Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.11.05 Council Minutes JOINT COUNCIL/SCHOOL BOARD MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JULY 11, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 8:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Soderberg led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Council Members Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson School Board Members Present: Davis, Donnelly, Manthey, Privette, Weyandt Also Present: David Urbia, Robin Roland, Kevin Carroll, Dan Siebenaler, Randy Distad, Lee Mann, Lisa Shadick, Brenda Wendlandt, Brad Meeks, Doug Bonar, Aaron Tinklenberg, Steve Dibb, Rosalyn Pautzke, Jane Houska, Bill Patterson, Karen Bergman, Barb Duffrin, Carla Nohr Schulz, Monica Kittock-Sargent, Lori Jensen, Kevin Littman, Griff Davenport, Ed Terhaar, Tom Kaldunski Audience: Tom Ford, Michelle Leonard 2. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Pritzlaff added 3b) Council discussion on three requests from the school at the last Council meeting. Mayor Soderberg noted at some point in the discussion we will talk about the Flagstaff site and at that point the district would ask for Council's thoughts on those requests. Dr. Meeks agreed. Mayor Soderberg stated the City received the traffic study this week and he received a hard copy after the close of business on Friday. The City Engineer has not had any opportunity to review it. The Traffic Engineer reviewed it and made some comments to the school's Traffic Engineer. Mayor Soderberg suggested adding the comments to item 7 on the agenda. 3. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITE(S) - CITY Community Development Director Carroll stated staffhas looked at options for other sites. Staffhas looked at this for three reasons. One is because residents have asked if this is the only viable site, are there other sites, if so what are the pro's and con's of each site. The second reason is that staffhas been asked similar questions by Councilmembers and felt the need to provide them with information in that regard. The third and most important reason is because generally speaking staffbelieves having options and alternatives available is always a good thing, especially when it is difficult or impossible to predict how other agencies including the Met Council are going to handle issues such as the comp plan amendment that would be required here. Everyone is aware even if the Council chooses to approve the comp plan amendment it still needs to go to the Met Council. No one knows what the Met Council would do with that. Some have said that if the City Council recommends a comp plan amendment to the Met Council that the Met Council is almost certain to approve it. Others have said that the Met Council will reserve its jurisdiction and its discretion to decide for itself what sort of impact the comp Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 2 plan amendment would have on the City of Farmington and the region generally. With regard to the comp plan amendments recently submitted to the Met Council they seem to be getting a higher level of scrutiny than anticipated. Even with regard to relatively straight forward comp plan amendments. There is a 5-acre infill development on the east side of Akin Road, Mattson Farms. Staff hoped the Met Council would approve it administratively by their staff but they have decided it needs to go through the entire Met Council review process which means a multi-level staff review, then it goes to the Community Development Committee and then it goes to the Met Council as a whole. This is for a 5-10t, 5-acre uncontested type of development. There is at least a chance that something ofthis magnitude would get at least that level of scrutiny by the Met Council, which is why staff feels looking at alternatives and trying to determine if there are any that would be less problematic for the Met Council, is not a fruitless endeavor. Staffbelieves there are a number of alternatives, but for this discussion staffhas selected one for consideration. It has been suggested to staff that the Seed-Genstar property would be an appropriate location for a high school under some circumstances. It makes sense that when you are looking at the largest building project that the City will ever do that you look at the largest single property owner or the largest future developer in Farmington to see if a site can be accommodated on their property. Staff distributed an aerial photo showing the boundaries ofthe Seed property. The property is still in Empire Township, but an orderly annexation agreement has been in place for a number of years. Under the terms of that agreement the City has the unilateral right to annex the property without any opposition from the township. Staff focused attention on the southern portion of the site. The property has been broken up into segments. The area to the east of the railroad tracks, which run through the site from the southeast to the northwest, separate off a couple parcels on the east side too small to consider for high school sites. On the east side of the railroad tracks between the tracks and hwy 3 there are some parcels both north and south ofthe future alignment of 195th Street that could potentially serve as a high school location. Staff focused attention on parcel E. This is 94 acres. There is a gas pipeline that separates the area into two pieces. There is a 60-62-acre piece on the east side ofthe gas pipeline and on the west side ofhwy 3. Along the railroad tracks there is a 30-acre parcel. Staff has had past discussions with school district representatives indicating conceptually the City would consider the possibility of placing City parkland adjacent to a high school site so that the school district would be able to reduce its acreage requirements and thereby reduce the cost of acquiring the land. Staff took the latest site plan and separated out the individual components and assigned acreages to them. The high school itself is a little less than 12 acres, the stadium and related fields are a total of 10 acres, and the 952-space parking lot is a little more than 10 acres. You have 30-32 acres out ofthe 110 acre site that consists ofthree main elements, the non-athletic field components. The 20Sth Street right-of-way has been identified as a separate portion because there will be some discussion as to whether the 20Sth Street right-of-way can be used for football or soccer fields as shown on the site plan. The 20Sth Street right-of-way cuts off almost a 4-acre remnant in the corner that is probably largely unusable. If you take out the 20Sth Street right-of-way and the remnant parcel a 110-acre sight goes down to 94 usable acres, which is comparable to the Seed-Genstar property. Staff cut out the individual portions of the site plan and arranged them on the aerial photo Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 3 of the Seed-Genstar property to show which components could physically fit on the site. It is not intended to be a design ofthe school district's property. The aerial photo also shows the proposed alignment of 195th Street. 19Sth Street is being extended to the east as part of the Parkview Ponds development on the south side of 195th Street. It will be extended further to the east as part of the Mystic Meadows subdivision. The alignment has been preliminarily determined to be the eventual alignment by the City Engineers. There will be a bridge over the railroad tracks and either a bridge or some type of spanning over the wetlands on the west side of the railroad tracks. The area for the fields is 30-34 acres. The area for the school building and parking lots is about 60 acres. All the structures, fields, building, parking lots are on property owned by Seed- Genstar. The primary access to the site would be a north-south road that would intersect with 195th Street. On the south side there would be a road passing in front ofthe parking lot. The State has been working on a Hwy 3 Access Management Study. They have anticipated there would be a full four-way intersection at 195th Street and hwy 3. They have anticipated the other full intersection would be at 197th Street and hwy 3. 197th Street runs in front of the Empire Town Hall. The map shows potential other connections which are existing connections to hwy 3. The State has indicated a desire to eventually close off accesses like that. Ifthose accesses were closed off because of spacing requirements it would necessitate some other type of connection to enable the people on 194th Street to get out. That would involve either a frontage road along hwy 3 or a backage road along the railroad tracks. If the property to the south is ever developed they would need some north-south roads in the vicinity ofthe railroad tracks for internal access. That provides another access to the high school site from the south. There are a variety of different ways to arrange the pieces. Staffhas shown 7 soccer or football fields and 2 baseball fields. That does not mean that is what has to happen. Staff is prepared to recommend to the Council that any combination of fields go on that property. The expectation of the Park and Recreation Director is that the competition fields remain on the high school property, and practice fields remain on the adjacent City property. The fields could be arranged in any way. This is just a conceptual layout. Dr. Meeks asked for a narrative of what Community Development Director Carroll is explaining. Staff will prepare one after the meeting. Member Donnelly asked about the curve in the alignment of 195th Street to the northeast and why they did not go straight to hwy 3. Community Development Director Carroll replied that was the original plan. In the City's Thoroughfare plan in the 2020 Comp Plan it was anticipated it would go straight which would have been a better connection. Dakota County did not move quickly enough to reserve right-of-way on the east side of hwy 3. Empire Township platted a residential development on the east side ofhwy 3 that blocked that access. Empire Township has factored this alignment in with their Providence Development. Community Development Director Carroll distributed other concept plans showing a 60- 62 acre high school site at 195th Street and hwy 3 and 30-32 acres of City athletic fields adjacent to that. That is the type of partnership opportunities that exist here that may not Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July II, 2005 Page 4 exist on the Christensen site. There is so little residential development near the Christensen site and so little that is anticipated near there, staff did not know if the Park and Rec Commission would have an interest in putting athletic fields on the far western side of the community at this stage. There is an interest in having them on the Seed- Genstar property because of the amount of development that will occur in the vicinity. The common elements are the access off of 195th Street to the south. The road would curve and intersect to hwy 3. This would have to be a right-in, right-out based on the County's spacing guidelines. Staff feels this would work well. This access would be used for traffic emptying out to hwy 3 and going south. Traffic going to other areas of Farmington would use the full intersection on the north side and take 195th Street to the west. There would be very little traffic taking 195th Street to hwy 3 and go north or south. The golf course has been identified as a development location also. A company has an option to purchase it. Development would be occurring within a year or two. Staff provided a comparison of the Christensen property and the Seed-Genstar property and looked at the site with regard to the parameters identified two years ago as part of the high school siting process. The first 18 parameters are captione,d land acquisition history probably prepared by Evergreen. The document indicates that Evergreen searched for properties matching certain size and location parameters provided by the district. There was a sub-committee of the district's planning committee that had O. Rider and two school board members and later Directors Pautzke, Bonar and Principal Kittock-Sargent joined the sub-committee and then seven volunteers met to discuss their preferences on location, recreational amenities and other aspects of site selection. The public input was given to the sub-committee and the properties were ranked according to the parameters. Stafflisted the parameters exactly as they were and staff objectively looked at which of the sites more closely matched the parameters. The comments indicate why staff indicated which one was the prevailing site. Staff highlighted the main points. There was a document distributed after the July 5,2005 Council Meeting prepared by staff that indicated under the right circumstances and based on assumptions staff thinks have validity it is possible that building a high school on the Seed site could save several million dollars. Staff acknowledges that the land costs are going to be greater than the cost of the Christensen property. There could be a reduction of 90% in the infrastructure costs related to the development of the site. Regarding proximity to a major road, even if Flagstaff is paved staff believes hwy 3 has been and will always be more of a major roadway. It would be easy to describe to people how to find it. Regarding proximity to population, staff distributed a map showing areas in the urban reserve according to the comp plans of Farmington and Lakeville. The Seed-Genstar site is identified, the Christensen site and also the Fountain Valley Golf Course. The map also indicates where development is now occurring or expected to occur in the near future. The Seed-Genstar property, without a high school, is projected to have 2400-2800 housing units. Mystic Meadows and Parkview Ponds will have 800 units and 147 units respectively. The developments going in in Empire Township on the east side ofhwy 3 will have between 600-800 units when built out. This relates to parameter number 3 - proximity to Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 5 population. The Seed-Genstar property will be more proximate to those developments in addition to being closer to existing developments in Farmington. MUSA approval- the southern 250 acres of the Seed-Genstar site already has MUSA and has for a number of years. This was approved by the Met Council in 2000 when they approved the 2020 comp plan update. That property was not included in the MUSA review process a year ago because the property already has MUSA. City of Farmington support was identified as a factor as well as township support if applicable. Empire and Castle Rock would theoretically be more interested in the Seed-Genstar property than the Christensen site because of the distance to the site from where the residents live. Both sites are comparable with regard to soil conditions, water table, etc. Access onto the site is an important issue with regard to timing of construction. Staff understands building on the Christensen site would necessitate either working around the improvements made to Flagstaff including paving and installation of other utilities and/or building a temporary road that would access Cedar Avenue to come in from the west. Access to the Seed site could be obtained immediately either through an entrance placed near the future intersection of 195th Street and hwy 3 or there is a farm road access to the north of this property that could be used to gain access to the site for construction purposes. Staff feels it would be faster and easier to get into the Seed site. Sewer and water extensions - as the Seed property is developed or 195th Street installed it is anticipated that sewer and water would be extended as part of that or shortly thereafter. The distances are shorter than extending utilities to the Christensen site and most importantly from a cost perspective, rather than the school district bearing the majority ofthe cost of the sewer and water extension, the cost could be borne primarily by the developer that would benefit from that. There is cost sharing with the Seed site you would not have available elsewhere. Regarding visibility - showcase location - community pride, the City would be proud of the school regardless of where it is located. In terms of the showcase, staff recalled a discussion at a recent meeting about the Christensen site being a gateway to Farmington. You could consider it a gatewa~ ifthere were a gate nearby. There will be an access from Cedar Avenue along the 208t Street alignment eventually that will be one way into Farmington, but it is unknown at present as to when that road will be constructed. Hwy 3 has always been a gateway to Farmington and probably always will be. In terms of visibility the views to the north and the east will be residential, athletic fields to the south will be screened by some heavily wooded trees, and the views to the west will be athletic fields, open space, etc. The area to the south of the Christensen site and on the north side ofhwy 50, staff feels most likely the use of that property will be commercial or industrial. Hwy 50 is a major corridor and it would be wasted to put residential units against hwy 50 between the high school and hwy 50. The views to the south from the Christensen site would be the backsides of industrial or commercial operations. Connection to agriculture - the Christensen property has been farmed for some time. The Seed-Genstar property includes Fair Hills Farm which has been there for a long time, the Seed family was very involved in the Cargill Corporation. Having agricultural curriculum in the high school program would work as well on the Seed site as anywhere. Avoiding a condemnation or hostile relocation - on both sites there is no need to relocate anyone. There are some people renting some space on the Seed property, but there plan is to go elsewhere and would not be affected by any development CounciJJSchool Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 6 south of 195th Street. It is undetermined if condemnation would be needed for the site and that is related to the fact as to whether you have a willing seller. The Christensen site meets that parameter more clearly because the property has already been sold to a willing seller. Staff has had indications from the owners or developers ofthe Seed property that they would consider selling. They would be potential willing sellers under the right circumstances. The topography of both sites is the same. The shape of the lot is more rectangular or square than the Christensen site. An L-shaped site creates some challenges for design that a rectangle or square would not. Other relevant factors that were not specifically considered as part of the process that resulted in the initial factors being adopted included the comprehensive plan. The City's comp plan already shows the Seed- Genstar property being designated as residential. It could be zoned to a designation consistent with the comp plan designation. The bottom line is no Met Council approval would be needed for the MUSA or for the comp plan amendment. So that would be eliminated as a factor or a potential risk. Environmental review is a question that has come up recently. The entire Seed-Genstar property was subject to a 6-9 month AUAR. The AUAR includes traffic analysis, soil conditions, depth to bedrock, topography, etc. City Engineer Mann addressed the distinctions between the Christensen property and the Seed property with regard to environmental review. Staff distributed a memo outlining the difference in the time frames and the steps that would have to be taken to revise the AUAR. The AUAR could be revised without any objections in an 8-week period, which compares to an EA Wand the range of 4-6 months. If the revision process were to begin on August 1 it could be complete by the end of September. The Christensen site is in the Special Waters area. The Seed-Genstar site is not and therefore has some additional flexibility in the design. The major issue for the AUAR for Seed-Genstar was storm water running to North Creek. There are provisions in the AUAR for that. There is a portion of the site that does flow to the east under hwy 3 and through Empire Township. There is more flexibility and overall comprehensive plan for the storm water drainage on the Seed-Genstar site that could allow for additional flexibility. The trout stream is called the Special Waters district by the MPCA. Based on proximity that any site is to the special waters, the Vermillion River and South Creek, would require a higher level of storm water mitigation especially in the area oftemperature. The main way to deal with that is with infiltration and swales to allow the water to evaporate or infiltrate and not sit in ponds. Councilmember Wilson asked if the requirements with the Special Waters would be similar to Vermillion River Crossing and would a timeframe to work through that be over and above the 4-6 months. City Engineer Mann replied it would be similar to Vermillion River Crossings. The Christensen site being further away may have some different issues but the overall issue of temperature mitigation would be treated the same. If the Christensen site moves forward, staff would need to meet with the agencies to find out what they would be looking for and what would satisfy the MPCA rules and incorporate that into whatever environmental review is being done. Community Development Director Carroll noted there are a number of agencies that get involved in environmental issues. All agencies have already looked at the Seed-Genstar site as part ofthe AUAR. None of the agencies have given any consideration to the Christensen property. Staff Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 7 does not know how involved that may be. The environmental issues for the Spruce Street area took much longer to resolve than anticipated. This was due to the fact that a lot of the agencies had not coordinated things very well in advance with regard to what their requirements were. Those types of complications could arise with any site. It is a plus all the agencies have already looked closely at the Seed property. Dr. Meeks asked about the process with the AUAR or the EA W, when they are out there reviewing it do they do that knowing what is being proposed for development? When they first looked at the Seed property, they probably thought houses. Now with the school going out there would their review take a different angle? Community Development Director Carroll replied the 60-acre area shown as a potential site, Dr. Meeks is right, that was identified as a low-density residential development. The agencies made certain assumptions as to what the storm water runoff would be and how much traffic would be generated. The main reason for amending the AUAR would be to give the agencies new information as to what would go on that property. 