1l. Minutes II
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 11, 1988
II- Mk ,
ayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Geving, Councilman Boyt and Councilman
Johnson
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Horn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Larry Brown, Lori Sietsema and
Roger Knutson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
' approve the agenda as presented with the addition by Councilman Boyt of a
citywide trash pick-up under Council Presentation. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve
the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Conditional Use Permit Approval for Food Processing Facilities and
' Site Plan Review for McGlynn Bakeries.
c. First Reading of Rezoning, Subdivision and Wetland Alteration Permit
Approval for Minnewashta Meadows, Gary Carlson.
' 1. Resolution #88-28: Minnewashta Meadows Subdivision Petition
for Public Improvement File No. 88-2.
e. Resolution #88-29: Cable Television, Request to Transfer Ownership.
f. Resolution #88-30: City Hall Expansion:
1) Approval of Plans and Specifications
2) Authorize Bids
' 3) Approve Architectural Agreement
g. Accounts Payable dated April 11, 1988
i. City Council Minutes dated March 28, 1988
Planning Commission Minutes dated March 16, 1988
11 All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: (B) SUBDIVISION AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT APPROVAL, LAKE
RILEY WOODS SOUTH, GEORGE NELSON ASSOCIATES.
Barbara Dacy: It's obvious from the staff update that we wanted to follow up
on the street connection issue regarding this subdivision with the adjacent
subdivision to the west. That being Great Plains Golf Estates. Larry Brown
1
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
would like to present the staff follow-up on this item.
Larry Brown: As noted in the staff report, this site is located south of CR 14
(il
approximately 1/2 mile east of TH 101 and directly south of Lake Riley Woods.
Municipal sanitary sewer service is not available to the site and therefore
on-site septic systems will be required. Similarly, municipal water service
will also have to be provided by on-site sources. The issue of the proposed
right-of-way, the street grades are in accordance with the city standards of
7.0% with the minimum being 5.0% which is consistent with the city standards.
There are some minor changes noted in the staff report which the applicant is
more than willing to work with staff with to address those issues. The main
issue from the Planning Commission stems from combining alternate accesses.
The proposed cul-de-sac is approximately 2,000 feet in length. The Planning
Commission approved the subdivision contingent upon the applicant obtainng
alternative sources of through traffic out to CR 14. We pursued the County in
this matter and the County said that they would not support such an emergency
access or a regular access. Due to the existing constraints of the ravines
around the site and the bluff topography, the only other alternative was to
extend this cul-de-sac over to the west to Great Plains Golf Estates, which as
you're aware of, received plat extension on March 28, 1988. Obviously
extension of the cul-de-sac would cause the loss of one lot from both of these
proposed plats. The 2,000 foot cul-de-sac, although public safety felt that
the single entrance did not provide a problem, from an engineering standpoint,
being traffic flow, maintenance and emergency accesses are better facilitated
with the alternative access. That's all I have.
Councilman Boyt: Larry, given the topography, where's the best spot for the 1
secondary access if we considered putting it out to where the proposed Great
Plains Golf Estates is now? What's the best way to get there?
Larry Brown: Right where this line is drawn, (c) and (d) , I had the applicant
investigate that alignment and there's a diagram in your packet. Just to give
you some sort of feel as to what the topography looks like through there. It's
fairly flat. Due to the ravine that surround the site, this is actually the
only feasible site where you could possibly put a road through.
Councilman Boyt: How long is the cul-de-sac if we put it through where you're
proposing for the secondary entrance?
Larry Brown: The cul-de-sac would be approximately 1,500 feet. ,
Councilman Boyt: No, if we put through the secondary access you're proposing.
Larry Brown: I'm sorry, approximately 500 feet. '
Councilman Boyt: I thought you said something about the original cul-de-sac
was 2,000 feet. I
Larry Brown: This cul-de-sac that's being proposed on the plan is 2,000 feet.
Councilman Boyt: So we're knocking 1,500 feet off of it with the secondary? I
Larry Brown: Well, I was referencing the 500 feet for this distance here. In
actuality, you have a cul-de-sac situation through here that would be
2 1
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
estaimated at roughly 1,000 feet
9 Y 000 each way.
Councilman Boyt: You'd have a loop? The other question I have is, I'm
interested in a trail on this. I don't mean to propose to put a trail on but
these are lots that are 2 1/2 acres apiece. I think it would be a fairly minor
' request to ask to have a trail easement on one side or the other of this.
Probably on the inside of what I would propose to be the loop. So looking at
it initially, I think that anytime we have a chance to avoid a 2,000 foot cul-
de-sac, we should take it. I think there have been a few times in the past
when we've said that it's unlikely that we'll have a hook-up and then it's cost
up when the opportunity has become available and we hadn't provided for that
option. I would suggest that we follow the Planning Commission and what I
' think is Larry's recommendation and ask the developer to make arrangements to
run a secondary, at least give us the easement, for a secondary access across
what is now Lot 3. I would also request that we put a trail easement on what
' would then become the inside of that loop.
Councilman Geving: Have you had a chance to talk to Mr. Halla about the
potential linking of this subdivision plat with his?
Larry Brown: I believe Mr. Halla is here, the developer, and we'll give them a
chance to speak if you'd like. The developer of this plat had contacted him
and Mr. Halla had stated that he wasn't in favor the idea. Is Mr. Halla here?
David Halla: Yes. I think I'd prefer to let the developer speak on his part
first and then get involved afterwards.
Councilman Geving: That's fine. From my own rs tive we've seen a
I� P� lot of
developments like this and I don't think we have very many that are 2,000 feet
' although they have extended considerably over our original 500 feet maximum.
We have an opportunity to get a secondary access through the eventual Halla
plat. I think we ought to take that opportunity. We have to deal with issue
as it comes up and we're dealing now with this particular proposed plat and I
too would go along with Bill's suggestion that we take the opportunity to get
the easement so in the future can link up these two. I think we're missing an
opportunity if you don't do this so my recommendation is the same as Bill's.
