoffman: Not unless you drive by. Manders: Yeah, exactly. Karlovich: Well one of the things that I was even, if the applicant was here, you know there's different options. You could even orient a park maybe, not 8 acres or even 5 or maybe even a little bit less on the east property line with the thought that when the guy next door comes in to plat, there's going to be a little expansion to the park. Do you see what l'm trying to suggest as even an option to say we'll take. Now on the cash instead of, in lieu of. If we do a 4 acre dedication, do we still get a quarter of a million then? 24 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Hofflnan: Approximately. But you would most likely dedicate some of that to develop the park. Manders: I can see some sense in that but you're still going to need an area in this inside loop between 78th and this corner. You need something in there. Karlovich: Yeah but I wouldn't feel as though I was turning my back so much even if they gave us 4 acres up here, 4 acres over here, and there was a sidewalk where these kids could get across and get over there. And when the developer to the east comes in, maybe get another 4 acres over there and have a nice 8 acre neighborhood park that is shared by the single family home and the multi family. If that's what the game plan is here and then even for this developer over here to have single family homes, they probably feel better about having that buffer zone between them and the multi family. Lash: Did you say that's Lundgren next door? Hoffinan: Most likely, could be. Wouldn't be their favorite topic. Lash: No. No. Jay, you haven't been here. So just so you know that it'd be, it's a nice idea but it would be difficult to negotiate with them I think. Hoffinan: I understand the message that you want to selld the developer and I'll sit down with those folks and go through that. There's dozens of logistical issues that we could go round and round with here tonight but the fact is you're going to table this and send it back to the applicant and we'll have those conversations. Berg: To accept his plan is to reject the philosophy that we've been operating under for certainly as many years as l've been here. And as long as probably as you can remember the city has had as their comprehensive plan. To reject that now seems terribly silly. Hoffinan: Sure. Lash: What about, you know I like Jim's idea that the new West 78th Street kind of splits this whole thing so, I don't even know ill like this idea but I'm trying to think of a compromise. If instead of going with 3 totlots you went with 2 play areas. I in each of the 2 main areas but then they were bigger in size and better equipped. At least they'd be more accessible and the kids wouldn't have to cross the street but, and maybe they'd be better, bigger in size if we did that. Franks: I'm not interested in doing the developer's work and if they were really interested in getting some work done, they certainly had our comments from the last time they were here before this commission and they certainly could have sho~ved up tonight. And I think we've shown ourselves to be more than willing to work with any applicant to try and work things out so, if the applicant wants to come here and work on a compromise issue or try to deal with what our concerns are and us understand what their concerns are and try to work something out, l'm all in favor of that. But I'm not interested in doing their work for thegn. I'm wondering a little bit Todd about Outlot E again. Is there, just because I don't quite understand these things and maybe Jay, you can help me too. Is there benefit tax wise to developers to seed these properties to a government entity? I meau is there any kind of gain that they get? Karlovich: No. I mean at the time of plat, the reason you have a platting process is to get all your easements at that time, whether it's for roadway or park or other purposes. 25 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Franks: Well I guess what I'm thinking after it's done and the association owns the Outlot E, is there benefit to the association then to transfer ownership of that to the City as far as what's. Karlovich: Probably a non-profit association anyways so it's not going to help them out at all. Developer, if the developer wants to get density in units and you know, Pulte I guess develops it itself but other developers, they go in and get approvals and then they sell the density that they have. Franks: Are the conservation easements placed for a period of years subject to review or are they? Hoffman: You can write them a number of different ways. Most of them are perpetual. Obviously the applicant gains something. They don't have to spend money, invest money to develop that Outlot E and so they gain there but in trade off for that as part of the PUD they leave it open. And they're moving density across the street but the rezoning that they're applying for, you don't have to grant them that but if you do, if you buy offthat that's what they should be, they're still not maximizing that and certainly that's part of their strategy as well. To seek the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council, and this is what we're seeking but again recognize we're not maximizing, we're not pushing it to the limit. Lash: What is abutting Outlot E? Is that Camp Tanadoona? Hoffman: Yeah, to the north across the street and then the church, Westwood Church owns the property to the west. Karlovicb: What is happening with the construction or condemnation or the dedication of West 78th Street at this point? Hoffinan: At that location, I believe the applicant would give it to the State and the City as part of their plat. Karlovich: But is there a cat and mouse game going on that, I want to put my development plans through but l'm going to make you condemn the property? Hoffman: Sure there is. Sure. Karlovich: That's the reason why the applicant isn't even here? It's just for condemnation purposes. Hoffman: Oh, I don't know that to be the case. It's certainly a potential but if these approvals are not met and approvals do not go through, then yeah. You're back having, needing to require that right-of- way through condemnation. That's why the State of Minnesota right now is starting on the east end of Highway 5 where they intended to start on the west end. But they're starting out at the Lake Ann Park side because they don't have this issue resolved. Lash: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? Howe: I move we table this issue until the applicant comes forth with more information. More detail. Lash: Is there a second to that? Franks: Second. 26 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Howe moved, Franks seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table the request for Arboretum Village, Pulte Homes until the applicant comes forth with more information and detail on the plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 27