60 acres at a density of 3 units an acre might have been looking at 180 houses. They would have to compare the storm water runoff from the impervious surface related to 180 houses and compare that to what it would be for the school facilities. They do the same thing with traffic. They made some assumption as to how much traffic would be going onto 195th Street or hwy 3 based on those 180 houses. They would have to look at what a high school would generate in terms of volume of traffic and timing. That is the main reason for revising the AUAR. They would look at that as only one part ofthe entire development. The revision process exists to give the agencies an opportunity to comment on whether they see those changes to be significant. Staff feels they would respond favorably. The 30-34 acre park site would have very little storm water runoff compared to putting houses on that property. In some ways it might be more attractive. Community Development Director Carroll wanted to address one concern that was raised. Staff acknowledged railroad tracks and pipelines are issues that have to be dealt with. As shown in Concept A the distance from the gas pipeline to the closest portion of the school building is greater than the distance between the gas pipelines that exist near the middle school and the gas pipeline that exists near Akin Elementary. In both cases, the gas pipelines are located 900-1000 ft. from the nearest portion of the building. At the middle school site there are three gas pipelines passing through the western portion ofthe athletic fields along Akin. At Akin Elementary there is one gas pipeline running along the west side of the fields. Dr. Meeks had sent an e-mail regarding parking on City property on the parkland. Part ofthe reason for showing spaces is to put in additional parking if required. Ifthe school believes that putting more parking on the park property benefited the school more than putting fields there, the City would be prepared to consider that. The pipeline is an issue, but some gas companies have been more willing to allow things to be put on and within the gas pipeline easement area. If the school wanted more parking to the west, having parking on the pipeline easement may be an option. The school district has had some amount of contact with Newland Communities which is the managing partner of the partnership that owns the Seed-Genstar property. Those Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 8 contacts have been directed primarily to having an elementary school on the Seed- Genstar property. Staff does not know if Newland Communities would be receptive to having an elementary school and a high school. They may be concerned about the loss of developable acreage. A viable option for an elementary school is a slight modification of some of the work already done with regard to the acquisition of the Angus property. Staff is prepared to work with the district to maximize the value of that acquisition. Currently the property is not contiguous to the City, which means the City could not annex it right now even ifthey wanted to. Since it cannot be annexed, the City cannot provide services to it. They probably would not be receptive to the idea of having any type of school that would have a well and a private septic system. Staff has had some contact with Mr. Colin Garvey regarding his option agreement on the Fountain Valley Golf Course. The fact staff has talked so much about the Seed-Genstar property is not meant to imply that there is not an option of placing the high school on the Fountain Valley Golf Course property. Mr. Garvey indicated he would be receptive to that idea under the right circumstances. Ifthe school concluded there was some merit to considering the Seed-Genstar site, there are a number ofthings that could occur with regard to the Angus property and the golf course property that could work. If the school decides that 35-40 acres at the northeast or northwest corner ofthe golf course property would be a suitable elementary school location, Mr. Garvey has indicated he would consider selling property for that purpose, he would exercise his option on the property and be prepared to sell it to the school district. He also indicated he would be willing under the right circumstances to trading property. He would consider trading golf course property for portions of the Angus property so there would be no out of pocket cash expenditure required by the school district. He is receptive to looking at it only if circumstances can be created under which he can develop at some point in the near future the Angus property or the remainder ofthe golf course property. There are some long term issues there that involve our working relationship with Castle Rock, their willingness to allow that property to be annexed without opposition. There are issues involving sewer capacity. There is enough sewer capacity in the City's existing system to serve a 35-40 acre elementary school site without the installation ofthe future Met Council interceptor line. These are the main factors why staff is recommending the school consider the Seed-Genstar site because ofthe timing issues involved. Things could happen much faster on the Seed-Genstar property than the golf course property or the Frandrup property mostly because of the time required to continue fruitful discussions with Castle Rock. If the Council was prepared to annex property over the township's opposition, we could move forward immediately. That is a question for the Council to consider. Castle Rock has indicated some preliminary willingness to consider portioning off a part of the northwest corner of the township. Staff has talked about an annexation boundary that would remain in effect for a number of years whereby properties on one side of the line could be annexed by the City without opposition, and the City would not consider annexations on the other side ofthe line. The line is on the east side ofthe Fountain Valley Golf Course and extends to the south and encompasses the Angus property. Staff is prepared to recommend the Council look at ways to accommodate getting an elementary school on the golf course property because the access would be better or if necessary on the Angus property. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 9 Mr. Tim Weyandt stated one of the intrigues of the elementary school is the neighborhood concept and kids walking. The intrigue of the Seed-Genstar site was the neighborhood, the 3700 homes around it. It would reduce busing costs and continue with the concept of servicing the neighborhood. To stick something at the golf course or at the Angus property for an elementary has no intrigue or desire from this board. Community Development Director Carroll replied the concept of having an elementary school in the neighborhood could also apply to the southeast corner of Farmington. There is a lot of development activity that is about to occur there. On the east side of town, the Winkler and Devney properties will have 500 units of housing. A property to the south, owned by Don Peterson is 160 acres, and the Empey property is adj acent to that. Both the Empeys and Don Peterson have expressed interest in having that property developed. Staffhas indicated the Devney and Winkler properties will be required to build a portion of Biscayne Avenue on the east side of their properties. Don Peterson has indicated a willingness to have Biscayne constructed through the middle of his property. Mr. Garvey has an interest in developing his property even with an elementary school there he would have another 120 acres for residential development. Mr. Garvey is planning on putting 100 units on the Empey property. If you add up the developments already in the planning stages and take into consideration the development that will occur in Castle Rock Township, you are getting close to the number of residential units in the Seed-Genstar property. Castle Rock has formed a discussion group to look at what other townships have done to facilitate residential development within the township itself. Staffhas received numerous calls from people who own property south of the Empey/Garvey property and south of the Angus property and there will be significant residential development in that area in the near future. An elementary school on that site would serve the neighborhood concept just as well. Mr. Weyandt asked how many homes would be on the Peterson site. Community Development Director Carroll replied it is 160 acres, so there could be 450 houses. If there were high density, there would be more. Mr. Weyandt noted they still have to service 3700 homes. Staff replied there are existing elementary schools that are reasonably close to the Seed-Genstar property. There is some expansion at Meadowview. From a planning perspective it is much easier to find sites for an elementary school than for a high school because of the reduced acreage requirements and transportation issues. Staff remains available to work with the school to identify other elementary school sites in the event the school believes there is not a need to have one in the southeast corner of town. There are other potential sites. In the area between Mystic Meadows and hwy 3, there are a number of individual property owners there that will eventually be developed residential. The opportunity is right to work out something with those properties if the school believes it is necessary to have an elementary school in a more central location. There will still be school needs in the southeast corner. Mayor Soderberg stated the focus for the high school site has been on Seed-Genstar. The golf course is also a potential site, and then have Seed-Genstar for an elementary school. Staff noted Mr. Garvey wants to develop the property, but he cannot do it unless special arrangements are made to provide services. Providing services to a high school on that Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 10 site would expedite the development he wants to occur. If the school believes it is more important to have an elementary school on the Seed-Genstar site and it outweighs having a high school on that site, staffwill work with the school on either the golf course property or the Angus property. There could be things staff or Council could do to deal with the township opposition. Staff emphasized they do not see anything they are suggesting as being a radical departure from what the school staff and school board have already talked about. Both sides are talking about putting a school on the Seed-Genstar property and in the southeast corner of town. Staff sees this has building on some of the school's preliminary work. Staff does not disagree the Christensen site is a good location for a school of some kind. The question is whether now is the time or if later would be a better time. One ofthe things learned is that there is a benefit to identifying school sites far in advance. That is something the school or the City has not done. Maybe there is a way to preserve some of the Christensen site for a future elementary or middle school, get back a portion of the money paid for the site, have the City look at a comp plan amendment that would identify that as a future elementary or middle school site and specify when that would occur, or indicate it would occur with development in that vicinity at the time. Staff sees opportunities to save the district substantial amounts of money by shifting some ofthe infrastructure expense to developers that will be paying it anyway and staff believes at least the Seed-Genstar site and perhaps the golf course site could be developed sooner and faster than the Christensen site. Councilmember Wilson mentioned the types of partnerships that can exist within Seed- Genstar such as parkland, etc. and asked if those types of partnerships also exist with the golf course or the Angus property. Community Development Director Carroll felt they did. One of the distinctions between the Seed property and the golf course property has to do with the amount of parkland you can obtain as part ofthe development. Ifthe City wanted to take land for the park dedication requirements for the Seed-Genstar property the City could get 10-15% ofthe developable land which would be 80-120 acres of parkland. That makes it easier to split off 30-35 acres and make it available for school district use. There is not as much acreage available with the Garvey property. There are 160 acres and with the same percentages it would be 16-24 acres. You cannot create as many City athletic fields adjacent to the school as you could on the Seed property, but that does not mean it cannot be done. Maybe the Garvey and the Angus properties could be developed jointly. If the Angus property were converted to partial residential development you have additional acreage that could be converted into parkland to create more park opportunities. Staff is prepared to look at those joint use opportunities in any location where the City had a reasonable need to have those fields now or in the near future. Dr. Meeks asked if the City would look at the Community Center going on the Seed- Genstar property. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied what the City is looking at now is the next step which is looking at 7-8 different sites. One ofthe sites is the Seed-Genstar site, however there are other sites. They will have those sites narrowed down within the next two months. Dr. Meeks recalled the City was looking at 55 acres, so if you designate 30 acres for fields that leaves 25 acres north of 195th Street. The original plan Dr. Meeks saw was that the fields would be across the creek. Parks and Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 11 Recreation Director Distad stated they would be abutting the wooded area. Community Development Director Carroll stated they saw athletic fields next to the high school as not being a substitute for the other fields but they would be in addition to the fields already shown in the City's master plan. The Park and Rec Commission has talked about having an adult softball complex. Park and Recreation Director Distad stated that is planned in the Mystic Meadows development. There will be a 25-acre park in the next phase of that development. With splitting out the fields, if the City were to take park dedication and give the developer credit for those fields between the pipeline and railroad it would reduce the amount of dedication you could get next to the wooded area where they had identified a youth complex. With the soccer fields, it would be much like what is happening now at the Middle School, those would be routinely used. Community Development Director Carroll noted the four lighted softball fields across hwy 3 to the east. There may be a concentration of athletic fields in a limited area which is good for purposes of tournaments, etc. The Seed concept that showed the softball fields along hwy 3 was prepared to show how you could have seven softball fields located within one area. It is divided by the highway, but you would have tournament opportunities there. There is the same situation with the soccer fields. The concept shows g or 9 soccer fields in one area with additional fields located to the west just north of 195th Street and more fields in Mystic Meadows. City Administrator Urbia stated regarding the two sites discussed, Seed-Genstar and the golf course, both staffs could set up meetings with the representatives to explore the recommendations. Dr. Meeks asked what staff sees happening with Diamond Path, with that being a future road, will there be an assessment the school will be responsible for. Community Development Director Carroll replied the main benefit of Diamond Path is that it will be built as part ofthe Mystic Meadows development and Parkview Ponds. That will create a new north-south route to enable people to get from 195th Street to Akin Road. Last year the City adopted some modifications to the thoroughfare plan that showed the Diamond Path alignment intersecting with Akin Road in the vicinity ofthe Lutheran Church. The portion north of 1 95th is uncertain. When the thoroughfare plan was done, staff tried to line it up so eventually Diamond Path would continue north through Lakeville and up to 160th Street in Rosemount. The stretch through the Seed property is a little uncertain. The City has the discretion to either require that be built as part of the Seed-Genstar development or possibly defer that until a later time. Staff sees the high school location being far enough away from Diamond Path so that it would be hard to argue that the school receives a significant benefit from that, which means it probably would not be assessed to the school district. Staff sees this as being different than the situation with 20gth Street as it goes through the Christensen site. That goes right through the Christensen property and would become a primary access to the school site. When that project is done, the school district would be assessed some portion of that cost. Dr. Meeks stated regarding needing Met Council approval, if the school district were to entertain the Seed-Genstar site, this would be a significant change from what they submitted to the state for review prior to bond. The school would have to re-submit to Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11,2005 Page 12 the state for some kind of approval. He does not know where they would fall. The state may have some issues with traffic, the railroad and the gas pipeline. Community Development Director Carroll replied as far as the railroad tracks and the pipeline are concerned, the Dept of Education should not be any more concerned about that here than they were with regard to Akin Elementary and the Middle Schools. These railroad tracks are quite a bit further away from the school building itself than the tracks are from the back of the Middle School. From the tracks to the Middle School is about 150 ft. There is considerable more distance on the Seed property. If you are looking at a City field or park in that location, it would be the City's responsibility to install any kind of fencing necessary along the tracks. There would be more fencing in this vicinity than currently exists behind the Middle Schools. As far as the acreage change, staffs understanding of the state's guidelines is that for a school of2,000 students or less their general expectation is a site of at least 60 acres is necessary. There is a provision that says that under special circumstances such as topography or high land costs, the state will consider modifications of its standards. Staffhoped if they were presented something the City and the school district were in agreement on whereby the school district would have access to City fields and perhaps even first priority to use those fields, that the state would see that as meeting the school district's goals. It might be seen as more beneficial than the school district building and maintaining the fields. You spare an ongoing operating expense. Parks and Recreation Director Distad has made some changes to the provisions regarding park development fees. In addition to having to give up land for parkland, developers have to pay park development fees. They pay cash that is put into an account used for the development of fields on the land the City gets from the developers. That means that instead ofthe school district paying for the construction and maintenance ofthe fields it would be the City's responsibility. The state should see this as beneficial in reducing future operating costs for the district. Dr. Meeks stated to keep things in perspective the current high school sits on 58 acres. They would be doubling the students on the same amount of acreage. Community Development Director Carroll stated between the 60-acre high school site and the 33-34 acre park site you are effectively doubling the amount of acreage for the high school. Dr. Meeks stated summer programs right now are not on campus. Students travel off campus to compete for swimming, baseball, etc. Dr. Meeks asked if staff had a suggested timeline if Seed was approved, how do the timelines work out to meet the district's anticipated need by fall 2008. Community Development Director Carroll stated they would move as quickly as they can and as fast as Seed-Genstar would allow. Most of the decisions are made by a corporate person from San Diego. They have been here for one meeting and have indicated in writing that in the event some collaborative interest in some of their property is demonstrated they would be happy to meet with us to talk about that. The goal is getting to the point where we can effectively convey to them there is some collaborative interest, that there is genuine interest by both parties. That seems to be the prerequisite they have set for getting together to meet. If the Council receives indications it is something the school considers worth exploring without