Loading...
PRC 1994 08 09 /--.-"' ,..... CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 9, 1994 Chairman Andrews called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Andrews, Jan Lash, Ron Roeser, Jim Manders and Dave Huffman MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Berg and Jane Meger STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Andrews: Are there any additions to the agenda that need to be made at this time? Todd, for your information I've asked Mr. Melby to present his letter here at the Visitor Presentation. VISITOR PRESENT A TIONS: ,..... Andrews: The first thing on our agenda tonight is Visitor Presentations. We have received a letter from Mr. Melby who'd like to come forward at this time and. Jack Melby: Good evening. I'm not sure if...but I guess I just wanted to address the letter that I wrote to you dated July 28th of this year. As I said, my name is Jack Melby. I live at 40 Hill Street. I've been at that residence since 1976. June of '76 and I've witnessed a lot of the changes that have occurred with the city. The thing that, the change that has impacted us the most is the public access. During the planning stages and during the City Council meetings, etc. all the things that were planned for that piece of land. One of the things that wasn't planned was that drainage ditch. It's about 70-80 yard drainage ditch...and during that process they also said that the park would be relatively policed. In other words, the rules were going to be similar to 10:00 at night, the park would close and it would open at 6:00 to 6:30 in the morning and that has not been the case. We have recreational users using that access pretty much round the clock. Saturday mornings, 4:00-5:00 in the morning it's not uncommon to be...almost every Saturday and Sunday morning with recreational boat users and... In the wintertime we've got snowmobilers and fishermen and so forth and so on with 4 wheel trucks going up and down that hill so we have constant use of that access and constant interruption to our lives. Some of the concerns have been mentioned in the letter. People that use the park, they have easy access to my property. I am constantly on weekends asking people to leave. I don't know what happens during the week because both my wife and I work and I'm not so sure what happens during the week. There have been attempts to burglar my boat. There have been attempts, all kinds of rocks thrown at it. Things like that. As I mentioned in the letter I'd like to buy a new boat but I don't feel comfortable doing ,..... 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 that or getting a new dock until I have some assurance that I can...On that same side of my property there's a fence that goes part way up the property and all park users use that hill in the winter time and use my yard as their run up for sliding. And I don't mind that so much but I worry about if someone gets hurt and if there's any liability on my part. I don't mind kids playing there but I certainly don't want them to get hurt and me being liable for their injuries. So I think you're aware that there are ordinances. For example I can't cut my grass on Sunday. It makes too much noise. And I can't cut my grass before 9:00 on Saturday morning. And I've been told that...but the access is open to...round the clock. So I'm hoping that you'll pay attention to the rules down there, or any public access. This access it not out in the wilderness, it's in the middle of a neighborhood. The use there is constant. On a nice weekend, when I would like to go out and use it, I don't. What I've done, 5 years ago I bought a place up north. Here I live on a lake but I can't use it. I have to drive 4 hours to go up north and try to get some peace and quiet. I'd like to use the lake that I live on and pay taxes to do so. I don't know if I've covered everything in the letter. I think I have. I think I mentioned the key points that I'm concerned about. The ditch is a real sore spot with me. That wasn't part of the original plan. The city now is running all that surface water into that ditch and supposedly there's general fIltering that takes place. I think we have all become familiar with a lot of things that are on the surface that gets washed into the lake. That's going right into my beach. All that water is going directly into my beach. There's another runoff just to the east of me where the city of Eden Prairie now is running all their runoff under Highway 10 1 and down into Lotus Lake. So we get a double whammy but I do know this. The silt from the runoff has turned my beach into muck and I'm also blessed now with milfoil. I'm sure I was the first one that got milfoil because of my close proximity to the access. Some time ago I talked to a young lady...access and I just asked her what her function was and she said she checked boats for milfoil before they're allowed to enter Lotus Lake. Well I suggested that she check them before they leave. I think it's too late now to concern ourselves much with milfoil. It's there and it's beyond belief. It grows something fierce. So that's what's happened. To me that access has been open we have constant noise from it. Round the clock noise. The general idea of policing that access, none of those ideas have taken place so I'm asking you to pay attention to that. I would like to see my property a little bit more protected. I'd like that fence extended. I don't know what that's going to do but I'd like to, like I said earlier, buy a new boat, put up a new dock and I'd like some kind of idea what to expect from...sliding down there. Am I liable if there's any injuries? I would guess that's a possibility. I guess that's it. I'm just getting too much and I'd like you to consider all the things that are they say on the signs down there. No dogs. Or dogs on leashes. People come down there and they use the park to walk their dogs and a lot of times they come over and use my yard...!t just gets to be unlimited access, unlimited usage. We're getting too much abuse there. Now that you mentioned...but I used to be nice when I asked people to leave and that didn't work. Now I'm not nasty to them but I'm not nicely asking them to leave. That works. However, that concerns me. What kind of retribution am I 2 ....,,;' ....." ....." ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 going to get or is it possible...going to come back at night and really...my boat. They've tried a couple times. Would that really happen. Or throw rocks at my house or whatever. Kids or adults would do. So I think we've taken our share and we need some help from you guys or from the city. I don't know who all shares all the responsibilities. When I talk to people, well the city's got this part of that thing and Park and Rec's got this part of that thing and someone else has got this part of that thing. Unfortunately for me we've got all of that thing. Thank you. Andrews: Thank you. With the agreement of the rest of the commission I'd like to put this on as an agenda for September, Todd. Is that alright. Were there any other visitor presentations at this time? Please step forward and state your name for the record please. Lash: Jim, before we move on. Mr. Melby, I'm assuming you'll be here in September. Jack Melby: Yes. Lash: Okay. If you have any ideas of your own that would be possible solutions for us, I'd like you to let Todd know those so he can see those before... ,.... Jim Ostenson: My name is Jim Ostenson. I'm with Tandem Properties. We're the developers of Mission Hills project. ...tonight as a result of the meeting we had with the city today. City staff. I think for informational purposes to let you know what was approved by the City Council, as requested by you. At the time we were going through our preliminary plat approvals there was discussion as to what kind of park facilities were being provided in Mission Hills subdivision. It's basically a townhouse subdivision with just a few, about 16 single family lots with private roads, private utilities in a townhouse area and we had proposed a private park in there as well. And it was suggested by both yourselves and the Planning Commission that it be moved in size to 1 1/2 acres. We did that and the preliminary plat was approved by all the commissions, including the City Council and the plat that you see is the one that was approved. Todd, do you want to point that out? It's kind of a lineal. It's along 86th Street and goes all the way over to our private drive. Where it indicates tot park is actually where we would put a play sculpture in for small children. In the larger area to the north is where we would look at having play fields, possibly volleyball facilities, horseshoes, whatever might go in there. The plan that was approved includes a pond which is basically a NURP pond adjacent to the wetlands. It was approved by the City Council. We're coming back to you tonight to let you know that that NURP pond is in the park area. The NURP pond is approximately .3 of an acre and again is the same plat that was approved by everyone else. We wanted you to be aware of that also. The staff today asked that we look at, I guess I'll say reconfiguring that pond. Seeing if it can be down '"'" 