Loading...
CC Minutes 4-24-06 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Mayor Furlong: That would be our second council meeting from now. Just for clarification, if we took action at that meeting, would that extension still be okay? Roger Knutson: That will work. Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good. Is there a motion to table? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Motion to table. Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council table action on Liberty at Creekside, Planning Case No. 05-24. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. (The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) PIONNER PASS. 1600 PIONEER TRAIL. APPLICANT SEVER PETERSON: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY (APPROXlMA TEL Y 43 ACRES): REZONING FROM A GRI CUL TURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT (RLM): PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PIONEER PLASS CREATING 82 LOTS. 8 OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC STREETS (APPROIXMA TEL Y 73 ACRES); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH A VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PRIMARY ZONE: AND WETLAND AL TERA TION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF WETLANDS AT FUTURE HIGHWAY 312. Public Present: Name Address Joel Cooper John Chadwick Paul Bilotta JRH Inc. J. Edwin Chadwick LLC HMI Development Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. This project before you tonight, Pioneer Pass is located also in the 2005 MUSA area. It will gain it's access off the new frontage road, then also off of Pioneer Trail. This request involves a couple of actions, most specifically land use amendment from residential medium density or office industrial to low density. Of approximately 43 acres. It also includes the rezoning to RLM and we'll spend a little bit of time going through that zoning district itself. Also preliminary plat and a conditional use for the work 38 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and a variance for the pond in the overlay district. And then also a wetland alteration permit for grading and filling. Most importantly I'd like to talk a little bit about the land use on this. If you want to turn to page 4 of the staff report, we put a table in there showing you where we are to date on the different land uses. Based on the previous discussion, it may be hard to believe this but our largest land use is low density, large lots or single family is our largest land use. If you go to the housing goals, we've always said it will predominantly 80% single family detached, so what you're seeing now is the introduction of some other product types. The RLM zoning district, which you look at this... was anticipated in some of the properties within the overlay district. As we looked at the overlay district, as we talked about in the past, there were two ways to accomplish providing the entire creek corridor, and I'll go back to myoId map here. The goal was to provide a corridor that runs from the north side to the south along the Bluff Creek and instead of acquiring it all, which we could have done, we've worked through the zoning technique to provide that corridor because we have had experiences where people plotting up the lot, so in this specific piece came before you and asked for concept PUD to discuss whether or not you wanted to look at the medium density or the industrial. At that time the applicants, also in talking with staff, we wanted to provide different housing styles on the property so this would be a single family product. So what we did on page 4 is we put the compliance table to date on that percentage of units, and it was discussed actually even on the bottom of page 2, talking about the 43 acres. Again, try to keep this simplistic but when we did our compliance on the land use, or our calculations, we assumed that a 50/50 split. If it went industrial or residential, we assumed based on the land use calculations for housing densities at 50/50 split. So in looking at the units lost among the medium densities were, that would have showed up on that 50% also. Again we used those numbers to keep track of that. We had to make certain assumptions for assessments and we looked at those numbers of, number of units, also for utilities. Water rate structure. Storm water fees so we look at all those numbers. So looking at the overall, we're taking into low density. Adding 42 acres, or taking out of the medium density 21. So that ties back to that percentage. Again in looking at the zoning that could have been applied on this, they could have gone with the medium or the industrial but at the concept this council gave direction conceptually, while it doesn't have legal standing, in good faith they moved forward using the low density. I'll talk about the specific questions on the green, I'm not going to talk too much about that except that we did talk that it slopes down towards the creek, and the park is located in that area that actually provides a good transition between Liberty at Bluff Creek and this project itself. And also as the Park Director mentioned, we believe it's in a good site as far as the visibility from a major collector road, which would be another nice view as you come down the collector road. Turn at the round about and then.. .minor collector that they'll be putting in place. So access on this, another issue under zoning itself, because there is other industrial zoning on this piece of property, so what the developer, but then also MnDot has and if they decide to turn back that right-of-way, excess right-of-way, that would stay under guiding the industrial, which would tie into the triangular piece that we talked about earlier. Everybody tracking me on that? So we, so this property is in excess MnDot right-of-way. This property here. Mayor Furlong: We expect it will be? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it could be turned back at some time when they're done with the project. 39 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: But we're not changing the guiding on that. We're only changing the guiding, so this will still remain industrial, and that ties back into.. .going to go here, and then this is also, what we talked about earlier, is the industrial piece on the other side of the creek. Mayor Furlong: If it remains industrial or will it be dual guided? Kate Aanenson: Probably still be dual guided. But we would recommend probably a transition area of some professional office, kind of in that area. Buffering. But the issue there then too was access. Again, as I indicated, it will have access off of the collector road. They are also building a minor collector on this portion. So they're... the issue that we have is there's a gap there between the MnDot right-of-way and getting to Pioneer. So on this map doesn't show it but the subdivision map does show that connection onto Pioneer, so there's two access points in and out of that subdivision also. And as the City Engineer indicated earlier, that access point was, this access point was actually over here earlier. Approximately in this area. It's not been moved over to this point as part of the design build. Councilman Lundquist: So they're building the road. Kate Aanenson: To tie in... Councilman Lundquist: From their development all the way to, is that Bluff Creek Drive coming up there or what is that? Kate Aanenson: Yes. This is the new aligned Bluff Creek Drive, right. Councilman Peterson: They're not building right up to that though? Kate Aanenson: Yes they are. Building right across. Yes, we are making that a condition of approval because there's a gap and we wanted two access points in the subdivision. Councilman Peterson: And that part is in MnDot's right now? Kate Aanenson: It is. It's a condition of approval that they secure that to make that access happen. Yeah, so we're not putting all the pressure back on this road, so the two access points. So I mentioned again these are all public streets. This one being the 80 foot. The rest of them would all be the 60 foot. There's a compliance table in the staff report talking about the lot sizes. Again this is the RLM zoning district. We did apply this when we updated the city code to give another zoning option within the RLM zone. This is the area that's being preserved. There is buildable area up in the, let me go to the plat itself. There is some buildable area on this side of the creek, and on the north side. They are providing an additional access through their property to the Creekside, Liberty at Creekside development. So again this is an opportunity for them to take advantage of some of the impervious surface. In working with the grades, and our road construction through the project itself, the best place to locate that pond without putting a big 40 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 retaining wall outside of the overlay district is where it is, and that's why the staff supported the variance on the location of that pond. Part of it is our construction of the road. I talked about. Mayor Furlong: Is that... second? Secondary. Kate Aanenson: Yes. It's actually in the primary, so that's the first time we've done that but in looking at where, if we pulled it up closer to those lots, we didn't want that proximity.. .so the staff supported that again with some significant grading that you're not seeing.. .so that's already being impacted by grading of the road, so we felt that was, it's already been impacted by our road design, so putting the pond there didn't add additional impact. Councilman Lundquist: How much of the primary zone is it? Kate Aanenson: So this is, it's hard to see on this. This is the grading, the lines. Can you zoom in a pinch more, just up in this comer right here. These lines are pretty light but the significant impact in grading right through here on that, and I know it's hard to see. For the road. So that's where this pond follows, so the back's up in here is pretty much the primary line right there. Councilman Lundquist: Go back to the, okay. Kate Aanenson: Right in here. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So essentially the whole pond is in the primary zone? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. And again, the reason we did support that early on is that we already were impacting that with our, so since it was, the grades were being changed for our project, it made sense to put it there. Instead of putting it closer to the backs of the lots where engineering had some concern. The.. .change of grades right in the back of the retaining walls. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, what's in that green spot in the back there? No, in the opposite comer. Kate Aanenson: Here? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: That's a wetland associated with the creek. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, and so. Kate Aanenson: And this is all. Councilman Lundquist: There you go. That one you just touched, right there. So putting a pond right there, is that still in the primary zone? Kate Aanenson: Correct. 41 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so it doesn't matter, alright. Kate Aanenson: But again that's part of the green space that they're capitalizing on, which I'll segway to now and then I'll swing back to parks. In the compliance table we give you all the lots. Lots average 15,000 square feet. The smallest being 9. It does say that 5 and a 10. The plat you're looking had some, it shows 10 all the way around on all sides. It does allow, 10 foot. In talking with the applicant. Mayor Furlong: Are you talking about side yard setback? Kate Aanenson: Correct. But with a 70 foot, but. Mayor Furlong: So then.. . Kate Aanenson: Right, but what I'd like to recommend is that we had 5 in here, that is allowed as a minimum. That we change that to a 5 and a 10. That would be 15 feet inbetween, to allow that flexibility because this was designed for specific buildings. We had custom product homes. Right now they're trying to introduce a number of different builders in here, and this zoning district also allows 35% impervious, again anticipating that we want to do a single family that would be able to capitalize on the overall district, using that green space. This does allow for the 35% hard cover within the subdivision itself. So if you went with a bigger home on these smaller lots, it would fit based on the impervious calculation, and that's again in the RLM zone. So they're showing the 10 on either side. And that was with the 70 foot wide home in there. Some of them are coming in a little bit larger so, they certainly can do the 5. 5 and 10, so you'd rotate that. So we have at least 15 feet between, there's probably some that certainly would be the 10 and 10. So you'd have the, which is our standard. Councilman Lundquist: So you're asking for 5 and 10 or 10 and 1O? Kate Aanenson: 5 and 10. I'd like to leave that flexibility in because you may have a larger home, if you get those, there's some builders that they're talking to that we've worked with that do a little bit larger home than the 70. We'd like that flexibility to be able to introduce that. But I would say there'll probably be a lot of them at the 10 and 10. Councilman Lundquist: So they're asking for 10 and 10 or? Kate Aanenson: They're asking for 5 and 5. Councilman Lundquist: Oh okay. Kate Aanenson: I'm recommending that we go to 5 and 10. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, I'm with you. 42 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Kate Aanenson: That's what the code allows,S and 5 and 1 asked them if they would be willing to go to the 5 and 10. On the bottom of page 15, again the average lot size on that is the 15,000. That's also in the compliance table on one of the sheets on your site plan too. So it does have some lots obviously that are over on the cul-de-sac lots, and again this project itself will have some very interesting views which is certainly of interest to Mr. Peterson who owns the property to take, to really capitalize on the serentic area here, and then also as a part of the extraction that was negotiated through the park commission and park director, provide an opportunity obviously for these residents.. . for the Bluff Creek and that would be a public park. 1 think that's all 1 had unless there was some specific questions on anything. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff? Councilman Peterson: Kate what have we got, what do we have for similar setback between single family homes...? What did we do at Settlers West? Kate Aanenson: They're 10 and 10, but they're all maxed out. That's a 25% impervious and all those houses are going either at 24 or right at 25 when they come in, so in looking at this, 1 think the uniqueness again, allowing the impervious to go higher because we've created that green space in the back, it allows people to come back and do those porches, decks, those sort of things without the fact that they're going over, and that's really key to what we believe is giving that flexibility on developments, as opposed to putting those much larger homes on the minimum 15,000 which everybody tries to maximize the number of lots, so we believe that the flexibility's built in here and using this different zoning technique. Again we anticipated this application somewhere in the district. The 2005. Mayor Furlong: 1 guess the question is, should we reserve time on future agendas for hard surface coverage... ? Kate Aanenson: Oh you may. You may. Mayor Furlong: And 1 guess...1 guess that's a question in terms of initial design and wherever you put the setbacks and what's allowed so. For a builder to build out...what they're allowed to do so if that's where. Kate Aanenson: Right, and I'll go back to the discussion we've had this with the Planning Commission too. Our zoning ordinance was built at a time when our standard lot frontage, 90 foot and then you've got 10 on each side, left you a 70 foot home. Most of the larger home builders now are doing a 74 or 75, 76 foot wide home. They can't meet the setbacks, and not only that, they're much deeper. So you know we tried to look at how do we balance that and that's why we introduce this zoning district too. Now certainly going a small 80 foot frontage wouldn't work on that but it allows you to go the 35%. They can do the bigger lots, but they'd also have to create that green space, so it's an opportunity where you've got the right area. Mayor Furlong: And that 35%, that would be valid for what, the 12,000 foot lots... 43 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Over the entire site. Correct. Mayor Furlong: Any questions at this point? Just one question I had, this was in the conditions with regards to the parks. With regard to the economics of the additional park. Mr. Gerhardt, any comments on that or? Todd Gerhardt: I think the language that is written in the report reflect the purchase agreement with D.R. Horton. I think for everything to be equal, I like the Mayor's point that we talked about earlier that as long as it doesn't go any higher, but if it goes lower, then we'd want to adjust the dollar amount so. Mayor Furlong: I asked the question of where the dollar amount came up and I understood that it was from the previous purchase agreement, and if that's where... Todd Gerhardt: That was a good recommendation Mayor. Mayor Furlong: ...the only question I had, is that still a valid concern on our part. Todd Gerhardt: I think we'll address that with the final plat. I would think they're probably continuing to market the property and might have a purchase agreement by then and we can even get a dollar amount in there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think obviously getting some preliminary plat approval allows them to accelerate their marketing, correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions for staff at this point? Councilman Peterson: Kate from a historical, the only concern I've got to some degree is we're doing a zoning change without having any sense of a look or feel of what they're planning to put down there. And I don't remember if we've ever done that. Kate Aanenson: Well, except that we do it on a standard subdivision all the time. We don't ask if, when Pinehurst came in, we didn't look at their product. We've asked them to whoever they're working with. It's happened sometimes that they'll reassemble lot lines that you can do administratively. If they have to drop one lot to make some builder happy, they split part of a lot and join it to the other two. If you follow me, so that may happen, but certainly that's what they need that information to go forward with marketing. And we do have this size lots, actually Springfield was the last PUD that we did which is off of Lyman, and that's an average of 15,000. Some as small as 11. The problem is the 30% and still that's sometimes in a PUD the single family, you really need to get closer to the 35 for the smaller lot. And that's how we looked at. Councilman Peterson: The subdivision.. .rezoning. Kate Aanenson: Well PUD would. Yeah, a PUD would. 44 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Councilman Peterson: But then we gain control with PUD... Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Well you still, our ordinance says we don't do design standards or design review on a single family home, so. We only do it on multi family, or attached. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? You have some more questions... At this point in time...the applicant, good evening. If they would like to address the council, you're more than welcome. John Chadwick: Good evening. My name is John Chadwick. I live at 11430 Zion Circle, Bloomington, Minnesota. Representing the Peterson family. Thank you Mr. Mayor, council, staff. Chance to be here. It seems like I've had a chance to visit with most of your staff throughout this last year and a half, and it's been a good experience. Not that there hasn't been a little back and forth, but I think that's really good. And what we tried to do, I think it's about a 63 acre site when you look at it comer to comer to comer to meander and wherever she all goes, but it does, it is part of the Bluff Creek and I think there's 18-19 acres of that that's being preserved. And then there's a 4 acre park, 4.79 acre, 4.73 acre park, the yellow area right there that should be of great benefit to the people here. It's available as Kate said, you've got a nice drive what you're looking at when you're coming from the north and south. You come in from the southern collector road, that comes in off of Pioneer, you can get there. You can see it, everybody can get to it and can use it. That should be a great amenity. We did a road connection and everything as a public street. We tried our best to follow the AUAR as far as we need to build a southern collector, so we did that. We want to tie into the east/west, north/south collector. We did that. We got that nice round about that gives us a beautiful sight lines to the development, and you know I didn't design all this stuff. We got design consultants and engineer is here making that whole thing work out. And we've got about 80 foot drop from the top of the farm all the way down to the water level of Bluff Creek, and so it's a pretty nice deal for making single family. It would be really difficult to do big, flat buildings on that thing without grading the heck of her. So we, the street's curved, turned out to the roads and the way they layout there. I'm sure there's going to be a lot of grading but there's been a lot of farming done there too, so we don't have to run into too many trees on this particular site. And as far as down on the Bluff Creek area, some of that hasn't been farmed. Of course that will be restored as part of this development and put it back into a more of a natural state. Sorry about that Sever. The deal's probably done. And so with that we've got 81 lots and we're anxious to get going on that and we are actively marketing that and we've got a lot of great inquiries on that and unsolicited inquiries now that the word is out. It's out there and people like to be in Chanhassen. And we like to make that possible and with your help and support we're going to make that possible. And make it as part of this area, this whole AUAR area that we worked so hard on. We're here to answer any questions. We don't need to belabor the point. The hour is late. And then...other areas that we'd like to get on to so with that I will stop and I thank you all for your hard work. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you Mr. Chadwick. Any questions? Very good. Any follow up questions? 45 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: Just had one quick one Mr. Mayor. Kate, the south side of the property, as that will be some sort of, oh yeah. Of commercial, industrial, office. Whatever that might be there. On the topography, landscaping, whatever that might be, do we have what we feel would be adequate buffering between the backs of those houses? As Mr. Undestad can attest to, we just went through a fun one like that as we transition from a single family neighborhood to what was an open space is now an industrial office. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it's a good question. I didn't touch too much on this but they're actually buffering through landscaping the collector because you've got street on both sides like on these lots. And then also on this minor collector, there is no direct access. You have to get that via this street, so that would be a nice experience as you come along the park there. Also providing additional landscaping here. To this area too, we've also talked about letting through their covenants, letting those homeowners know that this is excess right-of-way and may be developed as something else in the future. But there is a pretty good change in grade but we've talked about some things that we can come back with on final plans too. How we take care of addressing that and then the transition of buffer. Councilman Lundquist: Is the grade change down or up? Kate Aanenson: Right now it's berm. But it could go away and that's kind of what, they've addressed that so that's why we need to put in the covenants that may go away and it may be something else, and that's kind of what we're talking about. Leaving that in place but figuring out, because if a different use came in and we'd want to provide some other type, whether it's fencing or. It may be an office with a greater setback that may work too and get access via this road and how we orientate that and stuff so, that's something that we'd work on too between now and final plat. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Just you know a concern. We bring in office industrial or commercial, they're not generally amenable to giving you a bigger setback. They're trying to put as big a box on there as they possible can so. Maybe it's something we want to look at between now and final as well to make sure that we've got some protection so that 8-10 years down the road when that end of that gets... Mayor Furlong: So will that remain zoned A2 guided... Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Yep, it will remain zoned A2 and guided for office or, excuse me, office industrial/medium density. Mayor Furlong: Or medium density. Kate Aanenson: And that's one we could look at too as we update the comp plan, if you wanted to get something more specific, that could be one that we'll target too. To look. Mayor Furlong: Other questions at this point? Thoughts and comments. 46 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: Want me to go first this time Craig? Councilman Peterson: Sure. I can't play the protagonist all night. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, my thoughts. I'm glad to see a different style in here. On this property. It seems a lot of the issues that we just went through on the last one we won't face here. Kate, thanks for the comparison on the Springfield. That helps me get a little bit better handle because when I look at the numbers and I think about 12 or 13,000 acre, or square foot lot you know with a 35% hard cover on there, that seems like you know, you could share dinner with your neighbors through the kitchen window if you tried hard, so that's good there. The, you know obviously the proximity to the park and all of that is good. I'm a little bit leery I guess not having a builder necessarily identified that you know, I want to make sure we get a good quality piece and I feel like as we, we're at the point now where if we approve this, you know yes there's a final plat to go yet and hopefully we'll have that not so minor detail taken care of at that point, but you know I want to make sure that we layout all the guidelines and we don't get somebody comes in and builds some lower quality pieces on there and there's not a heck of a lot we can do about it at that point so. Either that's a concern that's out there, but this being in the preliminary phase, if we get to the final I'd be a lot more concerned about it at that point but overall pretty straight forward. I like the way it's laid out. It again still, it's a lot of units in there when you look at it on paper. It'll be sandwiched probably inbetween two townhouse developments which, and a future office industrial and a major highway and some collector streets and all kinds of good stuff so it will be interesting to see how the marketing process goes. Wish you luck there. Hopefully we can get a good builder in there, but as it stands overall I'm comfortable with what we've got at the stage that we're at now. You know look for some of that buffering on the south side, and the final and hopefully we can get to a point where we've got a builder identified so we can get a little bit more comfortable with the products that we'd be looking for so, those are my comments. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I feel comfortable with the project. I think that you know, I don't really have a fear that we're going to have some disaster strike and we'll have horrible round houses or something in these developments. I think that we'll come up with property owners and some builders that have good design standards and are going to you know, the neighborhood will only sell if they have good houses in them so I'm trusting that that, I'll follow my wisdom on that. I think that it's a good neighborhood because it will have a different variety of price points perhaps than some of the other neighborhoods we've had. We won't have maybe million dollar homes. We'll have more something in reach for other people in the community. I'm guessing. Maybe not. Maybe higher... I think that neighborhood flows nicely. I think the park is a good asset. And I leaned over to Councilman Lundquist while you were up presenting your plans and I said it looks like a good door knocking neighborhood. I like that. Homes close together and easy access. Other than that I guess I don't have any problems with it and I look forward to seeing how it develops. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson. 47 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Councilman Peterson: I would echo my two peers and previous comments so nothing to add. Councilman Lundquist: One quick mulligan though. It is the one concern I do have that I'll just reiterate again is the loss of the industrial piece. You know we talked about it at concept. We talked about it as we go along that you know, I guess we can't let it slide by. Probably still beating a dead horse but I'll continue to do that as we. Mayor Furlong: I'll pick up on that and give you some of my thoughts. Perhaps something that we or staff want to look at with the excess right-of-way piece to maybe take away the dual on that. I'm not advocating that but consider it. Looking at if it works. Maybe then giving it a single guiding, which, because that was a point Councilman Lundquist raised at the time that we approved concept plan. We've learned more from that.. .and where things might be going but that might be something to look at. Not advocating it but maybe that's the opportunity. You know overall I'm pleased with what I've heard this evening. It helped me gain some comfort. I think my concern is when we're dealing with smaller lot sizes, and here some of these are pretty good sized lots. It's probably more of a function of the topography and the lots going down to the creek, you know. Because there are some small ones here too. I'm just a little concerned with some of the setbacks in here. I think a normal single family residential we're at 30 and 30 on the front and back. 30 in the front. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we've actually approved a lot of, yeah. If you go to like Longacres, a lot of those were given the 20 on the front. On this PUD's. Same with Springfield. Where we try to preserve trees. Actually I think we did that on a few on Pinehurst too where if you recall as you go to that ravine, so we try to stay at a minimum of 25. That gives you better stacking on the front driveway. You'll see that on another project that's coming forward that we stick with at least a 25. Mayor Furlong: Because this is, you know setbacks are something I've mentioned before... especially with 5 on a side yard, or even what's being proposed here as the 5 and 10. 15 feet is not a lot between two homes and you know my, on the impervious surface, you know 35% on a 22,000 acre lot, that's quite a bit that can be used. Would it all be used? Perhaps not but it could be used. My preference is to try to keep that down just from a storm water management, especially near the creek. And maybe I can give.. .and try to force that to 30. Keep that at 35 and those side yard setbacks... but I would be interested in some thoughts there. A lot of the flexibility is important but at the same time it's that look and feel that's going to add 5 more feet to the lawn distance perhaps between homes but again... Yeah, 15 feet is not much. Kate Aanenson: Can I throw this out Mayor since they're working on, at this point if we look at the 5 and 10 when they come back for final plat, when they've got a builder, then you'll have a better idea. Kind of what their needs are because if we eliminate it now, then we've prevented them from doing anything bigger than that 70, so maybe it's a percentage, if they kind of know who their builders are. Mayor Furlong: And I guess the assumption there is it might be a single builder. Maybe there... but is there something that prevents us from relaxing those setbacks? I've got to believe that we can't be more restrictive... Is there some reason that we couldn't relax those. 48 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Kate Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. Keep it open so you can make it more restrictive, well I guess that wouldn't work that way. Mayor Furlong: Well if we wanted, and I don't even know if anybody else agrees with me. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I'm tracking with you. I understand. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, well just qualify it. Say at final plat we review based on the builders that it may be changed. Mayor Furlong: What I heard tonight and your comment with Settlers West was another most recent example is that, whatever those setbacks are, they go to a maximum. ... but so, from our standpoint I guess... Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I guess in this instance too the ordinance does say 5 and 5, so we've asked them in good faith if they would consider accepting the 5 and the 10, which they said they'd like to do. So, or are willing to do, but I think you know looking at who the builder is, we have a better understanding, or the builders if there's a couple of them, kind of what their needs are. So maybe it's even greater like a 7 and 10, I'm not sure. Just give me that 2 extra feet. Because sometimes it affects when people do side, side loaded, side decks. Those sort of things. Mayor Furlong: Right, I understand and I'd be interested in other members of council comments but to relax something based on specific requirements... Whatever it is, it's going to be that or more requested so... I've gained a lot of comfort this evening with the presentations than I was coming in tonight so. When we talked about the concept plan, we talked about some single families.. . single family. The lot sizes and those setbacks are something that concerned me a lot and... trying to visualize that. If we're going to give in the impervious surface, I guess I'd prefer to keep sides at 10 and 10, but open to any thoughts or comments. Councilman Peterson: I understand exactly what you're saying. As I said earlier in the evening, part of what I'm sensing is, again to reiterate, south of, in 2005 MUSA we're getting things tighter than what we all perceived it to be, so I think to your point Mayor, if we can start bringing things apart, even in a little way I think it's a good thing because if you read a lot of the residents have moved out here and obviously we're talking about new residents coming in, but the ones who have moved out here, it was because they wanted more green space and they wanted homes that weren't right next to each other so. Again I'm not trying to market homes but I'm trying to address what our community's wanting. Mayor Furlong: Let me ask a question. Maybe Mr. Knutson this is a question for you. If this is being rezoned.. . ordinances, do we have the ability to, and maybe it would be a different type of zoning that would have... To me it sounds like a simple request but maybe it isn't. Roger Knutson: Well Mayor we were just discussing how we got here. The 5. 49 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Is the minimum. Roger Knutson: In that's the minimum allowed. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Roger Knutson: In the zoning ordinance. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Roger Knutson: They're not asking for a variance. Kate Aanenson: No, I'm saying they're willing to do a 5 and a 10. In good faith they're willing to accept a 10 foot. A 5 and a 10 foot. As a minimum, but it's not in the zoning ordinance. We make it. Roger Knutson: You certainly can say they've agreed to do that. Can you condition it, condition a rezoning on that? No. Because that's what your zoning ordinance allows. But as part of plat approval, you're agreeing to that condition as a part of the plat approval I guess. Mayor Furlong: Is there...zoning that wouldn't throw it into variances on the lot sizes that, the lots on those setbacks? Kate Aanenson: Well if you did a PUD-R, the smallest lot would be 11, and they've got some lots that are smaller than 11,000. And they'd also have the higher impervious, which would be the 30% versus the 35. Councilman Peterson: A couple lots are at 7,000. Kate Aanenson: Correct, yeah. So it wouldn't meet that requirement, plus it would set the higher percentage for the impervious. Mayor Furlong: I thought you said right now the impervious is 35. Kate Aanenson: Correct. If you went to a PUD-R, which would be the other low density which would allow you to average the lot size to get to 15, that PUD-R zoning district requires a minimum 11,000. There's lots underneath that so that would be, it wouldn't meet that test. And then also the impervious under a PUD-R is also 30%. This is 35. Todd Gerhardt: We're still going to have to get down to see what type of model, whoever's going to ultimately own this is, what kind of model can they fit on there. It's nice that we give them, these are the parameters, you know I think is what we're establishing here. They're going to have to make their model fit to those parameters. Kate Aanenson: Correct, but if it's 5 foot, it's 5 foot. If it's a custom builder and the buyer wants a certain home plan, that's, it's a custom builder. 50 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Mayor Furlong: What I'm hearing is that the 5 and 10 is something that we're requesting. Kate Aanenson: No. I'm saying I asked them if they could do a 5 and a 10 and they said they could. In good faith, but it's not, the minimum is still 5 and 5, and that's what the City Attorney is saying you can't enforce that. Councilman Lundquist: But Kate I don't see, as I'm looking through that compliance table, I don't see any lots that are less than 11,000. Councilman Peterson: I saw one at 7. Councilman Lundquist: 13, 14. 15. There's 11,050. Kate Aanenson: Also the 30% then too as opposed to the 35. They are averaging right now 19%. Mayor Furlong: And I guess you know, 30% is more important than the smaller lots than on the larger lots in terms of if it's a 12,000 foot lot... Kate Aanenson: Again that 19% was based on one builder you know using a couple different products so I don't know if you have 3 or 4 different builders, that number may jump up. Mayor Furlong: Which number is that? Kate Aanenson: If you look in the staff report on page 15. Yeah, underneath the chart we put in kind of right now it's averaging about 19%, but that was based on the previous home builder's design. Councilman Peterson: In the narrative it states the lots range from 11,050 to 22,066. Mayor Furlong: But at 98% that the average proposed coverage based upon the previous builder so then there's...they'd have up to 30? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I think that code 9,000 throws you off there. Mayor Furlong: That's the issue that.. .look at. We don't deal with product design on a single family house so what we can work with is, is how they fit on the lots. Overall, like I said, you know this evening I was a little concerned about the lots and the sizes and setbacks. I'm getting comfortable with the lot sizes because of the examples given. Still not there on setbacks, and if there's something that we can do there that would give some more comfort, especially as we talk about them driving down the roads, collector roads. The roads that the neighborhood.. .between the homes provide greater views for people off to Bluff Creek as well. That's my issue. I think 51 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 if, to your point similar...r d be very happy to move forward. Proceeding with the rest and if we need to reduce some things or take a look at some things. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Kate, was this addressed at the Planning Commission at all? Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman Peterson: Well we create it, we do it or not. I mean. Mayor Furlong: Can we do it this evening? Is that something we can look at quickly? Kate Aanenson: Well I guess it's up to the applicant. Yeah, Mr. Chadwick. John Chadwick: Thanks for the chance to come back up here. With all due respect I wish we'd started at 5 by 5 and you'd have asked for 10 and I said sure, 10. It really gets a little tough when they ask for that, you double one side. That's okay. You double the other side, that gets a little tighter. I think there's a big streak going through here. That's an 80 footer so there's some open space there and there's a park and there's this and so I understand that people don't want to live right on their neighbors and I don't either, but I think we'll probably be okay and I hope you can have some comfort in that and you've got another couple passes at us I think before we actually start building anything. I hope that answers things. Mayor Furlong: And I appreciate that, and I guess the question is, do we have.. .or not? If we approve this tonight on preliminary... Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's correct. Roger Knutson: Mayor, if you approve it tonight this way, you can't be more restrictive later. Councilman Lundquist: But we can't approve it at 10 and 5. We can only approve it at 5 and 5 because that's the setbacks equal with the zoning. Roger Knutson: That's what your zoning ordinance provides. Councilman Peterson: Why don't we change it to a PUD. Mayor Furlong: And I guess I would then ask council if there's desire to try to do something like that. . . Councilman Peterson: Kate, the minimum lot size in PUD-R is what, II? Kate Aanenson: 11,000. Councilman Peterson: So that's not an issue. Impervious surface will. 52 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Could be at 30%. It tends to be a problem in other PUD's. That's why we've moved away from doing it. The last one we ever, that we've done is Springfield because it tends to be a problem. They don't have the green space that goes beyond the entire site though too so it may work. Todd Gerhardt: You can't force a developer into a PUD situation. So they have to apply for that and have to start all over. Councilman Peterson: We couldn't do it tonight. Roger Knutson: They'd have to request. They'd have to withdraw their application and go back through Planning Commission. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we noticed it as this. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well that would be an over burden...I can't see forcing that. So I guess we'll have to work on some faith that we'll have some distance between the homes. Any other discussion of council? Is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve subject to facts of finding supported by staff. Written in there by staff. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Clarification. Would that be all five of the motions? Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Councilman Peterson: Yep. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded for all five motions. Is there any discussion? Resolution #2006-31: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the comprehensive plan Land Use Amendment from Residential- Medium Density and Oflice/Industrial to Residential - Low Density of the land within the Plat of Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G contingent on Metropolitan Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the Rezoning of the land within the Plat for Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G, Pioneer Pass, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Residential Low and Medium Density District, RLM. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to o. 53 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve Preliminary Plat for "Pioneer Pass" creating 81 lots, 9 outlots and right-of-way for public streets, plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc., dated 2/3/06, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on Highway 312 and Pioneer Trail. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet noise standards for residential homes. 2. The developer shall pay $21,547.00 as their portion of the 2005 ADAR. 3. The applicant shall plant 369 trees within the development, 98 overstory and required buffer yard plantings trees along Collector Road D and buffer yard plantings for lots along the south property line. 4. Each lot shall have a minimum of two overstory deciduous trees planted in the front yard. 5. The applicant shall install the total required buffer yard along Collector Road D or show proof of berm height of 3 feet or higher along the length of the street and adjust the quantities of understory and shrubs accordingly. 6. The applicant shall development a restoration plan including native plants for the Bluff Creek Overlay district north of Block 1. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan must be reviewed and approved by the city before installation. 7. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District must be posted on every other property comer where residential yards meet the primary zone. 8. The 950 contour shall be extended over lots 5 and 6, block 3 to provide more coverage from headlights for those homes. 9. Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall be established over said outlots. 10. The developer shall designate a 4.72 acre neighborhood park site, Outlot H. This property shall be transferred to the city by warranty deed with 3.79 acres of the site being dedicated! donated by the applicant/owner and the remaining 0.93 acres being purchased by the City of Chanhassen. The city shall compensate the owner/applicant $218,550 in total compensation for said 0.93 acres. 11. The developer shall rough grade and cover seed the park site and construct a 20 stall parking lot for an additional not to exceed payment of $50,000 from the city. The parking lot shall include insurmountable curb. Construction plans for all improvements within the borders of the park shall be submitted to the Park & Recreation Director for approval prior to initiating construction of these improvements. All material and labor costs are reimbursable. Design, 54 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 engineering, and testing services associated with these improvements shall be provided by the applicant. 12. The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). 13. Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast comer of the site in order to ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site. 14. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around all AglUrban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans. 15. Any areas on the property that meet the City's criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City's bluff criteria. 16. No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. 17. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm water management along the southwest property line of Lots 25-31, Block 2 is adequate to prevent drainage issues for future homeowners. 18. The outlet for Pond 2 shall be moved westward to increase the flow distance between the inlet and outlet structures. 19. Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as public value credit and storm water infrastructure. 20. Energy dissipation shall be provided at the flared-end section inlet to Pond 2 within 24 hours of installation. Additional blanket shall be provided for storm sewer installation area for inlet infrastructure to Pond 2. The access area shall be protected with erosion control blanket upon the establishment of final grade. Erosion control blanket shall be 55 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 used on the slopes within Lots 31-24, Block 2. Mulch shall be substituted for the blanket proposed for the berm area of Block 3 along Street D. 21. Temporary sediment basins shall be provided in existing watersheds 1 and 3 during mass grading activities. Where 10 acres or more of exposed area come to a discernable point of discharge to a wetland or waterway, a temporary basin shall be provided. The proposed storm water basins in proposed drainage areas 2, 6 and 7 shall be temporary sediment basins until the contributing areas are stabilized. The temporary outlets could be installed in place of the permanent outlets. 22. Perimeter control (silt fence) shall be installed prior to grading along the south side of the Street D and CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) intersection. All silt fences near flared-end sections shall be installed up and around flared-end sections so water is not discharged against the silt fence, causing it to fail. 23. An outlet area shall be defined for the two areas labeled as temporary sedimentation basins during the rough grading/subcut street phase of development. Any shredded wood material from tree removal shall be saved for temporary mulch berms/vehicle exit pads as needed. Typical silt fence shall be installed prior to initial rough grading activities along the west side of Outlot H to the proposed "street by others." 24. The total SWMP fee shall be paid to the City at the time of final plat recording. The estimated total SWMP fee at this time is $165,600. 25. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (dewatering permit), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 26. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 27. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 28. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadways allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 29. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 56 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 30. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 31. Fire hydrant spacing is unacceptable. Locate fire hydrants at intersections and in cul-de-sacs and at 300 foot spacing. Most spacing is in excess of 400 to 500 feet at this time. Submit revised fire plans to Fire Marshal for review and approval. 32. Before site grading commences, the existing building and driveway access off Pioneer Trail onto the property must be removed. 33. On the grading plan, add a note to remove any existing house and driveway access. 34. The developer's engineer must work with Liberty on Bluff Creek's engineer to ensure that the proposed grading on each property matches at the property line. 35. Ground slopes shall not exceed 3:1. 36. A minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance must be shown on the plans. 37. Retaining walls must be designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and require a building permit if greater than 4 feet in height. 