any commitment, if the school is willing to convey that to Newland Communities, we could meet next week if they are available. There are various incentives the City can offer to Seed-Genstar that the school district does not have available to offer as incentives. For Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 13 example, if they are concerned about the loss of 60 or more acres of developable property, staff could consider looking at densities elsewhere within their development. Right now their development is single family with some isolated pockets of medium density along hwy 3. Ifthey wanted to create an environment to add some medium density or high density staff would be prepared to consider that. Staff would take the initiative on whatever comp plan amendments would be required. The City has some discretion as to what assistance they provide for the 195th Street extension. Initially, the expectation is that the developer pays the full cost of that subject to contributions by other parties that benefit. Staff has anticipated that Dakota County would pick up most of the cost. There may be opportunities with Council's consent for the City to carry some portion of the county's cost on a short term basis until they can get that into their CIP and reimburse the City. There are things the City can offer the developer if they have some reservations about the wisdom of this. Mayor Soderberg stated Dr. Meeks' question was how do the timelines compare with getting development done on the Christensen property versus Seed-Genstar. With the advent of an EA W required for the Christensen site that will delay things 4-6 months from the time it starts. A revision of the AUAR diminishes from 4-6 months to 6-8 weeks. Councilmember McKnight noted there are other potential timelines as far as the Dept. of Education, Genstar agreeing to this, and questions that cannot be answered yet. Dr. Meeks stated the district has finite resources. Mr. Garvey may want to trade or want more money over and above, we do not know where Genstar's bottom line is, etc. Mayor Soderberg asked is there enough information to warrant looking at other sites such as the golf course or Seed-Genstar. Member Privette asked if Genstar has seen this concept plan. Community Development Director Carroll replied they have not seen this drawing because it is so recent. They have discussed with them about the high school going south of the 195th Street alignment and indicated it would be in the southern portion oftheir property. From their perspective it is so speculative since they do not know what the school district's position is, they have not given it a lot of consideration. Staff prepared the concept plan because they believe they can lessen whatever resistance Seed may have to the idea by putting the school and the fields in a location that is separated from the rest of the development. The map showing a 94-acre parcel on the north side of 195th Street is more of an intrusion into the residential development. Councilmember Wilson stated the direct answer is the City has not gone to Newland and said here is what this is going to look like. The City has taken a position based on conversations with staff and Newland that the City would only talk with them jointly with the school. He asked if there was enough information to warrant that joint meeting. Member Weyandt stated his concern is based on information shared with the school from their professionals. They have $5.9 million worth of resources left to purchase property. We have to figure out how to come up with two pieces of property at $5.9 million. Regardless of what he wants to do, the reality is they have a problem. Going back to the people would do a couple of things. It would change the complexion ofthis whole thing if it were turned down. It would irritate people again in this community to go back and ask them again for funding for another piece of property although the ultimate bottom line may not be affected because they have been given their resources back. The reality Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 14 is we have done this once for you, we are not going to give you money again. To go back to the public again and try to get funds for more property would not be a viable option. His biggest concern is where will he get the funds to buy this property. Community Development Director Carroll realized this is something the school needs to be concerned about. There is probably enough brain power available here in terms ofthe Council, school board, staff and consultants to figure out a way to deal with that. On the surface it seems like if the school were to consider putting an elementary school on either the Angus property or the golf course property, there are ways to accomplish that without any additional expenditure of funds. As far as the high school is concerned, if the school sees 60 acres being sold at $100,000/acre as costing $6 million and the school has $5.9 million left, on the surface it seems like the school does not have enough money. Keep in mind that there is a multi-million dollar infrastructure expense for the Christensen site. As far as the Seed property, if they got a certain amount of value from the school district, they would not care in what form that came to them. They will have several million dollars worth of expense for 19Sth Street. Maybe an arrangement can be achieved whereby instead of spending $7-9 million on roads and infrastructure for the Christensen site, maybe the school spends $2 million. Maybe the school could pick up some portion of Newland's infrastructure costs. The school is already spending $7-9 million on that, so why not spend $2 million on that, take it offthe purchase price, and the school pays the difference. The school has more than enough cash to do that even if they cannot get any of the Christensen money back. The school would not have to go back to the voters. There are ways of structuring the financing with Newland to accomplish that. Member Weyandt asked if Newland has said they will be creative with the school or is staff assuming that. Community Development Director Carroll replied the City has not had any further discussions with Newland because of the understanding that was going to be done jointly. Staff feels it would be presumptuous to go to Newland and try to negotiate financial arrangements on the school's behalf. If the school is receptive to exploring that, staff would do that with them jointly or if the school wanted to designate some of staffto take the lead and report back to the school, staff is prepared to do that. Staff does not want to do that without the school's knowledge, participation and consent. Staffwill stay away from Newland completely with regard to every aspect until there is some level of assurance that we are looking at this jointly. That is what Newland wants. Member Privette stated his concern with the cut and paste plan, is staff took all the components ofthe building on the Christensen site and put them in where they would fit. A couple of concerns the school has is their duty to educate kids and have natural light, position of the building, etc. It fits the way staff shows it, but that is not necessarily what is best for kids in the design. It is put together like a puzzle. It does not layout on this property with regard to the education of the kids and the best learning places. Member Privette did not feel the building fits on this property. All the components from the Christensen site fit, but they are just bits and pieces where there was room. He feels they are premature in buying a piece of property or looking at an alternate site if they cannot get their design to fit on a piece of property. He asked ifthe architect can show them how it will fit without cutting programs. It is premature to talk about buying it ifthey do not know ifit will fit the way it is supposed to fit. There is no flow to the design. To talk to Genstar together is premature. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July II, 2005 Page 15 Councilmember Wilson stated the reason we are here with this problem is because one side moved ahead to propose a site in an area that was not consistent with the comp plan of the City. Ifwe had that mutual working relationship prior to my getting on the Council, we would not be at this point. While the drawings may not do justice to the good work DLR can do, we are trying to find creative solutions to make this work out where it is mutually agreeable. The residents just want to get this done. If there is any moving from one area to another, it is in the best interest ofthe City and the school, he would go to bat and provide any cover that needs to occur to protect the interest of the school knowing we are working on this together and it is a win-win. Member Privette stated he was not disputing that. It does not do us any good to go together without a suitable flow to the building. Councilmember Wilson stated the only way to resolve this issue is to approach Newland jointly. The architects can come up with a way to make it work out. The bottom line is, Newland is not interested in having this conversation unless it is jointly. Member Privette stated he agreed with that, but we have to go with a joint plan. Community Development Director Carroll stated the City does not expect the school to buy property or even consider buying property based on a drawing like this. Dr. Meeks stated the bottom line is whose decision is it to acquire school property. Is it not the school board's responsibility? Committees make recommendations to elected officials to make a final decision. We can come up with all kinds of plans, but it comes to the school board to make that final decision. The school district has to be responsible for whatever decision is made on these school proj ects. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated on the plan shown, the savings from the Christensen property to the Seed property is a savings of $8,750,000. If it is about that amount, the school has to look at the money they will be using to pave Flagstaff and factor that in plus the $8,750,000. Is the design exactly what you have now? Maybe not, but it is a great savings to the taxpayers and that should change a few things. You may have to give a little to save that kind of money. The flow may not be the same, but the City will not make it so it is not a workable situation. Community Development Director Carroll stated that figure is based on certain assumptions. He stated he agrees with Member Privette. Ifthe school decides it will be useful to devote some consultant time to looking at this property and try to figure out what will work best in terms of building layout, staff is expecting the school to do that. This is just an illustration. Ifthe school wants to do that before approaching Seed-Genstar, that is the school's right and staff would expect them to do that. If the school wanted to talk generally with Newland about acquiring property, they can do that too. It is a matter ofthe highest priority, getting the initial indication from Newland as to whether they would be receptive or wait until the school knows the site will work. Staffwill work with the school either way. Dr. Meeks stated the savings are based on a lot of assumptions. People voted on the plan that included a lot ofthe infrastructure costs. They knew $6 plus million would go for infrastructure. They were willing to spend those tax dollars already. Member Weyandt stated there is a realistic possibility of someone in the community coming after us. From a financial standpoint, the school has to listen to the professionals around them. They want to make sure they do not expose themselves to future litigation because they have Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 16 altered what the bond had promised to people. Based on people who study that law, there is a possibility you could be subject to litigation. If that happens, who pays for that? Councilmember Pritzlaff replied the taxpayers. On the comp plan, promises were given to people there. Residents on Flagstaff could come to the City and we would find ourselves in the same position. The taxpayers would pay for that. Member Weyandt stated a comp plan is not a promise. It is a working document to try to build a City around and the City has made some 36 amendments to it. A comp plan is not a promise that is binding in anyone's court. It is a working document the City has given people to try to build and work around the City so they build where it will be feasible. It is not a promise. It is not subject to litigation. It is a working document that breathes because you have changed it 36 times. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated we have made minor changes not major changes. Member Weyandt replied it is a change. People will be affected no matter where they build. He is worried about the financial end and the functionality of it. When we are done with the biggest proj ect that this City will ever see, he does not want to look at the public and say we made it work. The funds were not appropriated to make it work. His commitment was to bring this project on time, under budget, it will not be a gross display of affluence, it will be extremely functional, and when you go to another community, they will say those Farmington schools are gorgeous. That was his commitment to people. He still feels strongly this is an opportunity to do something not good, but great. He wants to take advantage of that. He is not saying this cannot work. This has to flow properly, have room for 2400 students, and ifhe signs it he wants to be proud of it. Along with that, what have we publicly committed legally and a bond is a legal and binding document. Councilmember Fogarty stated the City could help them out with the liability of the school and that is on July 18, 2005 the Council can deny the comp plan change. The school would have no options. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated we are willing to work together and if we deny the change, what would the school do. Member Weyandt stated they are making alternative plans for that right now. The school has to figure out how to keep the classrooms less than 30 students. They will be bringing in satellite classrooms. They will be doing many things to accommodate the students in 2008 wherever we build, but 2008 we have a problem. We will all hear from parents when we start putting 28-30 kids in a classroom. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if all the money put together to pave the rest of Flagstaff from 195th Street north was taken from this bond. Member Weyandt replied yes. Finance Director Roland stated the Christensen site was purchased from money with the 2002 bond, not from the $10 or $18 million bond. The school confirmed that is correct. Finance Director Roland stated the bond issued in 2002 was to purchase land. When the school talks about site plans, etc. and obligations for bonds, the City is aware of what the obligations are for bonds. In 2002, the school had not identified the Christensen site as a piece of property to be purchased. So the school bonded for money to purchase sites for schools which you are doing with this money. The school talks about conceptual sites, etc. that was not in the school's brochure that went out to the public. The school told the public you were going to build a high school. It did not show site plans. Councilmember McKnight stated the Christensen site was in the information. Finance Director Roland asked if it looked like that. Member Weyandt stated no we had infrastructure costs on the Christensen site and a map showing where it was. Finance Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 17 Director Roland stated the dollars that are paying for the additional infrastructure, from 195th Street to Lakeville, are those dollars coming from the $118 million bond. The school said yes. Finance Director Roland stated even though the purchase price came from the other bond. The school said yes. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he was told there was a million dollars from the previous bond that would go into the infrastructure and when you say you cannot take $3.8 million from a land issue and buy other land it raises questions. Member Manthey stated that might have been her misunderstanding. Dr. Meeks stated they have previous building funds that have money left over. Some of that was used to purchase new library books and some was used to purchase land. There is money left from the previous high school project that they will use on that building. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked ifthere was any money from Meadowview that will be brought into this project. Ms. Jane Houska, Assistant Finance Director, replied not that she is aware of. Dr. Meeks stated some ofthe previous bonds also had money to purchase land. They are trying to clean up those accounts. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the understanding of some of the taxpayers is when a proj ect is done and there is left over money, to use it for books is okay, but otherwise it should be returned to the taxpayers and do an operating cost. Member Weyandt stated on the last bond they had money left over and the school asked ifthey could appropriate some of those funds for this project. That was used for building the east addition. Councilmember Wilson stated the school has expressed the timeline as one of the top issues. The intention in talking about this is not for the school to digest a new site now. It is to discuss the possibility of a new site. At the June 20 meeting he said he did not think the Christensen site was the best site or the worst site. Community Development Director Carroll has presented a lot of compelling information from a tax perspective, from a collaborative partnership perspective, from a timing perspective that certainly would warrant his interest. There are still issues with the review and comment, etc, but the fact is the EA W is a 4-6 month process. Overlay that with any kind of requirements associated with the special waters district, maybe that is included. The earliest the comp plan could be approved is next week. Then there is site plan review, preliminary plat, etc. He does not see digging dirt at the Christensen site until February/March 2006. DLR has to do some work to see if alternate sites will fit with what the school is looking for. He feels with an alternate site, the City could help the school achieve breaking ground in 2005. Dr. Meeks states this is the first time the school has seen in any kind of detail what the City's thoughts are. The school will review the information and see ifit is possible. It is the school board's final decision. They have to determine ifit is cost prohibitive, timeline prohibitive, issues with the railroad and the gas line, etc. There were other properties that were dismissed right away because of the pipeline. Mayor Soderberg stated ultimately, Dr. Meeks is correct. The decision on how the school lays out, selection of the site, purchase of the property, development of the building, belongs to the district. Land use belongs to the City. If the school district picks a property that does not work with the land use, you can buy all the property you want Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 18 and design all the buildings and plans you want, but if it does not work with the City, it does not work, you are not going to get it. We have to work together, it is not an option. What the City has been telling the school since November is that the Flagstaff site does not work from a land use perspective. He does not want to close the door on that site, but if that is the only option left, right now he is hearing there is not even a willingness to consider alternative sites. There is all this resistant to even considering the Seed-Genstar site, which in his mind from the evidence presented, is a very viable site. He does not know ifit will fit, but we have documentation showing the soil conditions, the AUAR has all the information that is needed to make that determination in very short order. There has not been that level of detail work done on the golf course and the Angus site has greater difficulty than the golf course. Seed-Genstar, the golf course, and the Angus site in that order present difficulties, Seed-Genstar with the least amount of difficulties. The golf course has potential, but has greater difficulty than Seed-Genstar, but nothing that cannot be overcome. The Angus site is considerably more difficult. Mayor Soderberg stated he is feeling the resistance to even consider the Seed-Genstar site. Member Weyandt stated there is a lot of information here. He feels like they are just making it work. If the City said Seed-Genstar had a few more acres and they had to move the elementary somewhere else and legally they could make it work, and ifDLR said it is a go and it flows, why would he oppose it? He wouldn't oppose it, but legal has to say it is right and DLR has to say it works. He cannot feel like they just got it done and stuffed it in. It has to work for their professionals and he has to be proud of it when it is done. He feels like it is crammed in. 60 acres does not quite get it. Mayor Soderberg stated he called the Board of Education and talked to the gentleman that does the review and comment for the Board of Education and for a school the size being proposed, 60 acres is the minimum required by the state. He asked about the review and comment and the Board of Education said they wanted to make sure there was at least 60 acres, that the soils would work and that the school was not being put on wetland. That is the review and comment ofthe Board of Education. After that it is a local decision. It is a decision that has to be made between the school board and the City, where it will go and the size. That is why the proposal was to put parkland with some of those fields to give the school the space they need. Mayor Soderberg asked ifthe whole 110 acres needs to be owned in title by the school district or can it be a 90-acre campus owned cooperatively between the City and the school district to the benefit ofthe district. Member Weyandt stated that may be a great place to start, but based on a school of 2000, he is very concerned. He believes they will be up to 2400 students much sooner than they anticipate. Mayor Soderberg stated he does not doubt that for a second, in fact he has heard the long range plan is 3-5 years after this is open they will be looking at a second high school. Member Privette asked out of the 94 acres, how many units was Genstar going to put in there. Mayor Soderberg stated if it was 400 acres it would be 300 homes. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the City would lose the taxes for those 300 homes. Councilmember McKnight asked how many acres they started looking for. Member Privette stated 100 acres. They are on 50 acres now and they knew they would have to double that. Dr. Meeks stated this will be a 1 OO-year building and they wanted enough space to expand. One of the concerns with this site, is that once it is in place it is land locked. Member Privette stated they tried to build a second story on the current high Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 19 school and the state would not let them. The footings would not support a second story. Mayor Soderberg asked if Mr. Davenport would have an initial feeling ifthis would fit on the site. Mr. Griff Davenport stated he has participated in authoring guidelines at the State Department of Education for Facility Planning. He appreciated the assessment of site size. The one thing not taken into account is the communities whose functions vary significantly from community to community. Adding a stadium to a component forces a minimum site size to go beyond its borders. That is a 10-12 acre consideration by the time you have adequate seating, etc. The issue is not whether or not this can be developed on the site. He is fairly sure they could find a way to organize the building, positioning the building east-west, but the long-term value in the community would be questioned. They need to look at some fundamental things in terms of how the building sits and its adjacency to hwy 3. It would take a couple weeks to fit a plan on a site like this. This site is not without topographic challenges. To a large part the building on the Christensen site was driven by where the stadium fits and how the building sits on there so they created a balanced site. He would like to find that same balance here because of the construction cost impact. The financial impact is the biggest issue the school may face. Minimizing the infrastructure costs enables some monies to go back to the building project. It is important all parties understand that construction inflation does exist. In May the Dept of Administration said construction in 2007 represents a 13% increase in construction costs. He suggested they bear in mind that there is $70 million worth of building. It will not be $70 million if mid-point of construction goes to June 2008. It will be 10-13 % higher than that. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about starting the project on the Seed property earlier than the Christensen site, would we come in under cost. Mr. Davenport stated if the school were to change sites, we have 6 weeks of re-design once a topographic survey is done. The original timeline is to award bids in September and start construction in October. He felt it was highly unlikely to get the site redrawn, agreed to, re-platted, go through the entire process and still enable a construction start in October 2005. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about the difference between acres from the Christensen site minus the right-of-way for 208th Street opposed to the acres for Seed-Genstar are close to the same. Community Development Director Carroll stated ifthe right-of-way cannot be used for athletic fields and if a portion ofthe southwest portion of the property is cut offby the 208th Street extension and cannot be used, that takes the site down from 110 acres to 98 acres. You then have to consider whether or not the ponding shown on the plan is sufficient given the special waters considerations. If you have to start injecting infiltration basins in addition to ponds, there is a question as to how much additional acreage will be lost. Staff understands the challenges with making the site work and knows the school is concerned about having to make it work. The reality is it may be necessary to make the Christensen site work once more is known about those issues. If you assume a little additional ponding is required, you are looking at comparable sizes between the two sites. Initially the school's focus may be on a 60-acre high school site. If you set aside or reject the idea of adjacent City athletic fields and the school were to buy the 94-acre parcel and the school would own it, would that address the school's concerns about acreage, if you end up with a comparable amount of acreage as you have with the Christensen site. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated there is slated to Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 20 be fields in the 20Sth Street right-of-way and he does not want to be in a position when 20Sth Street goes through to tell the school to shrink their fields. If the City says the school cannot put a field in the 20Sth Street right-of-way and it comes down to the same amount of acreage as Seed-Genstar we are comparing apples to apples. Looking at changing the site now together we have discussed someone could file a lawsuit against the school, if we deny the comp plan amendment, what will the school legally have to do? The school has not discussed that. Mayor Soderberg realized the pipeline runs through the 94 acres. He assumed the discussion about 60 acres for the school and 30 acres for City parkland, the pipeline bisects the property in that manner so 60 acres is east of the pipeline and 30 acres is west ofthe pipeline. Community Development Director Carroll stated it has not been surveyed. That is based on the information in the GIS system. The portion east ofthe pipeline is 60-63 acres and the portion to the west ofthe pipeline is 30-34 acres. Mayor Soderberg noted Mr. Davenport said adding a stadium to the site warrants getting 70 acres. Mr. Davenport replied that assumes topography that accepts it very easily. Part of the inefficiency of some ofthe sites was extreme topography. Even the Christensen site negates some topography use. Councilmember Wilson wanted to make sure the school understands the 4-6 months for the EA W alone, takes digging. Ifthe comp plan is approved next week and there are no unique circumstances with the water shed issue we are still talking 4-6 months. It is constantly suggested that the City is stalling the school's process and that is far from the truth. There are environmental situations, standard review process that the City has no control over and no involvement in that has to occur. What we have discussed has the possibility of saving some time. On the current course, there is no way things will be ready by October. It is frustrating when it is being continually portrayed that the City is slowing down the process when there seems to be a lack of acknowledgement there are certain process steps the state laws have in place. Police Chief Siebenaler asked if the school has taken into consideration the special waters trout stream issues that will be associated with the Christensen site. Member Davis asked why the Seed-Genstar property is also not in the special waters? Is the creek that runs to the west a tributary of the Vermillion? City Engineer Mann replied it is. Trout streams are designated by sections ofland. Every stream within that section is considered a special waters whether it has trout in it or not. Any tributary that comes to the Vermillion River within the section designated is also considered a trout stream. Beyond that, when a tributary comes up to the edge ofthe section where it would end and enter a new section, there is a 2000 ft. rule that anything that drains to that tributary within 2000 ft of the special waters has to be treated like a special waters as well. In the Seed-Genstar property it is far enough north of the designated reach of the Vermillion to be outside of the designated section and the 2000 ft. Therefore, it is not considered a special waters. Police Chief Siebenaler stated unless a developer takes that into very serious consideration, you run into a very large obstacle. It happened with Vermillion River Crossings and it has delayed the process by over a year. Member Davis could understand the Spruce Street area, but on the Christensen site, where would the water drain? It does Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 21 not have access to the creek. City Engineer Mann stated there is a tributary to the north that the site would be draining to. If you are draining within that 2000 ft to a tributary you are considered in a special waters area. Part of the overall issue is how far away do you have to be that you are not affecting temperature for the trout stream. The PCA rules state if you are inside this area, the temperature is an issue. Member Davis stated it sounds like another government plan that has run amuck. You are talking about a site that runs downhill into a creek and someone has caught a trout and you have another one that is no where near in geographical relationship. Councilmember Wilson stated they are not trying to invent obstacles, they are just pointing out the reality of what is going on. He wished there wasn't a 4-6 month EA W process, but there is. That does dictate the timeline and it does not have anything to do with any Council action. The meeting recessed at 10:36 a.m. lor a break and reconvened at 10:55 a.m. Member Davis asked about the City owning adjacent land next to a high school. He asked if the City would be amenable to allowing school district policy to control the usage of the land. In other words, by state statute the school does not allow alcohol or tobacco use on school district property. Councilmember Wilson and Fogarty felt it was regulated by state statute. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated that is why they wanted the youth and adult athletic complexes separated. Member Davis asked ifthe City would post signs. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated some communities ban smoking in parks. Community Development Director Carroll asked if they planned on banning it completely for all types of activities whether school district or City or just banning it during the time when used for school district activities. Member Davis stated let's say all cases. He asked if the City would put up signs saying "no alcohol, no tobacco." Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated if there is an ordinance, there would be signs. Member Davis stated recently they requested no alcohol be used on the fields during a softball tournament that an ex-Councilmember organized. He believed there was an ordinance that gives the City discretionary authority to identify a restricted area and allow a one-time permit issue for the use of alcohol on City park property. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated that is a permitting process. Alcohol is allowed in parks under current ordinance. When there is a tournament they are required to go through a permitting process to sell alcohol for the softball tournaments. Member Davis stated the adjacent City park area could allow alcohol and tobacco use. Police Chief Siebenaler stated under current City ordinance, if it is City parkland alcohol and tobacco use is permitted. What the school is talking about is the passage of an ordinance that would prohibit it on that property. Barring a change in the ordinance there would be no tobacco or alcohol use on that property. Member Privette clarified you can specify a certain property and Police Chief Siebenaler agreed. Community Development Director Carroll stated if it is a weekend and you have soccer fields there and there is no school district competitions or practices occurring and the City has made the fields available for a couple of adult teams to play soccer, would the school want the City to prohibit smoking and alcohol use on those fields at that time even though there were not any school activities going on. Member Davis stated his problem is that type of usage has a tendency to migrate from area to area. Member Privette stated they do not allow it now for non-school use. Mr. Siebenaler asked how they enforce that. Member Privette Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 22 replied self-enforcement. Dr. Meeks stated they are told they cannot play their tournaments here anymore. Mr. Siebenaler stated that is future prevention, not enforcement. Under an ordinance, the City has the right to enforce it on the spot. The City cannot enforce it on school property, but it can be enforced on City property. Mayor Soderberg stated there are 60 acres identified for a potential high school site on the Seed-Genstar property that mayor may not work. That is undetermined. Another alternative is the golf course site. There are still some unknowns with that and it mayor may not work but it at least has some potential. With the amount of information received, it at least warrants some investigation. The City Administrator has suggested that a work group get together and talk about it and explore the potential with the different developers. Is that what we want to achieve as an outcome from this discussion. Member Davis asked ifthe purpose would be to identify Seed-Genstar has a high school building site. Mayor Soderberg replied yes. Member Davis asked ifthere was any flexibility for joint negotiations with Newland in regards to a possible elementary school site. Mayor Soderberg replied that is a possibility, but at this point, the pressing issue is the high school site. Member Davis stated the pressing issue is going to be an elementary school site. Mayor Soderberg stated he realized that, but today we are talking about a high school site and that seems to be the hitch. Without the high school the waterfall does not happen. Mr. Davenport stated the Middle Schools cannot make it which has to happen for one of the elementary schools to become a reality and the other elementary school is a separate issue. Mayor Soderberg stated the high school is the pressing issue. While the elementary school is not an easy site to place, it is a much less difficult issue than the high school. Ifthe determination is made that the Seed-Genstar site is not workable with the topography, the acreage requirements, the gas pipeline bisecting the property at a 60-30 split, then it is determined. We have another alternative with the golf course and a very willing developer there. Dr. Meeks stated with the Seed-Genstar site, it slopes and the areas are unbuildable. The Christensen site is 110 acres and it is all buildable. If a right-of-way has to be granted so there are no permanent structures on the gas line and the slopes and soil conditions, they need to know what that acreage will be. Mayor Soderberg stated that is something we cannot determine here, but it is something the school has access to and staffwill make available all the data they have regarding the site. Staffwill get more precise acreages to the school so they are aware ofthe acreages. Dr. Meeks assumed you have to be some distance away from the railroad tracks. Mayor Soderberg stated that would be a City issue as the railroad tracks are west ofthe pipeline. With regard to the parcel we are identifying as a potential for an alternative high school site on the Seed-Genstar property, the City needs to know if we can approach them jointly and talk about this. The school needs to determine ifthe site itself is workable and staffwill make that data available. There is the potential for a high school on the golf course. There are some questions that need to be answered and the City is willing to help the school get those questions answered, because the City does not have the answers and would like to have them as well. Dr. Meeks stated the question for Genstar is does it have to be this location or could it be somewhere else. Mayor Soderberg stated he is open to that if Newland is open to that. MUSA is already designated for the entire area, but it is designated in phases. To go much north of the identified area, gets into a later phase ofMUSA. Community Development Director Carroll stated much ofthe area Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 23 north of the 19Sth Street alignment, shown as D, is within the area that currently has MUSA. Member Privette asked if some of the land is in ag preserve and staff replied no, none of it is. Member Weyandt asked ifthere is a dwelling in the northeast quadrant. Staff replied yes, it will be going as part of the development. Dr. Meeks stated with the MUSA issue, he did not believe the Angus property or Fountain Valley has MUSA. If there were some shuffling of MUS A, could it be transferred there or pull it off sooner, or grant MUSA to Fountain Valley or Angus. Community Development Director Carroll replied during the MUSA Committee meetings they discussed the Met Council has been receptive to the idea of cities on the fringe granting MUSA at whatever rate they think they can accommodate through development. If the MUSA Committee recommended MUSA for the golf course site or for the Angus property and the City knew there was a way to serve one or both of the properties physically, it is likely the Met Council would approve MUSA. Part of the reason Council has not approved MUSA for those properties is they did not have firm development concepts for the properties and there is the capacity issue. Member Privette asked where Castle Rock comes in. Councilmember McKnight stated he does not want to have any discussions about the school on the Angus property without Castle Rock being here. He asked how much the school has met with Mr. Garvey or Seed-Genstar on the high school topic. Dr. Meeks replied they had several meetings with Genstar about the elementary school. They had a conference call for 15 minutes in April because ofthe idea of the high school. Mr. Garvey came in either before or after the referendum and asked if Christensen is the site or can his property come into play. It was a 10-minute conversation. Member Manthey stated the City is wanting to know if the school is willing to work with them to have a joint meeting or not. Member Weyandt would like to establish the criteria that would preclude a site from being functional or a useable site. He would like to have that long-established before so it does not come up later. He wants to make sure we have established what criteria will keep it from happening. Member Davis replied some of the criteria is the railroad and the gas line and would say no as part of the criteria package when they started the land search process. He does not have a problem going to Newland and talking about sites. This was the same thing at the meeting on day six. At that meeting he and Chair McKnight could not make promises. It was a board issue. There were no promises made. It was a lose agreement to have these discussions. He went back to what Chair McKnight brought up about the two-track process that is in place. The school has had a process for three years trying to find land and build the buildings. The demographic studies were conducted in 2002 which lead to the bonding election for the money to purchase the land. This did not happen over night. This is a nice meeting and a good presentation, but he is wondering why this did not happen one year ago. Member Davis believed a year ago the City was aware that the Christensen property was a viable piece of property the school was looking at, regardless if it was going to be a high school site or an elementary school site. It was on the short list. It was his understanding the City was aware ofthis list. They needed to have this discussion a year ago. Things are being slowed down right now. There is the possibility the train will get knocked offthe track and it is not because the school board is going to derail the train. He wished they would have done this a year ago. A lot of these problems could have been avoided. Maybe he was out of contact, but until January of this year he did not Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 24 realize and had no idea that the Christensen site was such a problem. He thinks he just became aware of the City's 2020 Comp Plan as of January ofthis year. He might have heard about it in the past, but he did not understand how serious a document the City considered it to be. The school has been into this process for years. He does not have a problem talking to these people, but it is important for the school district to maintain the two-track system. The school has started some tremendous processes in motion and he did not think they were doing themselves or the community any justice by stopping this and saying we are going off on this other track. The school has to continue to move along on these two tracks. Mayor Soderberg stated he does not disagree that the discussion should have taken place two years ago. He asked the school to try to remember the climate two years ago. A two-track system is something two of the Councilmembers agreed would be an acceptable approach because the track on Flagstaff is a dangerous track, it is very difficult. That is part of the reason he is willing to close the door on that site. As he said a month ago at the Council meeting, ifhe called the question that night, they would have derailed the train then. We still need to pursue