Loading...
PRC 1979 01 09 I "..., J'" ,.... MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION January 9, 1979 Chairman Joe Betz called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. Members present: Joe Betz, Pat Boyle, Phyllis Pope, Mary Mue1hausen, Shirley Chellis, Walter Coudron Members absent: Denis Stedman Pat Boyle made a motion to accept the minutes of the December 5, 1978 meeting. Phyllis Pope seconded the motion, motion passed. Phyllis Pope made a motion to accept the December 11, 1978 minutes as amended. Mary Mueh1hausen seconded the motion, motion passed. NOTE REVISIONS: Ordinance 14.A Section A: Line four after the word dedicate, add "per the following schedule". Under Schedule, delete the word "minum". Change six percent to eight percent of the gross area. Add "or fair market value of subdivided undeveloped land at time of final plat approva1." Delete all of maximum percentage paragraph. Pat Boyle made amotion to have the Commission contact the City of Shorewood and ask them to have a joint meeting to review and evaluate the Near Mountain Project. Site plan dated 12-22-78. Wally Coudron seconded the motion, motion passed. -1- PHYLLIS FRAN JOE JOE FRAN JOE FRAN JOE The sixth paragraph where I moved to accept the revised amendment to Ordinance 14A, and Pat seconded it, but I don't think we had decided what to revise at that meeting. It was the next meeting that we actually revised it. ~ I think we had agreed to what it was, just a matter of having, just losing track of what meetings were We have the recorder going now, we finally found somebody that will do the minutes, or take them off of tape, so after tonight - I have the last one recorded also, so she is going to do the typing. That will help out a lot when I read You may be right, there are two different items, one on the minutes of the 5th, and one on the minutes of the 11th, which mean basically the same We talked about it on both nights. I think you're right, it was the 11th, the night that we approved the copy that I believe you received in the mail. Wasn't it the second night that we approved it, the 11th? Yes, that was the second night. I think you wrote it out. We agreed to the changes that we wrote to be typed up against the changes. But that was agreed to on the 11th. This should be attached to the minutes and reference up. You do understand it was this draft occurred on the 11th. -I Right. And the one you had written something out on a piece of paper which I copied and wrote into the amended form. We talked about the changes. I was going to write it. I wrote it. I think that's what we agreed to the night of the 5th. Then on the night of the 11th we took the changes that I had made and we changed it again a bit, and that is what this document should be. However, you would not get that in the minutes. No. How can we change it looking at both sets of minutes. Say "as per attached" with reference some way. Without writing the entire proposed ordinance into the minutes. It probably should be dated. I think for all practical purposes this document is the one that we There is no other document around. You are right. Maybe somewhere in the minutes we could, of the 11th, note some way in which this document is to be referenced. Call it Revision A. I believe at the last meeting we can amend it 1fou can amend the minutes of the 11th to read - say, "the amendment ordinance (Exhibit "AB") Proposal 12/11/78 ....", -2- JOE Is that clear? ,.... Everyone agree, that it's the document we're talking about, label it as such and reference it. Send the amended minutes of 12/11/78 referring to No, what did you say'? To amend the minutes to read -- to send the amended minutes of 12/11/78 -- It's not amended minutes Yes they are - the dates are identical. We're talking about ordinance, not minutes I know, but he is saying to amend the minutes to read - right Yes, I am saying to amend the minutes of 12/11/78 to say, what would you like them to say now? To refer to the To send the amended ordinance to the city council (Reference Yes, then the brackets (Ordinance dated 12/11/78) This particular document should be notated somehow saying it is a proposal of 12/11/78. That's how we'll refer to it. Send the amended ordinance dated 12/11/78 to the city council for consideration. ,.... Is that okay? Amend the minutes of 12/11/78 to read "To send the amended ordinance dated 12/11/78 to the city council for approval, action, whatever your pleasure - approval". FRAN You can almost use the word "Written 12/11/78", then we know exactly which one we are talking about. Instead of dated, put written. Alright. Send the amended ordinance written 12/11/78 to the city council for approval. Were there any other changes to the December 5 minutes? Is there a motion to accept the minutes of the 5th as written. Motion. Seconded? I second it. All in favor - aye. Opposed - none. So moved. Is there a motion to accept the minutes of the 11th ,as amended? I just have a question on the other motion that Phyllis made to accept the 1979 budget. We can accept it and recommend to the council for their approval, right? Shouldn't it have that in there too? Because they have to finalize their approval. They've accepted what we've written. Was that as you remember the intent of the motion? Otherwise we can do that tonight. ,.... -3- Has it gone to the couneil? No, they haven't seen it, not yet. We can infonnally do that tonight. I move to accept the December 11th, 1978 minutes as amended. Seconded. All in favor - aye. Opposed - None. .."",;' The 11th is accepted as amended, it has to do with reference to the ordinance. PAT Before we get started, do you care to introduce yourself? PAT SWENSON I am Pat Swenson, and I am here as a representative laison from the Planning Commission. Are there any additions to the agenda before we start on items? FRAN Don is supposed to be here, and he has another meeting, and he said that he should be here shortly after that. He thought about 7:45, but he isn't here as yet. JOE Is that concerning the budget? FRAN The budget and the Lotus Lake property. Maybe before he gets here I can run this new addition by Near Mountain Properties developing the area across the road to the north of where the park that we acquired will be, and just north of there is going to be a rather large development. I just got this today, and the Planning Commission I guess has gone through just the rough sketches. FRAN Anyway, there is going to be 389 two and three bedroom, it looks like, units going in on the north side of Lotus Lake, and they will be in the city of Chanhassen. There is an additional 292 that will be going in at Shorewood. That will be quite an impact on that area. According to this, I think that the park will be in this area, so I would suspect I know which property we own. ....." PAT BOYLE It is all of this The park is - they own all of this property here plus property back in here. This is the Shorewood property, and those homes will be going in this area up here. FRAN Are they individual homes? Yes. That, together with the Eklund and Swedlund project is really going to fill that area of town up, so it is good that we got that What did Shorewood plan doing for park? FRAN I don't think Shorewood even has an ordinance as far as park acquisition goes. To my knowledge, they don't. But this is just a preliminary conceptual plan of development. Where is 101 from that plan? FRAN That would be on the right side, right here. This is 101. This is Vine Hill Road, Pat, way down here, you know where 101 makes a jog. -' -4- FRAN ..........MARY FRAN FRAN FRAN PHYLLIS FRAN ,..., FRAN PHYLLIS SHIRLEY FRAN I"*' Town Line Road is right in here somewhere, and that is approximately where the freeway will end, 62 extension will end in 1982. That will be completed up to Town Line Road and 101. Does that still plan on going through? It's approved and funded I think. So that will be a considerable collector area,and there will be a collector street I think coming in here somewhere, Bob says. Right now it is all in sketch plan review, but I thought that you should know that there is more development going on at that end of the lake. Hbw many homes did you say were in Chanhassen? In Chanhassen, 389. Is water and sewer in there? Yes It would be nice if Shorewood could keep this portion right here as a wild- life area because it is beautiful. There is nothing down there, marsh. I skied down there about 2 or 3 weeks ago. It would be nice if we could link a trail or corridor system up with the Eklund Swedlund property, where you can get up in through there, and back over and tie in and come back in towards Lotus Lake. See the arrow at the bottom, the part that goes down to this brown circle, is that were you are saying the park is? But actually the park goes all the way up to their property, right? Right. Pleasant View is the dividing line. I think this is to indicate kind of a walk way or trail way system to get access to the park. Actually the sewer lines run from Pleasant View Road over to Silver Lake Do you think it would be wise to say that we would like our money instead of having a trailway system. We need the money for the development of that park. That's right. Because that is a lot of houses, It's $98,000 what we would get I think it will be single family, probably some town houses maybe. I don't know what the phasing is on it at this point in their thinking, whether it is over 3 years, 5 or 10 years, or whatever. My information does not have a timetable that -5- WALT, PAT JOE JOE JOE FRAN JOE FRAN PHYLLIS PAT FRAN PAT MARY Are these the original owners that are planning on developing this? I thought they were going to sell it. They are in a joint venture with some architect and a developer. I don't know if they are going to retain holdings in it, or if they are just going ~ to take so much of a percentage. I can't understand the 5 acres why we had to purchase from them if they were already in the process of developing this area. It wouldn't have hurt to keep 5 more acres. I think they were really putting the pressure on the city. Maybe ~n will have something to say about that. I thought they indicated that they were planning on selling this, the rest of their property. They wanted to get rid of all of it. The big thing was the fear that they could not become involved in develop- ment for tax purposes unless they found some loo~ hole to get around that. Do attorneys find loopholes? Do you think it is premature to make any statement at all on this? We don't have to say anything Have they seen our ordinance? Yes, I'm sure the Planning Commission made them aware of this ordinance. They will have to conform with it. I don't know if a formal statement, or just the expression of what the commission thinks, at this point in time until they get farther down the ~ line, maybe a general comment as far as attitude or what you might like to see. There is a law about minimum size Yes, 15,000 square feet. Pat, do you know the minimum lot size? Here? Yes. Well it depends on , 50,000 sq. ft. as far as I know. Thats not lakeshore. Lakeshore is higher. It's 20,000. I think so. The last I heard anyway. This has gone before the planning commission - this preliminary plat. The preliminary sketch plan review. I don't know what their procedure is. They will be coming back I imagine with a more formalized Well, I'm not familiar with this particular one, so I can't - I'm sure there would be. It says certain things for certain areas, but I can't read it. I think maybe that might be part of the conceptualization. You can hardly read what is on the printing. ....", -6- MARY ,.... PAT JOE PHYLLIS PAT PHYLLIS ,... PHYLLIS FRAN PHYLLIS ".... No, but it would look like this would be an area for C, three something or other would be in the C area. It looks like it might be duplexes, doesn't it Phyllis? reading it , it would appear that there might be duplexes involved. I think that it is really too early to make any kind of a recommendation as far as Why don't we go on record though, as saying that. Say that we looked at it, but we It is really too early to go -- at least acknowledge the fact that we have seen it and we would like to see it when it is further along in the develop- ment state. We are still leaning toward maybe developing the park area which would mean that we probably would be more interested in abiding by the park ordinance. Couldn't we also say that the part that I am really concerned about is the Shorewood part that is so beautiful, and that they should not destroy the beauty of that wild area. I want the money too, but Is there a park there, you are saying? No, but there are no roads into that area, and it is the last wilderness in Shorewood I am sure. You are going to have to go to a Shorewood meeting. That might not be a bad idea. We might invite whoever is involved over there over to one of our meetings, or the next meeting possibly, to review what they have in mind. Who would you make aware, Phyllis? I don't know who would be on the Shorewood, I did have the name at one time. Mabley used to be on it, is he still in it? He was on the council. I don't know if they even have a park and rec. commissioner. Shorewood has a park and rec. They went to the ecological thing. They showed up to that. His name was John something. There was a fellow we met at that trail. Should we send a letter to them saying that whenever this comes up the next time, that they should show up at our meeting. Let that be the first contact. Unless you want to take it on personally. I think it would be better to do it as a commission. I'm really interested in it, but it would have a little more weight, and I would suspect that if they have any kind of a trail system we would like to link it with ours, it might be a good point in time to If any of you have a chance to drive back there, drive that Town Line Road up to Ridge Road on Christmas Lake, you will just see it. It is really beautiful. -7- WALT PHYLLIS WALT PHYLLIS PAT B. JOE FRAN JOE PHYLLIS FRAN PHYLLIS FRAN JOE FRAN SHIRLEY I guess it is Covington Road that would be the one. Drive Covington Road and then look south and you can see Silver Lake and the whole area. What road is it that you can see it from? Ridge Road is up here, and Covington Road runs into Ridge Road. ---' There is another Ridge Road, isn't there? You take Vine Hill and it is the first one to the left. Just over the hill. Look left. It goes back towards Christmas Lake and comes back out by Christmas Lake Hotels. And there is a cemetary up on top of the hill. I don't think we are talking about the same thing . That's the only way you can see Where is Twin Hills I would think that if we are really interested in some sort of a joint looking at this property with Shorewood, that we should make a motion stating that that is our wish rather than to wait 4 months and the thing is already approved and we haven't gone back to Shorewood. We are really doing Shorewood a favor by Phyllis There is really not much legally that we We are in a better position legally than Shorewood is. In terms of discipline, the use of the property, and getting some kind of remuneration If what you say is true, that they have no ordinance. To my knowledge, I don't know if they do. ...,1' Do you want to continue? Do you want to make a formal motion or do you just want to make ita No, I really think it should be seriously made a formal motion. I move that we contact the Shorewood Park and Rec. as a joint venture to look at the new proposed New Mountain Property. I think that is good enough. We don't really have to say why, until we sit down with them to see what they have to come up. The city or park commission, or The Park and Rec. Commissions of Chanhassen and Shorewood. To set up a joint meeting Is the tape running? I think so. Then can we rely on the tape, or do we have to wait for you to write it? ~ -8- FRAN II"""'JOE FRAN FRAN PAT PHYLLIS FRAN JOE PAT II""'" PAT ~. Well, I think you can rely on the tape, but I am just kind of backing it up. For the first few times here until we get sophisticated at it. How about that meeting that you did record, how was that? I just have someone to type it now. We finally got someone today. It sounded alright - Don sat over there and did most of the talking. I can't remember what meeting that was, To have a joint meeting Yes I second the motion I guess I've got down, to have a joint meeting. When would you like it, when we get the next information, or do you want us to pursue it within the next month or so. Why wait, we can always get started before they raise something and then we would have to tall them it is not what we want. Lets do it now. A joint meeting between the two councils as soon as possible. Two cormnissions. They might even have that master plan. Already done. Does anyone know that? What's the average length of time from a preliminary sketch like this to a Read that back... Pat Boyle moved that we contact Shorewood Park and Recreation Committee to have a joint meeting, getting the two cormnissions together as soon as possible. Wally Coudron seconded the motion. A joint meeting to what, explore the new development, or evaluate the proposed new development proposal. 12/22/78 - Preliminary sketch plan To evaluate the New Mountain Property project - 12/22/78. I think that we are absolutely making decisions that If everyone agrees that that is what we are doing, we are trying to direct them forceably in the direction of looking at that alternative, but we are not saying that's an absolute thing. All right, well lets ask for some figures then on the population for that north area. -9- FRAN FRAN JOE FRAN PAT PHYLLIS PAT PHYLLIS You put that in the form of, well I don't know, do you want a motion on that Fran? I don't think we need it, it's just picking numbers and projecting those numbered houses and population of Eklund and Swedlund and in the north service area. ....." Are we still in communication with the state as far as an access? The DNR Yes Did the DNR decide to put in another access besides this one? We had a meeting with them a month ago, the beginning of December, and the way they talked they are like two to three years - we thought the fish management thing was already in and they are almost l~ to 2 years away from putting that in, much less considering their boat landing access over there. They have filed an option on this Well, I'll go along with those figures we want the population. We want numbers of people for how many acres of park. Somebody looked at giving us another sketch plan. Substituting other facilities for a swimming pool. What is the maximum utilization you can get out of that property, without a swimming pool? It's got to be a major trade off. Something like that with 2 different kinds I like the concept of using trails to connect Eklund and Swedlund by bicycle, versus 130 car parking lot. --' Is there anything else? Shirley Chellis made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Walter Coudron seconded the motion. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ~espeetrully submitted, Francis Callahan Community Services Director ..."" -10-