Loading...
3 Pulte Homes Arboretum VillageCITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 GO, Cemer Drh,e, £0 Box I47 I%,e ~i2 9~ I ~00 Ge,em/~¥ 612. 932 ~9 ~,.~i,eeri,~ L~x 612.9~.~ 9 i ~ 2 P, blic '~)ffi'O' t3z.v 612. 934.2524 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffmam Park and Recreation Director DATE: November 22. 2000 SUB J: Arboretum Village. Pulte Homes The Commission has reviewed this proposal on two previous occasions. In August of 1999, the conceptual planned unit development was reviewed. That evening Commissioner Karlovich made the following motion: Karlovich moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that a large play area encompassing 2 to 2 V2 acres be centrally located in-between the court homes and the village home area? the other totlot location and sizes are fine as presented, the 2 V_, acres located north next to the exception piece not be part of any type of park dedication, the two wetland trails be identified as public corridors, and that approp:iate easements would be required and the city should grant full trail tee credit for the construction of Ii, ese two trail segments. Minor alignment modifications would be sought. The interior trails are the applicant's responsibility. And that the woods near the fountain be preserved. Karlovich, Berg, Manders and Moes voted in favor. Lash, Howe and Franks voted in opposition. The motion can'ied with a vote of 4 to 3. This past August. the Commission reviewed the proposed planned unit development for Arboretum Village. In the absence of an applicant's representative, the Commission elected to table their review. The present plans incorporate all the elements that the Commission identified but not to the extent (size) desired. Play Areas Three are identified on the plan with the largest centrally located site sized at approximately 1 acre. Trail Plan All trails and appropriate sidewalk connectors are identified in the applicant's plan. The Citl' oflCha,h~me,. ,4 :,rowi,.q romm,,i~3, wid~ c/e,,/~kes, (lz:,#&' sd~odc. ~ d~m~i,¢ dowmow,, t/,riz,i,~ b,si,esses. ~z,d hero,ti~Sd/,,~'s. :t :r,',~t ~d,~:c z0/iz'(', work. Arvidson Addition November 22, 2000 Page 2 Presentation of woodlot near fountain (Hwy_. 5 woodlot) Approximately 50% of this wooded area is proposed to be retained. Preservation of Hwy. 41 Woodlot (11 acre triangle piece) This property is proposed for preservation most likely through a conservation easement. Payment of Park and Trail Dedication fees The applicant will be responsible for payment of these fees. The appropriate amount of trail dedication fees will either be waived or refunded as payment for construction of the "north" wetland trail. This trail will be maintained as a public corridor. As a package, this proposal offers consumers and the City a much needed product. I know the size of the open play field and the loss of 50% of the Hwy. 5 woodlot will be a concern to some Commissioners. These issues concern me as well but in the name of compromise, I am satisfied with Pulte's current plan. With a one acre play area (the size ora football field), residents do have the ability to participate in field sports or pick up games. The additional 1½ acres would be a bonus but attaining a 2½ acre size is unrealistic without public participation (using park fees to buy acreage). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the Arboretum Village PUD with the following conditions pertaining to parks and recreation: 1. Outlot E be preserved by a conversation easement. A totlot play area be added in the open field area in Block 2. All play areas shall have a minimum capacity of 40 children. One of the totlots shall be designed for ages 3-5. 3. The "north" wetland trail alignment and wetlands shall be deeded to the City as park. Construction of the "north" wetland trail shall be completed by the applicant with appropriate trail fee credit or cash reimbursement granted. 5. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per City ordinance. g:\park\thXpulte 3.doc ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 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 know switch the handicap to the other. Just switch it around to the other side of the corner. Hoffman: Tile other program that people have been referring to tonight is tile 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 my phone call in the city because of issues that have to do with Kings Road and the park so he keeps me informed about xvhat's going oil so it's no secret that there's issues and that kind of activity. And Project Leadfoot bas 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 the same out here. Lash: Okay. Any other comments? Seeing ilo further comments, is there someone who, do we require a motion on this or not? Because actually. Hoffinan: Make a recommendation to approve, well to recommend the City Council accept tile 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 xve recommend to the City Council that, you'll have to help me with the x~ording for this Todd. The collection of trails fees. Hoffman: Park fees. Berg: Park fees. Hoffinan: In lieu of land dedication... Berg: Right. Lash: Is 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. 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 17 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 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. Hoffman: Yep. And then you would connect, we have one piece that's left out. I can 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 tile 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 final connector down to that location. So very nice trail in the future /hr tile 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 ally 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. Hoffman: On Galpin, yeah. Lash: Oh, just on Galpin. I was thinking it went, ! thought it went up through the back up into the Lundgren development. Hoffman: No, it would be off street. Berg: That's Sugarbush, right? 18 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 Hoffinan: 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 mean do you have an estimate? 3 miles? 2 miles? Hoffinan: Oh no. A mile. Moes: Okay. Once the path is indicated. Manders: And the wetland is basically your encircled trail area? Hoffman: Yep. It's a large wetland doxvn here. Manders: Okay. Hoffman: And then another one...property line here. Lash: Okay. Well it's unfortunate that the applicant isn't here because after onr last meeting I took it upon myself to go to the totlot at the Pulte development in Shakopee and it is not acceptable. Karlovich: It is not what? Lash: Acceptable. As a totlot. It is, ~vell. Berg: ...one tot? Lash: Hardly. It's very, very, it wouldn't fill the need of more than a couple of kids, I can tell you that. A couple of little bitty kids. So 1 think we'd have to have some kind of condition of, I mean already I think 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? ttoffinan: Yes. Lash: Okay. Howe: Yeah, it is too bad that the applicant isn't here. I'll make a note to go look at that totlot sometime. 19 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 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. I don't think they're focusing on a 2 ½ acre open space park area. l'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 ~vant 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 them and offer some ideas and do some things. What we've come back, looks like to me is, what I 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 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 20 Park and Rec Colmnission Meeting - August 22, 2000 see some ~vork 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 I'll make that comment seeing you out itl the audience Mayor. I hope they're just not feeling that this is a done deal because I 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, l could rant on a little bit longer but I think I've run out of breath. Lash: I think you made your point. Franks: Do you want me to try again? Lash: Have you made your point? Franks: Yes. Lash: Okay. I guess I xvould agree with Rod on his COlmnents. I really would want to see some kind ora plan of xvhat they're proposing for the totlot before I would want to make any kiud of recommendation that this be approved. I do like that they have tried to incorporate a few little green spaces itl 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 commission a couple of times and see how that's over run xvith 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 ofthetn 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 ueed to be adequately equipped. And I'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? Hoffinan: Can't be developed in tile furore. Lash: By anyone? Hoffman: Correct. Lash: 1 xvould 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 xvhat could happen. Okay? And I 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 itl every one of these things and you don't need to have ally won'y about it because we built these things before and they're successful all across tile 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 21 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 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 Commission'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 I 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 ! 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 ! 