' As far as the trail's concerned, that's another issue but I'm more concerned
about the road at this time. I guess that's the end of where the Planning
Commission left it with us to make the decision and I think we can make the
' decision.
Councilman Johnson: I'm in agreement with both Bill and Dale on this but I
don't believe that what we have to do is cut right along the alignment section
called CD here. If we cut in at 90 degrees on the east property line where it
says 245 feet there, then take a turn and run along the Ward property line, we
won't be cutting off much of his lot there. It's a four acre lot. Probably
drop that one lot considerably. We may be able to make some of that up and
still get the same number of lots out of this subdivision. We take that as an
easment at this time. It will help both subdivisions for the safety purposes.
This other, Great Plains had a fairly long cul-de-sac on it I believe also. I
don't remember for sure whether he had multiple entrances there:or not. You
see what I mean. Instead of cutting straight through Lot 3, go around the edge
of Lot 3.
i
I3
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Councilman Boyt: What's the topography look like there?
Councilman Johnson: It's flat there also according to the topo map.
(il
Larry Brown: If I may clarify something, the diagram that I had sketched out
which was included in your packet was only for reference to the "T"
intersection which I desired. I have talked to the applicant's engineer and he
says, if the Council decides they would like to see alternative access go
through there, are willing to work with the staff in nailing down a final
diagram for that. The one that I included wasn't necessarily intended to
pinpoint the exact location.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think you'll lose a lot from doing it. You've got
several six acres and this particular lot in this case if 4.0 acres. It's more
important in the far future when this gets further subdivided, when sewer is in
there, to have with the number of lots in this subdivision, it's not as
important right now but when these all get resubdivided 20-30 years down the
road, having that easement in there, even if there isn't a road in there at
this time, having the ability to get a road in there in the future for future
subdivision will be very important for our grandchildren or whatever.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there a representative here from Nelson and Associates?
Did you have anything you wanted to say about the comments that were made. '
Brian Olson: We drew the plat several times and because of the topography of
the site, we found no practical way to give the second access. We also felt
that since Mr. Halla's plat already had preliminary approval, that the actually
link-up or connection would never happen. It's an question the Attorney can
answer as to how easy it's going to be to get that. Also, we plan to start
construction as soon as possible and we would like to proceed to finish our
project. I'm not so sure that that's the intention next door. I'm wondering,
if you desire to have us create something in here again, that may never happen.
I understand the concern. Ideally we would prefer an easier piece of ground to
work with in a double access situation but for this site, it isn't real
practical or possible. If the Council so desires or mandates that that
happens, we're more than willing to work with staff to accomplish that. Yet we
would like to proceed with our plans here though if possible and not table this
for perspective planning. The season's here as far as we're concerned. We'd
like to proceed. We also don't see a great deal of potential here for future
sewer and water development with the size lots and the type of clientele that
we've already attracted and are talking to. We have one gentleman that's made
a commitment for almost a million dollars on one of the sites. I don't think
he's going to be further subdividing his lots. We're looking for
consideration. It's not an effort to dodge or duck. We looked at some of '
these suggestions that staff had. Some of this is happening before I became
involved with the developer and I don't know the complete history but there are
instances where, because of the situation and the topography of the land that
you perhaps permitted a less than ideal road situation and that's basically
what we've got here.
David Halla: We have redrawn our plat three or four times to satisfy the ,
Planning Commission and Council for their requirements. We did give two
accesses and changed the cul-de-sacs that we had originally in order to take
care of our plat. I feel that it would be unfair to us at this point to say
4
v •e
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
1:- that we make changes and give up an additional lot to run this one through. To
give an easement across where it's already been approved and okayed in our
situation. There's a possibility of doing different situations on the existing
II site to the east of us that you're talking about tonight where another road can
be put in rather than connecting through our property.
' Mayor Hamilton: I'm not so opposed to putting it through as long as it can be
accomplished without taking lots away from either one of the developers. I
guess I'm concerned that we seem to be fairly preoccupied with the length of
' cul-de-sacs and as I drive around other communities and see plats and plans
occurring in other cities, they've got cul-de-sacs that run for miles with no
alternative access and I'm kind of curious if we're the only one that gets so
' concerned about the length of our cul-de-sacs. Having never had an instance
occur in this town, that I know of, where an alternative access is
necessary, I'm not so sure that it's something we need to waste our time at.
There's no question that it could occur sometime or we may need an alternative
' access but when 2 1/2 acre lots or better, to tie the two neighborhoods
together, I'm not sure it can be a requirement, although it'd be nice someday
if they both continued to subdivide, as some of the people have said, it
' probably would be a good idea to have the easement at least so it could be put
through if so desired. As far as the trail in there, again, it's the same
problem I've had with a lot of other areas where trails have been suggested.
It begins nowhere and it ends nowhere. It doesn't go to anyplace and maybe
that would tie into something at someday too but to request and require that a
trail be built that doesn't accomplish anything, doesn't do a whole lot for me.
Did you have anything to add?
Councilman Geving: I'd like to hear from our Attorney on the question that Mr.
Halla raised or someone raised about the status of Mr. Halla's plan. Whether
or not at this point, if we decided to make that linkage, we can go back and
change that.
Roger Knutson: Change Mr. Halla's plat? What is the status of Mr. Halla's
plat?
Barbara Dacy: It was approved for preliminary plat last summer. It was
' granted an extension of the preliminary plat approval just recently.
Roger Knutson: When does that extension run out?
Barbara Dacy: July 1, 1989.
Roger Knutson: The preliminary you're giving an extra year and a half?
' Councilman Johnson: The final was given an extra year and a half.
' Roger Knutson: To bring in a the final?
Barbara Dacy: Right.
Roger Knutson: At this point it's really tough to go back and open that up.
Once you get through the preliminary plat approval and he complied with the
conditions of that plat approval.
