Loading...
PRC 1993 08 24 ,.... CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREA nON COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 1993 Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Berg, Jim Manders, Ron Roeser, Jim Andrews, Larry Schroers, Jane Meger, and Jan Lash STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lash: I just have a couple things that I found. On page 20. My comments at the bottom. I think I said the first lines and after that point in time, I think it was the applicant speaking because it sounds like something the applicant would talk about that night. Not something I was saying. And I think it starts right about with the well. And then another one on page 48. My comments in the first paragraph down. I probably said I've always but what I meant was, I've never. I've never been a proponent of that. And then I'm a cheapskate. Not a ,,-... cheapscape. I don't know what the difference is but I know I'm a cheapskate. I don't know what the other one is. That's it for me. Schroers: Anything else? If not, may I have a motion to approve? Andl'ews moved, Meger seconded to approve the Minutes of the PaIk and Recreation Commission meeting dated July 27, 1993 as amended by .Ian Lash. All voted in favor and the motion canied. VISITOR PRESENTA nONS: None. SONG PROPERTY. LUNDGREN BR011lERS CONSlRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros Jay Dolejsi Bret Davidson David Stockdale 935 East Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata 6961 Chaparral Lane 7291 Galpin Blvd. 7210 Galpin Blvd. ,... 1 Hoffman: The Commission should be aware the approval of the Minutes only covers the July 27th. The August 10th... The Song property proposal. as the Commissioners are aware. was reviewed on July 27th. The discussion that evening including the tabling of this issue. Expectations from the Commission in doing so were two fold. That the applicant desired more time to review internally and progress with staff ideas to enhance the park and recreation components of this application. Secondly. that the Commission desired additional information in regard to land holdings south of the Song's...Dolejsi-Turner property. I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Terry Forbord to discuss the new idea which he referenced at the committee meeting. The applicant's preliminary offer was to identify a trail easement along the southern border of the Johnson-Dolejsi- Turner property which abuts the Song property and to construct that trail. You have a diagram in your packet...in this regard. The Johnson-Dolejsi- Turner proposal and the Song proposal are adjacent to one another. They're both...and are owned. or would be owned by Lundgren Bros Construction. The area of the trail would start about in this location at Highway 41 and wind it's way down to the southern half of the Johnson-Dolejsi-Turner property. So you've got the plat which you approved. or passed your recommendations onto the Council sometime last year and the Song property in this location. This is a large wooded wetland area which you have I believe an aerial photo of...I'm not a wetlands expert but it's certainly primarily what they refer to as canary reed grass and we'll have some pictures of that. those slides... Mr. Forbord and I toured this area. on foot the morning of August 9th. A Monday morning. Very wet morning. We...very desirable for a recreational trail and would offer an experience which is not attainable with the trails along street alignment such as the on street alignment which would run parallel with the thru street which will access TH 41 and Galpin... This proposed corridor parallels a large wetland. We talked about the homes that would be constructed in the area. The trail in most cases would be located at the edge of the wetland. sandwiched between the wetland and the home's backyards. The alignment of most area followed the toe of the wooded slope which acts as a natural buffer. One area in particular does not allow that and you'll see a slide of it approximately right in this location which is an open alfalfa field which then dead ends...off into the wetland. Several sets of photographs were taken. We'll look at those here momentarily. I also prepared the blue line copy of the aerial photo. I apologize...but you can certainly get the idea without having any additional feet on there. Upon concluding our site visit that day it was agreed that the applicant would map this potential trail alignment. which is down here...attached in the packet. Providing copies of that map for the commission to review. A follow-up conversation on August 17th with Mr. Forbord and during that conversation Terry informed me that they had determined that it was not feasible for them to construct a trail at their expense. At least probably without receiving some sort of compensation from the city for that...The second issue which I would like to touch on is the issue of the land holdings in the area...get an idea of what this wetland looks like. You drive by it. I drive by it every day, a couple times a day. I certainly knew it was there but I didn't know to what extent this area was. the extent of the area which it covers so I think it will give you a real good idea of what the area actually looks like. -" ....", Schroers: A couple quick questions Todd. What is the length of the trail and is the trail of any significance regarding the overall master trail plan of the city? 2 ....", ,...., Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 r- Hoffman: As proposed the length of the trail is about 2/3 of a mile in the Lundgren development. It would then continue and probably conclude at Galpin and be much closer to a mile in length from TH 41 to Galpin. In regard to the overall comprehensive trail plan, it's not an identified segment but it certainly is a very desirable segment. The comprehensive trail plan typically identifies trails which are traveled, or not solely for recreation but you know line up with major corridors and major neighborhood corridors and that type of thing. So I think it is a desirable link, even though it's not identified on the comp plan. If you can follow through in your head as I walk through these. I don't have the luxury of pushing back and forth between the overhead and the slides. This is a photo just east of Highway 41. About at the location where the trail would begin on TH 41 right up in this comer. Right up here and as you travel across the slide to the left, that tree line there would be the separation point to the wetland so that's one reason you really don't see it. This is the view when you cross over that tree line. The view which greets you there. Part of the wetland. As you can see, it's not a cattail type marsh. It's not wooded. It was wet there obviously this year because of the weather we've been experiencing but I would think in drought years it was probably completely dry, except for maybe in a small creek which winds through the center of it. The wooded property you see there in the background would be the southern half of the Dolejsi property, which is severed from the northern half. So it makes it real impossible to develop those as a consecutive piece of property. That's where I pan to the left, as I'm standing there and it shows the wooded edge of the property to the north which would be the start of the houses that would come down to the edge of the wetland there. The trail would meander inbetween the houses and the wetland. Lash: So are you proposing the trail construction to be along the wood line? The tree line. Hoffman: Right along the wood line, correct. It could not be constructed out in the wetland itself. It certainly has to be up on suitable ground. Schroers: Is that tree line going to be altered by the construction? Hoffman: Assuredly yes. To what extent I would have to have the applicant to address that question. These begin to get out of order. This would take you all the way to the opposite end of the trail to the terminus. As it comes out at the very left hand comer of the slide would be Swings golf course. And the trees that you see to the right would be the edge of a cul-de-sac, if you can look on your packet, that knoll which is very heavily wooded... That knoll however does have a, it's kind of a funny little area. It has an opening actually which fits very nicely for a street which is the fortunate thing from tree loss. This would be if you round the comer and look back towards Galpin Blvd. So as you walk around the comer from the other side and then face, this is facing east. Due east right down towards City Hall. This would be probably very close to the alignment of the trail as it came around the toe of the ,...., 3 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ...; slope. And then penetrated to the east to match up with, along with future developments somewhere out to Galpin Blvd and then eventually down to the trail underpass which goes under Highway S. This slides looks directly north towards the Song property. From about that same comer. If you can picture, you're probably standing on the trail here heading to my right towards Galpin. Heading to my left towards TH 41 and then you're looking north and towards the Song property. This approximately delineates the separation between the Song property on the right and the Johnson-Dolejsi- Turner on the left. Another photo of the alignment as it comes along the toe of the slope again in that general vicinity. This is an area which I mentioned earlier where the field, the agricultural field actually comes right down to the edge of the wetland. These would be...standing either at the rear housepad or somewhere in the rear yard and then looking out over the wetland in this area. So the trail would run approximately right in line with that wetland edge. That's coming up much higher on the hill. The last slide was down way to your right. This is standing up on the hill somewhere potentially where the street would be or maybe a front yard looking back over the vista of that wetland area. And again the trail, if there was a proposed trail, would be down in the foreground...There's another shot of that same vicinity. Again, down lower. The wooded knoll that you see there, that's the knoll that the other series of slides centered around on the opposite side of it. This trail would then come along vegetation edge. Follow the toe of that wooded slope around and head on over towards Swings golf course or Galpin Blvd or potentially to the north at that time, depending on what alignment was eventually chosen and that wooded knoll there would contain houses in a cul-de-sac...One area of particular concern to the commission was the issue of this private park concept was approved, what potential exists for the city to acquire public parkland in the area immediately south of the Song, Johnson-Dolejsi-Turner property. So I put together a map which I think approximately indicates the existing land holdings in that area. Again, 3 weeks was not sufficient time to bring you a complete evaluation of what's available. What potentially would not be available and all the other questions you would have in regard to the land purchase. But I did have the opportunity to discuss the topic with some of the landowners in the area. ...realtor and Mr. Forbord who represents Lundgren Bros Construction in their land acquisition inquiries throughout Chanhassen. I do understand as an agent of the city I can only take these inquiries to such a degree. Make the recommendations to the Park Commission and then ultimately approval by City Council. However, I believe it is fair to state that there are no properties in this area which have been actively marketed. That statement made, I may alter that statement to. some degree tonight as we talk about the Stockdale property in more detail later on. Again, I mentioned that there appears to be one owner who is considering subdivision of their property and that being Mr. David Stockdale. I believe it is also accurate to state that the remainder of the landowners have either been contacted by perspective buyers or considered selling their property at some time and...some property owners that are just happy with what they have going on and probably would not consider selling at any time in the future. So again the Stockdale property is about 19 acres. You have an additional ....." 4 ..."" ,... "..... ,...., Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 handout with you this evening which I will reference and that looks something like this. So this is the 19 acres Stockdale piece of property. The Song's...to the north. Their house lies somewhere up in this comer of this potential road which would come down through here. The Stockdale's currently reside in this location. It would be at least a consideration of the Stockdale's to sell the city this section of land in this area for a potential future neighborhood park. That's approximately 5 acres in size, or potentially a little less. The Park Commission would have to decide what they feel would be an appropriate total acreage for that park site, if you would care to pursue it. Mr. Stockdale is in conversation with Lundgren Bros on the potential acquisition of that remaining property with development of that property coming down through this road extension and probably meet in a cul-de-sac somewhere in that location. So this is certainly something the commission can consider. It's not the only piece of property in the area which could be acquired for park. As we go further on in the discussion about the land holdings in the area, you'll see that. However, I believe the Stockdale's are in a position to at least come to the bargaining table at present and see if something could not be worked out. So if that's your desire, I will take direction in that regard. Moving further south with some of the other properties. It would be my belief that the Bentz and Turcott properties would not be available for acquisition by the city. Each one of these 5 acre parcels have a residence constructed on them somewhere centrally located on that lot. The southern property has some wetland impacts on the rear of the property and then in addition, the Highway 5 frontage road, or access boulevard, will come and probably make this southern comer to some degree in that location. You're all familiar with Swings Golf and then you move across Galpin to the southeast comer of Highway 5 and Galpin and there's a piece of property, the VanDeVeire property. These two locations would not be desirable for any park obviously because of their location. Coming around the bottom side and you have a 50 acre parcel owned by Mr. Conway. Mr. Conway has been in conversation with Mike Gorra and a potential joint development of those two properties so there at least has been conversation. These represent some substantial land holdings in the area which will probably see some development of some type in the future. To the north you have Windmill Run and Royal Oaks, which the commission is aware. Are currently being developed for single family homes. Then north of that you have the Prince Nelson property which is hard to venture a guess as to what the future of that property is but it certainly may see some development at some point in the future. The other one to consider would be potentially the other half of the other segment of the Dolejsi property, which is separated from the northeast by that wetland that comes in through here. There are some additional issues which the commission needs to discuss this evening. Those centering around city sponsored recreation programs. These potential subdivisions create 234 lots between them. A portion of the Park and Recreation Department sponsored programs currently take place directly in neighborhood parks. Those being such programs as Summer Discovery Playground and tennis lessons. What would the city's commission, Park and Recreation Commission's policy be if you were approached by the neighborhood to provide public recreation services within those private or 5 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 -' association park? I think that's something we should discuss here this evening. And then ultimately your decision, whatever it is, would have some impacts on future commissions in that regard. Second issue is the trail easement along Galpin Blvd. The applicant's letter of August 18th references 17 feet of right-of-way along Galpin Blvd and the grading for a trail alignment within that 17 feet. This position is in direct conflict with staff's recommendation that a 20 foot easement for trail purposes be dedicated adjacent to the new right-of-way. That recommendation is consistent with the action by the Commission and the Council all the way up and down Galpin Blvd, starting on the southern reaches across Highway 5 with Stone Creek, the Hans Hagen development where the right-of-way was taken and then an additional 20 feet of trail easement and now they're constructing that trail within that easement. Moving north to the Windmill Run and the Klingelhutz development and then Bret Davidson and his development there. So that has been a consistent recommendation and consistent action by the Council. The applicant will be presenting his diagrams this evening showing potentially how the trail construction could take place within a right-of-way. I will respond to that presentation at that time. I did have a chance to have a conversation with the City Engineer and the Assistant City Engineer in that regard today so I'll have some additional information for the...at that time. The depiction of passive play areas on the attachment to