38. The developer shall work with MnDOT to move the access at Pioneer Trail so that it aligns with the MnDOT's street on the south side. The access to Pioneer Trail shall be constructed in conjunction with the first phase of the development. 39. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for all of the lots. The 2006 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,575 per unit for sanitary sewer and $4,078 per unit for water. The 2006 SAC charge is $1,625 per unit. 40. The Arterial Collector Roadway Fee of $2,400/developable acre will need to be paid at the time of final plat recording. 41. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and 10:1 benches at the NWL. Revise accordingly. 42. All of the proposed housepads must have a rear yard elevation of at least three feet above the HWL of the adjacent ponds. 43. Storm sewer calculations and drainage map must be submitted with the final plat application. The storm sewer must be designed to accommodate a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. 44. The last public stormwater structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a water body must have a 3-foot sump pump. 57 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 45. Future utility service and access to Outlot B needs to be determined prior to final plat. 46. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes. 47. Add catch basins in the back yards of Lots 1-15, Block 3 connecting to Street C storm sewer. Also add a catch basin along Street A in front of Lots 25-28 and between Lots 15 & 16 and 4 & 5, Block 1. 48. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 49. The catch basin between Lots 6 & 7 must be built with two inlet openings. 50. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. 51. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. 52. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 53. Utility services for the buildings must be shown on the final utility plan. Sanitary services must be 6-inch PVC and water service must be I-inch copper, Type K and will require a City Building Department inspection. 54. Extend the silt fence along the south to the back yard of Lot 25, Block 1. 55. No retaining wall is allowed within any drainage and utility easement. Revise the retaining wall between Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block 2, accordingly. 56. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. 57. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction, including but not limited to MPCA, NPDES, MnDOT, Department of Health, Carver County and Watershed District. 58. Reroute the sanitary sewer from Street A and the north-south corridor intersection to minimize the sewer depth. Relocate the southern sanitary sewer out of the stormwater pond easement at Outlot E. 59. Add a pressure relief valve to the watermain along Street D between Outlots E and F. This will be a City improvement cost but installed by at the time of development. 58 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 60. In-home pressure reducing water valves may be required on all lots with a lowest floor elevation of 930 or less. Final determination for the need of in-home pressure reducing valves will be made by the City at time of building permit. 61. The applicant shall coordinate with the developer ofthe adjacent properties in the northeast comer of the site the dedication of public street right-of-way to provide access from the parcel to the north to the parcel to the east and revise the plans accordingly." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading and filling of wetlands on property subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). 2. Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast comer of the site in order to ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site. 3. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around all AglUrban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with a variance for encroachment in to the primary zone to construct a storm water pond subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall be established over said outlots. 2. Any areas on the property that meet the City's criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City's bluff criteria. 59 City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006 3. No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. COUNCIL PRESENT A TIONS: Councilman Lundquist: Yes Mr. Mayor, I would like to have a discussion regarding our skate park, and I can defer if there are other members of the council that wanted to discuss other items first or we can go ahead with that. Mayor Furlong: Are there other items at this point? Other council presentations before Councilman Lundquist? Councilwoman Tjornhom: No. Councilman Lundquist: Well first let me say thanks to Sergeant Olson and Mr. Hoffman that hung around until 20 after 10:00 to talk about that because they're two of the key parties and I really do want your input and your thoughts, so thank you for that. Been an ongoing issue or challenge probably since it was built. Continue to have some things going on out there that are just items in my personal view that, or occurrences that I would rather not see. Last week we had another incident on or around the skate park that concerns me from a safety of the people using it standpoint. So what I want to discuss tonight, amongst the council members with some input from staff and especially from Todd and Sergeant Olson is, I feel like that we haven't solved the problems at the skate park. We still have instances of things going on out there with litter and the foul language. We've had some acts of violence out there now. We've got tobacco use and all that other stuff going on. We've tried various measures of closing it down, and you know I know that Mr. Gerhardt and Mr. Hoffman and the deputies have put their time, especially Todd and Todd to go out and try to rectify those situations through, how shall we say you know gentle persuasion. And you know, with limited success I think so, I look at that. It's, you know you get a collector of people together, especially when you're talking about pre-teens. Teens and there's some older people that use that as well, but anytime we get a collection of people together unsupervised... that are undesirable, I look at it as an overwhelming majority of people that are using that space out there are doing it for the, are using it as intended. We've got a lot of kids out there riding their skate boards. We'd absolutely rather have them riding them there than on the front steps of the library or you know in front of the businesses downtown and all of that so, I want to have that amenity. But I want to ensure that we're, that we as a city are providing a safe amenity as well. And an amenity where parents can feel confident that they're sending their kids out there and they're not going to be subject to you know violence. They're not going to be subject to you know some of the other things that are going on out there. Things like that are going to happen. Kids face all kinds of challenges, realize that but I can't, I have a problem sitting and knowing that those things are going on and we continue I think to do the same things over and over, and I feel like as a council we need to have a discussion to talk about if we're providing the right resources to staff or the right direction to staff or what else is there out there 60