' 5
6-- ^�
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 1
Councilman Boyt: I've got a couple things to add. First, the trails haven't
picked up much discussion here. I think anytime we're looking at lots that we
would have so little impact on asking for a trail easement, it's a good idea to
ask for it. I'm not saying that we're going to build the trail tomorrow. I'm
simply saying that we don't have to go back and purchase land in the future
that is available to us now simply for asking so I'd like to see us ask for a
trail easement along what is going to be for a long time a long cul-de-sac.
Mainly because I think it's always good to give people an opportunity to
consider walking someplace else besides in the street and someday we might like
to build a trail. On the possibility of going back and asking for this road
easement for secondary access, I think the point that Roger has made that it's
certainly going to be difficult to go back and ask Mr. Halla to adjust his plan
now in some ways begs to question because I'm skeptical that we're going to see
a final plat in here in July because as soon as we see a final plat, as I
understand it, then that changes the value of that land. Is that correct?
Barbara Dacy: The value is determined by the Assessor's Office. I know that '
Scott has told me that once a plat is filed there's a three year grace period
that will continue to assess a base on the use of the land as is even though
it's platted for single family detached use. That was his most recent
interpretation.
Councilman Boyt: That puts a wrinkle in it. I personally think that we're
making a mistake. Anytime we approve a cul-de-sac that's this long when we
have some sort of potential release. I think Jay's proposal of laying it along
the property line is probably the least impact to everyone involved and I hope -
we have a motion that indicates we will do that. '
Councilman Geving: This is for the road now you're thinking?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. '
Councilman Geving: I do want to comment to the developer that the Council has
an insight, in my opinion, a historical perspective that I don't believe you '
understand or can appreciate. We have seen a lot of large developments that
were picked up years and years ago that had no intention of ever developing but
now they've been passed on several times to different members of the family and
now, due to economic conditions throughout our community, we're seeing a lot of
development that people never intended ever to develop 20 years ago. Because
of that, especially in our northern area, we're finding that the lots are being
broken into smaller chunks especially for economics. The economics of today's
world, people can't pay the taxes or don't want to continue to pay the taxes.
People are getting older and they'd just as soon move on to a condo. We're
seeing a lot of that so just for your perspective, when you see these big lots
20 years from now, they will be broken once we get sewer and water in there. I
guarantee you. `Fat's all I have to say and I just want to reiterate what you
said Bill, I do believe we should take every opportunity to gather as many
trail easements as we can as we approve these plats because you never have
another opportunity. Once that passes, it's gone. Just like we heard from our
Attorney, once we miss a plat, we have lost the opportunity to make a change on
it and I don't want to lose that tonight so I'm in favor of securing that trail
easement. I don't want to lose a lot for the developer but I do believe that
it would be proper for us to get the easement however, for a potential link-up
at some future time.
6
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Councilman Johnson: The trail does not start nowhere and go nowhere because
we're also planning a trail along CR 14 out there so the trail will link to the
trail system. It should fit in quite nicely and again, we're only asking for
an easement at this time. Someplace in the future if the people in the area
' petition us for trails in the area, we already have the easement and we can put
the trails in. Without that easement, if we get petitioned or some future
Council gets petitioned to a trail in, there's no way they can because they'll
' have to obtain those access from 16 people. I would like to see that trail
access and I think personally, it should go on the north side of the road.
That would be the least number of households affected. It appears that there's
a slice of area between the roadway and the neighboring properties there
' between Lots 2 and 3. I'd rather have one side or the other, I'd just like to
put a condition that a trail easement will be shown on the final plat. After
looking at the contours I hate to say it, but my little idea of running along
' the east property line is down on the side a hill that's at about 15% grade and
it may not work too well. I would like the motion to say, if at all possible,
engineeringly feasible, that we obtain a road easement for possible future
connection to the west. Saying that we have not had the situation as of yet is
the same thing as saying I haven't had a traffic wreck that killed me yet. It
only takes once and who knows. In fact, in this case, I'd even be willing for
a lot area variance on Lot 3 for that easement to allow that. If we had to
' push down the lot a little bit to get that easement. I don't think we need an
area variance at this time because it's only an easement, it's still a part of
the property. The variance would come in at the time the street was built and
the City took it over as right-of-way. Am I correct there Barb?
Barbara Dacy: Right. The easement, as an easement, the area is still
calculated as a part of the lot area. I guess I'm kind of concerned. I don't
' mean to throw water on the fire here but if you're looking at an easement in
the alignment of C and D, it's almost better in that case to require the
connection because an easement would just chop the lot in half. They wouldn't
be able to build within that easement. Otherwise, an easement would have to be
reserved along the northerly lot line of Lot 3. Is that what you're
suggesting?
' Councilman Johnson: Yes, the northerly lot line I suggest as the east/west
part of it and then run up to it. Instead of starting at the corner of Lot 3,
closer to where the alignment of C intersects, that C-D site section intersects
' the road. Further up where I had originally said, is quite steep and would be
engineering wise quite difficult to get in there without owning the property
next door.
' Barbara Dacy: And the full 60 feet of width.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, theoretically we could go along the property line
' with half the width or something and go for future, whenever the other ones are
subdivided along there that we get the other half of the road. It seems to
line up with the lot lines on Great Plains Golf Estates better to keep it all
on his property. I'm definitely for the trail.
A motion was made at this point with the following discussion.
7
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Councilman Johnson: Are you saying easement or road connection?
Councilman Boyt: I'm saying an easement for both of those things.
Councilman Geving: What's the width of your proposed trail easement?
Councilman Boyt: Whatever a standard easement width is. Know that we're. '
going to put an 8 foot trail in there or whatever but we're not going to use 20
feet. The 20 foot easement is to give us a little room to flex around the
geography.
Councilman Geving: The motion has 13 items to our conditions, is that correct?
Mayor Hamilton: 9 changes. We can just change 9 so it would say, instead of '
park dedication fees, it would be say trail easement or 20 foot easement shall
be acquired and that park dedication fees shall be accepted in lieu of
parkland.