3 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 -,. sized. We had shown it larger on some earlier grading plans and that we had come back with a plan that's this size. We had another design, if we can get that overlay Todd. Lash: Before you do that, can you point out where the pond... Hoffman: It's the dashed line. Jim Ostenson: It's that dashed line right there. It's adjacent to the wetlands. Lash: Which leaves how much acreage? Jim Ostenson: It would leave then 1.2. Slightly over 1.2. Lash: Is that including the tot park? Jim Ostenson: Yes. Lash: So that's about, what would that be? Less than an acre. Jim Ostenson: Well I would say it would be at least an acre. At least an acre because it's smaller, much smaller portion to the pond. We wanted to have the play sculpture to the south, you know further away from the wetlands and that the area there would be a field area. We have reconfigured the pond to be more parallel to 86th Street. It has the same amount of capacity in that but we felt that it would make for a more contiguous park. Todd had just informed us before the meeting that the staff prefers the other configuration instead. That's new to us but I guess we'll talk to him about that. But the area that is south of the wetland, as we show it there is, it averages, it's 220 feet across on the north. Just to the south of the NURP pond and at the bottom part, it's 180 feet across and it's a distance of 150 feet deep. So it's basically 50 yards by 70 yards, which is a substantial area and it would have a volleyball court and several other field oriented recreational activities that could be there as well as having an open area. ....", Andrews: I have a question. Are these townhouses, do they have ownership of property or is there no private properties at all, common ground? Jim Ostenson: It's all common ground. Like all townhouses. Andrews: So the area that you're talking about is from the foundation line or from some property line. 4 ...." I""""- Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 Jim Ostenson: This would be part of the common area. The people own, correct me if I'm wrong, Dennis Marhula with Westwood Engineering, our consultant is here tonight also but the way all townhouses are platted, the people own the land directly underneath them and that would be the case here too. This would be common area that would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. It's not a separate outlot Dennis Marhula: When we measured the acre and a half, we did not measure to the foundation, if that's your question. We measured to 20 feet from the foundation. Andrews: Okay, that's why I was asking. Dennis Marhula: It provides quite a bit open space before we... Andrews: Right, that's exactly why I asked the question. Very good. That's why I asked the question. I figured people are going to have barbecues or a swing set or something out and we don't. Dennis Marhula: The acre and a half is not measured from the foundation. I""" Andrews: Okay, thank you for that. Jim Ostenson: So again, we just wanted to make you aware of that. Again, as you request this plan that was approved and that we'll be grading the development and getting it approved. Lash: I guess I have a question how this could have gone and been approved by all the commissions when it wasn't approved by us and then it went on to City Council. I mean you're basically telling us this is the way it's going to be and you're letting us know as a courtesy. Jim Ostenson: No, I don't think so. Or I'll let Todd speak. It's my understanding this is the plan that was approved by you. Hoffman: The clarification that I certainly can make. Once when I don't recall that you saw this at your...meeting when you went back. You saw the old plan and the acre and a half still was not indicated at that time is my recollection. Andrews: That is correct. That's what happened. I"""'" 5 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 ....."I Hoffman: You sent them back and said, show the acre and a half. If you do that, that's our condition of approval to the City Council. So something very similar to this plan came before the City Council so we're assuming that the applicant is showing the 1.5 acres of open space. Now whether or not that included a pond at that time, was unclear. So now they're coming back and saying in fact that was just disclosed before the meeting that it did include that pond but then it still does not meet your condition of approval which is to add 1.5 acres unless you would allow the pond to be in that 1.5 acres. So just because of the fact that this went before the City Council and was approved, the condition of approval was still that it requires 1.5 acres of land. Huffman: So at this point there's still not 1.5 acres of land. Hoffman: No, there is not. So the pond was much greater today in the meeting at 9:00 this morning. We met with staff. The City engineering department, planners and the applicant and the applicant's consultant. So the compromise at that point was to be that I would recommend that this is a compromise situation. The pond was reduced by 50% and then it would be included within a park. We have 1.3 acres of park space of dry land and then .34 acre pond on the site. So it's not dry property but then again, I...would simply turn that compromise to you and whatever your decision, if you decide to accept that or not. Andrews: All I can say is that as a commission member that this has been a frustrating project for us to deal with. We've made our request known but this year and last year thinking that in both cases those requests were understood and yet now for a second time they come back with a response that it doesn't meet what we ask for and now basically what you're asking us to do is to say well, the horses are out of the barn. It's too late and my feeling is that I still would prefer to see that 1.5 acres because I think it needs to be there for a project of this size. If there were to be a compromise given, I would say that no credit for parkland should be given for the pond area. That pond area is strictly at the convenience of the development. -' Jim Ostenson: I don't think we're receiving any credit. Andrews: For the pond. So the reduction in area would result in. Jim Ostenson: We aren't receiving any park credit Andrews: Oh pardon me. That's right, it's PUD. pun, pardon me. I stand corrected on that one. Lash: And this is a PUD? ,...." 6 ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 Hoffman: Correct...reduction in the trail which skirts the wetland...the commission that they would try to develop. Jim Ostenson: I mean this has been equally frustrating for us. We've gone along each step thinking we're doing exactly what's planned for us. Huffman: Well we got into kind of a discussion about that too last time and I obviously have not been here through the whole process but we're going to be talking about another piece of property down supposedly south of Highway 212. Cutting people off. Moving people out. Chopping people up. The reality is, if I'm not mistaken, and I know all my rules and regs but we have what, 1 acre for 75 people in an area. I mean that's supposedly. Lash: Yeah, that's our guideline although I do think that we already had made some compromises and concessions given in the nature of this development. Although to the best of my recollection, and I was here from the beginning, I think we were fairly clear in the beginning what we were looking for and I know specifically in June we were very clear when we said we wanted 1.5 acres. And I'm frustrated with the fact that this plan has gone to the other commissions, been approved and gone to City Council and been approved when we ;""" very clearly stated we wanted 1.5 acres and we are not getting 1.5 acres. Jim Ostenson: But this shows 1.3. Lash: Which is not 1.5. Huffman: And it's not all land. Jim Ostenson: 1.3 of land. Huffman: Which is still not 1.5. Lash: I mean I know it seems like a negliable amount to you guys but we already felt like we had reduced what we normally would want considerably when we came down to 1.5 and so I think we already felt like we had compromised about as far as we were willing to go on this given the fact that it is a PUD. And the frustration is that it keeps coming back, clearly not what we have asked for. Andrews: I would assume that engineering requirements, you had to put that pond somewhere near that wetland because that's the natural collection area for the water. ,-.. 