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. IfI 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 I don't see that happening right now. So I totally reject it. Lash: Anybody need to say anything else? Franks: Todd, ou Outlot E. We talked about the wooded area and the wetland area. How inuch of that Outlot E is developable in any way? Hoffinan: 75%. Franks: And that's what, about 11 acres? Outlot E. Hoffinan: 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. Franks: And that's what I understand from what I read. That they're getting their value out of Outlot E by transferring density. Hoffman: Yes. 22 Park and Rec Com~nission Meeting - August 22, 2000 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 I 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 I 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 we're going to take a park from tile property to tile east. Hoffman: And the property to the east will be single fmnily most like. Perhaps not but that would 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 tile $500,000 but, and I 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 I 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. Hoffinan: Minimum 5. Something like Sugarbush where we've got 5 acres. Hox~e: Is there anything in Chanhassen that's similar to this size right now? Mission Hills isn't as big as it? Hoffman: No. Franks: It's 200. Howe: Not even close. Lash: Well what happened in Mission ttills as far as park facilities for that area isjust a crime. And it's so easy to see uow. 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, itjust seems to me, unless you have an underpass going under 41 that you're never going to use that area. Hoffman: No. Manders: And that probably won't happen either. Isn't there an underpass planned further up the road or somethiug? 23 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 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. Hoffman: 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 problem with that but ! mean in terms of using it for this area, we call ? t. Franks: Well they can't build on it. Hoffinan: No. Under the current scenario it would be owned by the association under a conservation easement 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 want to own it into the future? 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 cau come in and say hey. Why don't we, let's do something down in that coruer you knmv. 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 easelnent 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 I'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 I'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 ora million then? Hoffinan: 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. 24 Park aud Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 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 wheu 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 tile 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? Hoffman: 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 xvant to send 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 applicaut aud we'll have those conversations. Berg: To accept his plan is to reject tile philosophy that we've been operatiug under for certainly as many years as I've been here. And as long as probably as you can remember tile city has had as their compreheusive plan. To reject that now seems terribly silly. Hoffman: Sure. Lash: What about, you know 1 like Jim's idea that tile uew West 78th Street kiud of splits this whole thing so, I don't even know ill like this idea but I'm trying to think ora compromise. If instead of going with 3 totlots you weut with 2 play areas. 1 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. Frauks: l'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 showed up tonight. Aud I thiuk we've shown ourselves to be more than willing to work with auy 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, I'm all in favor of that. But I'm uot interested in doiug their work for them. I'm wondering a little bit Todd about Outlot E again. Is there, just because I don't quite understand these things aud maybe Jay, you cau 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. Franks: Well I guess what I'm thinking after it's done and the associatiou owns tile Outlot E, is there benefit to tile association then to transfer mvnership of that to tile City as far as what's. 25 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 22, 2000 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? [s that Camp Tanadoona? Hoffinan: Yeah, to the north across the street and then the church, Westwood Church owns the property to the west. Karlovich: What is happening with the construction or condemnation or the dedication of West 78t~ 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 I'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 statnting out at the Lake Ann Park side because they don't have this issue resolved. Lash: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? Howe: ! 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, PuRe Homes until the applicant comes forth with more information and detail on the plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE PROPOSED 2001 PARK AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. Hoffinan: Thank you Chair Lash, members of the commission. You have discussed the 2001 CIP at previous meetings. My reason to bring it back is that as we develop annual budgets as we go through a year, ideas are either brought to my attention by the citizenry orjust through my management of the capital budget. So I have some recommendations to discuss with the commission to get your reaction. You can go anyway you'd like on these capital part of the budgets comes, discussion with the council always follows the operations and maintenance and general operating budgets so we have some time to work these things through. Funding for the Highway 101 south corridor between Chanhassen Hills and Bandimere Park is identified in next year's CIP. I'm recommending that the commission postpone that project and reallocate that $200,000 to the Highway 101 north trail project if it is needed. Currently there's a lot of things unclear about the 101 north trail plan, and one of those is will there be funding, park and trail funding necessary to complete the project. Currently it's thought that that may be the case because some of the other funding sources are drying up based off of what kind of project it will be. Who's driving the project. Does tile trail project include a road or not include a road. The major one there is if the trail project does not include the road, then some funding...go away for the city and so there would need to be another avenues there to finance that. Then you would look to moving the Highway 101 south trail into a future year. This is consistent with the commission's comprehensive plan. The Highway 101 north trail is identified as one segment. Has been for a dozen years and has been by- passed for those same dozen years due to the issues xvith the road and the complexity of that. Other projects that are recommended, tile commission proposed for the funding in 2001 inchlde the Marsh trail connector. I'll show you in this city map what happens to that. We reviewed it a couple of meetings ago. Met with the applicant. It's just north of Mission Hills. So the developer is Mr. Kroiss. This road is connecting down and then cul-de-sacing. We have an existing trail right at that location between Lake Susan and Rice Marsh and what is proposed is to connect those to a trail and then a connector to that street. If you'll recall, Mr. Kroiss had no interest in making this connection right here. He wanted the city to do that and then for the city to construct this trail. It's appropriate when we have development going on to go ahead and finance the construction of that trail. The timing is right. Currently as proposed we would have it engineered by a consulting engineer. City crews would complete tile construction of the trail base and then we would hire an asphalt company to go ahead and install the asphalt. Ballpark estimate is in the $50,000 range. Something like that. It may go a little higher depending on what type of crossing we need at the creek, and that's right at that location. You can see the creek there. We can install a culvert with permits. That's going to keep tile cost down. If we have to go to a bridge, obviously that can drive it up $10,000 or $20,000. So again, this is a method of completing trail in segments. It would service all of the Mission Hills neighborhood at present and then in the future this trail will wrap around an existing easement on the Tigua Lane lots and then continue into Eden Prairie through property which is currently owned by MnDot and that we hope is turned back to us as a part of the 212 platting process as open space. That's how the comprehensive plan identified that. Those remnant parcels, you when you call them remnant parcels they're fairly large but how else would you, how would you access these parcels for development and those types of things so, it's our hope that the state will turn those back to the city for open space. And then the trail connection would wrap around through. City Center Park tennis court improvements. These tennis courts up here are about 6 or 8 years past replacing. The last time we looked at that we elected against the contractor's 27 CITYO CHAN SEN 690 CiO, Center Drive, PO Box 147 Cha,hassen. Mi,,esota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 Ge,eral Fax 612.937.5739 E~gi,eeri,g Fax 612937.9152 h~bhc Sa~o, Fax 612.934.2524 ~¥~b z~,zt ,z~ci. &anhassen. mn. us MEMORANDUM I'O: FROM: Park and Recreation Commission Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: August 16, 2000 SUB J: Arboretum Village, Pulte Homes - Update The Commission reviewed this proposal initially back in August of 1999. staff report and resulting meeting minutes from that night's discussion are attached. The commissioner's motion that evening follows: The Karlovich moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that a large play area encompassing 2 to 2 ¼ acres be centrally located in-between the court homes and the village home area, the other totlot location and sizes are fine as presented, the 2 'A acres located north next to the exception piece not be part of any type of park dedication, the two wetland trails be identified as public corridors, and that appropriate easements would be required and the city should grant full trail fee credit for the construction of these two trail segments. Minor alignment modifications would be sought. The interior trails are the applicant's responsibility. And that the woods near the fountain be preserved. Karlovich, Berg, Manders and Moes voted in favor. Lash, Howe and Franks voted in opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Play