Councilman Boyt: We're still taking the fees. They're not building the
trails. ,
Councilman Geving: We would do both. We'd still get the trail and park
dedication fees and now we're asking for the easement. I'm asking, we have
apparently added 12 for the trails and 13 for the road? '
Councilman Boyt: Right and what I'm basically trying to do here is give them
the green light to go ahead and do your development stating that this be worked [11
out with staff as to the best location. My intent being that we're not going
to take a lot away from you and we're going to work with Mr. Halla so we
minimize the impact on that side of the development as well.
Councilman Johnson: Are you including the Wetland Alteration Permit in your
motion also?
Mayor Hamilton: His motion was 1(b) which includes the Wetland Alteration
Permit unless you didn't intend it to be?
Councilman Boyt: I didn't see any problem with the wetland alteration.
Councilman Johnson: Either did I so if you motion included that, my second
includes that.
Mayor Hamilton: I would just say it seems kind of foolish to try to pass a
motion that our Attorney we've hired to give us legal advice is telling us it
isn't going to work. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. This Council seems
to not like to listen to what the experts tell us I guess.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Wetland
Alternation Permit for Lake Riley Woods South for George Nelson Associates and
Subdivision #87-2 as shown on the plat stamped "Received January 25, 1988" with
the following conditions:
8
City Council Meeting April 11, 1988
1. Soil borings are submitted to the e city soil consultants and the consultants
Ili
approve two acceptable sites per lot prior to the final plat approval.
2. The developer shall i.
pe enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper
' installation of these public improvements.
3. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
' District permit.
4. A revised plan showing the changes in the horizontal roadway alignment, as
discussed previously in this report, shall be submitted for approval by the
' City Engineer as part of the final planning review process.
5. An 18-inch minimum diameter culvert shall be installed underneath the
' proposed access onto Pioneer Trial, CSAH 14.
6. The proposed road file shall include a 0.5% grade for a minimum distance of
50 feet prior to the access onto Pioneer Trail.
' 7. Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be utilized on all disturbed slopes
greater than 3:1.
' 8. The typical rural roadway section shall be revised to a 3-inch bituminous
wear course as per the City standards for rural construction.
9. Trail and park dedication fees shall be accepted in lieu of trail
construction and parkland. Also, a 20 foot trail easement shall be granted
where the developer and staff feels it is appropriate.
' 10. Submittal of stormwater calculations to determine predevelopment rates.
' 11. Carver County shall review final construction plans prior to final plat
approval.
12. The applicant shall provide plans for a secondary access for emergency
' purposes with Carver County and City Engineer approval.
13. A road connection easement shall be sought and worked out with staff that
' would do the least damage to Lake Riley Woods South and Great Plains Golf
Estates.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Larry Brown: Bill, your motion, does that mean you're telling the developer to
' go ahead and construct the cul-de-sac as proposed with just the easement there?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
VISITORS PRESENTATION: There were no visitor presentations at this meeting.
9
S�'`r
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 '
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS EAST OR AND ADJACENT TO
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, SCHWABA-WINCHELL.
Barbara Dacy: At the March 14th meeting the Council considered the subdivision '
of this property and tabled action until Findings of Fact could be prepared to
deny that particular subdivision. The main concern was the proposed access
points on Minnewashta Parkway. Now the applicant has submitted another plat
showing the creation of a cul-de-sac into the site and instead of having two
access points to Minnewashta Parkway there would only be one, that being the
street. Proposed are five lots. Lot 5 is 20,000 square feet. Lots 2, 3 and 4
are 15,000 square feet and Lot 1 at the top is 18,375 square feet. Lot 1 does
have 95 feet of street frontage along Minnewashta Parkway although what is
proposed is a part of the lot that would receive access from the cul-de-sac.
All lots meet the lot width and lot depth requirements of our current
ordinance. The Council has three options on the site. The applicants are
requesting that you consider this plat rather than the other plat that was
considered on March 14, 1988. So the three options are, you can either approve
the plat with the recommended conditions. Two, deny the plat or three, if you
feel there is a substantial change, a third option would be to send it back to
the Planning Commission.
Mayor Hamilton: Does the applicant have any comments?
Ellie Schwaba: When we were here last time we discussed the situation to the
point where you felt that if we could create the five lot situation, we've got
the cul-de-sac. .. Our original plan was to have an additional driveway. That
wasn't satisfactory so we worked it over and although we have that little flag
in there we still meet the lot size requirements. ..
Mayor Hamilton: Barbara, I asked you this afternoon, did you make up an
overhead of the surrounding area? I thought it might help everybody to look at
what the other properties around there look like.
Barbara Dacy: The property is outlined in green. This is Minnewashta Parkway
here. The adjacent lots to the east and south are all substantially larger
than the proposed lots. They have an odd kind of a flag lot situation
arrangement. There's a shared driveway to the site.
Mayor Hamilton: Are there any residents that have any comments or questions?
y questions.
Earl Heatherington: My property lies to the east and goes to the north and
then to the west of the entire Fischer property. The developers don't seem to
understand that they are out of line with their request for five lots. These
lots are quite obviously small. They do not fit the neighborhood in the area.
I have previously given testimony here and the hand-outs that I gave to you and
I do feel that over the past year all the developments that have been approved
by this Council, the great quantity of those approved have been half acre or
greater lots. Maple Shores Drive do. They have reasonable size lots of a half
acre or more. I don't understand why these people don't seem to get it through
their heads that we just aren't going to tolerate, if there's anyway possible,
this many lots and cutting up a piece of property in this way when it borders '
hones that are worth between a quarter of a million and half to three-quarter
i!
million dollars. It's just not right and therefore we strongly object.
10
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Jim Borchart: I live just east of
just the property. .. .what Mr. Heatherington
says. Lot 1 of Maple Shores has a house on that hasn't sold. It's a nice
house but it just doesn't fit the neighborhood. It's too small. It's a very
well built house and everything. Now we end up with say 3 to 4 more houses
that don't sell in the neighborhood and I think that house was done almost 2
' years now. You start getting homes in the neighborhood that don't sell, the
neighborhood goes down very quickly and all of us have a substantial investment
and we're taxed very high. We feel that it should be the way the neighborhood
is.
' John Larson: I'm the son of F. Wilmer Larson. Our ro rt is p pe y directly to the
south. I'm in complete agreement with my neighbors in saying that the lot
' sizes are too small.
Ellie Schwaba: Something I'd like to add. I appreciate the neighbors comments
' and our intention in the property, we have our first buyer right here. Rich
Melby and we have no intention to spec any homes there. We are going to have
pre-sold homes only so we'll be building custom built homes to buyer's
specifications and there won't be any houses sitting there for sale. They will
' all be sold. If you want to add that to your conditions...
Councilman Johnson: From what I see, I would think this would be a great
' subdivision with four lots. Unfortunately, in my opinion but fortunate for the
developer, they meet all the requirements of the City. I see no grounds to
turn it down. The flag lot, while I think that our rules should read
Me differently and the 90 foot frontage should be on the point of access, they
don't read that way. I feel like, I guess it was a state legislator egi_slator the other
__ day that put a paper sack over his head and voted yes. He had no other choice
but he didn't really want to vote yes. In here, I think it would be a
beautiful subdivision of four lots. I see no grounds to do anything. If it
meets all the points of our ordinance, we're being arbitrary and capricious or
whatever. I don't know these legal words here but if we turn it down just
because we want to turn it down, that's not being fair to the owners of the
property either. I would love to see larger lots. That's all I have.
Councilman Geving: Originally on March 14th we talked about the possibility of
having four lots. We also talked about the possibility of denying the second
access to Minnewashta Parkway so we advised the applicants to go back and do a
redraw. Based on that advice they've done that. They do meet all the
' specifications of nearly all the subdivision requirements that we have. I'm
not pleased with the access for Lot 1 but it's a far sight better than having
the access off of Minnewashta Parkway. I'm more concerned personally about the
sewer and water hook-ups. I don't know if we've ever done this before Larry. I
don't recall that we've ever made a "Y" situation where two homes are served by
one sewer and water hook-up. Do we have other instances like that?
Larry Brown: Yes, we have quite a few of them as a matter of fact.
Councilman Geving: Where are they at and have we had any problems with that?
Larry Brown: No, we haven't had any problems as long as the sanitary sewer
clean-outs, as I requested, are there such that our ability to gain access to
these services.
I
11 11
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Councilman Geving: Do you know specifically where you can locate either one of
these situations? I don't recall that this has happened.
Larry Brown: Off hand I don't know but I could certainly find those.
Councilman Geving: So you don't anticipate any problems having two homes
connected to a singular sewer hook-up or to a water hook-up with a "Y"
situation?
Larry Brown: Not with a "Y" situation, no. '
Councilman Geving: I would like to have that read into the record because I
just want to make sure that that doesn't happen. Have a detrimental affect
somewhere down the road. I believe that the conditions that we've posed and
forced on the developer have been met. I too would listen to the neighbors and
if it becomes a condition of approval, I would put in that there be no spec
homes built. They would have to be sold before they can be built. We don't
really have any control over a lot of this. I don't even know if we can
control that could we Roger? Could we make that kind of a condition?
Roger Knutson: I don't really think you can.
Councilman Geving: I don't believe so either. It's a nice gesture on your
part and I believe we'd want to accept that as a condition but I'm quite
positive that we couldn't follow through on that. I thank you for the
suggestion. I have no further comments.
Councilman Boyt: I'm in sympathy with the surrounding neighbors. I think that
this plan is an improvement over what you brought in the first time. It deals
with my concern about traffic. I think that you can put in your Covenants that
something be sold and the plans be approved before you actually close the sale
on the lane. I appreciate your willingness to do that. I think you should.
I'm bothered by 162 foot driveway. I think whoever goes into that piece of
property is going to have a challenege in front of them. They're going to have
Minnewashta Parkway, which may front their house and they're going to have 162
feet of driveway to deal with in the wintertime. I don't think that's going to
be the first lot that sells. Now, how do we get out of this dilemma because
unfortunately, and I do think it's unfortunate, the city ordinances allow
15,000 square foot lots regardless of what's surrounding them but I think the
Council has in the past demonstrated an ability to work with the developer to
minimize the impact on surrounding homes. What I would suggest is that we put
in as another condition, that this developer develop a berming, screening
combination that will shield the homes that are on the property lines. I think
that landscaping certainly improves the value of a lot and in this particular
case, it's needed so the people adjoinging having a minmized impact. Whereas
we can't require that you have the homes committed to before you sell the
property, I would certainly appreciate your putting that in a Covenant and I
would propose that whatever motion we recommend here, include that they come
back with a landscaping plan that will serve to screen this development from
it's neighbors.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess am pretty much in concurrence. I think it's
unfortunate when you have smaller lots in an area of larger homes. The only
mitigating thing there is that the people who are living there now, the
12 1
111 '
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Heatheringtons and others could have bought this property, I suppose to keep it
at the larger lots, but the developer does meet the ordinance requirements. We
' do allow 15,000 square foot lots. That's the way the ordinance reads. I don't
particularly like the flag lot. It is a long driveway. I don't have the same
concern as Bill about the winter because whoever buys it is going to know that
and it's up to them to clear it. The screening, the only comment I would make
on that is, I don't think it's a bad idea except generally speaking it's going
to be, the back of these houses are going to be on the back of the other homes.
I think the other homes on the lake face the lake so you've got back to back.
I'm not sure how often you look out the backdoor at what your neighbors house
looks like. You have backyard to backyard affect rather than if you're looking
at the front, then I could be more concerned about that except perhaps in the
' south side. I guess it would depend on how the property lays out and whether
they're looking at their neighbors. Other than that I don't have any problem
with it only because it meets the ordinance requirements.
' Councilman Johnson: Also, it's uphill. This property is uphill from the
property to the east of it. It would be real tough berm and shield the
downhill edge of a hill without massive regrading. I don't think it can be
done.
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps that's something we could leave up to staff to look
at.
Councilman Boyt: Larry, have we seen their grading plan?
Larry Brown: Not as of yet, no. One of my first conditions was corrective
`. grading to improve the sight distance.
Councilman Boyt: That's the sight distance is a traffic problem rather than a
screening problem. What I hear the neighbors saying to me is that they don't
want this. If they're going to have to have it, I think we need to do what we
can do to separate it. I think these lots are close to Lake Minnewashta.
That's certainly going to make them valuable lots but I think we can set them
apart a bit at really not a tremendous amount of expense. I would like to see
them develop a landscaping plan that moves to do that. I think we've done that
1 in other areas where we've had developments impacing on near-by homeowners and
it's reasonable to do it here.
Mayor Hamilton: Again, I guess I don't disagree with you but Jay's comment
certainly needs to be listened to if you're trying to screen up the hill, it's
kind of hard to do so if that's something you want in there. I guess what I
was attempting to say earlier was that should be left up to staff to
investigate and if they feel that a landscaping plan is in order that would in
fact improve the situation, the views and whatever, then that ought to be done.
But if in fact you are going up the hill, if you berm it and landscape it,
' you're not going to accomplish much is my only thought.
Councilman Geving: The only difference though Tom, even though there's about a
12 to 14 foot difference between Lot 2 and the lot to the east, there could be
some landscaping whereby they might plant some fairly good sized pines or some
kind of tree and at least block the view or diffuse the view because that's
quite a high incline here.
I
13
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: If you planted American Pines they get to be 70 feet tall.
Councilman Geving: I would think we could make that a provision.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd like to have staff look at it and see what they
think if that would satisfy your needs. They could come back to us with the
plan. -
Councilman Boyt: It would satisfy me as long as, if they couldn't work it out,
if this could not be resolved, then I think it should come back to us but if it
can be resolved between staff, the developer and the neighbors, I think it
should.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have to see a grading plan? Do grading plans have 1
to be approved by us? On other places we've approved grading.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes. 1
Councilman Johnson: So we could just have that landscaping, if feasible, will
be reviewed by staff and submitted with the grading and the constructions plans
for the cul-de-sac. Something of that nature.
Roger Knutson: The final plat also comes back to you so you get the packet
again before anything is built.
Councilman Johnson: We don't know how far down the cul-de-sac's going to go or
anything. We don't know if there's going to be massive grading on the site or I
anything at this point. Generally this is information that should have come to
us with the preliminary plat, now that I think about it. The applicant is
slightly deficient. i
Mayor Hamilton: Condition 8 states very clearly that grading, drainage and
erosion control plan for each lot will be required as a part of the building
permit application process so that's something that needs to be submitted and
if you wish to see it, we'll see it then.
Ellie Schwaba: You had mentioned that you would like it to be a condition that
we were in agreement with the staff and neighbors. . ..I don't think we'll ever
that the approval of the neighbors...
Councilman Boyt: The neighbors, unfortunately I think, are having to come to 1
grips with it. There are going to be lots here. Given that reality, I think
what I'm trying to do is give them the flexibility to screen as much as is
reasonable to screen. That's why we're putting staff in here as sort of the
negotiator, the mediator. I don't expect either side to be unreasonable but I
expect an every good faith effort to be made.
Roger Knutson: So we're clear. The City Council is not saying this is subject '
to neighborhood approval. All they're saying is, we are asking staff to get
input from the neighborhood and try to work something out. Ultimately whether
it's worked out or not, it canes back to this body and this body makes the
decision. Not the neighborhood. Not you. This body.
14
1 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
II - Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the revised
preliminary plat stamped "Received April 4, 1988" for the Schwaba/Winchell
subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. The accessory building on Lot 3 should be removed.
2. The nine conditions recommended in the Engineering memorandum dated April
7, 1988 and January 14, 1988.
' 3. Landscaping feasibility plans be worked out by the staff and if possible
be returned to the City Council with the final plat.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
LAKE ANN PARK FEE SCHEDULE.
' Lori Sietsema: Council tabled this item at the last meeting and indicated that
consideration should be given to eliminate the parking fee at Lake Ann.
.. .elimination of the fees we have on the budget, the fee flucuates from year
to year and maintenance costs are difficult to extract from one park. You can
see in the memo that the staff report, I pulled out some of the more obvious
' maintenance costs that Lake Ann incurs and they come to, which includes the
beach program, satellites, gate attendants, Lake Ann stickers and balifield
lights. It comes to roughly $20,000.00. The revenue generated last year was
around $17,000.00 which is coming pretty close to covering those costs. Staff
' is recommending that the parking fee gradually be decreased starting with the
1989 budget. Preparing for that in the 1989 budget which. . .
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's basically what we had discussed. All of us I
believe we were in agreement that we'd like to see, certainly the residential
park sticker fee be reduced to zero or something that's less than what it is
today but that to begin with next year's budgetary process would be
' appropriate. Am I speaking correctly for everyone?
Councilman Geving: You bet.
' Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see it start this year if we could. It won't
be that big of an impact.
' Councilman Geving: We've already got the stickers made up and we're ready to
start the season.
' Councilman Johnson: But there's no price on the sticker.
Councilman Geving: No but I think the budgeted items have been set.
Councilman Johnson: I don't want to go to zero this year. Just cut a buck off
of each.
Councilman Geving: I read the comments from the Park and Rec and I think it's
appropriate to scale this down over the next several years. Next year at
budget time we'll lop off accordingly and in a couple years we'll be back
' exactly where we wanted to be. I'm satisfied with it.
' 15
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Councilman Boyt: I agree with the basic intent. I have a question. Somewhere
in here I remember reading something about non-resident fees were in some way
tied to resident fees? What's the relationship there?
Lori Sietsema: Because it was a LAWCON funded park, the non-resident fee can
not be more than double the resident fee. So if we lower the resident fee to
$3.00, the non-resident fee can not be more than $6.00. If you eliminate the
resident fee altogether, you have to eliminate the non-resident fee as well.