the letter dated August 18th. As the commission will recall, one concern about the potential association or private park in the Song property was that at some point in the future it could revert back to the city ownership and city operation of maintenance. And one thing the commission and the city typically want to see in those neighborhood parks is an open playfield so it was a direction to the applicant to identify that. An attempt was made to do so on this diagram which identifies two areas that's shaded and labeled then as passive recreation. I would agree that they probably could be used for passive recreation but they have steep slopes in those areas and they're very small, or relatively small so a game of pick-up baseball or something of that nature would not be appropriate there. The minimum size of 250 x 250 would reach the, just by having the thought process. So neighborhood children can pick up a game of baseball or softball, how much distance would you allow between home plate and the first window of some garage or the house adjoining the park. And 250 feet is about the minimum amount you could safely. I think you could reduce that down to somewhat...over 200 feet. Conclusions that were made. I think the applicant has attempted to satisfy the desires of the commission in regards to park and trail amenities but is falling slightly short of the city's mark. Specifically in regard to the private park amenities and the whole issue of the private park but again that is something that the commission has to wrestle with as well. I've talked about the open playfield area and the failure to identify one of those. The question of whether or not land in the area are available for development as public park space remains unanswered. I think...new information today. That information was gathered and agreed to about 3:45 p.m. meeting this afternoon so you can see it's...has not been developed. But it is certainly a possibility. There's always future events which kind of cartwheel upon one another as to what is going to occur with the land holdings in the vicinity. However, it can -' 6 """'" ,...., ,.... ,....., Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 certainly always be said that if it's your wish to acquire some parkland, you can probably make that happen but again that statement is also applicable to the subject property. In regard to the 20 foot trail easement, as I mentioned, we will talk about that more during the applicant's comments. The offer to incorporate the trail alignment along the large wetland is commendable. These types of trails are desirable in our society. They allow an opportunity to come in close contact with our natural surroundings. However it is staff's position that this trail should be constructed in conjunction with the initial public improvements in the area. As the commission is aware, it is very difficult to go back once the homes have been developed, even if you have a trail alignment identified and even if somebody else is going to pay for it. At that time it becomes much more difficult to get that trail constructed so it would be staff's recommendation to see that construction take place with the adjoining improvements, or the adjacent improvements in the area. Recommendation. It is recommended that the preliminary plat to subdivide 112 acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development into 115 single family lots, referenced as the Song property, be approved by the Park and Recreation Commission contingent upon the following conditions of approval being met. There's two each in regard to parks and trails. In regard to parks. That the private association park be approved only if the additional amenity of an open field with a minimum size. of 200 feet square with a maximum of 4% slope be added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. And then second, that full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. In regards to trails, we have two issues there. A 20 foot trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. That trail bed may meander within this easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as part of the grading plan review. Then again, planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of that trail bench or outside the trail. Secondly, that the applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson-Dolejsi- Turner preliminary plat as depicted on the attachment in your packet. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling that wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and the City Engineer. In recognition for this dedication of this trail corridor and the construction of that trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive a full trail fee credits at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and the Johnson-Dolejsi- Turner applications. That will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson-Dolejsi-Turner properties. This trail shall include a connectionto the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 and 17, Block 2, or a suitable similar location in that vicinity. I believe that last item is also an issue which the applicant would like to discuss with the commission tonight. With that, I'll turn it over to you Chairman Schroers. 7 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ......" Schroers: Okay. I think at this time it would be appropriate to hear what the applicant has to say. Terry Forbord: Members of the Park Commission, my name is Terry Forbord. I'm with Lundgren Bros. 935 East Wayzata Blvd and Mr. Hoffman did a good job in summarizing all the issues related to this proposal...related to his staff report to the Park and Rec Commission. He's right, on August 9th we went out and walked the wetlands where the public trail is being proposed. As you recall at the last meeting I asked that this item be tabled because as I was sitting and listening to the Parks Commission it became clear to me that you liked our proposal but the part that you didn't like about it was the fact that we had an association park versus a public park. At least that's...some smaller issues. For us we think it is very. very important for the success of this neighborhood to have something that is within the community that the city will not be able to provide. And we've gone, taken the extra effort and tried to explain those items to you and why we think it's important and...As I was sitting here listening to the comments of the commission. I thought that maybe there's an opportunity. and I wasn't sure at the time but maybe there's an opportunity to provide a public experience that would benefit everybody who lives in the city that would connect to city public trails that presently are planned for Highway 41 and Galpin Blvd. Now for those of you who have ever walked trails. whether they be municipal or county or otherwise. there are different types of trail experiences. Certainly the type of trail experience that we would enjoy on Highway 41 is one of pretty much utilitarian needs. Trying to get from one Point A to Point B...by traffic. You might have some enjoyable experience, you're out exercising, etc but it's not going to be the type of trail experience that you'd probably want to go for relaxation. So as I was contemplating that, thought that I should maybe think about that. Maybe I have an opportunity to provide the city with something that would connect those two public trails that are utilitarian in nature and provide an experience that would be different. So Parks Director Hoffman and I walked that property and it was a nicer experience than I anticipated it would be. I think primarily because of the topography of the area. The area in question around the wetland is quite a bit lower than all the other upland areas that surrounds it. Some' of the pictures of slides that he showed represent that but it's hard to describe what you'd be able to see if you were there in person. While we were walking right in this area right here, excuse me. We were walking right here, we saw a buck come out of the woods and run across here and he came across here. We startled another buck in the larger grass. We saw hawks and the thing that was probably more unique to it than anything, was the quiet that was down there. Probably because of the depression to the rest of the land around it and all the upland. When you're up in this area you can hear Highway 41 and Highway 5. I don't recall hearing any highway noise at all when I was down here so it was very quiet. I quickly realized what I had hoped to realize and that it was a unique experience that might be of interest to the city. Now normally we would not be proposing to the city a public trail corridor in the back yards of homes because our home buyers would tell us normally that they ....,,11 8 ....,,11 "....... "..... ,.... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 would be very, very opposed to that. And these issues have been fought in battles in every city in the metropolitan area. Most people would prefer not to have a trail in their back yard. If it was directly there to see it. The unique thing about this site, and the sites around it, is most of it, not all of it but most of it is wooded. And like I said, where the trail would be is at the toe of the slope and the homesites are up higher. So I weighed that and like I said, normally we wouldn't be proposing that because it's something that we fear. The last thing you want to do is do something to a homesite that would make it so nobody would want to buy it. And in talking to Park Director Hoffman, he kind of...on us a little bit. He did and I did and there's a trade off. There might be some people that would look at it as a benefit. I mean from my experience I can tell you that most people, if they can see it. If it's right out their back door and they're sitting on their deck, the last thing...talking to their spouse, most people would not want to see people walking in their backyard. The unique thing of this, is that all those lots in those areas are very deep lots. Most of them are very wooded and most of them are very high. There's only a section of lots right through here, I think there's . probably 5, maybe 6 at the very most, that you had...where you could actually, if you were on your deck, you'd be able to look down and see a trail. The unique part about that is that when you're up high and looking beyond the trail, there's a vista that probably goes for maybe a couple miles. As far as the view that you can see. So there's going to be some trade offs there. So the way I look at it, after a lot of thought, is there's 5 or 6 lots here that may be impacted by that trail. And if there's some people don't like that, well we have. other lots that are available to them that they don't have to buy the lot on the trail either. Now if I had 20 or 30 lots in here affected by that trail, I would not even consider proposing it. I think because of that, I had 5 lots, there might be somebody who's a rollerblader in that family who would want to..get on that trail and rollerblade around. There's probably 5 people out there that might be willing to do that. So normally we wouldn't be proposing this. I think the situation is a little unique. I think it offers an experience that, I'm real familiar with Chanhassen trails and...but I think this would be certainly fair to say that this is a little different experience than some of the other trails that are provided in the city. And it does link two trails that will be common routes for school children going through to school that will be at Galpin and Highway 5. The land...down by Swings or across the street from Swings, there will be a..or some type of tunnel system that goes under Highway 5 to the school and community park area that will be there as part of the school grounds. So this kind of ties it all together. I wish I could tell you that I thought of this in the beginning and it was a well conceived master plan...so I think that it's really something unique that is a benefit to the city. The other item that I would like to address, and there was some public comment at the last meeting about the availability of other properties for sale in the area. As Parks Director Hoffman has explained to you this evening, you have a willing seller who would like to have a public park right in his front yard and that is Mr. Stockdale. Mr.Stockdale asked to meet with me last week, unless he's changed his mind since then. He's very, very encouraged by the idea of having a park in his front yard. As long as he can meet a satisfactory 9 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24. 1993 .....", agreement with the city and that was none of my business so I didn't get into that with him . But he met with me and asked me if I would be willing...acquiring the remainder of his property... So we have a unique situation where we now have somebody who's willing to provide the city with the parkland that the city has indicated is desired from them. At the same time. Lundgren Bros right next door is willing to build two association parks at our cost providing amenities that the city cannot provide it's residents and we also are going to continue to agree. to pay park dedication fees...so it seems to me that all of the things that were of concern to the parks commission at our last meeting. have the potential for being addressed well beyond. exceeding the limits of. or the expectations that normally would be available to the city in a given area. If you add up all the amenities in that area. if that public parkland is acquired. and with the trail system that's there that was never part of the Comp Plan. you have a park and trail experience in an area that most cities would be very pleased... The other unique thing about the Stockdale property is that there's been a lot of discussion about obtaining the right type of property for the right type of use. The Stockdale property is relatively flat. It has easy access to Galpin Boulevard. It offers the type of topography that is conducive to that type of use. You will not find that type of land on the Song property. In discussing. Schroers: Can I ask a question? Would Lundgren Bros be interested in doing preliminary grading on that site were we to find that accessible? ...."I Terry Forbord: Which site sir? Schroers: What you're speaking about on the Stockdale property. I mean I realize that this is all hypothetical that it would happen but is that something that Lundgren Bros would consider? Terry Forbord: If Lundgren Bros has equipment on site at the time that the city would like to have that park developed and graded. we'd be willing to talk to the city to try to facilitate the most inexpensive way of development. The timing would probably be the key. Berg: Could I ask a couple questions about the trail before you move too far away from that. My recollection from the last meeting was that one of the concerns with having a city park within that association. within that development. was the concern of the neighbors to the type of people that would be coming in to use the city park outside of the neighborhood. I'm wondering if you've given thought to the fact that this trail is also going to introduce people into that neighborhood. into that development. Terry Forbord: That was an item that we did not raise. That was an item that somebody else raised. I never. ever said that we were concerned about the type of people that would be 10 .....,/ ,.... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 coming into our neighborhood. I never stated that. Berg: So for you that's not a factor at all? Terry Forbord: I think the question, at least that I recall, if I remember my response, it is a concern of our's and people, and this is not unlike if this was a townhome development or if this was an apartment complex. People are paying for a facility that happens to be there with their money. They are maintaining it. I think that it's fair that those people would have a concern about the use of people from outside the area coming to use it. It is not a concern of our's with any of the type of people that live in Chanhassen...So as far as the experience with the trail, as I said, I. probably don't have words that are creative enough to describe it. I was very pleasantly surprised and I had been down there like 4 years ago but when you're looking at land for the first time and you're trying to make some buying decisions, it's different than when you're out trying to imagine an experience of a trail... ,.... Berg: One other question regarding the trail as well. My concern would be that because this is a private association park, that this trail might also be construed as a private trail. Would you have any, I would assume that you probably wouldn't have any trouble with identifying it as a city trail so that everyone in the city would know that it was accessible to them. Terry Forbord: We would have absolutely no problem with that. In fact it connects with two planned city public trails now along Highway 41 and Galpin. I'm not sure if the city has a sign system that designates the trail but if they don't, we would not have any problem whatsoever designating that. Lash: I have a question too in regards to that. From the looks of the plan, it doesn't actually connect TH 41 to Galpin. Is that correct? At this point it doesn't. Hoffman: Correct. Lash: Okay, so what is the potential. Say we were to acquire the Stockdale property. How did that, knowing that I'm not always really good at reading these maps but can you show me, would the park property abut this wetland so that we could continue the trail from the wetland right into the park property? Hoffman: I think Mr. Forbord could go ahead and show that. ...potentially you could loop the trail up around the cul-de-sac and bring it into the Stockdale property. Lash: I guess for future, if this all comes together, that would be maybe one of my hopes would be that we could ultimately have that trail connect into the public park and then on out r- 11 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ...." to Galpin. And then ultimately if the Dolejsi, the southern segment were to come in for development, that we would have earmarked, at this time I would like to have it earmarked that we would want also to have an easement to continue around that development also so we could end actually with a whole circled area in there with a trail. Terry Forbord: Let me comment on a couple things. Todd and I were out walking in this area. There's kind of an existing farm road that presently kind of crosses right here. There was a slide of that. It's kind of hard to decipher unless you would have known that that's what it was. We were trying to decide would it make more sense to go up this way and come down here. And at that time the Stockdale proposal was not a discussion so we had contemplated primarily how would we get over here to make it connect with the trail that went over to the school. So I would imagine that there's very probably some sense in trying to connect that to that...and probably would happen during the platting process of the Stockdale property. As far as continuation of the trail around the entire wetland. Lundgren Bros does not control this portion of the Dolejsi property. That would have to be something that would be handled a differently... Lash: That was directed to staff that as those come in for development, I would want that to be looked at. So the Stockdale property, is that the right hand comer...? Terry Forbord: Actually it goes down and probably right there... ...., Lash: The Stockdale property? Terry Forbord: That's correct. His property is right in here. And whether that is the best place for the trail to come in, I couldn't answer that. There may be some wisdom to that if there's a public park... Lash: Okay, thank you. Terry Forbord: Chairman Schroers, you had asked about trees...related to that proposed trail and I think it's fair to say that the toe of the slope. Schroers: May I clarify that. I wasn't referring only to the trail but to the entire development. How much impact is the development going to have on the trees there was my question. Not specifically the trail. Terry Forbord: On the Song property or the Johnson-Dolejsi-Tumer property? Schroers: Yes. On the entire development is where I have an interest actually. 12 --". ~ Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 Terry Forbord: You know I'd have to, I can't remember what all the specifications of the preliminary plat on the Johnson-Dolejsi-Tumer property...On the Song property...somewhere around 30%. Maybe less than that. That includes right-of-way and... Schroers: Okay, and that came about before the development of the Tree Board so that won't apply to your development but that is .pretty consistent with what is happening now. There's pretty much a 30%. Terry Forbord: And we're trying to follow that and I know the public hearing was cancelled and I certainly will be present at that public hearing because there's a lot of issues that I think need to be discussed on that but I'll wait until that public hearing before I do. A couple more items. Just to answer the question about the trail. Most of the trees that are d~wn by the wetland are box elders. Parks Director Hoffman identified those for me becaus~ I'm not an arborist or anything and some of them are dead too. And I think it's fair to say that near the toe of the slope, that's where the trees are terminating. And for a trail to be there, to have that type of experience where you're right next to the wetland and right next to the woods, there will be some vegetation, some brush, possibly a few scrub trees type things that would be...part of that trail construction. But I believe the trails are presently 8 feet? So I really think it will be extremely minimal given the circumstances. About the item in the association ~ park about...flat area to have a little more active recreation. First of all there won't be any homes anywhere near the association park, or certainly not close enough to where anybody could cause damage to one of those homes by swinging. And secondly) the idea of those association parks is not to have pick-up games and that's, they're designed so those type of things aren't going to be available. Now we do think it was an excellent idea that the staff had of trying to expand some flat area there so...play frisbee or if you wanted to play catch or throw a football a little bit, we think that's a good idea. But we do not want to make 250 x 250 feet. That's 3/4 of the length of a football field and that's an awfully large area flatten, especially in light of the fact that if the city is successful in it's attempts to acquire public property in there, that's really the type of area that would be conducive for those types of activities. Let me just talk a little bit about the trail along Galpin Blvd. If I may, I'll just go to the overhead. On the overhead presently it shows the existing condition of Galpin Blvd. To my knowledge, the Galpin Blvd currently has a 66 foot right-of-way and there's approximately 13 feet of pavement in each direction for a combined pavement of 26 feet. So there's 20 feet of right-of-way on each side of the pavement. From the pavement edge to the edge of the right-of-way. Now what the city is proposing for the future of Galpin Blvd would be that it would be a 100 foot wide right-of-way and the pavement would be, if it ever were expanded to 4 lanes, would be 26 feet in each direction so you have two lanes heading south and two lanes heading north. The city desires, and it is so noted on the comprehensive plan to have a trail, a north/south trail along Galpin Blvd. And I'm not sure if it states it should be on both sides or not but I know it's important for the city to have some trail connection there. I""" 13 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24. 1993 ...", And this is not an uncommon request. I think in any city in the metropolitan area that you would go to. on a key north/south street like this. it would be reasonable to say that any municipality and parks commission would hope to have some type of trail there and we think that's a good idea. We have absolutely no problem with that idea. Especially because it's going to be a key route for children going to the new school. What we do have some difficulty with. and this is also. ...consistent around the metropolitan area but oftentimes there are rights-of-way or easements asked for by either the engineering department or sometimes a parks department for additional amount of taking of private property for use that really goes beyond what the need is to accomplish the same task. And in this particular case. we think that it's creating an unnecessary burden on. not only the land developer but the land owner and we think it readily can be accomplished the objective without such a taking. As you'll see on the upper left here. there's a diagram in your packet. You have your center line of the road. 100 foot right-of-way. two lanes are going north and two lanes are heading south. It's very important for the city to have a utility corridor and I'm sure there will be a response to things I'm going to tell you but the utility corridor gives the city the ability to run utilities. . whatever they may be. private or public. in this area. And there also is on the other side you have to remember there's 24 feet that right now isn't being used at all. There's also a utility corridor opportunity there. I'm not sure if the city presently has planned another trail on that side. I'm not sure if it would make sense to have a trail on both sides but you do have 24 feet on the other side of the road. On this side. what we're showing here within the existing. or excuse me. Within the proposed right-of-way. we're showing an 8 foot wide trail. That's... been asked for and was connected to the Comp Plan and it can easily be constructed in that right-of-way. And then there shows an additional. and this is for illustrative purposes only. It's showing an additional 6 feet between the edge of the trail and what would be the toe of a berm that would screen future homes along Galpin Blvd from this traffic that will be occurring over time. Now the utility corridor also provides a buffer from the edge of the curb to the people that are walking. This is what we believe to be totally compatible with what the desires of the city are. We believe that all the utility corridors and utility items necessary can go in that corridor. There's plenty of room for it there. If additional right-of-way is asked for. then you're expanding into the private property area of the back yards of those future homeowners and it's not really needed. As an example I'll show you. this is an exhibit that was put together by one of the city's consultants for a different city in Woodbury. Bonestroo was the consultant here. And this is a minor arterial street in Woodbury. and I'm just showing this for an example of what other cities in situations like this. It can be done. and I'm showing you that it can be done. That it's not uncommon. This is an 85 foot right-of-way which is 15 feet narrower than the proposed and shows again 4 lanes of traffic. Two heading for illustrative purposes. I'll say two heading north and two heading south. It shows the 10 foot corridor for the trail and has a 9 foot space...with the slope. This is the design right out of the spec book and the trail that is being constructed in Woodbury. And so these kinds of things are being done and there are opportunities for utility corridors in here on this side. on ......", 14 -' ,...., ~ ,;/"". Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 this side and so the only thing that we're stating to you is that we are not at all at difficulty with the concept. We think the concept is a great concept but we think that more right-of- way is being required than is necessary to accomplish the task and we would like you to consider amending the request to lessen the amount of right-of-way that's required on the trail because it really becomes land... Lash: Mr. Forbord, just to clear me up. The bottom picture. Is that what you're proposing or is that what we're proposing? Terry Forbord: This is what we would be proposing. Lash: Is that with the 17 foot trail easement as opposed to the 20 foot? Terry Forbord: There's an additional right-of-way that is being required by the county and by the city of 17 feet and we would like to put the trail within that right-of-way. The 17 feet on each side so 17 and 17 is 34. Lash: On each side of the road? Terry Forbord: J 7 feet on each side of Galpin so right now if you recall, this is 66. So if you add 17 feet on this side and 17 feet on that side, that's 34 to make it 100. That's a very, very wide right-of-way and the point I'm making is that cities are putting the same things in right-of-ways that are 85 feet. And certainly I think it's fair to say, this isn't true everywhere but there's certainly, from a planning perspective, is a movement afoot to lessen right-of-way. To lessen the width of roads except for roads that are very, very necessary and all we're saying here is that we think it's an excessive taking that infringes upon the development opportunity of those lots that we're having to back up to. Now remember, the challenge that we have, if we really want to do a nice job with those lots, the challenge that we have is how do we screen those lots from Galpin Blvd because I don't think it'd be fair for me to try to sell my home to future home buyers. Oh yeah, Galpin Blvd's always going to be this real nice, sleepy road. Two lanes. One going north. One going south. That isn't what I'm going to be telling them. I'm going to be telling them that someday this is going to be a very, very busy road and I'm going to have to, in order for me to do a good job to protect those people from that busy road, I should be building a berm. I should probably be landscaping it. I should probably trying to be buffering the impact with that road. Well, if you start taking more right-of-way for trail purposes than is necessary, I can't put the berm that close to the road and it keeps moving the berm this way. If I keep moving the berm this way, then I'm moving that berm into the back yards, bringing the berm closer to the house. People will be sitting on their deck and all of a sudden there's a berm there. And every little foot makes a difference to the people who happen to be buying these homes. 15 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ....." Lash: So we're talking a difference of 3 feet, right? From what the recommendation is and what you're suggesting? Terry Forbord: No. No. They want an additional 20 feet. Andrews: Outside the 100 foot right-of-way, is that correct? Terry Forbord: Correct. That's correct. Andrews: On the Song, current Song property. Terry Forbord: And that's where the problem lies because we think you can easily get the trail corridor within the 100 foot right-of-way and have all that pavement and all that buffer and everything. I mean I'm not trying to say that, I mean I can't blame city engineers for wanting more rights-of-way for their needs and I guess I can't blame the Park Department for wanting as much right-of-way as they possibly can get for a trail but the point is...not to put a berm in. For the people looking at a road, well that wouldn't be very nice either. Or the other alternative is to obliterate these lots and just not have them. Or move this road, continue moving, I mean it's just not, we .think it's overkill and we don't think it's necessary and we think the diagram shows that. We think what's happens in other cities shows it... Now there are cities that are but certainly it's fair to say that nowadays cities are starting to take a look at that. If we really don't need it, why should we be asked for it. Just a few last items that I'd like to cover. I talked to Parks Director Hoffman about the construction of the proposed public trail and he didn't have a problem with this proposal. I think his staff report already says that but we would like to build that public trail as, the development will be phased. We'll be doing one phase and we'd like to build that public trail along that phase and then when we do the next phase, build that segment of the public trail and then as you go, because that's how you're going to be doing the grading. You kind of build it as you go and I think that's what, I'm not sure but I think...talking today. And lastly, two last items. We would have to amend our PUD approval that we already have on the Johnson-Dolejsi- Turner property in order to accomplish this. We would like, and I don't know if this is really a Park Commission issue but we'd like the fees waived to accommodate that. And the last item would be that it's been the desire of the Park Director, and I think it's a good idea. I'm just not sure how to facilitate it right now. I believe that we'll be able to figure out a way but it's the desire, the idea of the Parks Director, I'll give him credit for it. If you recall there's that proposed trail corridor along through here. And he would like us to put a connection from the street B, between a couple of these lots here down to that trail. And obviously that poses a little bit of a problem for us because to be fair to those future homeowners, I'm going to obviously have to tell them that there's going to be a trail link...but not only that, I need to kind of protect them a little bit from that trail for the same reasons that I've already identified. ......"" 16 -' ,.... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 Now I wouldn't have to do this but I just think it's right. We should put some kind of plantings along there. Some trees so they don't just see people walking down their side yard lot line. So my concern is that somewhere along in here I'm going to have to adjust some lot lines too I think in order to make those home sites so they're negatively impacted by that connection. Now I'm going to need some cooperation probably from the Planning Department and from the Engineering Department to accomplish that. And I think that they're willing to compromise...but this is of concern to us. And now the reason I bring it up is because we'll have to amend this preliminary plat. We're going to have to try to find a way of how do we do that in here. Make two of those lots a little wider in order to be able to buffer those home sites from that link. And so we would like approval to direct staff to work with us to try and figure out a way to accomplish that, because I'm not sure how we can do that. I think the idea's a sound idea but I sense I'm going to need the cooperation of other departments, planning and engineering. Lash: What are your, I'm just looking at, I see there's kind of a short cul-de-sac right in the middle. Yep. Okay, go to the comer lot there. So if you ran it there, you'd be yeah. Would that work better? It wouldn't be in the side yard of two houses. It be along the back. ,.. Terry Forbord: Yeah, you know that's one of those things that's 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other. You know the people that are sitting on this, their deck here trying to have their quiet enjoyment, would it impact them more to have the trail here than to try to put it between the side of the yard of that lot line. And I don't know right now. To me the way we would normally go about that, we would first of all try to get the other departments to cooperate and maybe allowing us to adjust some lot lines, because I do think it's an important issue. I don't think it'd be fair to those future home buyers if we just ignore it. So what I would do then is I would like to stake the field. I mean this is the kind of thing you go out in the field and kind of do it there rather than just on a piece of paper because you get a more real feeling of it. All I'm asking for, and I think most of you would probably agree. Yeah, this is a consideration we should give to the homeowners. And we're just going to need the cooperation of Todd's letter and he's said that he'd be happy to work with me on that. I would just like whatever approval or recommendation you give tonight, that you would direct staff, engineering and planning to assist us to accomplish that. Because we think it's a good idea. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time. Schroers: Okay. Well thank you very much Mr. Forbord and we appreciate your work and your effort in trying to work with the city and I'm going to open this up to commission discussion in just a minute. I think we need to refocus what the role of this commission is regarding this particular, not only this development but this area. This area is a park deficient area so as the area develops, the city needs and our mission here is to acquire public parks space in park deficient areas so the surrounding community has facilities to use. So we have .,.... 17 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ....", to keep that in mind. There's possibilities of development of public park property on the Stockdale property and other potential development sites in the area. However, those are possibilities that mayor may not happen. We mayor may not be able to capitalize on them. This is the biggest development proposed that we know of in the area. It is the most logical place to acquire the needed parkland and it is what's happening now in fact so with that in mind, I'd like to open it up to any commission response. Lash: I'd like to hear if there are any other public comments first. I don't know if there are. Schroers: Is there anyone else in the audience that would wish to make a statement in regard to the Lundgren Bros development this evening? Andrews: I have a question for Todd. If we were to take staff recommendation, what would be the approximately amount of fees that we would collect for this development? Hoffman: Park fees currently are $600.00. Those are increased on an annual basis. So if this is thing gets in the ground 1994, you'll probably see those closer to $700.00. Say you have 200 in total, 234 homesites I believe I stated. So it would run about $140 some thousand dollars. Andrews: And then kind of as a follow up question. If the city were to develop a neighborhood park simiilar to what Lundgren is proposing to build at their cost, what would be our cost to develop that? -'" Hoffman: I couldn't answer that question... Schroers: Okay we do have, please come forward. State your name. Dave Stockdale: My name's Dave Stockdale and I think most of you..J had conversations with both Todd and Terry and it's too early to say whether or not it's going to come to fruition but we are, my wife and I are definitely open to the concept of parkland adjoining our property. There's a lot of things that have to be worked out before I say it's a go go but we're definitely in dialogue on it. Schroers: Well I appreciate you bringing that information forward because as you can see, this is a difficult, complicated issue right here and my personal feeling is that there is a lot of unanswered questions and we need to do some ground work and make a plan I feel, you know and have something to work with before we can go ahead and make any kind of real definitive recommendation. I mean I think we would be premature at this point to go ahead and make these recommendations not knowing on what we are going to be able to or what we 18 -'" ,.... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 aren't going to be able to do in the future. I mean we need to do some research here before we can make an educated decision on this. Dave Stockdale: Weare going to consider your dialogue, however it passes tonight and proceed. Schroers: Any new information, we'd appreciate knowing about it. Dave Stockdale: We'll keep you posted. Schroers: Thank you. Lash: Is it possible to make a recommendation contingent on the fact that we Will be able to acquire some properties for public park? And if that situation disappeared, we'd be able to come back and change our recommendation. Hoffman: That was my thought this afternoon. I called to the City Attorney's office and got in too late in the day to get an answer to that question. ",...... Schroers: That almost seems like it would be unfair though to the developer and to anyone else if we say well, yeah. We'll go along with this provided that we can make another deal and get halfway through another deal and that doesn't pan out and then come back at a later date and tell this developer that no, they've got to change their plans. t don't think we want. to do that. Hoffman: I think you're correct in that assumption. Schroers: Mr. Forbord. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Park Commission. Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros. Lundgren Bros would prefer this evening that the commission would either vote for or against the proposal and the reason is we have contract obligations with our sellers. We would rather walk away from this deal and know now rather than to continue it. We cannot continue to...or we'll be in violation of our contractual obligations. We would prefer this evening that you would vote for or vote against it. Thank you. Schroers: Is there anyone else present in the audience this evening that would like to speak on behalf of this project? Any other commission response? ,.... 19 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ......", Roeser: Well I'm just wondering now, the recommendations that staff has made here. There is absolutely no way that you can live with these, is that what I'm understanding here? The 20 foot trail easement for instance. Or adding the 250 square feet to the private park. Lash: Are you asking Mr. Forbord? Roeser: Yeah. I just, yeah. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Park Commission. Terry Forbord. I'm sorry, I didn't know you were addressing me. I thought you were talking to the Parks Director. We feel that we have made an incredible proposal to the city. In light of all the amenities that we are going to be putting in at our expense, and also we're going to give the city additional land for public right-of-way and also agreeing to pay park dedication fees. We really feel that we have met the mark. I mean in any other city I think you'd be hard pressed to find any city that would not just welcome a proposal like this with open arms. And I'm not going to stand up here and say that we're the greatest thing in the world, because we're not. We make a lot of mistakes. I addressed that at the last meeting but we do know what, the limitations of what we can do from an economic standpoint and from a design standpoint. And we know what works from a marketing standpoint. I think there may be some fine tuning of some of those items that you raised. If you take a 250 foot by 250 foot flat area in this general vicinity, there isn't one. And we'd have to, I don't know what we'd have to do to our plan to accomplish that. The only choice I would be able to do is take up a home site and I can't afford to do that. So that to me becomes an issue where I can't do that. Now essentially, if I believe that the city is going to acquire a public park, and I believe that's in the city's best interest, and I think they probably will do that, then that type of active...will be available at that park within very short distance along public trails right to there. So, what was the other item other than the 250 x 250? ..",,; Roeser: The 20 foot trail easement. Terry Forbord: Well what would happen is I would end up losing maybe a dozen lots... The alternative is taking and pushing that berm real close up to the houses. Roeser: Now you've told us that. I understand that. Terry Forbord: I wouldn't want to do that. I wouldn't want to sell somebody a lot like that and I don't think anybody would want to live on a lot like that. If there was really a need and it couldn't be done any other way, I wouldn't be proposing this but I know it can be done. We've done it and other cities do it so that's the only reason I'm proposing it because I know we can accomplish that and everybody can still have what they want. 20 ......", ""'" Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 Roeser: See what you're asking us to do though is to set some precedence here to do some things that we've never done before. For instance, granting you the right to build a private park. Granting you a 17 foot easement. We're changing some things here that by doing it, the next developer that comes in is going to say hey. Look what you did here. Look what you've given them. You know and then all of a sudden we're, it seems to me we're getting ourselves into something. Terry Forbord: Well to be honest with you, the city already has approved a preliminary plat with an association park like this and the city's done so also at condominiums, apartment complexes. They have very similar facilities. But you have to remember also this is a PUD. And if you read the zoning code, the intent of the PUD ordinance is to provide flexibility... exactly the types of things we're talking about. That's what a PUD is for. It's a different zoning tool, different zoning district that is essentially there so that, to break away from the rigidity of standard subdivision planning. So the city, staff, park commissioners, planning commissions, the council and the developer or the applicant can all come together with as creative an idea as possible and it doesn't set a precedent because it's a PUD. r- Lash: But the flip side of that is for a PUD, it's the developer's obligation to provide above and beyond what's normally required. So for us to be providing the flexibility to you, we're supposed to be getting some pretty big paybacks, and right now I haven't really seen really big paybacks. I mean I've seen some nice things but it's nothing way above and beyond what we've seen in other developments so. Schroers: Here's what I'd like to ask you Terry. It's not that we are against a community having it's own amenities. Like you say, we all know that there are apartment complexes and townhome complexes that have their own tennis courts and own swimming pools, all that stuff. But how do we accomplish our job? How do we acquire public space in that neighborhood? I can tell you from past experience, things that have happened many, many years ago have come back to haunt us. Things that we had no control over. Nothing to do with. People came back all of a sudden saying, where's our park and we're going, where's what park. Well we were promised a park however many years ago and it's not there. And now we want our park. And so where's the money coming from to develop it? Where is the property coming from to put the park on? We're not going to get ourself in that situation. again. We can't and in order to conform to the master plan of the city and the whole development of Chanhassen as a whole, somewhere in your neighborhood, which is park deficient, we have to acquire public space. How do we do it? Where do we get it? Terry Forbord: You know we agree with that. I know there are people who have come forth to the city willing to sell their property. Mr. Stockdale just indicated tonight that he's having dialogue with the city. I have not heard him say that he will not sell the city his land. I have ".... 21 " . Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ....", heard him say that he's really interested in selling the city his land, as long as they can come to satisfactory terms, and I know there are other parcels that were identified by Parks Director Hoffman that are for sale right now. Because I'm trying to buy them. I don't know if I'll be successful so I know there's land out there. If the city really wants to buy parkland, the city can buy parks if they want to. Now the alternative, I mean there isa bottom line alternative to this is that if the city doesn't want us to develop it, then we'll find out. We'll go away and we'll just develop the site that we do have and the city can wait for the next person to come in and they can exact from that person the parkland, if they haven't acquired any by that time, they can exact from that particular developer, if it ever develops in the future, a site on it. Again, if they haven't already acquired it. And then what the City's accomplished is that they have a 5 acre site that needs to be improved. They're not going to have, no longer have an association park anywhere with the other amenities because that will be gone. Those 150 homeowners won't have the benefit of a park. I mean really the alternative isn't really a very nice thing for the city either. Whether it's an association park or a public park, it is providing benefit to the citizens of the city. And so we think that it's a gift horse in the mouth. We really do. I understand your situation. I really do and I do believe there needs to be a public park in that area. I've always favored that. Manders: I think the question on, you're 'talking about discussions with other land holders in the area. What is an acre of land going for? ...",..I Terry Forbord: In Chanhassen, residential. Manders: That area. Terry Forbord: In that area, I haven't talked to everybody in that area but I would imagine that land in that area would probably be anywhere from $18,000.00 in the worst case, or the lowest to $30,000.00 on the high end. It just depends on the site. Berg: My concern, and certainly with your business...you know this better than I. It's easy for us to sit here and talk about the people who are willing to deal and who are talking to the city but we also know that tomorrow they could change their mind. And then where are we? We're right back to where we are now with an association park and nothing to serve the rest of the people in that area. That's my concern. We can't sit here and presume that there is going to be land available tomorrow. I don't think we can make that kind of assumption. Terry Forbord: I agree. I mean there's nothing for sure and I can terminate my option tomorrow and I can walk away too. I mean there's no guarantee that I'll be here either. I mean in this type of situation, there are no guarantees until you actually get to that point. We think that we're bringing a real valid proposal that if we can make it through the process, 22 -' ,... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 we'll have a very nice neighborhood for possibly people who already live in Chanhassen. Most of our buyers come from the general area. We get some people from outside the area sO...citizens of Chanhassen. But I do believe that the city can buy some land. I really do believe that, because if I can go out and buy it, there's no reason the city couldn't go out and buy it. Schroers: We can go out and buy it but it's really not the best means of acquisition. Roughly speaking, just a very rough estimate in park dedication fees, we may get somewhere between $120,000.00 and $130,000.00 from your development. Okay. Figure an average of $25,000.00 per acre to acquire property. Might be a ballpark figure. For 5 acres we're talking $125,000.00 to acquire the property and then there are no funds left to develop it. If we took your proposal, say we got $120,000.00-$130,000.00 from you. Went and bought property someplace else, all we're doing is a trade. We don't end up with a park that's developed. We don't end up with any facilities. All we end up with is $125,000.00 piece of property that we still have to figure out a way to develop. Buy equipment for. Facilitate and get up and running. Andrews: I guess I'd like to comment. We'd be in that position either way. .I""'" Lash: You know, I was ready to move on this but I think we've got, unless somebody's got something. We're talking this thing to death. But my idea was to do a recommendation that was contingent on the factor of the city acquiring property for a public park. If that idea isn't acceptable to the applicant, then I'm ready to come up with a new one. A new motion so. Andrews: Let her fly. Schroers: I'm ready at this point. Lash: Okay. I guess I would move that we deny this application until we are able to acquire public property in the area. Berg: Second. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. What was it that I wasn't acceptable to me and I wasn't clear on. Lash: We asked if having a contingent recommendation based on us acquiring a couple of properties, we would make a recommendation based on that deal coming forth. And you said you couldn't live with that because you've got contracts and people and you have to get moving and so if you can't live with that, I can understand that. But then we've got to do ,... 23 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ..."" what we have to do too. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. I was not responding to Commissioner Lash's idea. I was responding to the fact that we would like to know one way or the other whether the city wants this proposal to proceed. I would not be opposed to her suggestion as long as there was like a time limit on it, because if it went on in perpetuity, it wouldn't serve the city and it certainly wouldn't serve the applicant. So maybe it's fair to say that within 30 days. Schroers: This is exactly what I had written down. The exact same idea that Ian has brought up. Moving to accept the recommendation dependent on acquisition of other acceptable public space in the area. How long that would take to do that, I don't really know. To research it but I would also vote yes on that if we were able to do that. I'm not sure, staff may have to consult with the City Attorney to see if that's, if there's any legal implications involved. I think that's in general what we're saying is we don't have enough information to make a really good, solid decision tonight. We want some more information. We like the proposal. We like your plan. We just need to find a way to assure that we are going to be able to acquire public space and this is what we are attempting to do. So I think that we would have a good chance of voting this in contingent on what Ian has proposed. Andrews: Mr. Chairman, we have a motion on the floor that's been seconded for denial. I think we have to ask if the motion maker and the person who seconded it wish to withdraw that motion before we consider an alternative. ...". Lash: If a contingent recommendation is acceptable to the applicant, then I'm willing to withdraw my motion. Berg: I withdraw my second. Schroers: Okay. Then, are we willing to, can I have a revised motion or new motion? Lash: One thing that I guess I want to get other commission input on, because this was part of my idea for a motion to start with. I want us to think about the idea for the importance of the, I like the idea of the trail around the wetland. I don't know at this point in time if, and maybe you guys can sell me one way or another, if I'm not interested in forfeiting the trail fees to have that paved at this time. Or at the time of development. Or if we would rather collect the fees and add that to our trail fund but just get the easement and maybe have it as a natural trail or something for a while with the possibility of future pavement. You know, I'm going to throw that out just to see. Get feedback from you guys. Berg: What's the lay of the land in terms of it being wet, etc. for a nature path? 24 ...". ,.... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 Hoffman: Either way we would have to construct the nature path or asphalt path on high ground. The thing that I would ask the Commission to consider is that the value you're receiving in having the applicant construct it is far in excess of what you would have available in trail fees to do other work. It is more benefitting to a significant degree in that regard. I believe, also I...the commission some additional information briefly on the 20 foot easement issue and regard to my conv-ersation with the city engineer's office today. A couple areas of discussion included, and I think Larry can respond to at least one of these. ...it was the city's intention to install boulevard plantings, you're very limited. You could not do that. You could not put boulevard plantings over a utility corridor because of what you find underneath there. So that's one consideration in the area where the additional right-of-way for the trails is required. The trail easement which we would look for outside of this line, is just that. It's an easement for trail purposes. The trail can certainly be squeezed up. against the outside of that easement. What it's been referred to as before is an insurance policy. Once that, these property lines come up in here, you've sold your interest in acquiring any additional property into perpetuity. So you certainly want to take a look at those issues at the time they are before you. Lash: Can you show us with your pencil about where you're suggesting it should be. ~ Hoffman: The trail would be outside of this line. From here over 8 feet. Lash: The trail would be? Hoffman: Yeab, the trail would be. The easement is 20 feet and an easement is just a standard. It's not taking the property. It's an easement for trail purposes. We're saying that, or staff is saying that the 8 feet can go here and then landscaping can go within that 20 foot easement and it will act like rear yards. I'm not sure what these people will be doing on the outside of this berm, or if that's going to be addressed as part of the association's covenants. If that would be mowed and maintained or if that would be more natural. I'm not sure what that would look like. An additional issue in regard to if the commission wanted to consider a compromise in this issue, is I have taken into consideration turn lanes which would most likely occur at these two locations. And at some point this is probably a signalized intersection so if you put turn lanes in this right-of-way, you'd again take up a considerable additional right-of-way in that location. That's the other difficult problem in location that trail. So a compromise position presented by the engineering department would be to require additional right-of-way for the length of those turn lanes, which is about, excuse me. Additional easements for trail purposes. The length of that turn lane, which is about 300 feet, to the north and south of these two access points...both acceleration and deceleration lanes that are right off of and right onto. ,.... 25 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ....", Andrews: That's not consistent with other developments that are happening. There are usually turn lanes off of collectors, not onto collectors that we're building. Hoffman: They...with the upgrade of County Road 117, which is Powers Blvd. There will be both a deceleration and acceleration... Lash: I would be ready to make a motion on this. It's going to be long. Schroers: Okay. Let's make the motion and as the motion is taking place, let us get through with the motion before there is any interruptions. Lash: Okay. Are there any other comments from other...for the trail thing that I threw out? Schroers: Just to eliminate confusion. Lash: I took staff's comment. Okay. I would move that we move the recommendation by the City Council, or that we would recommend to the City Council the acceptance of a private association park with the amenity of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet and a maximum slope of 4%. This is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. And that full park fees be accepted at the rate in force at the time of building permit. And also as a condition to the park, I would want to have written in there that if, in the future there was dissolution or any type of breakdown in this neighborhood association, that the City would be deeded this park as a park and not subdivided into lots. Then to move onto the trail issue. There would be a 20 foot trail easement on the easterly property line and that this easement would be included in the grading plan for a suitable trail bed. And that there be no trees, planting of trees in the restricted area west of the trail bench. Also that we would acquire easements and the developer would provide construction of the nature trail, or the trail around the wetland. And in lieu of that, full trail fees would be waived. And that the amendment be done to the Johnson-Dolejsi-Turner development from last year. And let's see. There's something else. Oh, that we would direct staff to provide cooperation to the developer and flexibility of allowing the trail connection from the street to the wetland And if the city were to acquire public property in this proximity, to this development, that Lundgren Bros would be cooperative in doing the rough grading on that site. And to direct staff that in the future the southern Dolejsi property would come forth or any of the other properties affecting this wetland that we would earmark that as a connection to this trail around the wetland. Is that all of it? ...,." Schroers: Are you including that it's dependent on whether or not we have the ability to acquire public space? . 26 ....." ,...... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 Lash: Right. That this recommendation be contingent on the fact that we are, the city is able to acquire public property near this development. Andrews: Within? Lash: Within 30 days. Meger: Would we also at this time make the additional recommendation then for staff to actively pursue the Stockdale property and other properties in the area or would that be a separate? Schroers: No, I think that would be appropriate to include. Or interpret into the 30 days? Is that it? Lash: Yep. Plus the friendly amendment. Schroers: Staff, are you clear on that? ,...... Hoffman: I'm clear. A couple of clarifications to the motion. The restricted on the trail bench would be to the east. Just a clarification to the way Jan made her motion: The issue of the 30 days, I do not believe that that would be sufficient time. If it's agreeable to the applicant, that that be extended to 45 days at a minimum. 60 days at a more comfortable level. That would be, there would need to be appraisals made and City Council items and your recommendation should include the friendly amendment by Commissioner Meger in that regard because the Commission is going to want to know that the commission desires to see that parkland, there is a park in that area. And finally, mention should be made about the trail connection between Lot 16 and 17 or a similar location. That that be a condition of approval as well. Lash: Okay. I accept that. Andrews: We might as well get them all out here. Lundgren Bros had asked that we would recommend that any fees for PUD be waived for the already approved Johnson-Dolejsi-Tumer property and I think that would be consistent with the cooperative effort we're trying to accomplish. Lash: The trail fee? Andrews: Not the trail fees. The charge to amend the PUD in order to redraw the lot lines to put in the trail linkage. ~ 27 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ~ Hoffman: That'd be an administrative charge, as far as I understand it that the Planning Department would assess to the preliminary... Lash: Okay, so we would waive that fee. Andrews: We'd recommend that it be waived. Manders: Wasn't there some comment about trail fees being included in this? Andrews: We don't want fees. We want them to build the trail. Manders: Right. Lash: And so if they build the trail, we'll waive the fees. Manders: Right. Okay. Schroers: And that's all included. I think we've covered most of the bases. Berg: I think I'll second it. --' Andrews: Just a moment. The motion was 30 days. Are you making it to 45 or 60? Schroers: Staff did that I think and Jan agreed to it. Hoffman: ...agree on which one. I'm not sure what. Roeser: Make it 60. Schroers: Would you like input Mr. Forbord? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Parks Commission. Terry Forbord. My contractual obligations are going to push me to the wall at 45 days. I can accept that risk. 60 days I'd be in violation of my agreement and it would cost me a fortune to amend the agreement because our agreement is written that if it goes beyond a certain time period and I wouldn't be willing to spend that additional money at that point in time but 45 days I can live with. Lash: Okay, so we'll change it to 45 days... 28 -" ,.... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 Schroers: Okay, 45 days. Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. I'll call the question. Lash moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the Oty Council approve the Preliminary Plat to subdivide 112 acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD) into 115 single family lots contingent upon the following conditions: Parks: 1. The acceptance of a private association park with the amenity of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet and a maximum slope of 4%. This is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. 2. Full park fees be accepted at the rate in force at the time of building permit application. 3. If in the future there is a dissolution or any type of breakdown in this neighborhood association, that the City will be deeded this park as a park and not subdivided into lots. ~ 4. This recommendation is contingent on the fact that the city is able to acquire public parkland near this development within 45 days. Trails: 1. A 20 foot trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line and that this easement would be included in the grading plan for a suitable trail bed. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. 2. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsiffurner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and the Johnson/Dolejsiffurner applications. This trail shall include a connection to the ~ 29 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 --' street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2 or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. 3. Staff is directed to provide cooperation to the developer and flexibility of allowing the trail connection from the street to the wetland. 4. If the city were to acquire public property in the proximity of this development, that Lundgren Bros would be cooperative in doing the rough grading on that site. 5. Direct staff that in the future if the southern Dolejsi property would come forth or any of the other properties affecting this wetland, to earmark that as a connection to this trail around the wetland. 6. The Park and Recreation Commission would recommend that any fees associated with the redrawing of the plat for the Johnson/Dolejsiffurner property for this trail easement be waived. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Andrews who abstained, and the motion canied. MISSION HILlS. TANDEM PROPERTIES. ......; Public Present: Name Address Jo Larson Sharon Nickolay Mike & Jo Ann Mulligan Dick Putnam Marge Shorba Al Klingelhutz 8590 Tigua Lane 8500 Tigua 8501 Tigua Circle 2765 Casco Pt. Rd. Great Plains Blvd, Lake Susan 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, Commission members. Item number 4 is the conceptual plan development approval for low, medium and high density homes. 190 units on 62.05 acres... neighborhood commercial use...again this is a conceptual plan at this time. The location is east of Highway 101 and north and south at the intersection of West 86th Street. The...kind of a new area of the city for development proposals. As we travel south on Market Blvd, leaving City Hall at this location across Highway S. Travel down the new segment of TH 101 and right now you then attach the old segment at this portion. But again the upgrade... to 30 -' ",,--.. ,...... r Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 an intersection point at Highway 212. The site location is highlighted as you see it on this map. So the new comer of Highway 212 and Highway 101, that being the northeast quadrant. The applicant is Tandem Properties, 7808 Creek Ridge Circle, Bloomington, Minnesota. The present zoning is residential single family. The adjacent zonings to the north you have additional residential single family. To the south it would be the Highway 212 right-of-way and additional properties.zoned residential single family. To the east, or towards Eden Prairie, again is residential single family and then the Rice Lake Manor subdivision. To the west you have Highway 101 and additional property zoned residential single family. In regard to the comprehensive plan and the recreation section. The comprehensive plan identifies this site as lying in a park deficiency area #2. That needs to be discussed...as you can see park deficiency area #2 is right here and it's a very small portion of that area which remains park deficient. However, this application lies just about wholely withi~ that little white zone which is currently park deficient as defined by service areas in the recreation section. However, the 2000 Land Use Plan, which I have here, has identified property immediately to the east of this site with some separation here as future parks and open space and that would fill this gap for the service area of this development. It's the hopes of the city of Chanhassen that when this property is severed by the future Highway 212, that an opportunity would present itself to the city for acquiring that probably from MnDot or the State. Again that site is at this point is 20:t acres. The design study for that future park and open space has not been completed, thus I cannot predict what type of facilities could be developed in this site. The area is heavily wooded and is squeezed between future Highway 212 and Rice Marsh Lake. The City of Eden Prairie has also identified. the land in this area lying in Eden Prairie as future open space. They are also planning for a Highway 212 underpass to the east of this site. A second proposed park was also identified in the southeast quadrant of this zone in a subdivision applied for by Mr. John Klingelhutz. You have an attachment in your packet which shows that. Some of you may recall that was conceptually looked at probably a year and a half ago. That future park, if acquired, however and developed would be severed from the subject site by Highway 212. During my initial conversations with the applicant and a representative of the home builder there, I expressed by concern that a recreational amenity of some sort had not been included in a plan to