7 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 ...."",. Hoffman: Well the pond, it would be engineering's preference to see it relocated and not even on this site but it does change the plan and that's where the horses are out of the barn and...changes to the plat. They want to get going on their project. Jim Ostenson: We had 7 ponds originally and they asked us to reduce it down to 3. We're at 4 and the runoff's and the calculations I guess, seem to be satisfactory with them. One thing that's happening too is that the city has decided that they may not want to make some permanent storage pond I guess and as a result the ponds that we thought were going to be temporary...morning or in the last couple days are now going to be permanent. So that's another change that has happened since the City Council approval. Andrews: And none of those would give you the possible alternative of taking this, this particular pond storage water and putting it one of these other now permanent sites? No. Dennis Marhula: One of the concerns that...is obviously recharging that wetland and maintaining the integrity of the wetland. So we aren't trying to...as much water into that wetland as we can through the pond. Our understanding from earlier discussions were that there would be major ponding facilities to the east of this site which would take care of the ponding and the storm water treatment for a good portion of this site and to all this other property to the east. And there's been some change in thoughts and philosophy...which will have an impact on what we are required to do on site. And part of that is the need for a pond in that general vicinity to maintain the recharge into that large wetland and maintain the integrity of that wetland. There will be recharge from the pond from the area to the east of that wetland and of course to that commercial area will also act to help recharge that wetland. So it's felt like this location is required as well. So to relocate that pond to some other area on the site and change the drainage patterns really, it's not an option. -' Jim Ostenson: One of the other things that has to happen too is that, and there are more than just park issues that are involved in the site obviously and the City Council, one of the reasons...planning was done and the approvals were granted is that it's providing alternative housing and more affordable housing for people which is something that Chanhassen wants and for us to go back now and redo the plan. Take out units. We have the same amount of improvement costs and everything else, and the cost. Huffman: Why should people who want affordable housing be denied that extra park area . also? I mean we also want affordable housing and we also want those wonderful things, where are they to go? They have potentially 212 on the south side. They've got 86th. They're cut off with TH 101. Where are they going to go? I mean I understand the City Council's also been known to throw some good things out there for all of us. 8 ....", IfI"" Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 Jim Ostenson: These people are, I mean they're paying full park fees. We're given no credit. We're providing a private park and we're installing all of our own private play sculptures and everything else. There's no city assistance or anything that's going into this development. Huffman: When you go and you're gone in 5 years from now and that becomes our park and we take it over and those kind of things, absolutely. Jim Ostenson: I don't know that it is. Huffman: Well, I'd like to prepare for that. Lash: Will the maintenance, that's a good point though Dave. Will the maintenance and the upkeep be paid by some type of a townhouse association? Jim Ostenson: Right. Exactly. Just as their streets are plowed and the garbage collected and everything else. I""'" Andrews: Todd, you had a point. Hoffman: Yeah. The other side of the story is off site potential permanent ponding, even if it was to be developed in 5 or 10 years, you would still have a temporary pond located smack dab in the middle of this open field and they would be here before this evening asking for that to be approved to be there for 3 or 5 or 10 years. So it's not that it's. Andrews: We need to accommodate the water on this project basically. Hoffman: Yeah. Andrews: Can you put Alternative B back up there again please Todd? Lash: And then I'd like to hear your reasons Todd for, I think I heard somebody say that there was some preference to one plan over the other plan. Andrews: Does B allow a slightly more level site? Hoffman: They both do...fairly level. Engineering department has a preference on the second one. Andrews: Which is B? .,..... 9 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 ..".I Hoffman: Yeah...more linear to the wetland so it's not. Andrews: Okay this is what, alternative A is what engineering prefers? Hoffman: Correct. Andrews: I think Alternative B provides more usable play area. Lash: Although I look at Alternative B as blocking access off of 86th Street. Dennis Marhula: There is a trail system in between the two ponds. A trail along 86th Street that would allow access from 86th Street. j Lash: Just to the east? Dennis Marhula: There's a trail system between the wetland and the pond in that strip. Jim Ostenson: Do you want to draw that in Todd so we can point that out. Hoffman: Are they proposing that that trail go down along that pond? .....", Jim Ostenson: Yes. And all the way down... And then it also goes along 86th Street. Lash: Okay. Andrews: Well we need to move ahead on this. I don't think we are being offered an alternative here that we like to choose. My personal preference, if we must choose one, is Alternative B which moves the ponding area closer to 86th Street. I think it provides more usable area and I would move that the Planning Commission reluctantly approve Alternative B. Hoffman: To the City Council? Andrews: To the City Council. Lash: Can we just discuss the difference between A and B? I guess I don't understand why you think that B provides more usable space. 10 ......" JIll""'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 Huffman: Does that also keep balls and things and bodies from going up towards 86th Street if you've got the pond up there. Does that give you more buffer from that part of the road too. Does that work better in that area? Jim Ostenson: Well I agree that it gives more contiguous space. A wider space to have recreation if you have the pond up along 86th Street. Plus I really think it's a nice kind of amenity for the whole subdivision and streetscape. Andrews: I just think that a 50 x 70 yard piece is more usable than 100 x 50 yard piece. That's my only reason for preferring it. That and I think if there's the possibility or more "city" property being used as ponding area, if it's closer to the street. It gives us maybe another 10 feet that we can save and I'd like to save every piece that we could. But I underline, this is reluctantly that I do this. I really feel that this shouldn't have come back. I think the pond water should have been accommodated on the site elsewhere but I don't think there's an alternative here. Manders: I guess one comment that I have on this is, I'm not suggesting that there's a lot of options but with the, this being whatever it is, .3 acres, is there some consideration for other "...., compensation for that such as inclusion of play structures or something in addition to the park that could maybe offset that somehow? Andrews: You're already doing it. Jim Ostenson: We will be putting that in. Manders: But in addition to what's going in there to compensate us for that third of an acre. Jim Ostenson: Well it's a private park. Manders: Well I understand that but the point is what we're attempting to accomplish is to provide recreational facilities for that area and given the space isn't there, is there some other means of accomplishing that? Lash: And what is your plan for equipment to go in there? Did you have a dollar amount? Jim Ostenson: I think it's, not really. No. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) I""'" 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 Lash moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to allow the 1.54 acre association park to include .34 acre pond. All voted in favor, except HutTman who opposed, and the motion carried. LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL TO REZONING OF 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2 TO RSF. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 50 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 7 OUTLOTS. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR MITIGATION OF PONDING AREAS. AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF AREAS WITHIN A FLOOD PLAIN ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD TRACKS. WEST OF BLUFF CREEK AND EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES AND STONE CREEK. HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION. HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. Todd Hoffman gave the staff presentation on this item. Andrews: Now Mr. Dietrich, if you'd like to add any comments. John Dietrich: Thank you. John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We're the site planners and landscape architects for Heritage Development on this 39 acre parcel in the Bluff Creek corridor. Mr. Dobbs from Heritage had hoped to be here. I do expect him to be coming in shortly so I think he'll be here... I'd like to mention that Todd's recap of the events, we have been discussing with the city over a number of items regarding how this plan and plat should layout and one of the, I believe critical items is the discussion that had hoped to take place at the City Council and Commission level. When we originally came in with the proposal that we were looking for concept approval of a planned unit development and modifications on the lot size in order to have a greater amount of green space, park dedication areas available. It was felt that there was a non-receptive atmosphere for a reduction to the lots size in order to allow the planned unit development to come in because there were lots that were previously, we had more lots, 56 lots versus the 50 lots that are on the preliminary plat as shown in front of you. The site design, as it is today has been resubmitted as a preliminary plat and not as a planned unit development. It has been submitted with the reduction in lots and was designed to meet all the city codes so that the land could be utilized and be sensitive to the trail corridors, wetlands and as a roadway connections that are necessary between the Chanhassen Corporate Center and school area and Stone Creek subdivision that's south and also respect the increase in size of the lots that are in the Timberwood Estates residential area. The intent was this property would be submitted according to code so that it would have more sensitivity to the land surrounding it while at the same time trying to put in a single family residential development that would have lots of a size, an average size of 19,800 square feet. Maybe if I use the overhead just quickly. As 12 ~ -" ...."I '" "...... 