Councilman Boyt: I agree with what I read in the Park and Rec Minutes and what
I remember Tom making the point last time we discussed this, we certainly want
this park accessible to our residents. What we're saying here is if we reduce
this, we're going to come up with $17,000.00 we do not now have. I don't know
where we're going to find it but I think this is a case in which we need to
continue to charge some sort of a fee to in some way reflect the costs of
operating this park. We have a number of parks in this community that have no
charge to resident or non-resident. This happens to be the one diamond park we
have and we charge a very small fee to use it. I think if there's any
reduction made in the fees, it should come from the Park and Rec Commission.
They should investigate this and they as a group should make a recommendation
to the City Council.
Sue Boyt: We did. '
Councilman Geving: I thought that's what I read.
Councilman Boyt: As I saw their recommendation, correct me if I read this
improperly, they recommended what we have in front of us which is the fees for
1988 be the same as the fees for 1987.
Lori Sietsema: That's correct. They discussed whether it should be eliminated
or not eliminated and there was a split decision. There were people on the
commission that thought we should eliminate it all together but the majority
voted that it should remain the same.
Councilman Boyt: And that's why I think this is a decision that should go '
back. I think we should leave it the way it is for this year. I think we're
all in agreement. Let's leave it the way it is for this year. I'm simply
saying that as far as direction to the Park and Rec, I would like to see the
direction read, go back and look at this issue and then they decide, if there
is good justification to reduce it, then come back with that recommendation but
I don't want that recommendation coming from another group.
Sue Boyt: We spent two meetings on this item. The second meeting we had more
information than the first meeting and the majority of the Park and Rec
Commission voted to maintain the fee schedule. '
Mayor Hamilton: May I make a suggestion then. I've been thinking about this
and because it's LAWCON grant driven, I think what other towns do is they'll
charge a fee because there's lake useage. Now why couldn't we move our little
ticket house back to some point where if you're going to use the picnic area
and the lake with your boat or whatever, there would be a fee for that.
Ballparks and tennis, the areas other than the water don't require a sticker.
16 1
j.:v
II City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 y f�
IT That's just an idea because I think
J other cities do that. For instance, Round
Lake, I think you need to have a sticker to get into the lake area in Eden
I Prairie but you can go over there and play ball. You can run around the park.
You can play tennis. You can do pretty near anything you want to. You don't
have to have a sticker for it.
ILori Sietsema: As long as we charge a uniform charge. If we're not charging
too much for the non-resident. They don't really care. They would just as
soon see us eliminate the fee too.
II
Mayor Hamilton: We may need to make some adjustments to our parking and I
think that is perhaps something that the Park and Rec would want to look at and
1 look at this idea and see if it has any merit. I don't know, maybe it's a dumb
idea.
II Councilman Geving: I like your idea Tom because is what's driving the whole
thing is the LAWCON grant. That's what's driving the fact that if we collect a
fee, it can't be more than twice as much as our regular fee. I personally
think that the park should be free and available to anybody who wants to use
I it. I don't care if they're from Eden Prairie or Chaska because our kids play
in Chaska and Eden Prairie and they take their ballteams over there. It bugs
me that when people come to Chanhassen they have to go through the gate and be
I charged. I kind of like Tom's idea of moving the gate back, let Park and Rec
work this out but. move it back and then charge just for the lake access.
1
111 Lori Sietsema: I know that LAWCON will not allow us to charge just for the
boat access. That definitely will not fly but if we're charging for the whole
park and
p the access happens to be in it but if you include the beach in that,
that's something I'd have to check into.
ICouncilman Boyt: I think in reality we can't charge someone to launch a boat
at that park.
IMayor Hamilton: We're not.
Councilman Boyt: I think going along with what you gentlemen have said, we
Ishould advertise that anyone can launch their boat free.
Lori Sietsema: We can charge at the boat access. We can charge to launch the
I boat. It can't be more for anybody. It has to be a uniform fee so if someone
comes in and wants to launch their boat and they're a non-resident and all they
want to do is launch their boat, they can get a season ticket that's $5.00 just
Ilike the resident fee, that they just are launching their boat.
Mayor Hamilton: We're not telling them we're charging them to launch their
boat. It's a parking fee.
ILori Sietsema: We can charge to launch the boat as long as it's not more than
what we charge the non-resident.
It_ Mayor Hamilton: What I'm saying is, we're not telling them we're charging them
anything to launch their boat. It's a parking fee. You can come in here and
II all we're charging you for is to park your car and trailer. It costs you
nothing additional to put your boat in the water. It would seem to me that
' 17
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 '
might solve the issue. We need to pay for the upkeep of the parking lot, 1111-
consequently we charge for people who park there.
Councilman Johnson: What about the people who drop their boat off and go home
with it?
Mayor Hamilton: I'm just trying to look for a way we can resolve this and '
still bring in some funds. Since the beach and picnic area is the most heavily
used, and since that's where we spend most of our maintenance dollars and
clean-up, with lifeguards and all the other things, it seems like that's where
we should try to recover some portion of what our costs are and not from the
tennis players.
Councilman Johnson: Like we said earlier, approve it for this year and then 1
ask Park and Rec, as Council direction that we would like to see the fees
reduced or eliminated. In the overall city budget, $17,000.00 to $20,000.00 is
a fairly amount of the overall city budget. '
Mayor Hamilton: It was my idea to lower it and I still think it's a good idea.
I don't have a problem with continuing on as we are this year. '
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to continue with the fee
schedule that's been established for 1988 for Lake Ann Park by the Park and
Recreation Commission. That the Park and Recreation Commission review this
item early in the year (i.e. January) , to take a look at some of the ideas that
have been suggested for alternative methods of charging fees at Lake Ann Park '
for 1989. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: I would like the Park and Rec people to receive this portion
of our verbatim Minutes. It would be my position that if they propose reducing
the fees, that they also look at where we're going to find the money to pay for
the expenses of operating this park.