develop 190 dwelling units, which would assumedly house in excess of 400 new residents to the city of Chanhassen. The general response that I received centered on two items. The applicant asserted that the tareted demographics of the development would not require park space, but more specifically play equipment and an attempt to hold down costs is being made in order to produce an end result which is affordable. You should know that the city has also identified this project as a potential affordable housing type of project where the city could assist in home purchasing for the first time home buyers. The position that the people who would eventually purchase these dwellings represent a profile of our society which will not require play equipment, and/or park amenities is a misnomer. All segments of our society need and value recreational areas as a part of the community. The city's recreational section 31 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 .....",. of the Comp Plan states that park and open space would fill three primary functions. First, they meet positive human needs, both physically and psychologically. The second function is that parks and open space enhance and protect our resource base. And the third is that parks and open space concerns economics. That being that facilities can have impact on economic development and real estate values. So the commission is certainly aware that parks are a value to our community. The Planning Commission reviewed this concept on August 18th, sounding a great deal like a park commission at times. There appeared to be unanimous desire to see a recreational amenity incorporated into the application. A suggestion was made to convert Lot 6, Block 1 froma four-plex unit into a recreation area of some type. We did not show that concept. The applicant may present an amended version of this. Lot 6, Block 1 is down in this location. It is a small units in their preliminary reviews, the Planning Commission thought that would be an appropriate area. Since it then would take advantage of this wetland, graded an open expanse where people could recreate in this location. Have that being out in the open to that wetland to their immediate north. I agree with that position. This conversion would take advantage of the large wetland on the site. The site is centrally. located in the development and would provide for sight lines to the private street, across the wetland to West 86th Street, and vice versa. The total area of Lot 6, Block 1 is quite small however, in the range of 1/2 acre. Staff is proposing that this amenity be a private or an association nature. Again...development up here of Oak Ponds/Oak Hill where they're putting in a private pool and play area. Staff is proposing the components of this facility be at the discretion of the applicant, but again typically they include landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts. Obviously all of those amenities would not fit in this location. In regard to trails, the comprehensive trail plan identifies a trail on the western perimeter of the site paralleling both new and old Highway 101. The site is also boxed by east/west trail links to the north and south. Those being the trails running along what is referred to as the Rice Marsh Lake Susan trail. And then down to the south, the trail running along the southern border of the property. Along 212 and further south. As referenced earlier, this box could be completed by a second north/south trail to be constructed in Eden Prairie linking Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley. That effort is successful to get underneath 212 and that would certainly be a nice amenity...The sighting of this development calls for the construction of an important middle link to this box, running east from Highway 101 to the terminus of the project. At a future date this trail sidewalk system could then be picked up and carried into the future park property. Something that would have to be done to obviously allow the neighborhood to gain access to the park. The proposed A street should also include a sidewalk which can be extended to the north with the street's future extension. That is shown in the diagram as well. The presence of a large ag urban wetland and the proposed park space creates the perfect opportunity for this pedestrian system to include a loop around the wetland. Again that's indicatedpn this rough concept plan. The east/west trail would run from the Highway 101 to the terminus of the project down to this location and then continue on to a point in the future to gain access of the future ..."",I 32 ....", ,..... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 "........ park space and that this...continue around the wetland and then access the park in some fashion. The type of trail which would typically be constructed around that wetland would be bituminous surface and the construction would be considered for trail fee credits under current city practices. The sidewalk components of the system are to be constructed using concrete at a width deemed suitable by the engineering department. Sidewalk do not fall under the purview of the Park and Recreation Commission. They are not considered for trail fee credits. I have attempted to illustrate these concepts on that diagram.. The presence of the neighborhood commercial area would also benefit greatly from such a system as would the residents so people could travel to and from the neighborhood commercial... The recommendations to the Park Commission, Park and Recreation Commission is that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends concept approval of Mission Hills as shown on plans dated June 27, 1993, subject to the following 4 conditions. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities. 2. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and on itA" Street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. Then that would be continued at a future time as well to the north and then loop back to TH 101 to create that trail connection as well. 3. That a bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the park site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. 4. That full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. Schroers: Thank you Mr. Hoffman. Is there anyone in attendance in the audience here tonight that has anything to add to this proposal? Yes sir. If you'd come forward and state your name for us please. Mike Mulligan: Could you put the slide on to show you the Rice Marsh lots. Schroers: Could you tell us who you are sir please? Mike Mulligan: My name is Mike Mulligan. I live on Tigua Circle, which is located immediately east of this project. There are 8 lots located in the quarter section indicated ort the map there. We have our own park. And frankly we're very concerned about the amount of park space being allocated for 190 homesites. They're putting 190 homesites on less property than our 7, or rather our 8 lots occupy. Schroers: Y ou're talking 8 single family lots and this is high density? "..... 33 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 -" Mike Mulligan: That's correct, yes. My concern frankly is that we are going to have those people, if you don't have adequate park facilities for them, we are going to have those people, those kids who are just going to be natural kids, like your kids and my kids. My kids were. They're grown up now. Are going to be attracted to the relatively undeveloped part of those 8 lots overlooking that. You don't have any access to get down to that trail around Rice Marsh Lake except for going through private property. Unless you have some facilities within that, I believe you said 62 acres, of the space that the family dwellings is going to occupy is about 35 acres... 190 some lots. And that's our concern. One of our concerns is the concern that applies to. Manders: So if I understand you, you're saying that there may not be enough space allocated for parks? Mike Mulligan: That's correct. I did attend the meeting the other night and there was quite a bit of discussion about some other concerns and I understand the developer's projections, his demographics of...number of children but the fear that we have is that we're going to be, we're going to go from a remote, isolated area of 8 lots on the quarter section that are going to be literally over run. Lash: Mr. Mulligan, you said you have a park out there. What park are you referring to? Mike Mulligan: I was speaking just informally I guess. We have 8 lots on mostly, partially wooded lots. It is a park. 8 house. ....." Lash: You're talking about your private property? Mike Mulligan: That's what I'm talking about, yes. Lash: Okay. Okay. I just wasn't sure what you were talking about. Mike Mulligan: Thank you. Schroers: Mr. Hoffman, is there a way to gain a trail access to the trail that goes to Rice Marsh Lake Park from the development? Hoffman: Only in on street. That would be onto TH 101 through this portion going north to the current Rice Marsh trail alignment here. There are no allowances for easements along this comer of Rice Marsh Lake that I'm aware of so. The City of Eden Prairie is interested in continuing this loop so the city has this portion now. We would like to continue it up to the Eden Prairie system here. They would like to continue it around in some fashion down 34 ..."" ,..... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 through this area but then it would have to come on street. As discussed this evening, it may go out either to the A Street that is labeled and then up and around, or on street out to TH 101 and then north to make that loop. Schroers: On street, thank you. Yes ma'am. Sharon Nickolay: My name is Sharon Nickolay and I live at 8500 Tigua Lane, and if you put the map up I can show you where that is. We're on the top lot right adjacent to the development. Proposed development. And I guess I'm here to echo the same things that Mike Mulligan said. The front of our lot is heavily wooded and considering the development is going into a field of com and being there are no trees, we're a little nervous about our lots becoming a play area or the local park for the children. And I know the developer had said something about there are 190 units. There won't be any children. But there's I think 18 single family homes. About half of the other units have 2 bedrooms. So I anticipate that there will be children. And then finally, the...neighborhood but a half acre lot is just not adequate. There's no parkland near. Crossing TH 101 or there's no trail system along TH 101 and you can talk about, there will be a trail along TH 101. There will be a future park along TH 212. If you read the Villager this past week, 212 is probably a long way away. We have no toll road in Minnesota and they're talking about...making a toll road. I don't ",....., want 50 years and think there might be a park there. We've got to plan for what's, if the development's going to go in now, we have to plan around that now. We can't say okay, 20 years from now it will all work out. 20 years from now those children will be gone. That development...giving them a park. So I think a half acre, as Mr. Hoffman said, isn't enough room for a tennis court or a pool or whatever. Now enough room for much more than a picnic table and...maybe and I think we're doing injustice to the children there. Again, 'there's no trail system as of now. TH 101 is not upgraded. I do not let my children bike or walk on TH 101. I don't want other kids, you know 200 kids walking on TH 101. So until TH 101 is upgraded, until 212 is built, I think this is all, I think we have to think about what's there now and I think that's all my comments for now. Schroers: Thank you very much. Andrews: I wanted to comment that I would support comments made from the audience that it's probably inevitable that there are kids there with the amount of space being proposed, that they would spill over onto private property, which is inappropriate. Jo Larson: Hi, my name is Jo Larson and I live at 8590 Tigua Circle. A couple of questions that I have for the developer. I'm not, if this is going to be a private park, are your single family homes included to use the park? Another question I have is, the trail going, following the south side of the West 86th Street. I'm not real clear. Is it going to go around the pond ,..... 35 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24. 1993 ......" or is there going to be a separate trail that goes around the pond and is the trail around the pond proposed to be private? I'm just a little unclear on what's public and what's proposed to be private and if the park is proposed to be private. how do you expect to keep these people from entering the park when there's a public trail. That's just a few questions I have that aren't real clear. Schroers: Would staff care to clear up some of that. Hoffman: I think the....concept of private versus public is probably very fresh in your mind. The Planning Department is looking for this remnant to move further north to give some buffering to this wetland. The reason obviously for the depiction of the trail on the south side is to make all these things connect. So you have commercial and then you have an access road into high density. You have your wetland area which you want to access with this trail so that becomes a natural connection. And then once you get to the eastern terminus. you also want to terminate on the south side so then you can access the future park property along here. So those are the reasons for this trail on the south side. My original concern. initial concern was that we didn't have enough room there between the wetlands and the future. or improved West 86th Street but my understanding is that planning is looking for that road to shift north an appropriate amount for these things to be able to occur. It is certainly proposed that these trails be of a public nature. In regard to the park issue. all those concerns have not been addressed as of yet. That would be available to all the residents of the community. both single family and multi-dwellings. Indeed that would be available to the community at large. Those issues have not been addressed yet. Again. this is a conceptual plan. You will see this again at the preliminary plat stage. ...."" Lash: Why did this go to the Planning Commission before it came to us? Hoffman: Just in a matter. issue of scheduling. Typically the Planning Commission would like to hear your position in regard to the concept... Berg: I don't mean to be obtuse here explain to me what exactly we're approving here with the conceptual plan. Hoffman: You don't necessarily have to approve anything but you want to give the applicant some more direction... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Lash: We have stated in here that the City of Eden Prairie has also identified land in this area and that the Land Use Plan identifies 20+ acres east of this. So how far east? 36 -' ,..... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 Hoffman: Again, it would be the length of Tigua Lane addition or Rice Manor so this is the terminus of the project. And then you have that...until you hit this area which is identified as future parks and open space. Lash: Which is about how far? Hoffman: Quarter section, 1,320 feet. Thanks AI. Resident: That's to the entrance to Tigua? End of Tigua? Lash: And is that property developable? Hoffman: Is the property developable? Lash: Yes. Hoffman: This property? Lash: Yes. Assuming we're going to be able to have ballfields and some big time stuff I""" there? Hoffman: Well I'm not certain if that would be appropriate. It's fairly heavily wooded. Again as I indicated, there's been, staff is not, or the city has not looked at any preliminary studies of what that parkland should potentially be. However I can tell you, it does look at, feel much different than this property. As you know, this is all wetland area. It's shaded the same. This property comes up off the embankment more quickly and is higher and is treed so it could be utilized to a much different degree than the property north of Rice Marsh. Lash: And the 2000 Land Use Plan, is that our's or who's plan is that? Hoffman: Correct. It's the city's plan. Lash: So the City's goal is by the year 2000 you have acquired 20 acres there to have as a park? Hoffman: Well, I don't believe it's labeled in that regard. I think the 2000 just indicates that as the year 2000 is where the city would like to be. In regards to this, what the property looks like, I believe that the residents who are here this evening could be a resource for us. I've looked at it on the aerial. I've not walked it in person so if they have any comments for us. ,...... 37 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24. 1993 ...." Lash: Okay. and then the other site that you referenced? Where is that? Hoffman: That would be located to the south of TH 212. down in this vicinity. Lash: Okay. given the fact 212's not there. how far then. how difficult would it be for people in this new development to access the park that would be down in the new development to the south. Hoffman: Again. this development was never approved so I can't say it would go in. It potentially could but again the City would not advocate plans to make a connection there because it's going to be. you don't want to create some habitual patterns and then sever those with 212. Lash: No. but what I was thinking was that that was something that was coming on fairly soon. That would fill the bill until the other property that's on the north side of 212 would ,be acquired. Hoffman: I couldn't tell you how long it's going to be. Manders: What you're saying about both of those properties there is that there would be in the plan to be acquired for park space and that's it. ...." Hoffman: Correct. Resident: I have a question for Mr. Hoffman. Is this plan after 212 is built or before 212 is built? Hoffman: It's probably contingent with. at the same time that the 212 right-of-way is purchased. Right-of-way is being purchased at the present time in some areas along 212 as land becomes available. It's most beneficial for the city to purchase it at that time because then we get participation from the State. Mike Mulligan: Excuse me. My name is Mike Mulligan. Again. I'm a resident of Tigua. My understanding is that that portion of 212 is not funded at all and that the only land that's being purchased is land where there's a very. I can't think of the word I'm trying to say. A natural condition that requires such a stress condition. Andrews: I'm unclear of any direct knowledge. Mike Mulligan: ...fund of the highway is for the eastern terminus. 38 ...." ,.... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 Andrews: In the article in our Villager this week, they mentioned the fact that whatever potential future construction of 212 appears to be delayed quite a bit further and it's doubtful that it would be built at all. Schroers: I think Mr. Klingelhutz may have a response in that regard. AI Klingelhutz: I've been on the Highway 212 committee for just about 40 years now. I'm AI Klingelhutz. I live on 8600 Great Plains Blvd. I talked to, I was to the last Highway 212 meeting which was on the 13th in the Chaska City Hall...Eden Prairise and not many of those meetings that I've missed. Talking to Evan Green, who is the head engineer for Highway 212, he said already that 90% of the Highway 212 in the city of Chaska has been purchased... About 80% of Eden Prairie has been purchased and none of Chanhassen's at this time. He did say he...City of Chanhassen and starting to urge people to start selling the right-of-way at this time...Highway 212 has been designated up to Lyman Blvd at this time. Funding you know is not available to build it up to there but they assured me at the meeting I met with Evan Green and another fellow from the Highway Department in my office last week Thursday morning. Right after the Planning Commission meeting here. That within the next 3 years that if people aren't selling right-of-way for Highway 212, that they would be starting to purchase it in Chanhassen. The Highway Department would. Like I said, this has been /""" going on for 40 years but this is the closest I've been to seeing 212 happening. Schroers: Can you give us a logical reason why it's been purchased in Eden Prairie and has been purchased in Chaska and has not been purchaed in Chanhassen. Al Klingelhutz: I can't really give you a logical reason for it. In Chaska the landowners have been going to the City of Chaska and asking the City of Chaska to help them be able to sell the right-of-way in Chaska through the RALF fund, which is a fund that's set aside and paid for by the Metropolitan Council and when the highway gets built, the Metropolitan Council will be refunded that money that they are using to purchase this land at this time. Schroers: Very good. Thank you for that information. Alright. Now if we can get back to. Al Klingelhutz: Oh, one thing I did mean to say. I never was in favor of having 212 come into that area. I always felt it should go south of Rice Lake. Schroers: I think so too. Okay. Back to the recommendation. Just to summarize briefly. It seems to me that the residents now living in the area adjacent to this development feel that there is not adequate park space along with this development. It doesn't seem like we are asking for a lot of park space here and in lieu of that, is anyone ready to make a recommendation or a motion? ""'" 39 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 --' Andrews: Since this is only a conceptual approval, I think our motion can be somewhat more vague than what other motions that we make. My motion would be that the Park and Recreation Commission would recommend that the applicant provide additional park space than what has been proposed. That conditions 2, 3 and 4 of the staff recommendation be accepted basically as is but that we would prefer to see something more done in providing park facilities for the potential residents of this developments. Lash: I would second that. Andrews moved, Lash seconded that d1e P8Ik ..d Recreation Commission recommend conceptual approval of Mission Hills as shown on p1..s dated.June 23, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide additional park space than what has been proposed to accommodate the future needs of the residents in this development. 2. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the proj ect's terminus and on "A" Street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. Then that would ~e continued at a future time as well to the north and then loop back to TH 101 to create that trail connection as well. 3. That a bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the park site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. --' 4. That full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Roeser who abs1ained, ..d the motion canied. Berg: I guess I'd like to state. just in addition to that. Not, just to be on the record. Along as this is just a concept. I'd like to see something done between the developer and the homeowners to provide some sort of protection if you will. Schroers: For the existing homeowners? Berg: To discourage this overflow that the neighborhood is concerned about and encourage them to work together to come up with something that's amenable to both. 40 --' "...., Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 Schroers: I think that's a good suggestion. Lash: Do we want to...but do we have feelings as to what we're looking for minimize size wise yet? Schroers: I think we're going to deal with it again when it comes back. Lash: Because we've got potentially 400 people there and obviously a half acre just isn't going to cut it. We have some guidelines that we usually use. Resident: 190 units, it will be 400 minimum. If there's a couple in each house, that's what we have. Hoffman: Parks handled within a service area is 1 acre per 75 people. So depending on how you look at this. The site obviously needs recreational facilities for it's own residents but depending on what that land... r- Lash: I guess it would be probably beneficial for the applicant to hear from the Park and Rec Director what our normal guidelines are so at least they have an idea so they don't come in with something that we'll still find unacceptable. Andrews: I think the applicant's received comment from both Park and Planning that we're looking for something more in park and I think we should let the applicant propose something and then respond at that time. Schroers: Okay. Was there one quick question? Yes sir. Dick Putnam: I'm the applicant. It was kind of interesting listening to Terry's problem which was sort of reverse of where we're at. We have changed the plan and I'm meeting with Paul tomorrow morning to go over. It's a good news, bad news. I think it addresses a lot of the concerns that were raised in the first plan. The bad news is, the unit numbers went up. One of the concerns of the Planning Commission and the neighbors was that this was high density, 10-12 units an acre and the folks that are here this evening live on 3 acres, 4 acres, 2 acre lots. So the shock was kind of significant. I guess what we need to know is, the city put a plan together long before we were involved. We were recruited to see if we wanted to put a project together and bring in a good builder like Rottlund to build multi-family units. Now we find that we come in with a plan that's for an elephant and we come out with approval for a giraffe. The plan that we're going to be putting back into the city, back to the Planning Commission addresses a lot of the good concerns that were raised. Changing the units. A lot of the concerns the neighbors had making the lots adjacent to their lots 20,000 square feet .",-. 41 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 .....", instead of 15,000. Doing something with private small scale park area that much to what Todd outlined. The same thing. It must be that great minds work in the" same track because we put this thing together, it must have been the same time he was doing his. That's the good news. The bad news is, the units actually go up and we're closer to about 200 multi- family units total and 17 single family lots. So before we have a project, we need to know if, on one hand the city staff is saying we'd like to see this available for first time housing assistance program and at the same time the neighbors are saying, we think these units may be ought to be more expensive. So we've got some real disparity objecting between a city comprehensive plan and perception, and rightly so, of the neighbors that have lived there for 15 years. And I can't tell you how it's going to resolve itself. It's certainly going to get dumped in the City Council's lap. And says here's your comprehensive plan, we're within or under the density guidelines significant. It's a good project that with these changes meets the suggestions that were made but it doesn't meet the idea of being at 6 units per acre or something. And it does increase the price of the housing to $150,000.00 per unit or something. So I can't tell you how that's going to resolve itself but that ought to be interesting. Regarding the private park issue. If the units that are being proposed by Rottlund, which they built some of the same units and some similar units in Eden Prairie, just past Dell Road's intersection. The gray buildings behind the big earth berm. That was a project we developed that had single family and neighborhood commercial and 100 units that Rottlund has there. They built similar units around the Twin Cities probably, and I want to guess 1,000. 1,500 of those similar type units in various communities over the last probably 5 years. They have a track record of who buys them for what reasons. How long they're there, that we'll have made available to the staff and anybody else that's interested. These homes are not built as family housing, pure and simple. Some of them are designed for retired people with main floor master bedrooms as an example. One level. They are not designed like my house with 5 bedrooms or anything else. And I guess we all have to understand that to apply the same standard to the project that Lundgren has for example, which is family housing and probably some fairly good sized family units. Where our project Trotters Ridge, south of Highway 5, isn't necessarily the same as it applies here. And I guess in terms of the amount of park space, if we're looking at a figure of 1 per 400, 1 acre per 400 people, we'll be happy to make available at $21,000.00 an acre, $22,000.00 an acre. Not $30,000.00 that Terry was talking about. The same price we're paying for the land. If the public wants to buy a portion of it, and put in a 4 or 5 or 6 acre park, that's fine. Same price that we're paying for it and we'll take it off our $140,000.00 park fees. I think it's unfair to say that we need a 4 acre park. Then the project just doesn't happen. So I guess we can look at the totlot, the picnic tables, the more passive type of area but we have to look at the public ...build the active play space. The ballfields, the tennis courts. These folks can't afford to put in pools and that sort of thing if you're building a housing unit for a total price of say $80,000.00 or $90,000.00. The single family units that border up against the existing neighborhood, that's a whole different story and those are the same as any other home in town --' 42 -' '" Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 I guess other than some of the lots would be 20,000 square feet rather than 15,000. Schroers: I realize what you're saying. That you can't compare a large single family house with a multi-unit dwelling but in terms of park, we're providing park for the people. Not the dwellings and each person needs a recreation space. That's where the problem comes in. Dick Putnam: Todd, your fees are not structured to have different fees for multi-family units like some communities, is that right? I mean one fee per unit? Hoffman: No. They are structured for multi-family. Dick Putnam: Are they? What's the fee on multi-family do you know? Hoffman: At the present, I don't want to misquote myselLI believe they were $500.00 per unit. Dick Putnam: As opposed to $600.00? Hoffman: Approximately in that area. ,,-.. Dick Putnam: We're going to average in the majority of those units, probably slightly over 2 people per unit as an average. Your normal single family home here I'~ guessing is averaging 4 1/2-5 probably. Something like that. And to get your total average down in that 3 to 4 range. So right now the park fees that are being paid by a project that let's say 10 units per acre is lOx 500 is $5,000.00 an acre in park fees as opposed to 2 units an acre, or 1.7 like our Trotters Ridge, which is $1,200.00 an acre. So there is a significant factor in loading heavily on multi-family units paying their fair share. Probably more so as a matter of fact. And I guess I'd look at that as, if there's a need for an active park space here, there's land, Todd between that park that you're looking at and our site that has part of it is the wetland. Part of it I think is just open field space isn't it? I think it is...out there and quickly looking at it. I believe the land north of 212. Right in between there? That property would be a logical situation I suspect if you need a ballfield space. I'd hate to see you go in and cut woods down to build a softball field. Schroers: Well that won't happen. Resident: What about the drainage? Dick Putnam: Part of it is low but I think part of it is a little...also in there but that would be something to look at. The other thing I'd suggest for the neighbors too is to look at granting ,..... 43 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ...", an easement, or selling a portion of the lakeshore to continue that trail around Rice Marsh Lake. They might not like to hear that but the reality is that, the City of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen are going to develop a trail system. Your problem of being encroached on will be far greater from the people walking around the entire lake and then figuring out that they can't cross that narrow 3 lot area, or 4 lots. That might be something to look at that might be in the best interest of everybody. And yourselves to gain access to it. As opposed to just bringing it out and expecting people to detour down 86th Street, up TH 101 and then back again. Because it truly is going to be a Lake of the Isles kind of a trail system around there. Or Starring Lake in Eden Prairie or Anderson Lakes or whatever. Then you ought to look at...that property on the lake. Schroers: Thanks for sharing that with us because we will be looking at this again. Lash: When you were suggesting that you would sell the acreage to us for the same price that you paid. What difference would it make to you if you sold us the property for that price or if you dedicated the property and a portion of your park and trail fees were, or your park fees were waived. Dick Putnam: It wouldn't make any difference. Lash: Okay. ....", Dick Putnam: I think $500.00 per unit total, whatever that is. If that's what the city would want, I mean that's fine. You are entitled to 10% or whatever anyway. It's a question of you identifying that's where you want a park. Otherwise you end up with these things scattered allover the place. That's kind of your choice. I guess that's an alternative. To think that a private park in this case would be developed using the standard I heard thrown out of 75 to 100 people per acre, for a private park that won't work. Now if you want to do a public park there, we'll certainly work with you on that. But it'd be nice to know that going in I guess right off the bat. Maybe Todd can talk to you a little bit about that and see if that's what you want to do. Or look at the adjacent property also which may make some sense. Hoffman: Dick, could you please state your name for the Minutes. Dick Putnam: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't have the thing memorized like Terry did where every other sentence was the same phrase. I thought there was a tape recorder he was pushing. I know him so I can make fun of him. I'm going to talk to him about that afterwards anyway. He's got to improve that delivery. It's a little... My name's Dick Putnam and I'm one of the owners of Tandem Properties. And any other questions? 44 ....." "" Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 Schroers: No. Thank you. So with that, we are setting a record for going through an agenda at the slowest rate ever. We're all the way up to 5 already. Can you believe it. MOTEL EXPANSIONIRFSTAURANT. BWOMBERG 2ND ADDmON. BLOOMBERG COMPANIES. INe. Hoffman: Other than if there's an applicant here who would like to make any comments, it would be our, staff recommendation that the recommendation as stated... Lash: So moved. Schroers: Is there a second? Roeser: Second. ,..... Lash moved, Roeser seconded that the PBIk and Recreanon Commission recommend the Oty Council accept pBlk and trail fees for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and any subsequent lots of the Bloomberg Second Addinon. Said fees to be colleded at the nme of building pennit applicanon at the rate then in force. Current commercial/industrial p8Ik and trail fees are $3,000.00 per acre and $1,000.00 per acre respecnvely. The repsecnve acreages for the lots are approximately .75 acres for Lot 1 and .35 acres for Lot 2. All voted in favor and the monon canied unanimously. PROGRAM REPORTS: A. SEPTEMBER FEST. Ruegemer: Just in regard to the new Septemberfest celebration that was formerly our Octoberfest celebration. The schedule is in the process this week of being finalized...early next week. We did add quite a few new schedule of events...new items to gear more towards an all day celebration. So it will be more than just a 4 or 5 hour celebration. It will be from 12:00 noon until 11:30 at night so there will be a lot of variety. A lot of...and some name bands this year so they'll draw some people to make the celebration a success. Some of the same...as last year but I'm very excited...Doesanybody, the report was basically an update. Are there any questions from the Commission that we can answer at this time? Lash: I think it sounds great. Manders: Sounds like fun. "" 45 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ...."" Andrews: Any tie into the park pavillion that we bought. Paid lots of money for. As far as this event. Will there be anything out at Lake Ann Park? Ruegemer: Oh at Lake Ann Park. There will be the softball tournament for the fall league teams and that's from roughly 8:00 in the morning until 4:00 or 5:00 at night. But there won't be anything directly out there other than the ball tournament. Andrews: Any chance of maybe putting together like an after tournament picnic for those people? Ruegemer: I guess what I would encourage those teams is to come back into town and get involved in the rest of the celebration. Andrews: Okay, very good. Lash: Have you ever thought of having like a triathilon or biathilon or some kind of a thing like that maybe tied in with this thing? Ruegemer: Yeah we have talked about that. Thought about a family bike...somewhere on that line to get the community involvement but that might be something we could think about for next year. Any input from the commission. --' Berg: I've been looking for a triathilon a little bit closer to this area because I'd like to see something like that. Lash: ...running or bicycling or whatever to Lake Ann. You could have, does it have to be certain things? You could have...across the lake or... Ruegemer: If there aren't any other questions. B. FALL SOFTBALL. Ruegemer: Just to give you a quick update on the fall league. We will be going definitely on Tuesday and Thursday night with 8 teams per night. There'd be double headers per night with those teams. The teams really seem to enjoy that. Playing a couple, just commiting to one night a week and play two games. That really seems to be a real positive thing for the team this fall. Unfortunately the women's that was proposed for Monday night and Co-Rec for Wednesday night had really only two teams interested in participating in those leagues. Unfortunately those will have to be fold I guess for this time. I would have run the leagues with 4 teams. However...these programs again will be offered again next year in the hope of 46 -,. ,..... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 getting those leagues going. We'll be starting next week for the fall league. There will be their opportunity for the other teams in Chanhassen to get more games in at the end of the season so. So the teams are looking forward to getting out and get some more exercise here. Manders: One comment is, the idea of the double header type. I think that's great because you get the games in and one game you're certainly not tired out, if you're in any kind of shape. And my question would be, what's the possibility for that almost year round. I mean is that just not feasible? Ruegemer: Yeah, you'd be looking with, in doing the double headers per night, we really don't have the facilities to do that. There'd be bye weeks and that type of thing to get more teams in in doing that. But there's other leagues that do that. Or communities that do that. I know Champlin does that. I deal with their league and that was close $1,000.00 to participate in that program. I think compared to like 28 to 30 games during the summer but they do have lighted fields and they do have their facilities that can accommodate that type of a league. """ Manders: I guess I'm just thinking of fewer games but you'd get them, I mean the same number of games and fewer nights. Andrews: I guess another comment I'd make is it certainly would be a help for traffic in and out of the park and parking problems if we could get 1 person there for 2 games versus 2 people there for 2 games. It would help our congestion quite a bit. So I think that's a good idea. Rugemer: Thank you. C. SUMMER DISCOVERY PLAYGROUND. Lemme: The next item is mine. Chairman and Commissioners. This is just a brief update evaluation of the remainder of the summer. We do an evaluation of the playground program. It was in my summer program evaluation last month. Unless there's any questions, I guess I really don't have much else to say except for what's on this report except that we did have a relative successful first time Lake Ann Adventure Camp. Next year that's going to be even bigger. People were asking questions constantly as they saw these kids out there and it was just an ideal situation for a...camp. Meger: When you say bigger, do you mean more kids that week or... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) ,..... 47 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ....; ADMINISTRATIVE PRFSENTATIONS: A. SOU11I RAILROAD CORRIDOR. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and members of the Commission. Item 7(a) is a real...item. As you'll recall, the Commission reviewed the issue of improving the south railroad corridor probably a year and a half ago. The conclusion at that time was that the city did not have the resources to make this project a success or to make it happen. In the interim, Hennepin Parks picked up on the corridor as a regional rail corridor. They work with Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority to come in and supersede any agreements which the City of Chanhassen had with the Rail Authority and to take control of these corridors for their system. Again that is excellent news for the City of Chanhassen. What they have concluded is that they will terminate the south railroad corridor at Bluff Creek Drive with a trail head of some degree there. And money is budgeted for this project and the project will most likely occur or will occur as far as I know, in the summer of 1994. This is a map that shows... We're looking at the north railroad corridor which most of you know is in place and currently being used from Hopkins out to Carver Park Reserve in the City of Victoria. The south rail will be completed in it's entirety from Hopkins south to it's terminus at Bluff Creek. TH 101 and Bluff Creek. Lash: So where does this thing cross at TH 5? ...." Hoffman: Where does it cross at TH 5? Just in Eden Prairie. Lash: Where they took out the tracks? Hoffman: Yeah. Roeser: What are they...wide open or what do you do there? Hoffman: That is addressed as part of their plan. Schroers: They'll have to build an under or an over it or something there in Eden Prairie for Highway 5. Hoffman: They address all the situations as a part of this. Trunk Highway By-Pass. By-pass TH 5 east to signal at, there it is. They're going to do a by-pass. This is an exciting deal. Chaska is obviously disappointed. They would like to see it come into the city of Chaska. I would think that they'll be working with the County and the City of Chanhassen to make that extension. The...in the city of Chanhassen is, I won't say minimal but it's smaller than other 48 -'" ,... Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 cities just because of the difficulties presented in the other cities but it's in excess of $170,000.00 investment in the city of Chan alone so. Manders: One question. You're saying that this was intended to go over to Bluff Creek Road, which means that there's going to be a bridge put in on TH 101 then? Hoffman: Correct. Roeser: Eden Prairie just put a new bike bridge in, did you see how it cross the tracks down there. Manders: On TH 101? Roeser: On TH 4. Is it TH 4 that goes to Glen Lake? Berg: Yeah. Roeser: Boy is that a nice bridge. ,....., NEW SPECIAL EVENT PROPOSAL. "FEBRUARY FESTIVAL". Hoffman: 7(b), if you've read through it...you certainly can do so. Additional month, that would not be a problem for staff. Schroers: Can we just tackle it now and knock it down? Somebody got some thoughts and ideas? Go ahead Jan. Lash: One thing I would want to do is to check in, and I could have done this for you but I forgot. Is to check in to see when winter break is scheduled for the Minnetonka School District and the Chaska School District. So if you want the optimum. Berg: I think Chaska is March. Lash: Yeah, I think it is too. But to not schedule it during that time when a lot of people will be gone. And when you have the snow sculpture, were you talking a contest? Hoffman: Probably contest or we could make our own. Roeser: I think you should have a cross country ski race too. Around the lake. ,-..- 49 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 -"" Lash: And I was thinking either maybe hockey or broomball or figure skating so we can get some kind of ice stuff there and maybe have chocolate or hot apple cider or something like that. Hot drinks would be nice. I think it sounds fun. It'd be interesting if we have any die hard winter people around here. Berg: Why are we using Lake Ann? Hoffman: Why are we not? Berg: Yeah, or I mean why are we not using Lake Ann, yeah. Hoffman: Change in venue. Lake Ann is used for other special events. It's used a lot during the summer. If we want to do an on ice, on lake festival, Lake Susan presents itself very nicely for parking in the adjacent lots. A whole lot of parking there. In the winter, what's the difference between Lake Ann and Lake Susan. A new location. Schroers: Any other comments? Suggestions. Manders: I think it's a great idea. Schroers: Let's pursue it. -' Hoffman: We'll present it to the City Council for their approval and then we'll take it on... HIGHWAY 101 TRAIL PROJECT. STATUS UPDATE. Hoffman: Item 7(b) was presented, the feasibility study was presented to the City Council last night. It was at times difficult to follow the comments made by Council. Andrews: I can summarize. Hoffman: I will leave it at the discretion of anyone, or commission members that were present there to summarize what you heard and leave it at that. We certainly want to take the project on. We want to look at, I think the main issue is the funding altemative...newspaper article in the Villager so... Andrews: I think the issue was funding. Roeser: I think the funding scared people. It scares me, that kind of money. 50 .....,tI JI"". Park and R~creation Commission - August 24. 1993 Schroers: I think it's safe to say there's considerable amount of work to be done before anybody realizes a useable trail along TH 101. Andrews: I guess Councilman Wing had asked for information to be provided regarding comparative trail costs. And his comments were that there should be an assessment for any excess trail cost. I guess I would like to be. as a Park Board I'd like to be provided that same information before anything is done on it as well. I don't think we should do anything that's free but I think we ought to be fair for our citizens and I guess I really. and this is just a comment in general. I don't want to create a park system where it's us versus them mentality as far as development. I think we're looking at spending a huge amount of money for a park out on the west end of town. I think many people on the east side would say. we don't need that park and I'm hearing from the Council that just the opposite is a concern from the people living on the west side that they don't want to pay for a trail. I think it's something that the Council and the Park Board have to be very. very careful of when we look at how we proceed. Lash: There were some exceptions on Minnewashta Parkway... ".... Andrews: But I think it's just important to be fair and also to communicate that to the public so people realize what really did happen. Schroers: Questions from TH 101? Anything? COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTA nONS: Lash: I have one because Todd referenced it earlier in the evening and we didn't discuss it and that was. if we...private parks in the city. then we need to have a philosophy on public programs going on and would we be providing...into those private parks. Andrews: I'd like to see it as an agenda item on a future meeting. I think that deserves a policy. Certainly before the problem arises would be preferred. Berg: I have one comment and it's just relatively brief. I wish there could be something done concerning advertising on our parks. I'm talking specifically of Chanhassen Park Pond. Roeser: Pond Park. Berg: Pond Park. I resent having real estate signs on a beautiful area. I wish something could be done with a CSO or something. ,.... 51 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 """"'" Hoffman: I forward a directive to the Public Safety Department to assist the staff in that regard. I pull them on weekends that I'm in town. That's when they go up is Friday morning or Saturday morning and they're there until Sunday night. So I pull them up. Roeser: Throw them in the pond. Berg: I take them down. Schroers: Give them a warning and then fine them. Hoffman: I could also forward letters to the parties involved. Berg: They're also doing it on city property further down on Kerber on boulevards and whatever but they're particularly offensive on park property. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Schroers: Anything of particular interest in there from staff or from Commission members? Andrews: I hate to delay this any longer but, just because of some of the things that are happening with the Economic Development Zone and HRA. When I saw these letters that were sent out to the various interested parties dealing with the Opus project area, I guess I would appreciate it if HRA is considering to create an Economic Development Zone or a TIP district in that area, that I guess we'd appreciate being advised so that we can wisely allocate our funds. ....", Lash: Then I was curious on whether on letters to Borchart's. What that was in regard to... Are they concerned with the acquisition of park property in that area? Hoffman: Correct. That was the intent of the letter...Their letter was a single letter received by the City in opposition of...The other letter...opposition but disagreement... Schroers: Anything else? Hoffman: I have a two very minor issues to bring...They've had a third break-in at the Lake Ann Park. However, the responsibilty parties were apprehended by Carver County Sheriffs so that incident is under investigation so I...commission on that. The second issue is that, I received a call today from Hoisington, Fred Hoisington. Hoisington-Koegler Associates who's working on the documents for...at Highway 5. As the commission is aware, the Planning staff put forth an ISTEA application for the overpass...into downtown. However, there's no 52 -' ~ Park and Recreation Commission. - August 24. 1993 accommodations for that in the trail plan so I said simply. people in your office are working on the update of the trail plan. Make those accommodations. We certainly want to feel comfortable however that you as a Park and Recreation Commission feel comfortable with that and recommend that the Comprehensive Trail Plan be amended to include the necessary segments to make that a part of the city's trail system. I need a motion in that regard this evemng. Schroers: So moved. Is there a second? Andrews: Second. Schroers moved, Andrews seconded dlat die PaIk and Recreation Commission audlorize an amendment to die City's Comprehensive Trail Plan to incorporate die pedestrian overpass recendy approved as part of die ISTEA application. All voted in favor and die motion canied unanimously. Lash: I also wanted to just mention that...regarding the garbage receptacles at the park. "..... Hoffman: The City Manager asked if I would respond. I have talked to our park maintenance people. It was our opinion that the young racoons can get into either if they're covered or uncovered and they can't get out. They checked the garbage receptacles...and the little ones can't get out so they dump them out and then they go away. But they're not smart enough to know that they shouldn't come back and dive in there again. The big ones can get in and out at their leisure so there isn't... Lash: I'd rather have them there than in my garbage. Andrews: Are we anticipating a two meeting September or a one meeting September? Hoffman: I would hope that we anticipate a one meeting because we have what. September 20th. Schroers: So that's basically two meetings. yeah. Lash: And then also on the note here about Jerry. about the kid. The Chanhassen 16 year olds. Ruegemer: There was a 16 year old Chanhassen program... ,..... 53 Park and Recreation Commission - August 24, 1993 ....", Andrews moved, Berg seconded to adjourn die meetinl. All voted in favor and the motion eanied. The meetinl was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director Prepared by Nann Opheim ....", 54 .....,I