1""". Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 previously shown, the 39 acre subdivision currently owned by Heritage Development and abuts next to the Timberwood Estates and is adjacent to the school site that is currently under construction. There is the comprehensive plan that identifies a trail corridor moving north to south along the Bluff Creek corridor and that has been incorporated into the site development and it has been incorporated at a minimum of a 20 foot wide corridor for portions of the trail and in other areas it does expand out wider where it is adjacent to wetlands and adjacent to ponding areas. r d like to just briefly point out the Year 2000 land use plan that identifies this area and has a distinct residential single family development is the clear space underneath and we have outlined the 39 acre Heritage site as it would fall within the official land use planning map for the city. Identified is the Bluff Creek corridor and open space that is adjacent to the site of primarily along the east side of the site versus the long linear area of the 39 acres which does guide this site for single family residential development at a density of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. The proposal in front of you of the 15 unit subdivision identifies an average density of approximately 1.4 units per acres. So that's at the very lower end of that residential single family development. The preliminary plat was submitted with a site plan, grading plan, utility plan, landscape plan and a tree survey which did include the number of trees that are located on the southern portion of the site. Primarily oaks, maples and basswood. The plan as it is designed looks at taking the roadway from the Stone Creek subdivision and coming through the site in a meandering fashion that has incorporated a number of the comments that were received when we were looking at the planned unit development process of a meandering roadway. Of not lining up the lots in a regimented fashion along the western edge of the site. Trying to work with the topography as well as we can. It is an undulating, rolling hill site so there will be a fair amount of grading in order for the lots to be produced. In addition, there is a wetland on the southern end of the site and this entire area has also been identified as a wetland as well as the area between the property line and the outer edge of this green band all the way along has been identified and delineated by wetland biologists as the edge of the delineated wetland. The proposed area outlined in green is 2 acres. For a 50 unit subdivision, the requirement is 1 acre per 25 residential lots which equates to 1 acre per 75 anticipated residents. We have identified the 2 acre parcel as it would meander and go along the wetland's edge and also go with between a delineated wetland and a ponding area so that it would be removed from the rear of the residential lots. In addition, once it would cross that one arm of Bluff Creek, it would be within the wooded wetland. Within the wooded area which upon walking the site, it would be the lots that are developed there are deep. We would anticipate the lots would be designed so that the maximum number of trees would be retained and that trails would meander along some of the nicer, more wooded areas of the site. We would like to make a point that we would be more than happy to look at different locations for the 2 acres of park property versus the linear system that we have set up. If the 2 acres were to be taken say down in this area, as Todd had mentioned, we would be willing to do that. However, that would then prohibit the trail within that 2 acre parcel running along the outer edge. So we want to be 13 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 ....." able to have the 2 acre where the city would deem it would be to their best interest. Perhaps it would be best down in this location next to the wetland and the ponding area which we would anticipate would become city owned or city controlled property according to their ordinance already. There is a sidewalk that is currently proposed along the west side of the roadway for the entire length of the property and once we would arrive at the joint property line between Stone Creek and the Heritage parcel, a trail could run down from the roadway and cross the roadway and make access to the pedestrian tunnel that is under the railroad tracks. So there is an opportunity to have a trail come straight up through the roadway as it is now designed and meander along the roadway. This is basically...what is on the overhead where we've identified the two wetland areas that are to remain on site. The green is the 2 acre band of proposed parkland dedication that would... this trail within it. It would be running within the woodland area here. It would then come into the wetland area and there are additional areas in this delineated wetland and back of the lots and ponding areas so that the trail is not strictly within a 20 foot corridor. In this area it's between a wetland pond. It does wrap the rear of these homes here. It does come a little bit closer. But then as it moves to the north, again it bows out where the trail area and it would be 40-50 feet. We'd also suggest potentially at this location that the trail cross the creek and come up along the north side of the creek. The slopes are very severe and then along this back side and I think a trail would be very difficult to have an opportunity to grade that...As a conclusion, we are asking that the Park and Recreation Commission consider our request for a preliminary plat with the --' design as we put forward. We will be flexible in locating the 2 acres of park dedication as necessary. The wetland and open space. The wetland and ponding areas will become the additional property of the city and that would total approximately wetlands on the site are 5.3 acres. The ponding areas are about another 2 112 acres on the site. So with this parkland dedication of 2 acres, the wetlands and the ponding area are close to 30 acres of area or 9 acres of area that would be controlled by the public, not including the public right-of-way bisecting the site and traversing that. It is our hope that we'll look at this, discuss it and we'll be able to render a decision so that we may move on towards the Planning Commission and City Council. Andrews: Thank you. John Dietrich: Thank you. Andrews: Todd I have a question, which I think I already know the answer to. To my recollection every development that's come to us with a trail proposed has been given as an easement, not as a parkland dedication. Am I correct in that recollection? Hoffman: In this type of application, correct. 14 ..."." ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 Andrews: Okay. Hoffman: ...city would have a trail as a park. Andrews: Yes, but normally in a development when we're, the one I remember most recently is the Lundgren development where we asked for a trail along the southern border of the development. I don't believe there was any park credit given for that trail. There was an easement requested and granted that would connect a large portion of that property with other trails and that was done as an easement, not as park credit. Hoffman: Correct. There is no history of trading park dedication for trail easements. The trail easements...recent ones Stone Creek. It's an easement situation. All the new developments... Andrews: I have a question for Mr. Dietrich as well. This has been to the Planning Commission already? r'" Hoffman: Conceptually. Andrews: Is it true, or am I correct that the Planning Commission also preferred to see the road at least make some contact with the Bluff Creek corridor to provide a variation and experience or view or did they have that preference, do you recall? John Dietrich: The Planning Commission has not had an opportunity to look at this concept plan that Todd had presented. What the concept plan was produced when we...on site visit which was just amongst staff and the Planning Commission has last seen this subdivision when it was a concept PUD back in March. It had 56 lots proposed on it. Through modifications it did receive concept PUD approval from the City Council with a total lot count of 53. Andrews: Okay. Are you saying that it's impossible to provide any roadway near the Bluff Creek corridor? That it's not economically viable or just not easy or. ,.... John Dietrich: As we move closer to the Bluff Creek corridor, one of the concerns of the applicant was the amount of return he would have on his property in terms of the concept plan that was presented that would provide an open view for the entire area. However it would not have any walkout lots that would also face the wetland. So there were a number of considerations that Heritage Development was concerned with in terms of the return of the lots as they would be proposed under the concept plan which the concept plan, I'd like to point out, had lots ranging anywhere from about 12,500-13,000 square feet up to some that 15 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 -' were 20 so they were much smaller and the concern that we looked at for was on the Planning Commission and City Council was the size of the lots. They did not seem to be in favor of a reduction below the 15,000 square feet. Lash: Are there the same number of lots on both plans? John Dietrich: No. The concept plan had approximately... Lash: And you have 50? John Dietrich: We have 50 on this plan, yes. Without...park. Lash: So essentially... John Dietrich: With the lots being all at grade without walkouts. Lash: So you're saying the prices that you could charge per lot would be reduced. John Dietrich: Substantially. ..."., Hoffman: ...presentation made as part of the city charge was that the applicant, their desire to see the compensation made...profit margins...big profit margins...and the city paid the difference and that was not acceptable... Again, the Park Commission should certainly concentrate on the park issue, the trail issue. That as part of the road you can make a recommendation on how you feel. The Planning Commission will deal with that directly. Andrews: I'll speak my piece first. I guess. Lash: Maybe we should check and see if there's public comment. Andrews: Oh, pardon me. You're correct. Is there someone from the public that would like to add to the discussion here? Alright, now we can move on. To me to see the application presented to us with the trail being shown as parkland is, I hate to use the word but it's an insult to me. We've done that for no other development in the city that I'm aware of and the way it was presented was almost as though, well if you take away this trail then you're not going to get something. You're not going to have the trail and the park. You're going to get one or the other and I don't see that really as the issue here. We can still ask for an easement for a trail yet still pursue the parkland on that heavily treed southern portion of the property and the original desire was to do that. My desire, after seeing the property today, is at least as strong as it was then. You know Todd's proposal or compromise that the road be 16 ..."I JIiI"'. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 at least shown at some point making a contact with a view to the creek I think is not asking too much. I think the original design concept shown on the floor there shows that contact made almost along the entire property. That in itself may not be economically viable or it may create two much, too many walkout lots to be lost, which I understand are more desirable and therefore more profitable, but perhaps a shorter contact along the Bluff Creek corridor may be possible where only 3 or 4 lots might be impacted and I think that cost to the project would not be as severe. So my preference would be to see that we, that this be sent back and that a fresh attempt made. I don't feel like there's really been a serious attempt made here to really consider that alternative in my opinion. Hoffman: Yeah...is that stand of oak trees...oak trees and that would be one location that would be beneficial to push the road down below the oak trees as we discussed...the applicant to save those trees and... That would be the maximum location to provide that property... Andrews: Any other comments? Lash: Well I would have, I appreciate the presentation. I think it was done very nicely and I thank you for that. I also appreciate the way that you were respectful of the Bluff Creek i"""'"" corridor, although...it is not something that we would grant park credit to but that would...trail easement cost. So I would...that what we would need to require of this development is an easement along the Bluff corridor and a combination of the acres, .11 acres on the southern portion and to make efforts to get the roadway to be in conjunction somehow with the corridor...and also to preserve that. I'm not sure... Andrews: We were down there tonight and just the impact of the property, it makes you feel like you're in a wilderness down there. Lash: It's a beautiful site. Andrews: It's a beautiful site and I hate to see trees mowed down. We also were in the Stone Creek project, which is a heavily wooded site. We drove by many lots that had not been built where the trees were magnificent Drove about a block and a half further on the same identical treed lots where houses had been built and there's probably about a 90% eradication of any living thing on those lots. So when a developer comes in and says we're going to be environmentally sensitive. We're going to preserve these treed properties. I mean the reality is that under the best of circumstances we're probably going to see at least a 70% loss of tree canopy down there and that's why we're trying so hard to save a very rare piece of heavily wooded property left in Chanhassen and that's why we're, it's important to us. And the Bluff Creek corridor I think is going to be a centerpiece of our city in the future and I think what we're asking the applicant to consider here is to really put a touch of quality ""'" 17 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 -" in this property which I think, when all things are said and done, will actually allow the developer to perhaps command a higher price for his finished properties. To have a view overlooking that Bluff Creek area, both now and perhaps 20 years from now when the city is fully developed, is going to be a rare gem of our community and I don't see that it would make this project impossible to proceed. Lash: And to have the roadway, we wanted the access points, so many more people can benefit from that view as opposed to just the homeowners who live right along it that therefore I feel that it's going to increase the property values of the people who are...normally wouldn't have access to that view at all. Whereas now they will. If they drive that route in and out of their home...they'll have that opportunity. And he did say that there would be significant grading, didn't you? John Dietrich: Yes I did. Lash: So there must be some ways. I mean you guys are pretty smart about how to do this. I would think you would be able to figure out how to do some grading and still accommodate the walkout lots or partial walkouts. Huffman: I guess it's one of the big concerns is that the Bluff Creek corridor which the city -" is just now, and the commissioners we're just now dealing with is sort of Minnewashta to the Minnesota. The whole corridor and as you are trying to develop beautiful areas with great lots and... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion and a portion of the meeting was not taped. The following is a summary of the motions made.) Lash moved, Huffman seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table the Heritage First Addition preliminary plat and that the applicant come back in 2 weeks to address the concerns of the Park Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 18 ...-I ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL REZONING OF 25.85 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR. RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 25.85 ACRES INTO 21 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 SECTION 3. T 116. R 23. NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 41. BRENDON POND. GEST ACH AND PAULSON CONSTRUCTION. Lash moved, Huffman seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council require the following conditions of approval in regard to park and trails for Brendon Pond: 1. Full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT FOR CHANHASSEN RETAIL 2ND ADDITION CREATING 20UTLOTS AND CHANHASSEN RETAIL 3RD ADDITION ,....... PLATTING OUTLOTS B INTO 3 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT. SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 5.000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR PERKINS RESTAURANT. A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 1.800 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR TACO BELL. LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5. POWERS BLVD. AND WEST 78TH STREET. CHANHASSEN RETAIL CENTER (TARGET SITE). RYAN COMPANIES AND RLK ASSOCIATES. Manders moved, Roeser seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council collect full park and trail dedication fees for Perkins and Taco Bell, to be collected at the time of building permit issuance at the rate then in force. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.5 ACRES INTO 36 RURAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT. HALLA'S GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES. LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 14 (PIONEER TRAIL) AND WEST AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 (GREAT PLAINS BLVD). (Taping of the meeting began again at this point in the discussion.) Resident: ...and there's no place for the kids. They all tend to congregate on the road. And with the number of people traveling to the golf course and with that narrow road, there is no I""'" 19 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 ....,I parking. And if we have to go to park at Chanhassen right here so the kids can play in so I would like to see a development of that park in that southeast comer for the future. Lash: You're talking the southeast comer. Resident: Right. Lash: Well personally I would like to see that too. Resident: I mean it's a unique area where you have this morning at 6:00 we had a buck and doe and we have pheasants. I mean we've had those type of areas are very few and far between in Chanhassen. Lash: The problem that we're having is that we don't have any money to purchase it so we're in a position where we can't offer to buy the property and he has the right to develop his property so our hands are basically tied. And even if we all agreed that we wanted to buy it, we don't have the money. Huffman: We have the park that we want to give you at Bandimere and we desperately would like to do that. .....-I Lash: And we don't have the money to develop that either. Huffman: That's 1 1/2 million dollars. When we come to everybody it's going to be in a big referendum again. Resident: What we need to do is work with the city itself...and if you look at our parks right now, the way they're being maintained. We had...we could not use. The overall maintenance of our parks is declining. The trees are being planted which is super. The lack of maintenance of these trees within the city are not being addressed. We're putting all this money to trees and putting all this money into trails and nobody's taking care of them. You know...Whether it's a 1.5 acre pond or 1.2. Who's going to check if it's a .3 difference in the development? Huffman: We do. Resident: We need to look at all these issues...I'd rather see a quality park than quantity and maintain what we have. 20 ...,.;I ,..., Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 Lash: Well I'll start this out for you. A year ago we sent out a survey to all the residents in Chanhassen and the survey...the quality of the parks, and maintenance and what they'd like to see and what would they like more...and how much they would, if they would vote for a referendum and how to provide the services and...overwhelmingly no. They would not support a referendum. They would not look to pay any more monthly towards their taxes to have these different things so that sounded pretty loud enough to...people want to see these things happen but they don't want to pay for it and that's the position that we're in right now. Resident: Is it a matter of... Andrews: We don't have the money. Lash: We do not have the money. And I know that our City Council has taken pride in the last I don't know how many years...of keeping the budget under control so that there's not been a city tax increase in 6 years or 5 years or whatever time, I'm not sure. But when you continue to have your parks going in and your streets going in and everything's growing but your keeping your tax base the same, I mean common sense is going to tell you that something's going to suffer along the line. They can't spread the money that thin and then keep up the quality of service to everyone. ~ Resident: ...how are these parks being maintained and where is the money coming from? ...into Chaska, I go into that town and how nice that little city park looks and how the surrounding City HalL.and it's just amazing how they can do that.. Huffman: Well we have needs here. We have a library that's totally inadequate for the city. And people it's going to cost a lot of money. It's not going to cost a little bit, it's going to cost hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's an issue. They're adding onto the City Hall. We have people coming in everywhere. You've seen tonight, you had an opportunity to see people, we've got developers coming in...and we're arguing about 3/10 of an acre for a park. The day they're done, they're gone. You talk about the homeowners association and things like that. We will own that park 5 years from now. And for us to have to deal with those issues, we're dealing with it constantly. As Jim and Jan said, there's nothing in the coffers. How do you deal with that? ,..., Lash: Quality versus quantity. There's a finite amount of property out there that's left, that's available for development or available for park property. Then we don't know for sure how many years but in the near future there's not going to be any property left for us to...so I think our philosophy now is to find the property if we can. We can always develop it later when the property's gone but once the property's gone, we're never going to be able to go back and get property. So we're stuck in a spot now where we're trying to put a lot of effort 21 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 ....-I into acquiring property for the future and worrying about how we're actually going to be able to develop it and have it be a real quality place a little later as the monies are coming in and there's no property left to spend it on. Manders: That's exactly the same point that I'd like to make is that the monies that we do have are directed towards the acquisition of park space and if you think about the cost of parks such as west of Lake Minnewashta, what it costs to acquire a few acres out there, it's just phenomenal. As we'll be talking about later on, the cost to outfit and furnish these parks is equally large and by the time we get to this quality issue of how well they're maintained, the monies are gone just in acquiring them. But at least we've been responsible enough to provide that space. Lash: You're getting kind of crash course in economics that you didn't want to hear. Just to give you an idea...but our yearly budget is roughly around $150,000.00. That includes maintenance and acquisition and development of parks and everything that goes on. Resident: ...additional staff and we look at 5 year capital budget...is that a different budget altogether? Hoffman: At the benefit of the hearing, the park commission is aware that...this past year the administration of park maintenance was by the public works and city engineer. So that person not only was responsible for park maintenance but street and sewer and water, etc so the allegiance was split. I recognized that deficiency in the operation of the park system. After that we corrected a change and as of January 1 of this year, park maintenance is now... the other general park functions. That relationship will mature and it will make it much more easy for me to be an advocate back to City Council and as a part of the 1995 budget, I will be requesting that we hire 2 more full time park maintenance employees. One for the downtown and one for parks in general and that the maintenance budget be beefed up considerably...We are obviously off on a tangent but... -' Huffman: I will say this for the staff of the park department. There's none fmer. They are outstanding. They work hard. They are diligent. They are very aware of economic constraints but if you had a chance to come up for things like the 4th of July picnic, the thing on Lake Susan during the middle of the winter. You can't keep it from thawing, the lake starting to go on you but there is none fmer and just from my limited time and exposure, these gentlemen and women on the department, they are working hard for you. They've had problems in the past. This group is good. And I'll tell you what, they're self hustlers too. I mean they are doing well. 22 --' "'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 Resident: I think unless you've got...having someone give you compliments for that department. Huffman: Now I've got to say this. There's nobody, Mr. Hoffman's sitting right over there and he can't hurt me so I can say anything I want to about him. He does a great job and I don't say that just because I'm sitting here because I don't get anything for it. But he does an outstanding job and the staff does a good job. They will do everything for you. They go above and out of their way to make sure everything's done and we may be just a little pittely commission, which is what a lot of people may think but there's a lot of work and effort that goes through these people put up with and we love to hear from you because that reaffirms, are we doing the job we need to do. Are we getting things accomplished so this is. Resident: Just my frustration is, when you live out there, you might have the 2 acres or 1 acre that we're living on but in that particular...neighborhood, we just don't have all the kids tend to congregate...in the street and I think if anybody lives in a neighborhood within Chanhassen, they'll see that happen. And why that is, I don't know but good developers and a number of developers... r-- Huffman: If we had our city golf course, we could sure have a lot of solutions taken care of too... Andrews: We have to get back to the issue here. We'll be discussing. Hoffman: I apologize for that. This is the second go around to address this one issue but from that plat we have 36 lots...any direction as far as neighborhood parks but the thing that this is a location for acquisition of a neighborhood park and you will be dealing with outside of the bound of the park dedication and... Lash: Just for my curiosity. Why don't you just show me where you are. Resident: ...Creekwood. I live... ,..... Jim Engle: I'm Jim Engle. I've been a homeowner in Chanhassen and specifically in southern Chanhassen since 1986. ...and I currently reside at 9251 Foxford Road which is in Lake Riley Woods development. ...in the Lake Riley Woods development. I think there's about 40 some children that currently live there now and...! would suspect the number of children probably will increase and Mr. Halla's proposed development plans for some 36 lots so there will be a number of additional children there. That whole area is sort of expanding. I would commend you for your efforts in terms of trying to acquire parkland. I hear enough about the subject that Chanhassen's development in general and the parks in particular, I paid 23 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 ....."I $35.00 for the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and I appreciate the comment about how you don't have money and I guess I'm up here saying what I have to say only because I think it's important that you hear it and it's important to start the ball rolling about being able to do community park in southern Chanhassen. The only park that's being looked at south of Pioneer Trail is Bluff Creek park which, as was pointed out in the plan, isn't really, will never be a developed park. It's really a water drainage...They do have, you know Bandimere Park is there but that's near Lyman Blvd north of Pioneer Trail and then as you correctly pointed out, as the development occurs, it's unlikely that there's going to be additional land that's going to be coming available very often. You also have a nice network of trails and things that are planned to be down there. So whether it's, I mean I would love to see a neighborhood park in the Great Plains Golf Estates but if it's not there, I would just at least encourage you, as development continues to keep your eyes open towards locations of parks in the future for ways to do a lot of what is talked about in terms of the plan. I appreciate the difficulties that you have and that people like to have these things. They don't necessarily like to pay for them. Thank you. Andrews: Unfortunately we have to deal with reality, which is this plat and this time which is a time of our pockets being emptied with several ambitious land acquisitions. I think we need to move ahead here. Are there any comments from the audience? If not, are there any commission members that would like to make a comment or a motion? ......,I Huffman: Mr. Halla, do you want to put a park in for us? Lash: We can call it Halla Park. Don Halla: Actually we do have...playground structures in our main nursery that are open for anybody to use. Huffman: Do you want us to move them over? You have the world's largest tree mover don't you? What can we do to alleviate some of the concerns? I mean that's obviously you're going to, you have your desires and things you'd like to do too. Is there something that I mean, something you can help us with here? Resident: I think I'm looking after...grandkids... Don Halla: You know there is an area...talking about there right next to your house. It's an unbuildable site. That certainly could be made into a park right there. That would...not crossing the road to your area. ...." 24 ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 The resident and Don Halla were having a discussion at this point that was not picked up by the microphone. Roeser: Well one of the things we're going to be discussing soon is the referendum, right? Andrews: Yes. Roeser: It's coming up I think later tonight and probably along into the next couple months so these things will be talked about I'm sure. Andrews: Back to reality though. We have to deal with this plat, the proposal. Accepting full fees does give, provide us with dollars for potential acquisition. Also a referendum, in order to buy enough land to be a usable neighborhood park, we need 8 to 10 acres minimum and we do not have that cash in hand right now so in my opinion, we do not have an alternative. I'd think to take one lot or one acre basically puts us in a position of a totlot in a density such as these proposals, I don't think that makes any sense. You know for us to put up swings and playground equipment with such limited density just is not cost effective for us. It costs us $50,000.00 to put in a totlot minimum with the cost of land and the equipment. ""'" Lash: Not only that, that goes against our own guidelines of having minimum acreage. We have basically set guidelines so we don't end up with a whole bunch of little 1 acre sites all over Chanhassen... Roeser: I move we recommend that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates with the following conditions of approval with regard to park, open space and trails. A 20 foot wide trail easement be dedicated to the south of Pioneer Trail extending the entire length of the proposed plat. Park and trail fees be paid in full per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. Andrews: Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Any further discussion? Manders: I understand our financial problems in this regard but I'm thinking back to when this piece of property came into consideration earlier this winter and how enthusiastic we were at that point in time thinking about just the layout of that particular land and the location primarily and limitations that we're encountering in terms of ballfields and such and saying well, we've got to plan ahead a little bit and what we're saying is that well, that was good at that time but reality soaks in and I can accept that maybe reality is soaking in but ,.... we're effectively saying that we're going to forego this opportunity without any further 25 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 -'" consideration and this idea of a referendum is not even being considered here and if that's the way everybody else thinks, I guess I can agree with that. But are. we really saying that? That any other land acquisition. Andrews: My reason for seconding is that we have a 30 acre plus parcel of land less than a half a mile, or about a half a mile away that we have no money to develop and it seems to me to be much more cost effective to develop land we already have then to buy another piece of land that we cannot develop. We also have the problem of fair treatment to a landowner who has come to us with a proposal that in all respects meets city requirements. Basically I think our options are either to put up the money and buy it or give it our limited recommendation and best wishes so that was my reason for seconding. Lash: And I know the one thing about it too Jim is I mean I was the one probably who was the most enthusiastic about...position that we can't...reality bites. We can't guarantee that we will have the money. We can talk until we're blue in the face about a referendum. We can put a referendum out but until a referendum passes and we have the money, we can't in all honestly go out and make an offer on this property. Roeser: Yeah, and in the meantime Mr. Halla sits on his property wanting to develop it which we can't. ..J Lash: And that's not fair to him. Now I mean if he wanted to be a really nice guy he could say... Don Halla: But you realize I'm being forced by the city to develop on one hand. On the other hand I can understand you wanting me not to... It' s kind of like, either do it now and... Roeser: I like the nursery down there myself. Huffman: I know the Big Woods. We talked about that for a long time...the two major differences about that. They were going to cut those woods down forever. Yeah, we have Bandimere. How soon can we get that money...it doesn't matter where you plant, they're not going to grow back. And two, that was backyard conversation for a year and a half. I mean that was not the fIrst time that referendum had come up and it was the second or third time and so it was conversation hot and heavy. Everybody knew about it. Everybody was aware. You may have heard us talk about the Bluff Creek charette tonight. I joined this commission what, in May. Never knew there was one. So yes, we understand what you're saying. Yes we want to get there. ....." 26 ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 Andrews: Item 7 on our agenda tonight is discussion of a potential future referendum. We recognize that we need to raise some substantial capital for things like the Bandimere development. Resident: ...development and you talk about the watershed and how close that is, that development is to the Minnesota River. I think the lack of sanitary sewer in that area is an illustration of that whole area... Roeser: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Lash: And we have a second. Andrews: Okay, I'll call the question then. Roeser moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates with the following conditions of approval with regard to park, open space and trails. ",....... 1. A 20 foot wide trail easement be dedicated to the south of Pioneer Trail extending the entire length of the proposed plat. 2. Park and trail fees be paid in full per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. All voted in favor, except Manders who opposed, and the motion carried. SELECTION OF VENDOR; PHEASANT HILL PLAY STRUCTURE. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Lash: One quick question. The new packet that we got, you're saying the drawing...is this the new plan? Hoffman: No. Lash: This is the old one. Hoffman: Yes. The new plan would be in the back. II"""- 27 r f} / Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 ......,,1 Lash: All the separate pages. Hoffman: That's what we received to date...Do you want to go now or do you want to ask staff any more questions about the process to date? Andrews: I'm so tired, I just want to go home. Let's hear what you have to say. Value Recreation Representative: Well I know on the original proposal that Bill gave them a plan based on our past experience. We had never come up with a plan that... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Lash moved, Huffman seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table action on the selection of vendor for the Pheasant Hill play structure for 2 weeks. All voted in favor and the motion carried. DISCUSS FUTURE PARK/OPEN SPACE ACOUlSITION AND DEVELOPMENT REFERENDUM. Andrews: ... what do you really need to do here Todd? I think we're probably unanimous in feeling that this is something we need to pursue. What steps do we need to take to start a process rolling. ...", Hoffman: ...and ask the City Council to authorize the process and ask them to make a decision on how they would like. Typical it's a task force...put back on the Park Commission, the task force with members from the Park Commission, City Council, Planning COmmission and members at large from the community and that would be their next step if they chose to authorize at least the investigation of a referendum and for more land acquisition and development. And that would probably... Andrews: As part of this recommendation to the Council I would assume you would write some document laying out the need. Bandimere, trails, some open space acquisition and probably some reserve building really for development of other parcels that we may acquire here. Hoffman: Yeah. In fact before I would do that I would bring that,. I would like to bring that back to the commission. To set aside, put some numbers on all the acreage which we have and I have no idea what it would...We have the Bluff Creek land. We have some other acquisitions to take a look at and how high that gets before taking that type of information back onto the City Council, we may want to put some parameters on that. That would be a ...." 28 ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 Andrews: You need regional appeal and you need the complete projects. You can't have we're going to buy a piece of land and we're going to take it 50% of the way. It's going to have to be, we're going to do it. It's going to be done and ready to use. Huffman: You appeal, you go to every ball club and say you need parks. We need Bandimere because we're going to put 5 fields in here. We're going to go to Minnewashta. You don't have a park out there. We have everybody in southern Chanhassen now at Bandimere. You have to go for very specific appeals because the trail issue got voted down here 3 times in a row because it was this nebulous idea of what, you know what do you mean? What is it? What are they doing? And we shot it down. Lost, we were lucky and it got shot down the first time by what, 20 votes. The second time by...It was a weird, weird deal. People don't want nebulousness. They want something very specific. And especially when you're talking about parks, you're talking about the toy as opposed to a need. We need a school. You want a park. Lash: Well the timing is right because the school district is, or Chaska School District has just come out and said there won't be a referendum in '95. So if we're ever going to go for it, this is the year. There probably will be one next year or for sure the next year. ~. Hoffman: And you look at $4 to $6 million...and $45 million for the school district so your idea of the need versus the want, and whatever it ends up to be. If it's $100 per household per year... Huffman: I tell you want. I'd rather also go for the throat than go for let's just get $1.2. I mean let's go for $10 million or whatever the number is but go for it and lay it out there because if we get it, you're right. In '96 something's going to happen. '97. Roeser: You look like you almost have to complete Chan the way it's growing. You've got to get it done because all of a sudden it isn't going to be there. The property's not there. Lash: I'll tell you specifically the comment I heard this weekend, because I brought it up. We had our neighborhood picnic and I said, guess what we're going to talk about Tuesday. I don't have an opinion but I want...feelings but this is something we're going to discuss. How do you feel about it and the comments that I heard, and you hear this all the time. People do not understand and sometimes I don't understand this, is with all the people moving to town, why isn't there enough money with all the businesses and the people and the new houses coming in, why isn't there enough money to just pay for this? Why do we have to keep paying for all this stuff and I know that's the mentality? I"'" 30 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 ....",I Huffman: Because we don't have the Carlson Center. We don't have those businesses. We have individuals living here. Lash: Maybe there needs to be...pull that together, we need to try and explain that to people because they just don't get it. Hoffman: As a prelude to that I can feed an article to the Villager...significant growth we're seeing the amount of money that it's bringing in but when you talk about us bringing $350,000.00... Lash: But people don't understand where our money comes from and they don't understand, they don't know the whole picture so we need to go out with education. Huffman: I think it should be like a weekly frontal attack in the Villager. Not just an article every once in a while. I mean it should be something we should hammer. Hoffman: The task force will go through the entire thing. The public, I mean you've got to persuade the public. Let's all get together. If we get in this together, we can make something happen...anti trust of government is at an all time high so you've got to deal with that. You've got to go out there and... -' Huffman: What would help from our perspective too is also maybe responding to some of these issues that people have when they come before us. I mean if we have South, you know Lotus Lake. Here we do respond to the public. Carver Beach. We do respond to public. We do have some ways of coming back and saying, yes. We do instead of just saying we want more. Lash: Well the other thing is, tonight's a perfect example with Mr. Anderson and he'd like to see this and he'd like to see that and they assume we should have enough money to provide all this type of things and we don't. It's an education for people to realize that we have very limited funds and we can't provide half of what we would like to provide and the only way we can do it is through this. If they want it bad enough, they'll vote for it Andrews: I think it'd be real interesting to do a comparison between Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. That's what we're compared against all the time. Eden Prairie has all the trails, how come you don't have any? Roeser: ... we come up awfully short compared to Eden Prairie. Andrews: But their budget is probably 10 times what our's is...Do you need a motion? 31 .."" I""'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 Hoffman: I need a motion to approve the concept at least. Lash: Another thing that as... Roeser: I so move whatever. Huffman: Second. Roeser moved, HutTman seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the concept for a future park/open space acquisition and development referendum. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Andrews: Are there any commission member presentations tonight? Is there a motion to adjourn? Manders moved, HutTman seconded to adjourn. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. ,..., Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director Prepared by Nann Opheim I""'" 32