Areas The applicant has not included a 2 to 2 V2 acre centrally located play. The applicant does express in their narrative that "totlots" will be a component of the development. They have not however identified the location of these totlots on the plan. Trail Plan The applicant has identified the trails as recommended by the commission. Again, it is the city's desire to have the applicant locate the wetland trail within a public outlot extending across the wetlands. Furthermore that the applicant construct these trails as a part of public improvements. The applicant can then be reimbursed with trail dedication fees. The construction and maintenance of the "interior trails" shall be the applicant's responsibility. CITY OF PRC DATE: Aug. 24, 1999 PC DATE: CC DATE: HOFFMAN:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: I I I Conceptual PUD for mixed housing development (414 units) consisting of manor homes, court homes, village homes, and townhomes on 82.8 acres and 3.7 acres of commercial uses, Arboretum Village, Pulte Homes LOCATION: Located on the northeast comer of Highxvays 5 and 41 APPLICANT: Derails Griswold, Director of Land Pulte Homes 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 300 Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1112 PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential S - State Highway 5 E- A-2, Agricultural Estate W - State Highway 41 INTRODUCTION: Next Tuesday evening, Mr. Derails Griswold of Pulte Homes will be present to introduce this conceptual PUD to the commission. COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN: The proposed Arboretum Village lies outside the one-half mile park service zone of existing neighborhood parks. The site provides convenient automobile access to the Chanhassen Recreation Center, Minnewashta Regional Park, and Landscape Arboretum. Completion of the West 78xh Street access boulevard will provide convenient pedestrian access (using two underpasses!) to the Recreation Center/Bluff Creek Elementary campus. Pedestrian access to the Regional Park at Lake Minnewashta and the Arboretum will remain limited until adequate trail co~mections are constructed. Park & Recreation Commission August 18, 1999 Page 2 The applicant has identified three small totlots spaced appropriately throughout the site. Staffwould like to review a site plan for each of these recreation sites. The totlots located near the manor homes and rental townhomes are situated adjacent to additional open space and are connected to the proposed community by pedestrian trails. The totlot located within the court homes appears to lack sufficient open space and defined pedestrian i'outes to and from the court homes. Residents with small children living in this development will rely on these totlots to provide basic physical and psychological needs. The presence of these gathering spots will enhance the livability of this neighborhood and protect property values. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: The applicant has done an exemplary job of incorporating pedestrian trails as a part of this PUD application. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies a trail adjacent to the West 78th Street access boulevard that bisects the site. This trail will be constructed as a part of the road project. The trail rimming the large marsh and the north/south trail on the eastern edge of the PUD act as comprehensive trail connections. These specific segments are not identified on the city's trail plan, but are desirable public amenities. Construction of these trails would bring us one step closer to seeing the full loop of this scenic marsh trail completed. The interior trail connections identified act as essential connectors for the neighborhood. Staff would like to see accormnodations made for pedestrians in the court homes. RECOMMENDATION: This application represents one of the largest developments to be proposed in Chanhassen. Staff looks forward to the presentation by the applicant on Tuesday evening. Without the benefit of this presentation, it appears the applicant is well on their way to satisfying the conditions of the Park & Recreation Commission. Upon initial review, it appears the pedestrian network is sufficient with the exception of the court homes area. Preservation of the northwest and south central wooded green spaces is essential. A nicely planned pedestrian trail loop through the south central wooded lot would provide a valuable respite from an otherwise busy landscape. The totlot areas are mandatory with additional work needed at the court homes location. The presence o£roadway on three sides of the site is undesirable. In addition, a larger more central location is desired. It is recommended that cash park fees be required versus acquisition of a public park site (minimum of 5 acres). Regarding trails, it is recommended that the two wetland trails be identified as public corridors. Appropriate easements would be required and the city should grant full trail fee credit for the construction of these two trail segments. Minor alignment modifications would be sought. The interior trails are the applicant's responsibility. g:\park\th\pulte homes.doc July 30, 1999 Pulte Homes of Minnesota Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP City Of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Arboretum Village Dear Ms Aanenson: Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corporation is proud to present the community of Arboretum Village for the City of Chanhassen's consideration and approval. We at Pulte Homes look forward to providing the residents of Chanhassen with quality housing within your fine city. Please find attached twenty six (26) sets of the submittal package requirements for General Concept Plan review for a planned unit development. I look forward to working with you during the review process. The Arboretum Village plans represent a request for rezoning from A2 - Agricultural Estate District to Planned Unit Development to accommodate a mixed use of 414 residential units within homeowner association greenspaces and 3.7 acres of commercial on approximately 82.4 acres for a density of 5.14 units/acre. Park dedication is proposed to be in the form of cash. The 32 rental townhomes and the 13 acres west of C.S.A.H. 41 will remain in ownership of James Deanovic, the underlying contract holder on the Savaryn property. Details of those areas will be addressed by Mr. Deanovic. However, Pulte's request does not require any density transfer from the property west of C.S.A.H. 41, per our calculations. Proposed timing for the development, as indicated on the Staging Plan, is for Phase One to begin Spring, 2000, timely with the MNDOT project and Phase Two to begin Summer, 2001. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or comments on this matter. We look forward to the 8/1/99 Planning Commission and the 8/27/99 Council meetings. Sincerely, PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA CORPORATION Dennis R. Griswold, R.L.A. Director of Land Encl. 1355 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD · SUITE 300 · MENDOTA HEIGHTS · MINNESOTA 55120-ii 12 Future Street Autumn_Rid 5 Autumn Ridge Ln k, <~f'l[ II 6 Autumn Ridge Way~-I II Minnewashta State 14ny W 8,~n~ St. // / ..' / / / /. y .! / Arboretum Village CONCEPT PLAN / /// / -/ I' TOWNUOME$ (RENTAL)' COMM£RCIAL CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 1999 Chairwoman Lash called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Mike Howe, Fred Berg, Jim Manders, Jay Karlovich, Rod Franks, and Dave Moes MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; and Tracy Peterson, Recreation Supervisor VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. CONCEPTUAL PUD FOR MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (414 UNITS) CONSISTING OF MANOR HOMES~ COURT HOMES~ VILLAGE HOMES AND TOWNHOMES ON 82.8 ACRES AND 3.7 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES ON PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND HWY 41~ ARBORETUM VILLAGE~ PULTE HOMES. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Mark Gungther: Like Todd said my name is Mark Gungther. I'm the construction manager for Pulte Homes in Minnesota. For those of you who may have known the name Marv Anderson Homes from many years ago, that is us. Pulte Homes purchased Marv Anderson Homes about 1990, so about I0 years ago. Several of Marv Anderson's employees are still with us today and still running our division today so that just kind of gives you a brief background about who we are. So we have been around the Twin Cities for 40 plus years so. The community before you is Arboretum Village. It does consist of four product lines that we have built elsewhere in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The first product is our single level townhomes or what we call our club homes. I don't know Todd, are these in your packets at all? Hoffman: Not in there. Mark Gungther: I can pass these around too if you wish to take a look at those. Our club homes, which would be located up here on the north side, and around this side of the marsh. Those cater to more of the active adult. People who are retiring or looking to purchase their last home. Typically you don't see any children in these communities at all, unless they are teenagers who just want to stay at home and don't want to leave so. We get a few of them. The next product that we have is their manor homes. This is a townhouse, four unit townhouse building. Three's and four's I should say. They're located right here in the middle of the community. The manor Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 homes cater to move up, target kind of a move up buyer as well as some first time buyers as well. It's about a 50/50 split is what we've seen. Kind of looking for more living space but still not ready to venture out into a full single family. They still want the association care. We're seeing a few more children in here. Typically about .3 children per household in this product line is what we've been seeing in our other communities. The products, the two products to the southwest side is, both are condominium products. One is a two story courthome product is what we call them. And that consists of eight unit buildings. That's this product line right through here. And then our 12 unit village home product, which consists of these L shaped buildings located in the very comer. Those products do cater to the first time buyer. We see young professionals that are purchasing for the first time. They're getting out of rental products. Want to own their own home. We see very few children in here. We're averaging about. 