the two-track issue. He is not convinced there aren't less expensive alternatives available. He has no problem examining and working through the criteria already established. There might be some tweaking that could be accomplished, but we need to work on two tracks. Two tracks is a good idea, but the second train has not left the station. Member Privette asked what is the work group that should be put together? City Administrator Urbia stated it would be Dr. Meeks, himself, and whoever is appropriate to bring the knowledge to the table to meet with the developers to get the facts out and ask the right questions. It would definitely include Community Development and Engineering. Councilmember Wilson stated whatever we do it has to be quick. Member Privette asked if we will get to a point where that is it. Eventually we have to pull the train back into the station. Are we going to put a deadline on this or are we going to go on. This is our fourth or fifth meeting. He was not looking for a definite time, but we need a drop dead date of when we are going to stop. We could go on with these meetings forever. He asked the City if this is what they have for alternative sites. If for some reason, that Genstar does not work, are you going to come back with another site? Mayor Soderberg stated the only other site he has heard about is the golf course until the City has some discussion with Castle Rock Township. Member Privette stated eventually we have to stop. Councilmember Wilson suggested September 1 as a deadline and also asked the school to respect the fact that the City does want to have this further review and that the school approach this honorably and be willing to have open-minded discussions relative to the other side. Everyone from the City is very excited about the possibility of being able to give this a thumbs up and know that it is a win-win situation and we are moving forward. He asked this be done efficiently, by September 1, and then determine what the results are and move forward. City Administrator Urbia stated the EA W has not been started yet and with the time window discussed, doing the second track is not the delay. The school will have to sort through the EA W requirement and at the same time we can work on the other sites. He felt it is helping some Councilmembers with valid concerns to answer more questions. Councilmember McKnight asked how this does not delay the one track if we do not take action until September I on what is in front of us today. City Administrator Urbia replied when you are saying dual track, you are Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 25 spending money on the one track. Member Privette had a problem with September 1 as a deadline. He did not think they wanted to get into a deadline. We could decide next week if it is good or not good. Councilmember Wilson stated if the vote is this Monday he is voting no. If you do not get a 4-1 vote, it is done and the City has forced the school to look at a different site. Council can do that and be done with it. Councilmember Wilson felt he was being reasonable by saying let's continue looking at the option while exploring other options. If the school wants action on Monday, so they know where they sit, he will vote no, because he knows there are other options that at least have the possibility of being a better situation for both sides. He stated he may be completely wrong and will admit that at the end ifSeed-Genstar, Fountain Valley, and discussions with Castle Rock do not work. Dr. Meeks stated you are telling us right now is that unless we agree to meet with the City and move ahead, we are done. That does not sound like a spirit of cooperation. Councilmember Wilson stated it is. Member Privette stated not it is not, you just told us you would vote no. How is that cooperation? Councilmember Wilson stated if you want action on Monday and you want to be on a dual track, he was telling the school how he will vote on it. Ifwe explore the possibility and it does not work out for a different site and we are down to the Christensen site, then that's where we are going. He has never said he is done with the Christensen site or that he is done with Flagstaff. Member Privette stated you just said that. You said you would vote no. That tells me you are done with it. Councilmember Wilson stated if we decide this on Monday he will vote no. Ifwe want to continue the dialog to a date certain, such as September 1, July 30, whatever it is. .. Dr. Meeks stated all you are asking us to do is to extend the deadline for Monday. Councilmember Fogarty added and genuinely consider the other options. Councilmember Wilson stated he does not want to derail the train. DLR has done a lot of work and everyone has invested a lot of personal time and energy. So rather than derail the trail, which he does not feel comfortable doing, let's have the discussions, we have the possibility of continuing the comp plan amendment. He has residents saying vote it down and others say keep it going. There is a 50/50 split. If the school wants a decision on Monday and wants the Council to act in a way so the school knows where they stand, it is on the agenda. Councilmember Pritzlaffhas talked to a lot of people and the word is let's get it done. Council is taking a lot of heat as Councilmembers to take a vote. They voted us into office to get the decisions done, not worry about the little things. We have delayed it once and it is on the agenda to move it forward. If there is anything on this site the school says they will not look at honestly, and will be setting up another meeting by themselves, ifthere is a slight chance anyone wants to do something outside of what the City is asking, it goes to vote on Monday. Councilmember McKnight stated the school set up criteria looking at all of the land. You talked about gas lines today and railroads. How will the school bring these two issues in as obstacles to the site? Dr. Meeks stated there is also access to emergency vehicles with the railroad going through. Councilmember McKnight asked if the City sees these as valid reasons from the school district's point of view. Councilmember Fogarty stated the road will go over the tracks as part of 195th Street. Councilmember McKnight asked what about the gas line. Councilmember Fogarty stated there are other schools with gas lines just as close in proximity if not closer in other areas of the district. It would be a little inconsistent for them to throw this site out based on this gas line. Councilmember Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 26 Wilson felt it was reasonable that it is a concern. Member Davis stated we do not cross it. That is the difference. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he agreed with Councilmember Fogarty as far as Akin Elementary the gas line runs along Pilot Knob. It is not crossing it, but there are fields there. Weare talking about fields here and maybe parking over this gas line. Staff also talked about rerouting the gas line more towards along hwy 3 or closer to the railroad tracks. Dr. Meeks felt it was pre-mature to talk about that. These are just pieces ofthe puzzle. We do not know how this will lay out. We have not accounted for the right-of-way for the gas line, we have not subtracted the acreage we cannot build on, that will totally affect how this lays out. Until an architect can tell him how it will work, he cannot answer any questions. Member Davis asked about item 13 regarding condemnation and that is presently unknown whether condemnation would be needed for the Seed site. That was one of their criteria. Weare not going to use hostile eminent domain. Councilmember Fogarty stated we are not asking that you do. Member Davis said it is on paper as one of our criteria. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he agreed with Councilmember McKnight to get answers on it and ask the rest of Council about their position on the ballfields on the 20Sth Street corridor. Council could easily say there will not be a field in that corridor and the school would lose three fields. Dr. Meeks stated it would have been nice to know that a long time ago. Member Davis stated can you tell me that 20Sth Street will be extended in the next 3-5 years. City Engineer Mann stated in the past when no development was happening in the area we did not have a timeframe. Everyone knows it has been identified as a corridor by Dakota County. With the development of a school, as far as a timeframe, it throws it into a guess. There may be a need for that road to go through sooner rather than later. Lakeville has talked about developing that area and wanting to put the road through to Flagstaff. The City does not have a good handle on when that road will go through. The issue is that we need to ensure it can go through. The minute the City received a concept that showed fields in that area, we identified that. The first concepts did not show fields in the 20Sth Street right-of-way. Just like we did with the Middle School, to grade the road and set it aside so we know the road will go through is a very important recommendation to the Council. As far as when it gets built, we do not know. When the Middle School was put in, the issue oftaking 20Sth Street to hwy 3 was not known then either and that was 6-7 years ago. A feasibility report has been done on that section so how many more years that will be, staff does not know. It is the same with 208th Street to the west. With the school going there the potential for it to happen sooner occurs. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he does not care when the road goes in. If there is a corridor there and it is 10 years from now, you know what will happen. We will have people saying save our fields. The school is asking the City to amend the comp plan and the school will come to the City again and say amend our roads to accommodate the fields. Councilmember Fogarty said no one but the school has ever proposed if that road will be built. The county and the City have always said that road will be there. It is on the east-west corridor plan. Member Davis stated Lakeville does not have a lot of respect for the corridor, they put a development there requiring this tremendous curve in the road. It will curve north and parallel 202nd Street. City Engineer Mann stated in the thoroughfare plan it is shown going somewhat to the north. Member Davis asked ifthere is really a reason why 208th Street has to go in west of Flagstaff. City Engineer Mann replied yes, to provide an east- west corridor. Member Davis stated half a mile to the south you have a four-lane trunk Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 27 highway. City Engineer Mann stated when the County did their east-west corridor study they identified that as one of their four important corridors. Based on traffic studies that were part of that analysis, they identified that as a necessary corridor. Staffwill obtain a copy of the study for anyone who wants to review it and see why the road is necessary. Member Weyandt stated it is a collaborative effort and asked Mr. Davenport share some information to see if they can find some common ground. Mr. Davenport stated the issue is whether these sites can work programmatically. We have a reasonable understanding of the program components. DLR was not involved in the site selection so there needs to be someone involved from a design team to represent the site selection criteria. In the design process, whether it is the building or the site, we do a design charrette where we bring all the parties involved, not a team of 30, but include a Civil or the City Engineer, City Planner, an owner representative where we would dedicate a specific amount of time, it might be two days, where we lock ourselves in a room and explore the design potential for the sites being suggested. That is not without some expense. This does not have to be this "here is the site, you do your thing, submit for review, and come back and review." It does not have to be a six-week effort. Ifthe parties were interested in that process we could come to some fairly quick resolve in terms of programmatically does it work and quick resolve to identify significant issues that may still exist, then we might take a break for a few days to allow some engineering to occur or some cost estimating and then dive back into the same thing. The process might last two weeks rather than two months. Mayor Soderberg felt it was a very reasonable suggestion. Mr. Davenport stated it does involve assembling some high powered people to get that done. DLR would be willing to schedule something that may even involve a Saturday. Member Donnelly asked ifbefore we do that wouldn't we have to find out if we can even buy the land from Genstar. We cannot make plans to build on someone else's land. We have to find out if we can acquire the land. City Administrator Urbia stated the first step would be to meet with Newland and the second step would be the Castle Rock meeting. Member Davis stated the reality is we have a piece of property that is concrete. This other proposal is a lot of pretty pictures. It is purely hypothetical. We have this process that has been moving along and he cannot say stop it and jump to the other track. It has slowed down considerably, and we have to keep it going. Member Privette stated the City has had more conversations with Genstar than the school. Member Weyandt asked how much is sellable and how much do they want for it. Mayor Soderberg stated that is what we have asked is to put together a team from the school and the City because Genstar does not want to talk to the City or the school district alone. They want us to come to them together in agreement and talk to them. Member Privette stated we are taking 300 homes out ofthe development and that has to be a huge number for them. Mayor Soderberg stated Community Development Director Carroll as identified some incentives the City can do by offering them greater densities in other areas to make up for that. Councilmember McKnight stated we have not talked about any of this. Mayor Soderberg confirmed there have not been any discussions, but those are things we can do. Member Weyandt asked Councilmember McKnight if he could start that track and asked when the next joint meeting is with the township. Councilmember McKnight stated he could give a preview of their reaction. The school has gone through it once, but he will bring it up. Councilmember McKnight stated we have to have a partnership with the township, no matter what the issue is. Member Privette asked if we are going to meet with Genstar. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11,2005 Page 28 Member Weyandt asked if we could do this through a conference call rather than fly someone in from San Diego because that will prolong the event. Mayor Soderberg stated City Administrator Urbia and Dr. Meeks can establish the date, time and format. Community Development Director Carroll did not want to assume they would be unwilling to send someone to talk with them in person. They have done that at least once already. Both sides agreed it would be preferable to meet with them face to face if someone would be available. Community Development Director Carroll stated it was discussed earlier there was no point in meeting with Seed-Genstar until the school determined the site was workable for their purposes. We have now gone to the other side of that and we are going to talk with them about buying the land before the school has determined whether the site is workable and that is okay. Member Davis stated Genstar may suggest their own site. Councilmember Fogarty stated Genstar has asked them to jointly come up with a proposal to bring to them that the school board and the City can both agree on. Member Davis stated this is the City's hypothetical site. Staff added for today's discussion. That is one of the things we have to work out in a setting other than this. If the concept is we are going to talk with them about a specific site or about the idea of putting a high school somewhere on their property, we need to be open to the idea they may want it somewhere else. When we set up the meeting, staff can find out how Genstar would like to approach the issue. We can either say this is a conceptual location that the City and the school would like to talk to them about or we can say the City and the school would like to explore the possibility of putting a high school somewhere on your property. Would you be receptive to that and if so, what would work best. Most people tend to react better with a concrete proposal. The City and school should be in agreement on how to approach it when we meet with them and not try to work that out during the course of the meeting on the fly. Dr. Meeks stated a high school changes drastically what Genstar was trying to achieve in this area. How much ofthat 750 acres was going to be designated commercial? Community Development Director Carroll replied there was a commercial node on hwy 3 toward the northeast corner of the property of20-30 acres. Dr. Meeks stated one thing he has heard is the high school being able to attract business. He would assume that 20-25 acres of commercial/industrial would have to expand. Staff asked why. Dr. Meeks stated before it was purely housing, now you are bringing in a high school, 2000 students every day, hosting major events and one of the rationale he has heard is somehow drawing business through downtown. If you are going to serve that area, he would assume the City would want to take advantage of having a high school there and expand the economic base and put more commercial/industrial nearby. Community Development Director Carroll replied certainly not industrial. We have adequate plans for commercial space reasonably close to this property already. When 195th is done, traffic can go west on 195th Street and take Diamond Path or Akin south and within 5 minutes you are in the Spruce Street area. Dr. Meeks stated in his previous high school projects, usually the school district had a conversation with the City about what types of businesses would go in nearby the school. So we may want to have a conversation about what the City intends near the school. Community Development Director Carroll replied we would have to define what near is. You would have to go out to hwy 3 and quite a ways north to get to the area shown on the comp plan. That is a comp plan designation. If Genstar comes in with a concept plan that shows more or less commercial or commercial in a different place, the City would Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 29 have to talk at a staff level and with the Council about whether we want to change that or not. The school is right. They have a right to understand what sort of businesses would go anywhere reasonably close. Right now we do not have zoning on the property. We have a comp plan designation that shows commercial. We have to have a discussion about what sort of commercial that is, B-1, B-2, or B-3. We have a variety of zoning districts. The zoning district that would go there would dictate what the uses are. Putting the high school there does not mandate that the commercial area be increased. If it is 25 acres, that does not mean we have to make it 50 acres. There is other commercial space reasonably nearby. Most of the traffic going to a high school is looking for convenience, fast food and gas. Staff saw those types of convenience uses happening along hwy 3 and not a shopping center type of environment. That is why we have a couple hundred acres set aside on the south side ofhwy 50 to provide that type of shopping environment. That is reasonably close to the site. Dr. Meeks stated he can see a hotel going nearby, which would be good. Member Davis asked Community Development Director Carroll what he meant by people go to a high school wanting convenience, fast food and gas. Staff stated if you have people coming from other areas, he was not sure they would see shopping in Farmington as a primary component of the trip if they come for a football game or tournament. If they want to shop in Farmington we would be happy to have them do so. Most of what we will see along hwy 3 are convenience type uses. That does not mean nothing else can occur out there. The concept plan for some development on the east side ofhwy 3 envisions similar types of commercial centers. Member Davis stated then high school users who would be attending events at the high school are not much more than a convenience type of store user. Community Development Director Carroll stated do not put those words in my mouth. If someone comes to a high school event and wants to shop in Farmington we would be happy to have them do that. They take 19Sth Street to hwy 3 and go south, they take 195th Street to the west and get on Diamond Path and go south. In less than 5 minutes they are in downtown Farmington or in the Spruce Street commercial area. They can spend all day there and we would be happy to have them do that. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated an issue was brought up about doing all this work whether we own this land or not. He asked if the school has it worked out, or is it in the same timeframe, when they are doing the infrastructure on Flagstaff and also building the school, is it true the school would need access to Cedar in order to get construction materials into the school and if so, has that plan been worked out with the property owner or does the school see themselves assuming that will be done. Mr. Kevin Littman, Mortenson Construction, stated we have discussed that quite a bit. Until they know who, when and how Flagstaff will be improved, they have not received a lot of detail, but they envision using Flagstaff throughout the construction period of March 2006 through April 2008. The secondary access off Cedar would be helpful, but that is not their first preference. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if they see at some point they will need that access. Mr. Littman replied it depends on how Flagstaff is constructed. One of the options is to develop Flagstaff in two phases. Start from the mid-point of the site and work north and allow the south access to be available. When that improvement is done to the north, open the north and improve the south. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated his concern is that they do not depend on one more person coming in and giving them CounciVSchool Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 30 something they need such as another access to the site. Mr. Littman asked ifhe was referring to the City of Lakeville. As far as they are concerned with estimating purposes and planning out construction activities they have not factored that in as an immediate need or necessity. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked ifthe timelines come down to a more crucial time would that decision change. Mr. Littman stated as far as the current processes they are not providing a temporary access to the northwest. Mayor Soderberg stated it is agreed the City staff and school staffwill get together and meet with the land owner and after discussions with the township, potentially with the second land owner and town board. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if this will be delayed on Monday night. Mayor Soderberg stated he was going to wait until the board meeting to address that, but he asked the question now of the board and will give them the opportunity to answer it after tonight's meeting. Member Privette stated Chair McKnight could not be here and he has to get the information to her and does not want to speak for her. He will defer the question until after they talk to her. Mayor Soderberg stated he will throw the question out and not expect an answer at this point and expect an answer after tonight's board meeting. The question will be what will the school district have the Council do on Monday night. Extend the comp plan review or take an actual vote on Monday. The school can reply to the Mayor directly or through the City. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if we extend it to the first Council meeting in August as DLR said we would lock people in a room and get this done in a short amount oftime, would the first meeting in August go beyond the deadline where we would have to extend it another 60 days. Mayor Soderberg stated if Council delays action on Monday night, then we have to extend the review 60 days. City Administrator Urbia replied that is correct. Community Development Director Carroll stated the application for the comp plan amendment and zoning was filed on May 22, 2005 so state statutes say the City needs to either approve or deny it within 60 days. If it looks as if the decision will not be made within that span, then we need to send out a letter extending it for another 60 days. The extension of the time for making a decision is different than the continuance issue. If it is decided on Tuesday to continue it, on Monday you would have to decide whether you are going to continue it to a specific future meeting. It would have to be within 60 days after July 22,2005. Councilmember Pritzlaffnoted the first meeting in August is August 1. Would that have any relevance? Mayor Soderberg stated he would like to give the school district an opportunity to answer the question on whether they want action on Monday night or they want to extend it for 60 days, which is different than continuing it. It is an extension of the comp plan review. Ifthey want to extend it for 60 days, then we could talk about continuing it to a date certain. Community Development Director Carroll noted the decision to extend it for 60 days does not mean the City will take 60 days. It means that is the ceiling on the amount of time available. If the decision is made in 30 days, that can be done. Mayor Soderberg stated this is a decision the City could make unilaterally, but he is asking for the school district's input on that decision. 6. TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE - SCHOOL Mayor Soderberg stated the City has not actually received the study and the City Engineer has not had time to review it. Mr. Ed Terhaar of Benshooft & Assoc, traffic Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 31 engineers, stated they were hired by the school district to do a traffic impact study for the proposed high school site off of Flagstaff. They submitted a draft report to the City late June and received comments from the consultant and incorporated the updates in the report. Some items covered include a description of the existing conditions, discussion on potential future roadway changes, traffic forecasting, traffic analysis, the potential need to pave Flagstaff north of 195th Street, and conclusions and recommendations. At the beginning ofthe project, they collected traffic count data at two key locations, 195th intersection with Flagstaff and CR 50 with Flagstaff. They had someone sitting at the intersection recording vehicles going through the intersection from 7-9 a.m. and 2-6 p.m. They also collected daily volume information on Flagstaff itself and recorded the existing roadway geometrics and stop sign control. The site plan used was a little different than what it is now. It assumed two access points off of Flagstaff. They did not assume the connection to 208th Street. They found some existing daily volume information in the MnDOT state aid system which were connected to county and city data and the data they collected in May. On the far north at the border in 2002 the MnDOT information showed 300 vehicles per day and they counted 470 so there has been an increase. Other volume information from MnDOT from 2003 showed volume increases to the south towards 195th and farther south the volumes trail off. North ofCR 50 there was an increase from 2003 than what they counted of 350 vehicles per day. As far as traffic forecasting, they developed trip generation estimates for three time periods, the a.m. peak 7-8 a.m., the exiting time which is 2-3 p.m. and also 4-5 p.m. They came up with numbers for 2000 students and 2400 students. In the morning there were many more entering trips than exiting. There were 976 entering and 167 exiting. There was an opposite pattern in the 2-3 p.m. time period with more exiting. In the afternoon the trips are spread out more. During 4-5 p.m. the trips are much less. Councilmember Wilson asked ifthere were really 5 times as many student drivers as staff drivers. Dr. Meeks stated there are 75 faculty at the high school. Member Weyandt stated three years ago there were 450 student drivers a day. Mr. Terhaar stated for 2400 students there would be more trips. The next piece was determining where students would be coming from and going to. They received some good information from the school census that gave the distribution percentages for students and for staff as they would be expected in 2008. He included what they anticipate for growth. There is 16% to and from the north on Flagstaffnorth of 195th, 51 % in the entire area to the east on 195th, 29% to the other areas to the east on CR 50 and smaller amounts to and from the south and to and from the west. This is important to remember when we get into the volumes that we have these large percentages that will want to access the site primarily by 19Sth Street and some by CR 50. They also had information on staff. They are more spread out. Using this information and the information collected they developed traffic volumes for the peak hour 7-8 a.m. and it showed the turn movement volumes at each intersection. On the north there is 195th intersecting with Flagstaff and he showed the numbers for 2005 and for 2008 without the school and the estimate with the school in place. In the morning there is a large increase of people coming from the east on 195th that want to make a left turn on Flagstaff to head south to the school. The 2008 number without the school is 27 during 7-8 a.m. and it Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 32 jumps to 463 with the school. There is an increase from the north going from 8 to 151 and some increase from the south as people are exiting. At the access points the access to the north showed 508 and the south access showed 527. Coming from the south from CR 50, the right turn increased from 3 to 302. The time period from 2-3 p.m. showed 363 left turns and 239 right turns. 91 and 60 at the access points and large increases from 23 right turns to 321 right turns and at CR 50 there is an increase in left turns from 5 to 225. For the 4-5 p.m. time period the increase is much less. As far as volumes, they estimated the 2008 daily volumes over a 24 hour period for the same locations. The numbers were with and without the school. The forecast of 550 vehicles per day without the school jumps to 1220. There are similar increases to the south. The next step was to analyze each intersection to compare the capacity of each intersection to the expected volume. Today on 195th and Flagstaffthere is one lane in each direction. There is stop control on 195th. At CR 50 and Flagstaffthere are two lanes in each direction on CR 50 with turn lanes and Flagstaff is a single lane in each direction. With the volume of 463 vehicles wanting to turn, that movement experiences significant delays. As other movements on Flagstaff are not stop controlled, they operate okay. The one movement in the morning that showed up as a difficulty was the left turn onto Flagstaff. With a school you have a concentration of trips within a 15-minute period especially in the morning and upon exiting. This was taken into account in the analysis. At the access points everyone from the north is making a right turn so they do not experience a delay. They do cause delay for people coming from the south as people coming from the south making a left turn have to yield to them and therefore they experience delay. At CR 50 the entering traffic in the morning operates fine with the right turns. There is some additional delay for vehicles wanting to turn on to CR 50, however those volumes are not real high. The key in the morning with 195th being the one access point for all these people that would be their desired route to take 195th, the left turn does become difficult and there are some difficulties for the entering traffic at the access points. In the afternoon during 2-3 p.m. the 195th intersection operates a little better because there is exiting traffic. The right turns are able to go on their own. There is far less left-turn traffic that operates okay with stop control. The real difficulties are seen for the exiting traffic because they need to make a left turn. There is not much traffic expected on Flagstaff itself because there is not much development. But with the crush of vehicles trying to leave within 15 minutes after school there are difficulties and the left turn at the north operated at level service F (the worst) the south was not quite as bad, but there are delays. The location where there were difficulties was at CR 50 and Flagstaff. The left turn on to CR 50 at that time also operated at level service F. During 4-5 p.m. there was much less impact. The question is what should be done at those locations. In the morning if this delay occurs they will stay further east, come down CR 50 and make their way over. People coming from the south have one option to turn in and they would experience some delay. That combined with the other time period leads to the potential for, especially at CR 50 and Flagstaff, a traffic signal. They would also recommend that Flagstaff consist of at least two approach lanes from the north, one for left turns and one for through and right turns. They recommend from the school they have turn lanes in each direction so there would be left turn lanes at each access point, a dedicated right turn lane and a through lane from the north. 195th south should be wide enough for two approach lanes, one for left and one for right and if and when 195th is extended, that would also be a location for a potential traffic signal. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 . Page 33 There are improvements needed to accommodate the expected volumes. The other item for the school itself, they recommended a traffic control plan be established to determine the best way for vehicles to get in and out during the rush times and there may need to be officer control or some sort of control at that point and it may some day lead to a traffic signal. When 208th Street is extended it will provide an additional way in and out. Any additional access points would be beneficial and help relieve some of the conditions. Member Manthey asked about the two access points to the high school and suggested making one entrance going north and one entrance going south. Mr. Terhaar stated that is where the traffic control plan would come into play and it depends on how the site is actually built. It is inevitable there will be delays if everyone tries to leave at the same time. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated in some areas there would be three lanes and some there are two lanes. Mr. Terhaar replied you would have the turn lanes on one side. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked ifthat is how staff always thought it would be or for the school district, is that your knowledge as to how that road would be and if not, does that up the number of the cost ofthe road. City Engineer Mann stated the City has always acknowledged the potential for turn lanes at all the intersections. They had not been identified specifically until now. Staff has not done any layouts, they did a conservative estimate to encompass some ofthe unknowns. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if staff was still comfortable that the estimates would pay for the road. City Engineer Mann replied that is our hope. Member Weyandt stated from 2003 there was 40-60% and from 2008 there was a 20% increase. When that was taken into account did the traffic engineer include any housing or future development. Mr. Terhaar replied not specifically. They applied a 5% growth rate to the existing volumes to bump them up to 2008. (Councilmember Fogarty left at 12:25 p.m.). Police Chief Siebenaler asked when they looked at the growth rate over a 2-year period, is it safe to assume that something changed as a destination out there. Mr. Terhaar stated that is a big part of it. Member Weyandt asked what criteria is used for blacktopping. City Engineer Mann replied when a developer comes in and takes the road, they blacktop the road. The City has not had a criteria based on traffic counts. It gets built as development occurs. There are opinions out there. Some research was done and is shown at the back ofthe study. That will speak for itself. It is a moot point now as far as whether it will get paved or not. Member Davis asked if counts right now by some generic formula would dictate a need to pave Flagstaff. City Engineer Mann replied there are opinions that it should occur at a particular level, but there are a lot of gravel roads that have this much traffic or more and it boils down to if development is there and if economics work. He does not think there are a lot of gravel roads driven by traffic counts unless there is something happening in the area that forces that. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11,2005 Page 34 Member Davis noted Mr. Terhaar said there was someone out there watching cars and asked how that was done. Mr. Terhaar stated it was done for one weekday from 7-9 a.m. and 2-6 p.m. That was in May when school was in session. Mayor Soderberg stated when you look at the accesses from the school, were spacing requirements from the access to the school site to future 208th taken into account. Mr. Terhaar replied he has not looked at that specifically. City Engineer Mann noted that is more of a site plan issue than a traffic study issue. The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:28 p.m. and reconvened at 1 :05 p.m. 4. SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROCESS UPDATE - SCHOOL Mr. Davenport stated they are very near the end of the schematic design process which from a school district standpoint the building is very nearly taking shape. They have been working with Mortenson's and would anticipate a formal presentation towards the end of the month with the school board. The bottom line is the district and staffhave come a long way towards development of a footprint that makes a lot of sense. He stated so there is no uncertainty, the building plan has been built very specifically to the site. Without question the way the building is oriented, primarily in an east-west direction, the way in which the athletic components and activities have been organized on the site all respond directly to the topography of this site. There is a two-story component that goes above grade and a two-story component that goes below grade so the gyms are all top loading and follow the natural topography of the site to get down to the lowest level which is within a few feet of the field level. The main entry component continues to slope down to the football field. The lowest level of the building would be built on or about the same grade as the football field. The building has been designed nearly exclusively for this site. There is very solid, sustainable, energy-conscious orientation. They do not want to see a lot of west exposure to lots of windows and things that are difficult to control. That is why a lot of the classrooms ended up on the east end ofthe building for natural daylight. The other significant driver of the site was working with the natural topography. The way the building lays out and crosses the ridge line which comes across the site worked out very favorably in terms of creating a cut and fill. 750,000 yards of dirt will be moved, but it all stays on site. He has received some comments back from the school and the City. Most of the comments that have been made are ones we are well aware of in terms of providing access and entry lanes. They spread out the entries onto Flagstaff as far as they can given the low points on the site. There was one issue about not allowing an entry onto the curve. The one comment most difficult to address was the City's concern over placement of the parking area and the orientation to the football field as well as the orientation ofthe building. The topography ofthe site and the organization ofthe site and the necessity to really locate the building drives the placement for the rest ofthe parking. DLR has worked very hard with the school district to try to develop a strong relationship with the main body of student parking into the student entry of the building. The students will enter from the north plaza entry court. There continues to be some slight modifications to the building. One Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11,2005 Page 35 ofthe characteristics of the site and maybe this will provide some direction as to how they would think about looking at alternative sites, would be a strong design component which has been the ring road. They are trying to maintain the traffic way on the outside of all the development so they never have a student trying to go 40 mph and have someone cross the street. They anticipate some onsite traffic control with stop signs, etc. The one thing not shown on the plan is an ongoing conversation about an intersection. In the morning the bulk of the students would come in from the south and access the student parking. They have been trying to decide if they allow a roadway to happen or force traffic to go all the way around and gate the area so it becomes more of a pedestrian area during the school day. Loading the building is one thing, unloading the building is another. The parking is fundamentally student parking. They will need 1,000 parking stalls for students plus staff parking. There continues to be debate as to how much parking is needed in front of the building for staff and visitors. Staff and visitors will be entering the building from the south face. Student and activity entrance would be on the north. This was their first pass at concept sketches. By now there are updates on the website from the June 22 presentation. From a schedule standpoint, they are just about done making final adjustments inside the building to get to schematic completion. They are unofficially in design development in some portions ofthe building. Councilmember Wilson complimented Mr. Davenport and his team on the conceptual drawing. He asked ifthere were to be a different site location, he assumed there would be parts that could work on a different site or would they have to start from scratch. Mr. Davenport replied that is the worst case scenario. The thing that is most troublesome and has taken so long to develop are things like the loading dock and how it slides underneath the building and works with the grade and how they stack up so much of the building primarily to create an efficient floor plate, but also to save on construction costs. He did not know what would happen if they go to a site that does not have a sloping area to deal with. It is very difficult to carve out a bunch of earth to accept a two-story, top-loading gymnasium without the topography to allow it. The thing they can use they have developed a relationship on the academic end of the building which defines the relationship to the spaces. They might have to be configured slightly differently depending on the shape and topographic configuration of the site, but these relationships between planning center and smallleaming community should not change. They have expended a lot oftime exploring this. Depending on the topography of the site, it is quite possible it could be a 75% redo. It would be a big stroke ofluck to pick this building up as it currently exists, find a topography that is fairly close to it and make it work. He would absolutely try it, but to force it would be difficult to do. There are some primary design considerations with a building of this magnitude you have to deal with. One of those primary issues is a major east-west orientation. Is it possible to have most ofthe exposure north and south? Is it possible to get the athletic components working in a near north-south orientation? Those are the primary drivers that started this months ago. From his perspective that is the first place you should go when you start evaluating sites as you place this big block of building on the campus and say does it work in a north- south direction. It would be highly unlikely to be able to pick up this plan and move it somewhere else. The district is into this for $500,000. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 36 5. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN COMMENTS - CITY Community Development Director Carroll stated the City received the latest version of the sketch plan on June 30. As indicated in his memo of July 8, due to the holiday and other reasons staff only had 1 )Iz days to respond, but it was discussed at a Development Committee meeting. Most of the comments are engineering related. City Engineer Mann stated a lot ofthe items are being addressed with the traffic study and the feasibility report as far as turn lanes, etc. There are a couple comments about internal traffic issues. 208th Street is a significant issue. Having the fields in the right-of-way is one thing but the grade is another very important issue. Depending on the layout, the grade ofthe road needs to work on the site without a 30 ft. retaining wall. The feasibility report will confirm that the intersection of 20Sth and Flagstaff as shown will work. Further study needs to happen as far as what the vertical alignment is going to be through the site. Right now the horizontal line works well. The vertical alignment may be available by the time the draft feasibility report is done. Storm water issues have already been discussed. Mr. Davenport has dealt with the parking issues. Police Chief Siebenaler stated he does have concerns about the parking lot. We are going to double the size ofthe parking lot and we are going to put a number of vehicles in there and reduce the number of exits and accesses to it compared to the current high school where there are three accesses on two different roads. Weare going to dump all ofthe traffic out of two exits onto the same road. This will cause a significant delay in emptying out the parking lot. These parking lots could take up to an hour or more to empty at the end ofthe day and that is under good conditions. We have experience at the existing Middle School and Meadowview that shows we need to keep a separation between the bus traffic and student/parent traffic. On the north entrance, at least while the buses are present, that will have to be gated. You have to keep a complete separation or it will add significant delays to your bus schedule as well as the potential for accidents. Ifit is 15-20 minutes for buses to be present, that increases the amount of traffic using the southern entrance. So for at least a portion of the day you will be looking at one access to a parking lot serving 952 cars and that is troublesome. We need to see ifthere is anyway possible of finding an alternate exit. We work very hard to require multiple accesses both from a public safety access standpoint and getting into that can be a problem during peak traffic times in particular. Some of it can be addressed with internal gating, but he wanted to make the school aware it will take a long time under the existing configuration even with the two driveways to empty out the parking lot. Dr. Meeks asked if that was based on the lot being totally full and all cars exiting after school and does it take into account after school activities. Police Chief Siebenaler replied you are dumping 400 cars out of a parking lot out ofthree exits it takes 20 minutes. Here you are going to potentially double that number out of one entrance. Ideally, if we put traffic control at Flagstaff Avenue, put an officer out there directly and stopping all of Flagstaff, you can move 18-20 cars out that intersection with a turn movement per minute. 952 cars at IS cars a minute takes you up to 54 minutes to get out, and that is ideal. It does not include any student impatience or short cuts. Dr. Meeks stated when 20Sth Street goes to the north that could be the third access. Police Chief Siebenaler agreed, but it needs to be planned for. He looked at some ofthe preliminary topography maps and he realized the Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 37 topography is only schematic, but some of the slopes coming off the parking lot would appear to preclude that. They look very steep on the schematic drawings. He does not know what it wi11100k like to the north, but it is something that needs to be taken into consideration. He encouraged the school to have at least one more access out of the student parking lot. The focus of the parking area is the football stadium. That alone, six times a year, is going to be your single biggest traffic event. You see it at the current location where traffic backs up substantially. It can be dealt with but you have to plan for it in the design phase. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked Police Chief Siebenaler when you were talking about three accesses were you talking three for now on Flagstaff or when 208th goes through. Police Chief Siebenaler replied ideally you would have three now when you start understanding you only have one road and dumping all the traffic on a single road does not do much more than two accesses. If you plan for it in the future, at least the misery is short term. You would have two accesses and one access when the busses are present. A third access onto Flagstaff is not the answer, you need a different road. 20Sth Street seems to be the logical place. It is a matter of planning. Mr. Davenport stated planning around an ideal is not something many school districts have the ability to do anymore. From a design standpoint having three accesses to this site is long term. Something needs to happen whether it is 208th Street, 202nd Street over to Cedar, etc. Even as the building opens the ability to dedicate what could be $250,000 in a bus corral that is used by the busses and when it is empty cannot be used anymore is probably not a wise expenditure of money. Nor does it have a lot of precedence in high schools that are being built of this magnitude in the metro area. While he appreciates the separation and the necessity to separate bus traffic from vehicles and pedestrians, through scheduling there may have to be some ability to dump part of the parking lot into the northern exit lane to assist with the exiting of the building. The other thing that happens is when you do an onsite traffic assessment and you look at the number of kids you will be dealing with and users for after school activities, it is not like everyone leaves at once, filtration happens. Half leave the minute the bell rings and after that there is a trickle effect. If you look at area schools you will not find any dedicated bus loops. The land use does not give us that flexibility. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he talked to a representative from DR Horton and he said for the high school in Lakeville the only bus traffic is off of 70, not off the north road. Mr. Davenport stated Farmington would be doing the same thing. You could have no bus traffic on the south entrance. For the outflow in the afternoon, he does not know if you could designate a certain area just for busses. Police Chief Siebenaler stated that is not the suggestion. The suggestion was during the time they are there that you would direct access. As far as Meadowview Elementary, they spent the better part of the year trying to adjust the traffic flow to accommodate the mixture of busses and private vehicles. He does not want to see that again here. Mayor Soderberg stated that comes down to traffic management that the school has to work out. Member Weyandt stated there are 7-10 busses. Mr. Davenport stated they planned on 15 at the peak. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 38 7. FLAGSTAFF FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATE - CITY City Engineer Mann stated they met with the school district two weeks ago and they are looking at getting 90-95% cost estimates by July 22,2005. The goal is to bring a draft report to hand out the week of August 1,2005. Council and the school district can meet to discuss it and see of there is anything not addressed they would like added. The final report would be brought back after that. The big issues are turn lanes. That will be included. Staff still needs to meet with the Met Council to determine where the Met Council and Lakeville are at with the potential trunk sewer line down Flagstaff. It will be sized for the City's and school's purposes in the feasibility report up front. There are some cuts and fills through the alignment between 5-10 ft. in a couple areas. The City does not anticipate needing significant amounts of right-of-way for the design. There will be several culvert areas that will need to be replaced. The project as of the meeting was close to balancing. They had 5,000 yards of export so one thing discussed was there are some opportunities to balance out the export. Councilmember Wilson noted City Engineer Mann mentioned discussing the report jointly. Ordinarily this would be a presentation on the agenda. He asked ifthere was going to be a joint meeting where this would be presented. City Engineer Mann replied they were going to discuss how the process would go. That has not been finalized yet. The goal is to have the report draft done the week of August 1. If Council wants a presentation or read it first, there are different options. Mayor Soderberg stated Councilmember Pritzlaff wanted the questions addressed from Dr. Meeks with regard to the paving of Flagstaff. The first request was MSA funds, the county CIP, and Met Council. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he takes the word "interfered" with the word "condition". He wanted each member ofthe Council to comment on each of the questions. When he looks at the word "request" and the word "condition" meaning ifthe majority ofthe Council says no to one or more of the requests, is the offer of paving the rest of Flagstaff off the table. Is it a condition or a request? Question one he does not have a problem with, except there is no money, so it is a mute point. Dr. Meeks asked what about the funds used now in the budget to maintain the road. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated from the information he has received, even the money used for maintenance now, maintaining an asphalt road does incur at least the same amount of cost, if not more. Although we would not be spending money on gravel, there is a certain amount of maintenance that would still be involved. City Engineer Mann stated from the standpoint of gravel and maintenance that is a cost. On the other side, with the asphalt, the biggest cost on Flagstaff will be keeping the striping up to date initially. As things get older there will be cracks, etc. He has not done an analysis on the life cycle and what the costs will be, but he can do that. Member Weyandt stated they requested that quite a while ago. City Engineer Mann replied the request was what the maintenance costs are now. As far as what it will cost, that has not been done. Finance Director Roland stated she will provide those numbers and share them with the school by the end of the day tomorrow. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 39 Councilmember Pritzlaff stated regarding question two, he is against it because the county CIP is to do 195th to the west then northerly and further to the west to hook up with 185th Street over to Cedar. As that is on the county's CIP, it is not in his interest to ask the county to put in a short section ofFlagstaff/CR 64 on the CIP. With all the projects and requests we have to the county, he does not want the county to think we are after every last penny. Dr. Meeks asked if the county has to help maintain the road now. City Engineer Mann replied the county does maintain their section of it. Staff spoke with the county regarding that stretch and whether they would be interested in putting it on their CIP and they indicated it wasn't based on the future plans for 195th Street and the fact that portion of Flagstaff would get turned back to the City. Dr. Meeks asked how the turnback program worked. It was his understanding that anything they turn back they have to do so in improved conditions. City Engineer Mann was not sure statutorily that is the case. Agencies have a tendency to discuss those issues. In one case (Akin Road) that did not occur. In this case, with 195th Street going to the west there have been discussions about the county turning back that section of Flagstaff then they would pay the full cost of 195th Street going to the west instead ofthe 55/45 City/county split. That is a concept that has been discussed, but it has not been approved by the county board. Dr. Meeks stated so you are negotiating something. City Administrator Urbia stated it is in the City's interest to have the 45% share go away versus paving a portion of Flagstaff or 200th Street which has limited use to the City. 195th Street is a lot more important. If we had to pay for that share it would be difficult, if not impossible to finance it. Staff recommended to Council against considering the request. Dr. Meeks was not sure how you gage the City's interests. He heard City Engineer Mann say it does not matter where the traffic volume is on Flagstaff even though it will approach 1,000 cars a day. He would assume that would be in the City's interest since he has heard several times from the City about safety issues. Increased traffic on a gravel road, chances are you will have increased traffic accidents. City Administrator Urbia replied there are economic issues and a lot of people use it as a short cut. He cannot see using public tax money to make a short cut smoother. It does not make sense. The development is not out there. The City cannot afford that kind of money. The City cannot legally bond for it. It is not in the realm of things. Dr. Meeks stated they are not asking the City to bond for it, they are asking for the use of state aid dollars which falls into that category. The City receives money for that road. City Administrator Urbia stated that would take away from other areas that we need to make connections on such as future commercial development. There will be $200,000 for the extension west of Pilot Knob then we have to meet with Xcel and Murphy to figure out how to get 208th Street connected to Akin. Then we have to work with Rother's to connect 20gth Street to hwy 3. Because there is already development there and there is tax base expansion there it is more important. Ifwe just put it on Flagstaff, we have no more resources for the 208th Street connections. It is not to be difficult, it is reality. There is only so much money and there are priorities. Member Weyandt stated they were asked the scenario, what if the Council voted no, what was the school's plan. What if three kids get hurt out there in the next year and public safety dollars were not used for public safety, but rather expansion, what do you do then? When does public safety become more important than development? City Administrator Urbia replied there are alternatives to that road. You do not need to use Flagstaff. People CounciVSchool Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 40 do not need to use that road to get where they are going. Member Davis stated couldn't the district use that same logic to say why should we pave it? City Administrator Urbia stated once development occurs, that is the trigger. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated what we are missing is in the bond, the school stated they will pave 195th Street south to CR 50. That is the section we are talking about, so that is already in the bond. It would be more of an argument if this road was to the north of 195th that the school was asking the City to put this on the CIP. Since this is already south of that and in your bond, the voters approved it, it is already paid for, so why involve the county. Member Weyandt replied this is one thing you could do without generating your own funds to help us. We will have to take money from something else for the north end, which the school is willing to do. It is something you do not have to bond for, it will not cost any money. We asked for your help in this. This is one of the things you could do to help us. Mayor Soderberg replied it would cost money because the MSA funds available have been earmarked for other projects. Ifwe move them from those other projects, then we have to levy that difference back to the voters of Farmington. It does cost the City more money to do that. If the citizens of Farmington have to pay a disproportionate share ofthe taxes to do this, then he will not support it. Member Davis stated if that road gets paved up to the Lakeville border, the number of people using it for school district purposes, the amount of time during the day will be very limited. Most of the people using it during the day will be Farmington community members. There will be more using it if you pave it, so why not levy. Mayor Soderberg replied legally we cannot. City Administrator Urbia added unless we allow development to occur. You cannot assess 20% on the farmland, they do not have the benefit. Once development occurs you can either bond or force the developer to build it. The Council is saying they will somewhat consider this narrow amendment to the comp plan for the school, but they do not want to do anything else, realizing there will be an immense amount of pressure if they let this go through. Mayor Soderberg stated the other alternative would be to have the Donnelly's and the other land owners north of 195th allow the City to assess them for it. Dr. Meeks asked if the state dollars received are based on population of the area. City Engineer Mann replied it is based on how many miles of road we have in the City and then what the needs are for the routes we have designated. There is a certain percentage of the roadways in the City and percentage of mileage that the City is allowed to designate. Then the needs for each of those routes is calculated based on what it would take to build or upgrade the route to a state aid standard and come up with what the needs are. They take all ofthe cities and all ofthe needs and spread out those funds. Dr. Meeks asked ifthe state aid dollars are collected from gas tax. City Engineer Mann believed so. Dr. Meeks stated so you could say everyone in the state that buys gas contributes to that fund. Going back to Member Davis' point, everybody benefits whether you are a Farmington resident or not, because we are all contributing to that fund. Mayor Soderberg stated to put that in perspective, the tax dollars that are collected from Dakota County, the county gets less than their share back. We get $.38 on a dollar. It is going to greater Minnesota. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated even ifhe was in favor of having the county put it on the CIP, the chances of them turning that down are at the same point. He does not want to ask the county for it to threaten some other funding we have slated for other things in their CIP. City Engineer Mann stated the county staffhas indicated they would not see that as something they would put on the CIP. Dr. Meeks stated he does not think it is a deal breaker. It is Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 41 something the school acknowledges is a county road and they requested the City to assist the school in making the request. If the county said no, they said no, but at least we made the request because it is a county road. Councilmember Wilson stated the fact we might ask the county to put this on their CIP, that would not be unreasonable. City Engineer Mann stated his discussion with the staffwas an informal request. It was verbal, not in writing, but that is what they indicated. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated it does not matter what order it came up, but this is why he wanted this after the alternative site plan in case any of this would be a deal breaker and make the alternate site more presentable. Councilmember Pritzlaffthen addressed number three where the school asked the Council to work on affirmative action with the Met Council on the comp plan amendment as well as affirmative action on all governmental approvals that the school will need from the City in the future including without limitation preliminary and fmal plat approvals and granting conditional use permits. As far as the Met Council, Councilmember Pritzlaffwas not in favor of having City staff help this through the Met Council. They can do their normal procedure and that is was it is. He also has the majority ofthe Council's position that he would go with residents to the Met Council if this got a 4-1 vote with documentation of meetings and ask the Met Council to turn this comp plan down. He does not believe in the comp plan amendment. That was another reason why he wanted this after the alternative site. He wanted to be up front and honest. When it comes to the Met Council on the comp plan amendment, that is where he stands. As far as any other governmental approvals, from a school standpoint the school would assume that some of the governmental agencies would be your own work. He does not know how many more governmental agencies other than the Met Council there is, but that is where he will1eave the Met Council and the comp plan. He is against it and he would be at the public hearing at the Met Council in opposition of them amending it. As far as approvals ofthe City for preliminary and final plat and granting conditional use permits, this is telling him that the school wants his vote now that he will approve a preliminary and a final plat and a conditional use permit without seeing them. He will not do that. He would like to have the other Councilmembers give their comments on these three issues. Councilmember Fogarty has left, but she can speak for herself. Member Davis stated you did not think it was appropriate for one governmental agency to ask for assistance from another to get something done. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he does not believe his position can help get this through any other governmental agencies. He was not sure what other governmental approvals are needed, but he was looking solely at the Met Council. Community Development Director Carroll stated there would be an agency for the EA W. Member Davis clarified Councilmember Pritzlaffwas talking about the high school site issue only. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated this is for this site. The requests were given to us due to the fact the school was going to pave Flagstaff. He looks at them as conditions. He also thinks that saying the school will pay for a section of the road, now that the school knows his position, is that a deal breaker. Dr. Meeks stated Councilmember Pritzlaffis reading way too much into this. He knew the comp plan has been amended many times. He asked what the history is with the Met Council on approving amendments for the comp plan. Community Development Director Carroll replied comp plan amendments are a two step process. The first step is CounciJ/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 42 getting it approved by the City Council and then going to the Met Council. The last time the Met Council approved a comp plan amendment was when the comp plan was updated in 2000. The City Council has approved some comp plan amendments since then and the City is in the process of submitting those amendments for action by the Met Council in conjunction with developments as they move forward. For example, when the environmental review was done for Mystic Meadows and the City received a plat and could calculate sewer flows and traffic, etc. then the City submitted the comp plan amendment to the Met Council. That came some time after the City Council had approved it. The City does not have much of a track record with the Met Council for comp plan amendments since it was updated in 2000. Ifwe follow the Met Council's guidelines as we go forward with the amendments, they will get approved. Staff talks with the Met Council representative to find out where the problems are in advance of submittal. He feels the City will have a good track record on a conventional amendment. Conventional means going from industrial to commercial. That is a minor modification. With Mystic Meadows, the issue is giving them MUSA. Dr. Meeks asked if in the history of Farmington ifthere has ever been a comp plan amendment turned down by the Met Council. Community Development Director Carroll replied not since he has been here, but they have not submitted one and actually had action taken on one since he has been here. This is the most significant comp plan amendment the City has ever envisioned. He knows it is likely the Met Council will take a very close look at it. They have procedures they use to determine if comp plan amendments can get approved administratively by staff or whether it has to go through the entire review process. One of the factors they look at is what they call cumulative impact. They want to know ifthe comp plan amendment they are looking at is going to have some impact beyond the boundaries of the parcel they are dealing with. Changing the comp plan for the Christensen site may lead to or necessitate comp plan amendments on other properties nearby. So they will have to look at it and decide if what is proposed is too radical a departure from the comp plan they approved five years ago. He cannot predict what their position is. He would say if the majority of the Council approves the comp plan amendment then his role as a staff member is to try to persuade the Met Council that they should also approve it. And that is what he will do. The Council will set the standard as to how aggressive he should be about that. His natural tendency would be to be very aggressive and persuade them to approve it. But if the Council wants him to take a different approach, he will take their lead. Police Chief Siebenaler noted the school keeps asking about the Met Council approving it. One of the things Community Development Director Carroll mentioned earlier needs to be addressed. First it has to get past the City Council and that is where comp plan amendments have been stopped in the past. Four years ago a comp plan amendment was proposed for a residential development. At that point the City Council brought it to a grinding halt and vehemently said it is not in the comp plan, we are not changing it and he believed the words were "it is chiseled in granite." Community Development Director Carroll stated a lot of the amendments do not even get to the Council level. Mr. Bonar asked the comp plan amendment that changed the restricted development section is currently the Manley and Giles Murphy property, has not been presented to the Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 43 Met Council, but has been strictly a Council level decision? Community Development Director Carroll replied the comp plan designation for Parkview Ponds is restricted development. Staff does not have to change the comp plan for Parkview Ponds. The definition of restricted development is basically a lower density type of development that is sensitive to the environmental issues involved. All we had to do with Parkview Ponds is rezone it. We did not need to change the comp plan. Mr. Bonar stated a close review of the 2020 comp plan envisions that to be a green space corridor or golf course. He considers this action to convert it to low or medium density housing to be a transgression or a movement away from the comp plan. Community Development Director Carroll replied he would not. The golf course was identified as a potential use ofthat property but there were also references to using it for higher amenity residential housing, which Parkview Ponds is considered to be. Mr. Bonar stated his second question would be related to the trail and park overlay that was presented to Council months ago. Does that also not require Met Council approval? Community Development Director Carroll replied at some point it will need to be reviewed and approved by them. It is still being fine tuned. Part of the decision staffhas to make with changes made as they go along is at what point do we present it to the Met Council. Do we present it every time we look at a minor change or wait until we have it finalized before we take it to them. Mr. Bonar asked if it would be consistent to say it is being used as the standard or format for development currently. Community Development Director Carroll replied we give copies to developers and indicate to them that is the vision that has been agreed upon by the Planning Commission, by the City Council, and by the Park and Rec Advisory Commission. We ask them to draft their concept plans and plats in accordance with that. Dr. Meeks stated as far as whether the conditions or requests are deal breakers for the board's offer, he would say so. They simply asked the City to look within it's resources that they have and see ifthere is a way the City could contribute towards this project. He thinks we have all indicated the school is a very important project to the community and the school district. We have all talked about partnering, so we are trying to find some ways to invite the City in to partner in a financial way. If the City can't and you have commitments to other projects, so be it. The school is prepared to move ahead on that. As far as 19Sth and 200th the recognition of the district is that it is a county road, so we wanted to make sure we have explored all avenues to receive some funding to help offset the school's investment in the road. Ifthey say no, they say no. As far as the Met Council, if this is the decision to move ahead on this particular site, that is the decision of the Council and he would hope staff and the Council would support that decision so we can move ahead together. As far as the last part of the paragraph, from the district's perspective, we do not have to recreate this exercise every time we go for approval at another level. We do not want to go through this every time. Once it is approved and it is done, they do not want to have to repeat themselves again. Mayor Soderberg did not think that would be the case. If the comp plan gets amended the direction from the Council to staff would be to advocate for amendment at the Met Council. Councilmember Pritzlaffwanted to make it clear that as a citizen he would go to the Met Council and advocate it be denied. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated when we talk about Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11,2005 Page 44 partnerships and helping, his belief in helping is in the fields that were presented on the Seed-Genstar property. Dr. Meeks stated from the district's perspective we are still the one's taking the risk on switching the site. The bulk ofthe money, all the changes and the plan and the loss of investment is still the district's risk. There isn't a risk to the City from the school's perspective. Member Davis asked when exactly in the development phase does staff deliver the comp plan to the developer. Community Development Director Carroll replied they typically do not have to deliver it to them. When they get a developer that has not worked in Farmington the first thing they ask is what is the comp plan designation for a certain property and the zoning and they ask about MUSA. In cases where they find out what they want to do is inconsistent with the comp plan that is often the end of the discussions with most developers. Others are interested in seeing if the Council and Planning Commission are willing to amend the comp plan. Because of the amount of money they have involved in the project, they do not want to get too far into the process until they have some strong assurances that the comp plan is actually going to get changed. Finance Director Roland asked Mr. Bonar when he got his copy ofthe comp plan. Mr.Bonar stated he did not recall. Mayor Soderberg asked if Member Donnelly and Dr. Meeks wanted to hear comments on those three points from the rest of Council or proceed with the rest of the agenda. Dr. Meeks wanted to hear the rest of the comments. Councilmember Wilson stated one thing he has heard a lot from the school and that the City would like to do is partnerships and try to expedite the timeframe. The one thing they do not have the ability to do with this site is there are a lot of partnership opportunities they can engage in without causing some serious compromising with the City's CIP plan that directly tie in with plans for commercial/industrial type development. Relating to question one, he would like to be able to provide assistance in the way ofMSA dollars ifit did not jeopardize the other projects that are in place. One thing that has been brought up is that it is a school development project and developers normally do pay for roads and infrastructure. Yet the City of Farmington taxpayers, which are 60-65% ofthe district's population are assuming 100% of some cost versus the other portion of the school district and that is a little bit of an unfair deal. Dr. Meeks asked about the percentage. Councilmember Wilson stated 60% of the district population is in Farmington, which is a 60-40 split. Dr. Meeks stated those are your numbers. Councilmember Wilson stated any MSA dollars spent are going to go for other City projects that we have already prioritized. He did not have an opinion one way or the other on question two. As far as question three, he did not have a strong opinion other than the project has to stand on its own merit. Ifhe gives it approval that will give an indication to the Met Council how he views the plan and ifhe gives a thumbs down, that will also give them an indication. Councilmember McKnight stated regarding issue number one his common sense approach tells him ifhe is earning MSA funds off of Flagstaff mileage he should be Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 45 putting some money back into it to either maintain or potentially rebuild this road in the future. He does not know if that is where the City takes funding from for maintenance. He would be willing to look at it, but would not promise any dollars. The second issue of the county CIP, he does not have an opinion either way, because he does not hold any hope that the county would put it on the CIP so it is not that big a deal. Regarding issue three, ifthe amendment did get approved by four ofthe Councilmembers he would expect the City to be there hand in hand with the school at the Met Council. Like any issue he would expect all City Councilmembers to respect the opinion of the majority. In terms ofthe other parts with preliminary and final plat and conditional use permit the school would be expected to meet the rules in place for any type of development. If it does get approved, he would expect to be there hand in hand. Mayor Soderberg stated regarding the approvals, the Met Council and plat approvals, his views would be identical to Councilmember McKnight's. Regarding the county CIP, 195th Street is already on the county CIP and that envisions a tumback of that segment on Flagstaff. So part of that segment on Flagstaff would be used for the 195th Street portion. So for the City to ask them now to consider it on the CIP would be changing our direction with the county and it would put a strain on the relationship with the county. It does not make sense to ask the county to consider doing improvements on 64 for that segment of Flagstaff. 195th Street going through to Cedar Avenue and then over to 185th Street will provide some relief on the north-south track. With regard to MSA funds, moving MSA dollars from one project to Flagstaffputs a disproportionate burden on the taxpayers of Farmington. The City can look at how much MSA dollars are generated from Flagstaff and how much MSA dollars are used to maintain it. Ifwe are generating dollars from that segment of road, we certainly should be putting dollars on that road. To move more funds over to contribute to the improvement of Flagstaff over and above that he would not be interested other than the portion of dollars we would normally use. Member Davis stated he would argue that if we get that portion of Flagstaff paved the majority of people using it would be Farmington residents going up to Dodd. City Administrator Urbia stated once 195th goes through to Cedar that will lessen the load. Mayor Soderberg stated that is on the county's CIP for 2009. So without development on Flagstaff in 2009 we are looking at some relief on Flagstaff Avenue. With development there will be significant increase in traffic. Member Davis asked if it will go straight through. City Administrator Urbia replied it will go northwest. Mayor Soderberg stated the long range plan for 195th Street is to get to the interstate. Police Chief Siebenaler stated to show you that the completion of 195th Street does benefit the school, the traffic engineer talked about the significant back ups that will occur with left-hand turn movements from 195th Street onto southbound Flagstaff Avenue. 400 cars a day will make that movement compared to 151. There is a significantly larger number of turn movements than through traffic from 195th Street south. When 195th Street is completed across as a county road, that becomes the thoroughfare. Flagstaff then becomes the controlled route, so Flagstaff traffic stops to allow 195th Street to move. How that control takes place, by stop sign or stop light, it will allow a much smoother flow of traffic from 195th Street onto southbound Flagstaff Avenue. So the completion of 195th Street from Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 46 Flagstaffwest is a definite benefit to the school's project. Dr. Meeks did not disagree. Member Davis noted that is a year after they propose to open. Councilmember Wilson made an additional comment about MSA. Ifwe are able to provide some assistance which does not jeopardize projects in place that are on a timeline and that might be dollars we allocate toward maintenance, it would be reasonable to see if those can be applied. Dr. Meeks stated they are not going anywhere and will be there for a long time. Mayor Soderberg asked ifthe school had a general consensus from Council on the requests. Dr. Meeks replied yes it does not change the district's position for funding the road. 8. 19STH STREET FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATE - CITY City Engineer Mann stated the goal is to have this study completed by the beginning of August. The major issues are the bridge across the railroad tracks and a bridge across North Creek in order to mitigate the floodplain issues. Staff has talked with the county about the alignment. They are good with the alignment the way it is shown. A draft report will be ready the beginning of August. They will be looking closely at the intersection of 19Sth and TH3. There are some grade changes that will need to happen in the future at that intersection. The developer of the Seed-Genstar site, as well as the developer across the road in Empire and the state and the City have been having discussions about how to have that intersection grade change happen sooner rather than later because there are some cost savings if it can be done now rather than put in improvements and turn lanes and then ten years down the road, raise the intersection 3 ft. Dr. Meeks asked when the study started. City Engineer Mann replied about the same time as the Flagstaff study. Dr. Meeks asked ifit would change the scope of the study knowing if the proposal was for the high school to go there. Would the City look at moving 195th further north to try not to land lock the building? City Engineer Mann replied the only issue with moving it north is first of all the alignment on the other side has been locked down by the development on the other side. So moving it north puts it in the golf course area. It also changes the spacing on the access management plan, which is still officially a draft, so the alignment has pretty much been set as far as where the intersection will be. Dr. Meeks stated moving it south would work too. City Engineer Mann replied south was blocked by the platting that occurred by Empire Township before the county had their east-west corridor study done. That would be a major change that would be difficult to deal with. The access to the west ofTH3 cannot be pushed any farther west or east. He would not see any major changes to the report ifthat site were considered for the high school. Member Donnelly asked when is the road supposed to be completed. City Engineer Mann replied the developer talked about early next year but staff thinks it will be 2006- 2007 for it to connect from Parkview Ponds to TH3. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 47 Mayor Soderberg stated we have completed the agenda and extended his appreciation and thanks to the school district, consultants, all of the staff and City staff for locking ourselves in a room and hammering through this. Police Chief Siebenaler stated he has been around long enough and has heard often enough from residents moving in with a field in their backyard who have said we were promised that would stay a field forever and how dare you put any kind of buildings in there. He encouraged the school as they look at the Flagstaff site to consider the future. You have what has been described as the jewel of the school district on this hill overlooking scenic hwy 50 and it is a beautiful site there all by itself. But what happens when someone decides to put a Wal-Mart on the corner of Flagstaff and hwy 50 in 15 years and obstructs the view of this gorgeous facility. Ifthe school has any plans of preserving that site now is the time to start thinking about view and what is in your back yard and front yard and how well it can be seen. If visibility is an issue, today is the time to think about it. Not when Wal-Mart puts up a coming soon sign. It is likely to be commercial across hwy 50. City Administrator Urbia added it could happen sooner than later because of the pressure of 20gth and the sewer. Police Chief Siebenaler stated even if it is 10-15 years out, it will still be sitting there for the rest of the school's life. Member Davis stated it sounds like any site. You will put retail around them anyway. Police Chief Siebenaler stated he is not saying the school needs to change sites. You need to consider it now if you want to preserve your views, now is the time to start considering that. In other words lock up the property or whatever it takes. Member Davis stated that is part of the problem. All this discussion is because our check book got a little fatter a few months ago. But there is a limit. Police Chief Siebenaler stated he is not telling the school what they need to do. They have been told what this will be. Member Davis stated views are not at the top of his list when building a school. Councilmember McKnight stated he was quoting me and is giving a heads up for the future. 9. ADJOURN MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaffto adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~ fr7<L~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant