Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19Lakevi(e • PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE Minutes for meeting on: September 19, 2007 ITEM 1 Call to order. The meeting was called to order in the Council Chambers at 6:01 p.m. ITEM 2 Roll call. Committee members present were: J. Hayes, T. Goodwin, K. Miller, S. Kelly, J. Peterson, and H. Lovelace. Roger Walia was absent due to a personal conflict. Pat Messinger was not in attendance due to a work conflict. Also present were Parks and Recreation Director Steve Michaud, Environmental Resources Manager Mac Lafferty, and Recording Secretary T J. Ruter. Chair Miller greeted and addressed the visitors in the audience; he confirmed that they were all in attendance for agenda item 7. ITEM 3 Approval of September 5, 2007 meeting minutes. The minutes of the September 5, 2007 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee meeting were presented. They were approved as written. ITEM 4 Citizen comments. There were no citizens present at the meeting for items other than those scheduled on the agenda. ITEM 5 Staff reports and summary of current projects. Steve Michaud reported that the Casperson Park soccer fields were seeded and mulched, and the design • specifications for the new well system will go to bid in a couple of weeks. Barr Engineering has been designing the specifications. Steve also reported. that the Lakeville Art Festival was held last weekend, September 15 and 16. The event had great weather and several hundred people were in attendance. Steve also briefly described the community art project planned by the Art Festival Director Rhonda Berg. The mosaic depicting Van Gogh's painting, Starry Night, was a success. Steve then asked if committee members had any questions. Tom Goodwin commented that he and his wife had been walking down by Orchard Lake and noticed that the turf is in rough shape. Steve Michaud replied the retaining wall replacement construction took place this summer at the park. Tom clarified that both the beach and the park needed work. Steve commented that after the significant rainfall a couple weeks ago, the turf came back to life well in most areas, but not in some. He reiterated that park maintenance will take a look at it again because the area might have already been identified by maintenance staff to be addressed. ITEM 6 The Greenway 4`'' Addition preliminary and final plat. Steve explained the background information about the plat. He indicated that it had originally been reviewed by staff and approved by the committee back in 2001. Mac Lafferty then summarized the environmental details of the plat. (07.24) Motion made by Goodwin and seconded by Lovelace to recommend City Council consider approval of The Greenway 4`" Addition preliminary and final plat. The original Greenway plat was approved in 2001 and a substantial greenway corridor with portions of a future park was dedicated to the City to meet the entire Greenway plat park dedication requirements. • Finally, the developer is required to follow any other recommendation outlined in the Planning and Engineering reports as they pertain to this plat. The developer is also required to follow the natural resources requirement detailed in the Planning and Engineering reports associated with tree preservation, Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Con-uruttee Page 2 September 19, 2007 . .grading, drainage, and erosion control and further recommendations by the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, if applicable. 5-Ayes O-Nays Motion passed. .Note: Judy Hayes arrived at the meeting at 6:10 p.m. ITEM 7 Kent 46 preliminary and final plat. Chair Miller warmly welcomed the visitors again and explained how he wanted to handle the discussion of the plat: staff would make its usual presentation to the committee first, then the committee would ask questions and have its discussion, he would then open the forum for public comment, and then the committee would resume with its discussion. Everyone agreed to this format. Steve gave the background information on the plat. Mac Lafferty spoke in great detail about the environmental aspects of the development and how the new revised plat lessens the impact to the trees. He also spoke about Outlot A which is now proposed to be dedicated to the City by the developer. Outlot A consists of 3.6 acres; of that acreage, approximately .5 is storm water basin, .6 is wetland, and the remaining 2.5 is a wooded area with mature trees, an under story,. and some nice existing trails. He reported that staff has been working closely with the developer regarding changes and modifications to the storm water drainage system. Additionally, Mac explained the significant changes to the retaining walls and how the two-wall system saves the most trees which will be better for everyone. Finally, he commented on the tree preservation aspects of the plat. • Steve Michaud explained that there are no designated park search areas required in this planning district per review of the Parks, Trails, and Open Space System Plan. However, standard trail and sidewalk requirements apply as described in the Planning and Engineering reports. Tom Goodwin inquired if most of the site is landlocked for drainage. Mac Lafferty answered that it is landlocked and for now it will go to a storm water basin, then the wetland, and then to Lee Lake. Chair Miller further inquired if staff had spoken to the MN DNR about it. Mac responded that staff has been in contact with the DNR. Tom Goodwin inquired about saving trees on the southern line in the narrow space between the street and the edge of the existing homeowners' properties. Mac explained the two-tier retaining wall system and how it will aid in saving those trees as well as provide an area for additional plantings. Chair Miller asked it is going to be planted. Mac confirmed that it will be planted with trees. Howard Lovelace then inquired about the maintenance of this area. Mac replied that it would be the property owner's responsiblity. Chair Miller then asked for other questions from the committee members. At 6:28 p.m., he opened up the discussion for public. comment. Robert (Bob) Sommerdorf, 11115 Kenora Way Mr. Sommerdorf expressed his concern about the heavy impact this plat would have on his home directly as well as for the broader neighborhood community. He asked Mac a question concerning a bluff zone in a wetland. Mac responded that his question could best be address at the Planning Commission's meeting tomorrow night. Mr. Sommerdorf then asked for an explanation of the process. Chair Miller responded by explaining the role of the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Committee. Steve Michaud also added • some additional information regarding the role of the committee. Mr. Sommerdorf then pointed to the map and asked fox an explanation of an inconsistency because the high point shown on the map is currently a low point. Mac Lafferty explained the hydrology to the resident and explained that map depicts what it will look like in the future. Steve Michaud added that it was Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Conu~iittee September 19, 2007 Page 3 • Mac's idea to relocate the smaller pond which was an improvement from the original plan. Mr. Sommerdorf then inquired about the liability for the City with a pond. Steve Michaud addressed his concern by explaining the standards that have been in place for many years; he also mentioned that the City currently has over hundreds of ponds, not to mention several lakes. Mr. Sommerdorf expressed his opinion that the developer had no choice in the matter in giving Outlot A to the City. He explained that he is losing sleep over the matter as well. He commented that the City doesn't have many parks on the west side and that green space can potentially create other issues, especially with roaming teenagers who have nothing to do. Steve Michaud expressed that City staff has been working with the developer since the beginning of the concept and communicated that he is pleased by many of the improvements and compromises made in the process. Mr. Sommerdorf's final comments were addressed to the entire committee regarding the process the City uses for its development; he feels that member don't vote on it until it's too late in the process for any other changes. He expressed that the residents do no feel that their voices are being heard in the process and warned that tax dollars may be lost because of the project. He then thanked the committee for its time. Doug Arneson, 11120 Kenora Way Mr. Arneson also emphasized the impact this plat would have on their community. He has lived in other places around Lakeville and made reference to the strong community aspect of why Lakeville was considered one of the best places in which to live. He feels that newer developments are taking away from the community aspect. Mr. Arneson complimented Mac and his staff for their strong efforts in revitalizing Lee Lake. He communicated that his major concern is the effect on the lake because it seems to constantly lack the water it needs. He expressed his concern that the developer is going to haul out the snow and gave • his own explanation of how the drainage scenario might work in his mind. He urged the committee to think about the impact to the lake. He also asked Mac about the tree preservation policy and questioned whether it was a good tradeoff for the City. He expressed his opinion that tree preservation should be changed to a 1:1 ratio and the developers guarantee should be extended for longer than one year. Finally, he suggested that a true buffer area be created by the homes to protect them more effectively from noise and vehicle headlights. Steve Michaud respectfully gave the group and the committee some historical information on commercial properties in the City of Lakeville from his many years of working for the City. He explained that many acres were just clear cut and graded in the past. City staff is currently reviewing the tree preservation policy, but there are also legal issues as to what the City can and cannot make a developer do. Mr. Arneson's final suggestion was to have additional tree clusters planted where the neighbors live. Chris Drake, 11242 Kenworth Lane Mr. Drake expressed that the neighborhood has a petition against the completion of Kent Trail. He communicated that no one wants it to go through their neighborhood. However, he understood that the City wants it open for emergency access. For these reasons, Mr. Drake presented his idea to save the big oak trees in the area and create a park in that space. He requested the money paid by the developer for the park dedication fee to be used for the proposed park. (Note: the proposed park was located at the future intersection of future Dent and-which blocked the ability for the road to be extended.) He then passed around a copy of his plan to the committee members. • Brooks Lillehei,11146 Kenora Way Mr. Lillehei asked if the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Committee had already given a recommendation on this plat based on some of the information he had been reading. Chair Miller replied that the committee had not yet made a recommendation. Mr. Lillehei's first request was to have the committee table the final plat and asked that the members spend more time reviewing the information in Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee September 19, 2007 Page 4 • the packets. He suggested that the preliminary plat be reviewed. Mr. Lillehei also piggybacked on Mr. Drake's recommendation regarding the park area; he also felt this request was a reasonable compromise for all parties. He inquired about using the $60,000 paid by the developer for this purpose. Steve briefly explained the City's process for the park dedication fund; the money paid by the developer goes into the park dedication fund and the funds are allocated as part of the City's five-year Comprehensive Improvement Plan (CIP). There are a variety of priorities within the system currently being funded. Finally, he also commented that the park dedication fund also funds the larger community parks, like Casperson and Antlers, as well as athletic facilities that children and adults from throughout Lakeville utilize. Mr. Lillehei expressed concerns over the storm water basin and asked Mac to answer some questions regarding the cleaning standards of them. Chair Miller posed an additional question regarding the standard inspection practices of staff during the construction phase. Mac responded that staff takes an active role during the construction phase to ensure best practices. Mr. Lillehei then took the committee through some of recommendations of the planning report starting with page 20. He asked under 9b that the committee adopt this same plan on the south side for the residents in order to prevent and minimize headlight glare. He also referred to 9d and asked that additional clusters be adopted in some manner to provide more screening. Then, he referred to item 18 on page 21 and asked that the committee adopt it as well. Steve Michaud expressed that many of these screening issues might be best handled by the Planning Conunission. Mac Lafferty agreed and explained some additional details about how the City enforces the tree preservation ordinance. Finally, he asked the committee about their approach on shoreland overlay districts. • Tom Goodwin answered on behalf of the committee members and explained how there is an important understanding that Mac and staff have done everything possible to maximize ordinance requirements in a shoreland overlay district. Tom also commented that he is committed to preserving the trees on all plats. He expressed that he would like to see more saved trees on the south side with minimal impact, but maximum preservation.. Finally, he explained that he asked some similar question on the Argonne Village plat, such as the reduction of parking spaces. However, the reduction can potentially create other problems. He concluded that staff has done its best to preserve and protect existing. trees. Mr. Lillehei took the committee through the letter from Pat Lynch and wanted to clarify some. points. He did not think Mr. Lynch was in support of the plat and that the wording in the letter was: "The DNR is not opposed to the proposed Kent 46 plat." He thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak. Ginny Lampert, 11062 Kenora Way Mrs. Lampert reiterated the same concerns as hex neighbors with regard to the shoreland overlay district, green space issues, noise, lights, and parking. She commented that the developer has looked at removing some parking spaces, but for that reason, she feels that this piece of land many not be the right development for the area. She expressed that she feels the developer is trying to stretch the rules as well. Finally, she commented that this development will affect two natural resources: the environment with the lack of green space and the children who will not benefit from this development. Thomas Groves, 11155 Kenora Way • Mr. Groves described the exact location of his home and expressed that he sees no benefit in opening Kent Trail on to County Road 46. He also commented that there are many children in the neighborhood, including his grandchildren, who like to play and the community is very worried about potential traffic entering their neighborhood. He reiterated the need for a park and urged the committee to seriously Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee Page 5 September 19, 2007 • consider this possibility. Finally, he communicated about the future loss of his oak trees in his yard as well as the potential noise and light disturbances from the development. A discussion ensued regarding the water table and perched groundwater. Some of the residents revisited some additional drainage questions and Mac answered them. Chair Miller then inquired if there were more public comments. Scott Alman,16240 Kenora Court Mr. Alman expressed his relief that there would not be a cul-de-sac behind his home because he has lots of trees there. He wanted to be sure that the trees would not be cut down. Mac answered his questions and showed him on the map the trees that will go and ones to be saved. Gene Happe, Developer Mr. Happe expressed a couple of comments in response to all the individuals who had spoken to the committee so far. He said he appreciated the comments and wished that all the changes people would like to see could be possible. However, they have been through 12 plans so far and were still making changes up through this week. He explained that the City and citizens have requested several changes which he and the company have accepted. They have agreed to give approximately $750,000 worth of land to the City as well as the over $60,000 park dedication fee. Mr. Happe further explained that they didn't have a strong opinion of Kent Trail. The City and Dakota County made the decision that the road would go through to County Road 46. He then told the residents directly that, whether they knew it or not, the City of Lakeville has been their ally from the start. He expressed that they have bent over backwards to find compromises and make changes. Finally, he said there have been many good comments this evening, but they have done everything they can. They feel strongly that they have met every ordinance and policy from the City. Shirley Groves, 11155 Kenora Way Mrs. Groves expressed that the project is in her backyard and questioned why a facility that serves alcohol would make sense to be placed near a residential area. She further expressed that it's a really bad idea and reiterated that there is not enough space for all the buildings that are being proposed. Steve Lampert, 11062 Kenora Way Mr. Lampert asked if the committee had approved a commercial development in a shoreland overlay district before or if this one would be the first one. Mac Lafferty gave the example of the Airlake development/industry. Tom Goodwin also mentioned the Orchard Lake area. He then clarified that it would be the first commercial development in the Lee Lake district. Chair Miller closed public comment at 8 p.m. He thanked the Kenwood Oaks neighborhood for attending the meeting, making their comments, and asking their questions. Steve Michaud commented that committee members have several other suggestions to consider, but some could be better addressed by the Planning Commission at tomorrow night's meeting. He further added that based on the current park standards, a park in the area described by the neighbors would not meet minimum requirements. A discussion ensued among committee members and staff regarding the feasibility of rain gardens. Mac • Lafferty explained the life expectancy of a rain garden is lower because it can be more high maintenance. Chair Miller also inquired as to how staff would coordinate the process of installing some kind of tree barrier on the south side. Mac showed the landscape plan and explained the details of the new trees to be planted along with the saved trees. He also reiterated that they have worked closely with the developer and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee September 19, 2007 Page 6 have had many revisions as Mr. Happe had mentioned earlier. Chair Miller closed the discussion at 8:15 p.m. and then called for a motion. (07.25) Motion by Kelly to recommend City Council consider approval of the Kent 46 preliminary and final plat. The developer will construct aten-foot wide concrete sidewalk on the west side of Kenyon Avenue from the private drive into the site north to connect into the existing trail on 162nd Street. The developer shall also construct aten-foot wide commercial sidewalk on the east side of Kent Trail. This sidewalk will be only afive-foot wide sidewalk from the existing sidewalk north to the proposed private drive through the site. The developer will also construct afive-foot wide residential style sidewalk on the west side of Kent Trail from the existing sidewalk north to 162nd Street. The commercial area of Lots 1 through 3, Block 1 must pay the park dedication fee. The current park dedication rate fox commercial areas is $7,058 per acre. The total area of Lots 1 through 3 is 8.79 acres. The park dedication fee due with this development is $62,039.82. Finally, the developer is required to follow any other recommendation outlined in the Planning and Engineering reports as they pertain to this plat. The developer is also required to follow the natural resources requirement detailed in the Planning and Engineering reports associated with tree preservation, grading, drainage, and erosion control and further recommendations by the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, if applicable. Motion failed due to lack of a second. The committee members held some additional discussion around the monitoring of the developer with respect to the environmental aspects of the plan. Steve Michaud and Mac Lafferty reiterated that it is standard practice and is the same with every plat that comes through the City. (07.26) Motion by Goodwin and seconded by Hayes recommend City Council consider approval of the Kent 46 prelin-unary and final plat. A 10-foot wide sidewalk will be constructed on the west side of Kenyon Avenue from 162nd Street (CSAH 46) to the north side of the common driveway serving Block 1. A 10-foot wide sidewalk will also be constructed on the east side of Kent Trail from 162nd Street (CSAH 46) to the north side of the common driveway serving Block 1. Five-foot wide sidewalks will be constructed on the west side of Kent Trail from 162nd Street (CSAH 46) to the end of the existing sidewalk in Kenwood Oaks and on the east side of Kent Trail from the south side of the common driveway serving Block 1 south to the existing sidewalk in Kenwood Oaks. The developer will also construct afive-foot wide sidewalk on the north side of the common driveway serving Block 1. A sidewalk will be constructed along the south side of the common driveway between the office parking area to facilitate access to the Brunswick Zone site in consideration of the proposed joint parking agreement. The developer is responsible for the entire cost of constructing the sidewalks. The commercial area of Lots 1 through 3, Block 1 must pay the park dedication fee. The current park dedication rate for commercial areas is $7,058 per acre. The total area of Lots 1 through 3 is 8.79 acres. The park dedication fee due with this development is $62,039.82. The Parks, Recreation, 'and Natural Resources Committee further recommends consideration be given to inclusion of depressed curbs in the parking lot to accommodate a rain garden infiltration system. Further, the committee recommends additional screening to be incorporated along the south property line to further protect existing homes from vehicle headlights. Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee Page 7 September 19, 2007 Finally, the developer is required to follow any other recommendation outlined in the Planning and Engineering reports as they pertain to this plat. The developer is also required to follow the natural resources requirement detailed in the Planning and Engineering reports associated with tree preservation, grading, drainage, and erosion control and further recommendations by the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, if applicable. 6-Ayes 0-Nays Motion passed. Chair Miller thanked the residents again for attending the meeting. Steve Michaud also thanked the residents for their comments and suggestions. ITEM 8 Unfinished business. There were no items to discuss. ITEM 9 New business. Steve Michaud explained that he will be out of the office from Tuesday to Friday next week at the National Recreation and Parks Association conference. He also communicated that the state conference will be held in St. Paul on November 14-16. There has been funding in the budget for members to attend, so Steve encouraged committee members to attend if they have the time. Steve will get the information to everyone when it's published. • Steve then presented the email from John Hennen regarding the cost breakdown for installation of electrical service and a light pole for a typical pleasure skating area. Chair Miller expressed that he would like to table any dtscussion of a skating facility at Chadwick Park for a future meeting so that he and other committee members could get a better understanding of neighborhood park skating facilities and how this decision might impact future decisions. Steve suggested that it could go on the agenda for the second meeting in October. Finally, Howard Lovelace and his wife were watching the City cable channel and saw Dan Brettschneider at Lakeridge Park. He suggested that staff have a map and show or explain the location for the television audience. ITEM 10 Announcements. The next meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee is scheduled fox October 3, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall (Council Chambers). ITEM 11 Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Tarn~y ~o Ruter, Recording Secretary r~ LJ AGENDA ITEM 7 THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Committee Kent 46 preliminary and final plat September 19, 2007 Nam (Please Print) Street Address (Please Print) Phone No. ~~ ~.~il ~ ti ~ ~~~~ ~7 ' 1 ~ ~-«I~~~. ~ ~ ` ~~ ~ 73 f ~ ~~.o ~-~ vas l 1 l ,~ ~ -e~ ~ e ~ ~~ ~~~ - ~- t C~ ~~-r>c~.kS 1--~ I t ~I~~~- l (I'~1v Kev,e~-~ ~rv~ ~~~.- 89a-.~'~ ~ >~