15 children per household in these product lines, and the children are typically all under ages from zero to 5 is typically what we see. So that kind of gives you a quick, real brief area on the product that we're supplying. I think in terms of looking at the buyer profile, the community does provide some good recreational and aesthetic values to this community and areas such as the ponding areas. We want to make sure that we have the ponding area with the fountain. This will give you a perspective of what this entrance here would look like off of the intersection of County Road 41 and Highway 5. This here is the village home product that you'd see with that pond and fountain located in that pond. I don't know if you want to pass this around Todd or you want to let. Areas like Todd alluded to already as trying to save the vast majority of these trees and provide as much green space. We are having to knick a couple of these edges to accommodate those buildings but the vast majority of all these tree areas are all saved. The totlot that Todd mentioned was the one in the middle of the court homes and the village homes. Once again, we don't see a lot of children in these communities. The one totlot we feel is sufficient for in here, as well as the one totlot where we see a few more children in the manor home product. The totlot over here, these 32 units are rental homes. These are not part of our, they're part of this community but we will not be building them. This falls under the owner that we are purchasing the site from. And he will be building those 32 units as well as supplying that totlot. The trail system that goes around, number one MnDOT is supplying the trail system that goes along Highway 5, Highway 41, and also down, do we know the name of this road yet? Hoffman: Arboretum Boulevard. Mark Gungther: Arboretum Boulevard. Denny wasn't quite sure yet what the name was. The other interior trails, Pulte Homes would be willing to supply the easement around the marsh areas, as well as look at installing those trails around there as part of the park dedication fees as well. And then as well as installing all these interior trails. There is one other area that we haven't brought up or mentioned and it's up on the northern, very northern part. Let me slide this down. There's a 2 ½ acre piece up on the north end that is land locked at this time. That we would also like to be considered as part of park dedication. It's not, the other option is we can still provide an easement on here immediately and then that way it's available for future use as well if there's a trail. Trail need later on the north side. So that would be one thing I'd ask the commission to consider as far as that 2 ½ acre piece as part of the park dedication. And then whatever is remaining we can just, in terms of the cash dedication at that point in time. And at that I guess, I now that's a real brief overview of our product. The area. I can go into more detail Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 if you have more detailed questions of me. I want to thank you for your time and I'll just open it up for discussion. Lash: Okay. We'll open up. Jim, do you want to start? Manders: So what you're talking about, your last comment about the park dedication is the green area on the map up on top? Mark Gungther: Yeah, this 2 ½ acre piece. Manders: And evidently that's right against the marsh. Mark Gungther: That's correct. Manders: And it's really not accessible? Mark Gungther: It's not accessible at all at this point in time. I'm not sure of who has the property on the north side. I believe there is a residence on this exception right here. Manders: Okay. That's the residence in that comer. Hoffman: There's a house on either side. Bud Olson, the Sheriff actually lives on the exception, and the other to the north is another single family. If you combine all three of those at some point in the future, that would be a large enough...to support some sort of subdivision. That little exception...and remain as open space... Manders: Is there anything bordering of this to the north? Hoffman: Single family home. Manders: That's right, so there really isn't anything that would be a small 2 acre area. Hoffman: Yeah, we could not provide access to this. The Lundgren trail comes very close but it's separated from this land by a single family lot. Manders: And that's kind of where I'm heading with the next question is the trails around this marsh area, I see what's laid out on the map but I kind of lose sight of it. Is the road that you're heading off to the I believe northeast, does that, right there. Does that kind of go up there and dead-end someplace or is that going to kind of wrap around? Mark Gungther: Not at this point. It will just be a dead end at that point. Hoffman: It would continue with future development. Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Hoffman: Manders: wetland. Hoffman: Manders: And so correspondingly then there's a trail on the back side of those homes that will wrap around that marsh? We would pursue that with... So on the top side it just goes around on the other side of these other homes, that Manders: Hoffman: at TH 41. I'll go grab a trail map and we can throw it up there and show you what's going on with this land map. There's also the, about a 10 acre group home. That kind of sits in the middle of the next piece of land that falls... Manders: Is there anything in, of course this probably doesn't border but isn't there a Highover or something development to the north of this? Hoffman: Yeah, it's Longacres. Manders: But basically this trail is going to be completed around here so all the easements necessary are. Hoffman: We would acquire them, pursue them as future development occurs. Manders: And then the access coming off from TH 5, is this Century Boulevard coming out of the industrial park? Is that going to cross into this? Is that a stop light entrance or am I just not reading this right? Hoffman: Yes. Manders: Is that how that's going? Hoffman: Yep. I misspoke during the, Arboretum Boulevard is actually Highway 5. They tried to get this to be Arboretum Boulevard but right now it's West 78th Street from downtown. I don't know what they're going to do about that. So that West 78th is going to have a trail on the inside like it is right out here? As far as I know they're slated to start construction next spring...out to this terminus Manders: And so the issue with us being outside the half mile border area for park is something that's pointed out but with all the other amenities around, there's no problem with that? Hoffman: Well, the totlots serve that purpose and without those there...plan for the possibility to provide those services and so if the applicant went before you and said we do not want or we don't believe in totlots, we don't develop them, then it would be my recommendation that we be Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 keeping some sort of public land to develop that but they're providing those recreation spaces for the casual daily use. Short term. Manders: So can you elaborate on what the contents ofa totlot is going to be? Mark Gungther: A totlot Would be, I guess right now that's open for discussion in terms of what we've done in the past is we've just done a play structure. More of a maintenance free play structure. It would have about 5 or 6 different activities located on the structure. Manders: Kind ora 5 to 10 year old range type of thing? Mark Gungther: Oh no. It will go from, it will cater to the younger children. Lash: To 5. Mark Gungther: Yeah, more 2 to 5. Manders: And the size of this? I mean as big as this room or this table or how big is this? Hard to tell. Mark Gungther: Right. I mean if you're talking about 5 to 6 different activities on a structure you're probably looking at a structure that may be 30 x 30 or so. 30 feet by 30 feet. So probably about the size of this... Because the area that you have to oversize to accommodate for fall protection, etc. Manders: I guess I have a hard time trying to understand how much is necessary for a totlot but it just doesn't seem like a lot. I guess that's about all ! have. Lash: Okay, thanks. Jay. Karlovich: I'm going to start out with the questions about the north 2 ½ acre piece. What is the property, the exception piece and the other property around that, what is that guided? Is that going to be single family homes in the future or is that going to be multi-family? Hoffman: It's guided single family is my recollection. Karlovich: What does the staff think about, is that something that we want to keep that 2 ½ acres as open space or a future park or, it just seems that you have a large marsh. You have some strange exception pieces right on top of Highway 41. Do we even want that property or? Hoffman: For the loss of park dedication is probably not going to serve the general public. At that same value so I see the property as less... Karlovich: As opposed to these three totlots, would it be wise to maybe put some type of little, small little neighborhood park in there somewhere as opposed to three totlots? 5 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Hoffman: I thought about that at the time and Mark can probably speak to that. Each kind of pod is a different product and especially for people that's associated with people and product and appreciate having their own place closer to home... Mark Gungther: Once again, you know they are grouped as separate communities, but it is one big community and they're intertwined. The trails do interconnect the communities as well as the private road system. Trying to get more of a centralized location, you know try to keep the totlots close to the home where they're not having to go a great distance from their homes, especially with the young children. So it seems to have always worked out better to try to keep this totlot within this community and this one within this one so they're not having to have their children travel away, or where they might be able to see them from their house or they don't have to go a big distance with their children to the park, or to the totlots. Lash: Anything else Jay? Karlovich: I'll pass for right now. Lash: Okay, Fred. Berg: I guess my only concerns are with the totlots too. If they're big enough to handle. Now I know you know your business. I'm not challenging that but we've had so many developers come in here and tell us that empty nesters were going to be filling these things, and we're not going to see any kids and they're just sort of over run. I'm a little bit skeptical about that. Mark Gungther: Well we are going to see kids. I mean that's, you know like I mentioned. We just don't see, try to design it to the amount of kids that you have that we've seen typically in the communities. You know in the first time buyer, a third of our buyers in that community are singles. Two-thirds are couples or, and starting a family or do have children to begin with so the amount of children is very few. What we've seen in our buyer profiles. We've been building our condominiums now for over 8 years so that's about 8 years worth of history to pull from so. That's basically where we get our numbers from. Berg: Todd you mentioned in your recommendation, one of them was, one of the totlots you weren't happy with the location because of the roadway. Hoffman: Yes, this one here. It's surrounded on two sides by roads. IfI was going to send my child there, you know take my child in there, I'd as soon it'd be slightly more protected. Those are private roads. I'm not sure if they can design it. These roadways...get through the review process and you can find a little more protected area. Nestle that in. Then I think we're going to see the majority, since this is the largest area, you'll see the most children here. Plus the numbers... I'd also like to see a plan where...half court basketball in that area. Berg: It's a little bit like a pig in a poke here. 6 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Mark Gungther: Yeah like I said, it's typically what we put in is just a play structure so it hasn't been any other court facilities or anything like that. It's just been a play structure that has 5 or 6 activities on it so. Berg: Would you be willing, or willing to at least entertain the option of maybe looking at a more, at a different, more preferable location for this one totlot or are these set in stone? Mark Gungther: We can look at it. Trying .to, you know our goal is to try to keep it centrally located for the community. Keep in mind that this is, these are not a public thoroughfare and obviously with the roads intertwining you don't get into high speed areas as well. These are all private roads and they'll be all maintained and cared for by the association. So all the snowplowing, etc is all taken care of by the association. We have placed in areas such as this in the past, typically it hasn't been an issue. We can take a look at, you know if we wanted to take it off of, this is the main entrance. If we wanted to flip it and get it away from the main entrance, or take it off so it's not on this main thoroughfare here, we can take a look at that. Entertain that. Hoffman: Mark, is there one of these communities we could go look at? Mark Gungther: Absolutely. You could take a look at, the closest one would be in Shakopee. It's our Western Ponds community. That one is currently under construction right now. That's located on County Road 17 and Highway 169. On the south side there. Right across from the hospital. Berg: Marshall Road or whatever? Mark Gungther: Marshall Road, yeah. You can drive in there. The totlot, there's an existing totlot in there. You can take a look at that and what the play structure consists of. Berg: And then my last question I think maybe you've already answered. Who would be responsible for the maintenance and the upkeep of the totlot? Mark Gungther: The homeowners association. Berg: So the City would have no responsibility there? Mark Gungther: Correct. Lash: I have.just a couple of questions too. Todd when we went over and visited Mission Hills, right there. To help me visualize what this is, would that be comparable size? Hoffman: I would think so. Lash: Okay. And I had a question too about, do you ever have, you know there's lots of singles and stuff and buying townhouse deals. Do they not, you don't ever have anybody request basketball or tennis or something like that? Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Mark Gungther: Not to my knowledge, we've never had any requests of that. Lash: Most the time in these associations they're not allowed to put up basketball nets I think on their garages, right? At least in Chaparral maybe. I just thought there's something that if you have a lot of guys in their 20's. Mark Gungther: Each association will vary. I mean to begin with you know each association has an architectural committee. They would make the approval or not approval of those amenities to each homeowner. Lash: In the demographics I was looking through and the typical children living at home are always you know point something, so it's less than 1 child per household average, but... communities based on that because I didn't for sure how many of each type go in. Mark Gungther: In the village and the court home communities, the village is 144 homes. The court homes is 104 home for a total of 248. With point, let's say .15. I think Todd you calculated out what we were talking I think is about 40 children or so for that community. In the manor homes, I haven't calculated that. There are 83 homes located in that area. Typically you run about, like I mentioned, about .3 children per household. 25-30. Lash: What did you say on the first one? On the village? Mark Gungther: About 40-45. Lash: And those are, the location of those? Hoffman: The big block right here. Lash: That big block. Ooh, okay. The other thing I just wanted to point out or ask to get this on the totlot in this, the one that you just pointed to. I noticed that that is in Phase II. Year to start is 2001. Where the ones right across the street are in Phase I. Year 2000. So would you be anticipating that you'd develop the totlot with Phase I so that the people moving in there would have the totlot right away or would they have to wait then a couple of years until? Mark Gungther: They would have to go with Phase II. With the amount of homes in there, you know you're only looking at waiting about a year. At that point in time so that totlot would be developed when this building here is built at that point in time. Howe: Assuming it stays there though, right? Lash: Right. Mark Gungther: Right, yeah. If that's the location that's chosen. 8 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Lash: Also I was just curious what Parcel A is? Is that yours? Mark Gungther: No. Hoffman: Susan Markert. Lash: Oh, okay. I think that was it for my questions. Thank you. Rod. Franks: Jan you hit on a few things that I noted also. First the totlot not going in in the village home area until Phase II is developed. That kind of concerned me. As we have kids in 21% of the households, where in the village homes weren't having children in your demographics. Whereas 18% of the homes in the manor homes report having children. I found that a little bit of confusion there. You were talking about the manor homes having more kids, yet more of the households in the village homes report having children so I don't know if that was a typo... Mark Gungther: No, it ties in with there could be more children in one particular household. Franks: More children per household. Mark Gungther: Right. So that's the difference right there. Franks: I can understand putting the totlot in the court home portion of that because you sacrifice...to put it in there, but it seems to me it would make more sense to put the totlot, if you can get it worked out, where the kids are more likely to be living. Very few children you're saying are going to be living in the court homes area. It'd be advantageous I think to really move the totlot in this area down to the village homes. Instead of right on the border of the village homes. And ifthere'd be a way to incorporate that stand of trees down towards the bottom to kind of buffer... Or across the street or somewhere in that comer, more contiguous to the tree stand. Mark Gungther: Yeah, you know the trees is a beautiful buffer and one thing that we xvere trying to save. I'd hate to lose those. Franks: Well I'm thinking ifthere'd be a way to put it next to. Howe: Is this just green space in here? What would be between. Mark Gungther: In-between there on the village homes there are patios. Those are individual patios off each of these homes back up in here. Howe: But there's not as much space as you would think from this drawing then that would be open. Mark Gungther: It is all open in this space here, but I don't know if there'd be enough space to accommodate a totlot without encroaching upon somebody's patio. Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Manders: Is it possible build that area bigger to allow for additional space or are we locked into these dimensions? Mark Gungther: These dimensions, the way the buildings are designed are, you know that's how that works out the best because it is a two story house with a tuck under garage. So everybody is entering from the street side. The front doors and the garages are from here, and then these all slope up. And so it's only a two story inside these courtyards. Manders: But I mean it doesn't look like your streets are squared up so if you made one of these blocks a little bit bigger to allow for a totlot, does it matter or does it? Evidently it does. Hoffman: Fine tune it. Franks: I guess that's what I was thinking too...taking out the street. Shifting this. Manders: Yeah, just build it somehow so you'd have a larger area in the center, closer to the trees down there where it's being mentioned to... Karlovich: I just want to interrupt for a second. What about this area in here? ...for a little more substantial park in there for...number of children in this area. Mark Gungther: On Parcel A is not, you know that's not available to us so we wouldn't be able to do anything with that so we're only, we're locked into just what is under our contract at this point. Karlovich: Right. What I was thinking was that if that was just you know dedicated, that area there, then would Parcel A, when or if it does develop then could request the other comer to make it more of a squared off area and have a future park there. It just seemed like a kind of a dead area there in which I don't want to say put a park over here or put a big structure over here and then you're going to lose your density here. It just looks like you guys all were able to shove fl~ree units in there, but if a comer parcel lay was added into there, it could be a substantial park area for the future. Hoffman: Commissioners thoughts. Franks: My concern is keeping some more play area down where the concentration of units is down where the villages are. It's a nice idea to have...totlot across the street and farther over to the north. That's where the concentration of kids will be in that section. Karlovich: I guess I just generally think ofa totlot, I mean I have a totlot in my back yard. Franks: That's my next question. 10 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Karlovich: A play system and you have 400 units in there, I still think you'd probably get at least 100 kids probably in there. And if you have 100 kids and they have no access to any type of neighborhood park. I just, I don't know if we're just grabbing the park dedication fees, going to use it somewhere else or do we need to supply something to the 100 kids that are going to be there. Franks: Well that's...looking at Mission Hills which is I think is about 208 units, and that totlot. Howe: Is there just one of them? Franks: Just the one it's totally inadequate in my opinion. Totally. And here you're talking just in section you're talking about 200 units for a section, correct? Mark Gungther: Correct. Franks: And so when I think of just that one small totlot, and then it being bordered by the street, the Mission Hills area is next to a pond and stuff and trails but it's also contiguous to the little extra green band. And even then it seems a little tight. I guess my concern is kind of combining with what Todd has mentioned and my own about size and location. I don't know, even if you put it in whether it'd be worth it to you to put it in, even as far as the marketing thing because I don't know if it's going to serve it's purpose. It's not going to be a place that's going to draw families out to play. The ones that are there so you might want to look at reconfiguring that somehow. Hoffman: Mission Hills Mark, I don't know if you know where it's at. Just south on 101. Mark Gungther: No, but I can take a look at it. Hoffman: Take a look at it. You just go across Highway 5 on Market Boulevard, south on I01. Head south, on the left hand side you'll see it. It's there. When Mission Hills came in, that applicant had not included any totlot or combination and the commission worked very hard...that there be one there and so I think it was...little bit more green space and not only could they have their play structure but then also have the small green field so...participate in some small form of...they could do that. The complex sold out and an associations are formed and the association, they had to call us up and they're saying, you know how did we get stuck with this inadequate park space and was the city involved in that? What was the developer's role and what can we do to improve the situation so the commission has heard from at least one other similar product what they...at least in their belief inadequate needs... Franks: I think the placement of the other two totlots, that looks great. Especially the one where the manor homes are. Out in the middle of all three cul-de-sacs. You have the trails and there's a number of homes that are there. I think that's really well placed. And it's also then the green, the open space contiguous to that totlot also. I believe we have some view sheds going out either direction of some open space, whereas you don't have that in the one where the village homes are. I'd like to see that. The other thing too is kind of the...development of Highway 5... I hate 11 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 to see any of the trees that are there along Highway 5 go so. I understand... If there would be a way to try to work with that and work with combining totlots into that tree area closer down to the village home area, that's what I would suggest. Mark Gungther: Incorporating it into this area here? Franks: Yeah. And that's what I'm thinking if you could take this block, or one of these and push them, you know and somehow deal with the street and then add the totlot. Or something. Lash: Or right to your right. Franks: This one here? Lash: Yeah. If you could just take, aren't there just two units? Mark Gungther: This is an eight unit home right here. Lash: How many are there? Mark Gungther: Eight. Lash: Oh, eight. So if you took half, half that closest to the wooded area. Franks: Well you could add the other ones into one where you have totlots. You might...in a couple of units. Because you're sacrificing at least four units for the totlot currently? Mark Gungther: Correct. Lash: Okay, so that would be a trade off then. Four down there. If it was halfa block. And can you make an eight into a four? Mark Gungther: Yes, we can build these as 4, 6 or 8 unit buildings. Lash: Rod, that's a really good idea. It would make it look more like a park. The kids could go through the woods if they wanted a little bit. It wouldn't make it look like just a little play structure stuck in the middle. Plus that is where all the kids are going to be. 45, estimated 45 kids down in that area as opposed to 16 up in the other area. Moes: What do you think about from a centrally located, I was always thinking of a centrally located one. Karlovich: I think we all want to be designers. I want to throw out another idea. Can I ask you just a question about the pond across from the commercial, the 3.7 acres. Does that pond have to be there? From a topographic standpoint or. What I was seeing is that huge, large mass there at the comer of Highway 5 and Highway 4 I. You know if you could even put that pond in the 12 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 middle of this large mass, it seems like it would be more inviting to all these homes around here and maybe you could have a totlot next to a pond. I don't know, maybe this could be used for commercial also. You can't have that much commercial there? Or maybe throw in the centrally, 12 unit structure over here and move the pond over here. It just seems like you have a huge, large mass there with just a sea of condominiums and not a whole lot of amenities. Mark Gungther: On the topography, I don't think it will accommodate it since this is all higher ground up here so as far as allowing any need for storm sewer. I'm not sure exactly what those ponds, or if they are established by MnDOT. Hoffman: Well this pond I know is being used for some storm water. I don't know if you're using it as a part of your project for storm water. Mark Gungther: I don't know. We haven't seen, we're not at that point yet. Hoffman: But I know this will be used in conjunction with the roadway storm water management, and as you drive by you notice that this area is, has wetland vegetation in there already. Down here in this field. It drops off'down and that's used in the pond for water management. There's a small pond down here in the comer... I had the same impression that this was a large mass of private streets and homes and if you break it up, Kate Aanenson, the Planning Director talking to engineers about attempting to work with the applicant to make this first street feel more like an access boulevard. Taking a look at, we talked about, Mark talked about pedestrian access. Lack of sidewalk access in this area. Mark had a very good idea that over...to connect these communities straight out to the trail system here and then straight out to the trail system to the south. Otherwise you're going to get people to want to walk through a private yard or association...allow that to happen. Mark Gungther: On the perimeter here, this here is a decorative fence with berming and landscaping that goes all the way around and I think it ends somewhere back over in here. So that is, and that's kind of creating a buffer, and then...but there will be a decorative fence...buffer the buildings and the homes here at this point in time as well. Franks: I was just looking if that's where you have..., like the village homes are all three story? Mark Gungther: They're three story on the street side. Two story in the green spaces. You thought it was a two story with a tuck under garage. Franks: So it's facing Highway 5 it might actually look three stories. Mark Gungther: That's the reason for the buffering and stuff. So your viewpoint really would probably be only two stories is what you'd be seeing. Buffering the garages and the roads. Hoffman: The commission's thoughts are certainly not out of context. This is a planned unit development application so if the design, the amount of green spaces is all up for negotiation. We're the first commission to provide some input and pass that up to the Planning Commission. 13 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Lash: Okay Rod... Franks: Yep, I'm done. Lash: We're still working our way down here. Dave. Sorry. We kind of got off track. Moes: I think all the items have definitely been covered by now. The one thing is the totlot and the court and the village homes, it sounds like the recommendation has been put on the table to see what a plan entails for that type of construction and quite possibly enlarging that and relocating that. It may be less of a traffic. Howe: Not a lot I can add. I like what you've done by saving some trees in some of that wood space. I like the fact that you will incorporate some of the trails in and as I read this, and from what I'm hearing, I also share the concern about the totlot as a way we can move that. Make it bigger. Make two of them in that large area. That needs some work as far as I'd say but that's all I have. Lash: Okay. Jim, do you have something else? Manders: Yeah I do. I just want to make, yeah I just thought ora couple more things. I want to say at this comer of 41 and 5, I think that fountain area, that's a great way to, and I know this isn't the beginning of Chanhassen but 41 and 5 is a very key artery coming into Chanhassen and I think about this looks like, and hopefully it tums out something like that because it would be a great look. And going down 5 further and what you get when you get into Eden Prairie, it's like that mass of townhouses right in the comer there and now they're tearing those trees on the other side. And it doesn't impress me so I like that and the trail. Berg: At Dell Road there, yeah. Manders: Yeah. That's all I wanted to say. Lash: Will you have some kind of an identifying marker or sign or Something that says. Mark Gungther: Yeah, on the monument. Arboretum Villages, right. Right. Berg: Promise it won't look like those townhouses, townhomes that Jim's talking about on Dell Road and Highway 5 where every one of them is exactly the same and they're white or brown... Manders: Yeah, they're not real inviting. Berg: And there's about 5,000 of them. Manders: Do they have totlots in there? I don't know, how big an area is that? 14 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Berg: I'm being somewhat facetious but it's an awful. Mark Gungther: The structures, obviously on architecture are very similar. You know between each village home. The court homes look different. There are different color packages associated with them. With the products. On the village homes actually we have, we institute several color packages on one building to make it look like more of a colonial Iook...building itself so. Manders: This map here.just has the dotted lines in for these trails I assume but there's really nothing over here. Is it like on the street trails? Sidewalks or what? Mark Gungther: Once again it's all private roads over there and those act as the... Manders: Talking about hooking up to the outside trail, you'd be on the outside of the fence. Mark Gungther: Well what we would do is provide access through it. So maybe offset an opening so the trail came through like this. Berg: Who would maintain the trail? Would that be us? Or the development. Hoffman: Not within the development. We would just work with them to maintain the one on the perimeter of the site here. Mark Gungther: This one here and here, yeah. Hoffman: ...these would be connected that would be maintained as part of this project. Manders: But I mean the one up West 78th and isn't there a trail along TH 5 too? Hoffman: Yeah, those would be ours. Berg: Do we have any control over the trails in the interior in terms of the quality of the trail? Mark Gungther: In terms of the specifications as far as what goes in, as far as the base and the mat? That would be open for discussion with staff as far as what...That's going to maintain itself. We don't want it falling apart right away for the association. Because they're going to. Manders: When you talk about trail, are you talking like sidewalk or is it going to go through the development? Mark Gungther: It'd be a bituminous trail. Manders: Yeah, but I mean it's like on the street east as opposed to. Mark Gungther: These dotted things, they go right through the green space. 15 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Manders: Yeah, but I'm talking about this other comer where there's no dotted line. Mark Gungther: Over here? Manders: Right, in that area. Hoffman: On street. Mark Gungther: It's on street. Manders: Yes, okay. Lash: The connectors that would, if they were to put in the connector through the green space out to 41...bituminous then. Manders: Okay. That's what I was getting at, okay. Hoffman: And what Kate and I talked about today is the potential as this road became more defined to put a sidewalk on that street... People would tend to congregate towards that. If they're trying to get out to here, they're going to tend to congregate towards that roadway and then there will be more traffic here so they'd have a sidewalk...The Planning Commission will also talk about... Karlovich: This center park right in here that I'm kind of circling, how many units is that? Mark Gungther: That is 12 units. 24 homes. Karlovich: 24 homes. That would just be awfully pretty if that was all just. Hoffman: Central park. Karlovich: A central park right there. Berg: You could sell anybody on that. Sell the rest for $300,000, we're home free. Mark Gungther: I don't think we'll have too many first time buyers in that market. Karlovich: That would just be awfully nice if, I'd be even you know, be up for cutting down some more the trees but I'd be up for even cutting down more trees to get your density out over here and put a great central park in the middle of it all but just my personal'feeling. Lash: Okay, are you guys done? Fred, do you need a second? Berg: No. I'm just killing bugs. 16 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Lash: Rod? Dave? Mark Gungther: Can I kind of summarize as far as where we're at. Lash: We're getting there. We'll try. Todd, do you have anything else you want to say? So given all of that, I guess what we need to do is discuss a little bit what we want to do regarding staff's recommendation and where we want to go with our recommendation. Okay. Berg: Well we need more information on totlots. Mark Gungther: Is there, or can I ask the commission is there a recommendation of what you feel based off of the demographics, approximately 40-45 children, is there a size? Is there something in particular that you really want to see? Franks: Todd, there's formula's for that. Square foot per resident and child and household and all that. I haven't seen those for a while. Hoffman: Playgrounds are... Manders: We had a question. How much park space would be included in this given their worth of dedication? Hoffman: I calculated it. Manders: Is it 5 or 10 or how much? Hoffman: I'I1 figure it out for you. Lash: If we just figure, while Todd's doing that, if we figure on the village homes. Say we ended up with 45 kids. That totlot, that was the size of this room. Frarhks: That'd be pretty big though, 30 x 30. Lash: It wouldn't be this big? Yeah, but I mean you have 45 kids playing in an area the size of this room. At the max. If they all showed up some night. Help me visualize what that would be like? Howe: Mark, is your development in Shakopee similar to this? Mark Gungther: In Shakopee it is just the 6 and 8 unit condominiums. This product here only with the totlot. Howe: Village. 17 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Mark Gungther: Court homes. Howe: Can we schedule a road trip to see that Todd or should we just do it ourselves to go down there? Hoffman: Oh, we could all go down there. We'll talk about that. Karlovich: I just think if you give up 24 units, I'd say...even be able to give up one of the other totlots maybe over by the rental homes and, take 24 units out of the density but. Lash: What did you come up there Todd in your calculations? Hoffman: Park dedication on this is, land acquisition is right around 9 acres. Cash is half a million. Karlovich: How much land would be dedicated for this big of a development? Hoffman: About 9 to 10 acres. City Code is 1 for every 75. Karlovich: So that 24 unit area is only about 2 ½ acres or something? Hoffman: Yeah. Franks: Jay, you're looking at two of those blocks? Kaflovich: When it was up on the screen. I just think the other thing, you might have a small totlot here and small totlot here but if this was just, right there. If that was just all kind ora big park, they'd lose 24 units right here. But they could have a lot of structures out there. Kids that don't want the totlots will go across the street and everybody else will come over and... It doesn't have to be here but, that's centralized in our large map. Franks: ...is that acceptable Chair? Lash: We can all play designer. Franks: Well I have my similar idea but taking a different approach, being sensitive to like losing out on your profits or the deal, but if you like take and combine these into two blocks and you fix the ones on the comer, and then you take a similar size or little bit larger and make it in this middle area here, at least your view from the totlot is through the green space on either end between the village homes. So we might end up with a space that's actually fairly similar in the center area for...so maybe between the back door to the patio areas to the green space there. Manders: You could have window peepers though. Hoffman: It no doubts needs working anyway. 18 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Lash: Yeah. Berg: Needs work. I think you've got the message. Lash: So given that, do we want to table this until they come back? Do we want to make a motion that they come back with some kind of a, you know take into consideration our concerns regarding this one totlot in particular... Karlovich: You know is there a general feeling that we don't need three totlots? That we need one bigger area or no. Lash: I don't have that. Manders: I guess these roads are going to be fairly, I don't know how busy this exterior...I think it's going to be pretty busy so I don't know you want kids running across that. Franks: There are times that kids are going to be going to the park too. I can see some running through Mission Hills in the early morning and then after work and People are coming and going pretty heavily. And those are the times when the kids are going to be heading to the park too so. Berg: To help give you a little direction, I do agree with you. I do see a benefit to having one larger play area. Karlovich: I mean I guess I cross Galpin with my kids and go to parks or whatever and hold their hands but I just think of three totlots as three rainbow play systems out there and for 100 kids, I just, I think that one bigger area there and you know so we don't get as much in park dedication fees. We spent it on 100 children in this area. Lash: I don't have as much ora problem, especially with the one in the manor homes. According to their statistics here. Their demographics, they'd have roughly 30 children but if you look at that particular site, there's a lot of green space all around it. So in essence there would be, even though it's a fairly small play area, play structure, there'd be some green space so if they wanted to fly a kite or play catch or something, they could do that. The one by the townhomes, you know we really at this point, I don't know that we have too much to say about that. But this other one over here is the one that I have the most trouble with and I think it would be good to keep this other totlot in the manor homes area because I think that'd be kind of a hike for, and if the demographics are accurate, the children are, half of them at least are under 5. ...couple little kids in here. Karlovich: Yeah, I think you need something over there but somewhere in the development a larger area. Lash: Oh yeah. 19 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Karlovich: I guess I picture, you have the demographic data but the court homes and the village homes, that ones that are closer to Highway 5 and 41, they're less expensive and less expensive so the people can't afford them as much. and the reason they can't afford them as much is probably because they have more children or somebody staying at home with the child. I think you'll still see quite a bit of children in each of these products. Lash: I don't have a problem with looking for something bigger in that area, but I don't want to sacrifice this other one. Karlovich: I don't think you're sacrificing that much by keeping a totlot. See a totlot as a huge expenditure. Hoffman: Sales amenity. Manders: I think what you're saying basically is leave the other two in there and just make this one bigger. Lash: Right. Pretty much what Todd said to start with. Manders: And maybe redesigning that central area, and that was kind of my question early on. Are these squares in there some preconceived pattern that have to be or can that be redesigned somehow to accommodate the larger open space? Mark Gungther: It would be a complete redesign of the building itself. They do work fairly efficiently in utilizing the green space, you know as a center courtyard. They're designed to kind of create a courtyard effect basically for the residents so when they come out from their patio they have that courtyard effect. So they do have, I mean the residents if they wanted to play catch and that kind of stuff, they do have this green space in the middle to do so. In-between each building so that's really already there. It's already established. Manders: Even if, if taking out both of those L shaped units is too much, what if you took out one of them and left the other half for the totlot. Instead of taking the whole square, just take half the square. Kadovich: I guess what is the, I see the density as 5.14 units per acre. I just, if you have to lose 24 units or whatever, I mean if your density go down so far that you guys aren't going to do that well on this site, it just seems like what we've got here is, you've packed in as many units as you possibly can. Get a nice mix of different products but kind of found a couple rainbow places comes out there for totlots. Mark Gungther: Always 'trying to create that balance. Lash: Well I think we pretty well talked this to death. I think we're pretty much all on the same set. What I'm hearing we'd like to see, particularly in the court homes and the village homes area, totlot relocated and enlarged. 2O Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Howe: But I don't think at the expense of that wooded space. No, okay. Lash: Okay, are we in agreement with that? Franks: And somehow bring it in with Phase I. Lash: I would like to see that too. Otherwise people are just going to be coming to hound us for a park. So we want to do, well do we want to get a plan of what a totlot would entail and have something else come back to us showing? Berg: I don't have enough to be able to make an educated. Hoffman: Mark and I talked about that. I really depends on your comfort level on whether or not you send us away with recommendations and thoughts...or if you'd like to table it... Lash: When is this scheduled to go onto Planning Commission and City Council? Mark Gungther: Next week. Lash: So if we tabled this, how much ora monkey wrench does that put into the whole system? Hoffman: Well we would...resolve your issues and come back with... Lash: But we wouldn't have a recommendation to send onto City Council. Can they act on it without a recommendation? Hoffman: They're going to review it but they're not acting on it. Karlovich: Do we have an idea of the size that would be in there? Howe: What if we visited the place in Shakopee before our next meeting. Is that possible? Mark Gungther: I guess one thing that I would ask is that we would like to kind of keep proceeding with this with the Planning Commission. We do have your recommendations. This is something that we can go to work on right away, as far as larger size. We do know what kind of the amount of children that are going to be in this neighborhood and in this community. With that I think we could probably put something together and submit it with the Planning Commission. Take that in effect, if that would be open to the commission as well. Hoffman: You can make your recommendations specific enough so that they have to meet it. In the conditions... Lash: So if we were to make a recommendation with a minimum 5 and recommendation be that the location be situated and surrounded by streets. Is that specific enough? 21 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 Mark Gungther: I don't know if we can get away, not surrounded by streets but try to get it off the main thoroughfare. Karlovich: I don't want to just give our general recommendations and then send it on to the Planning Commission. Unless we're going to say you know, middle of the court homes and village homes that there will be a 2 to 2 ½ acre larger playground area. Not a totlot. Centrally located. Lash: So you would not be comfortable with that or you would be? Karlovich: I would be comfortable with that. Otherwise saying just enlarge the totlot and centrally locate it and so we've got 40 x 40 instead of 30 x 30. I think that's going to do the job. Lash: Jim... Manders: In terms of recommendation or. Lash: Anyone? Fred, you're writing. Berg: I'm just trying to incorporate some of the things that we want to make sure we have in there. Karlovich: I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that within the court homes and the village home area that there be centrally located a large play area that maybe encompasses about 2 to 2 ½ acres. And the other totlots are fine where they are. And that the 2 ½ acres north next to the exception piece not be part of any type of park dedication. That we just leave that alone with possibly some type of dedication of a trail easement. Berg: Do you want to include anything about preserving the woods... Karlovich: Sure. I'll also add in that we're happy with the fountain and the preservation of the woods would also be preserved as shown in the plan. Lash: Is there a second to that motion? Berg: Second. Karlovich moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that a large play area encompassing 2 to 2 ¼ acres be centrally located in-between the court homes and the village home area, the other totlot location and sizes are fine as presented, the 2 ¼ acres located north next to the exception piece not be part of any t3,pe of park dedication, the two wetland trails be identified as public corridors, and that appropriate easements would be required and the city should grant full trail fee credit for the construction of these two trail segments. Minor alignment modifications would be 22 Park & Rec Commission - August 24, 1999 sought. The interior trails are the applicant's responsibility. And that the woods near the fountain be preserved. Karlovich, Berg, Manders and Moes voted in favor. Lash, Howe and Franks voted in opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Lash: Okay, 4-3's the motion. Berg: State for the record why the. Lash: Sure. Howe: Well, I think it's a little early for us to be saying we want a 2 1/2 acre central park in the middle of these. There are other things. I mean are we talking about $500,000. We're talking about trails. I think there's a lot there to look at before we make a recommendation or motion that that's what we want. So I'm not saying I don't like that. I'm saying that I think it's the beginning of a process before we commit to that. Lash:... Moes: I was for it. Franks: I was against it. Lash: Oh okay, what was yours Rod. Franks: You know pretty similar that I am not a park planner or a park designer so I'm a little bit uncomfortable with automatically taking that approach without seeing if there's a little bit more creative approach that the developer can take hearing our concerns. I don't know if they'd be able to do it and I might end up...but I'm not comfortable doing it now. Lash: That would be my... I would prefer to see their plan more. Berg: I would say that I voted yes but in my mind that's what I was sort of assuming was going to happen. This was setting some parameters but not necessarily hard and fast guidelines. Karlovich: I just want to at least note for the record that I made the motion because the applicant said that they needed to continue to move forward and wanted to move onto the Planning Commission and did not want to come back to us with that plan. And obviously was not comfortable with just moving forward to the Planning Commission with a larger totlot so I think I made it perfectly clear that if we're going to just push ahead with this then we go ahead with that type of recommend, his recommendation. 23