EVALUATION OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD, LOWELL CARLSON.
Barbara Dacy: I scheduled this item for Council consideration tonight for two
options. Either one, the Council can go along with the Planning Commission's
recommendation that was decided at their meeting on February 17, 1988 or to
table this item again to allow the applicant to prepare another plan. I was
concerned that if plans didn't get submitted, that this item might be further
postponed and this item has been up in the air for the last 2 1/2 to 3 years.
The applicant did submit this morning a proposed site plan locating the
building on the lot. I know the Council does not like surprises and I'm going
to commit a cardinal sin by handing out a site plan the night of the meeting
but I just wanted to pass that out. The two options for the Council, either
you can table the item again or if you want to go ahead and proceed with
ratification of the conditional use permit.
Mayor Hamilton: I think before you pass those out, I would rather ask the
Council, and it's my feeling that I would rather see this put on at least our
next agenda so we would have an opportunity to review his plans and perhaps to
18 '
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
47- talk to Mr. Carlson prior to that meeting rather than sitting here and trying
Y g
I go through his plan and struggle with it right now. It's not going to hurt
anything, as I see it, to table it and I would like to have an opportunity to
look at the plan in some detail rather than to talk to Mr. Carlson about it.
Rather than sit here this evening and I know the place is a mess. I probably
dislike it more than you do but at the same time we need to be reasonable.
Councilman Boyt: The plan looks very, very simple.
' Mayor Hamilton: If you've had an opportunity to review the plan then you're
ahead of the rest of us.
Councilman Boyt: And that's why I'm saying to you, it amounts to a few boxes
on a piece of paper. It's that simple. I think that we have the Planning
Commission making a very strong recommendation and all but one support it. I
don't know that there's a lot to be gained by delaying this. Two weeks is not
' a big deal.
Mayor Hamilton: Anytime I'm dealing with a person's livelihood and we're
asking to discontinue a conditional use and put him out of business temporarily
with that, I want to be very careful about that. Whether it's a good business
or a bad, that's not the issue. It's just you're still talking about a
person's livelihood.
Councilman Boyt: We're not putting him out of business. We're simply saying
that the expansion of his business may be inappropriate. I think that we have
seen a general disregard for the interest of the City here and that it's fairly
important that we put an end to that.
' Mayor Hamilton: I agree with that. Along with that I would like to see us put
a deadline on this. I don't believe we have in the past, any specific date
that says either you have to conform or come up with a reasonable plan by a
certain date but if you think this plan is so easy to look at, if you think it
' would just take us a matter of seconds to look at.
Councilman Boyt: Ask Barbara.
' Barbara Dacy: The best way to show you is to hand out the plan. It merely
shows where the proposed building is going.
' Mayor Hamilton: I guess the comment I'd make right off you don't know where
the hell anything is.
' Barbara Dacy: King Road is located along the bottom of the property. The east
property line is on your left hand side. The building is approximatley 12,000
square feet in size. 27 feet in height and it's a metal polebarn construction.
Councilman Gevi_ng: This building in the middle here, is that what we're
looking at?
Councilman Boyt: No. We're looking at this building.
Mayor Hamilton: Another thing, it is a simple plan but I don't see anything
' with this to tell us how it's going to be cleaned up what's there and I'm
19
c)
,City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
really looking for that. Mr. Carlson, did you want to make a comment?
Lowell Carlson: We've got another full plan that follows there. The storage '
area is going to be taken out...
Wayne McCorney: Everything is going to be stored inside. Everything that's on
this site will be inside.
Mayor Hamilton: That's got to be an awfully big building. Are you going to
pile it to the ceiling?
Wayne McCorney: It's 26 foot.
Mayor Hamilton: There's enough junk up there to fill up a couple sheds.
Wayne McCorney: He might throw a few away ...but other than incidental
vehicles outside, everything will be stored inside. You've got to realize that
a lot of that junk, that you consider junk, is in fact the building. We're
just going to clean up a lot. Then there are like 25 vehicles, this is a
pretty good size building, they'll fit in nicely. His entire operation will
fit in nicely. It's going to be cleaned up and it's going to look like the
other pole buildings, indoor arenas and horse buildings around there. It's
going to be no different. We have agreed also with the Planning Commission, we '
told them you name the color if you like and we'll put your color on. If
somebody wants it to match their eyes, we'll do it. _
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that's very important. '
Lowell Carlson: See, you might say okay, the stuff is there. The only way
some of those vans, there's storage in there. You can look or do whatever you
want to do. I've got noplace to go with that.. . I can't throw the stuff
outside. It's stuff we use on jobs. Steamers, hauling materials and whatever.
Campers, compactors, everything we're using except our.. .but there's wood out
there and stuff, I've got to agree with you. But the problem is, where do I go
with it? If I get rid of the van and that, throw the stuff out in the yard,
what's going to store it to keep it dry. I don't have another choice. ..then
I can get rid of the vehicles. The vehicles, that's no problem but you can't
just do it without a building to some of it in.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we understand that. '
Councilman Boyt: Having read through the rather thorough discussion of the
Planning Commission, it would seem to me that what we're looking at here is a
business that's expanded. It would seem to me that we're looking at a business
that's out of character with the neighborhood. I recognize and I agree with
you that this is a bit of a dilemma when you have some valuable materials and
you've got to store them where you can maintain them but for the Council to
agree to put up a 12,000 square foot building, 27 feet high, seems to me to be
dramatic at least. If we're going to pursue this, there's a couple things I'd
like to see done. First one is, I would like to see this go back to the
Planning Commission. I'd like to see the neighbors notified that this is going
to in fact be proposed. The other thing I'd like to see done is I'd like to
see a good faith effort. I want everything cleaned up that isn't currently
stored in something. I think on your part you're saying I want to move in the
20
' City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
' right direction because you're asking the City to approve an expansion to your
business. I'm not comfortable that we can do that.
Councilman Geving: I understand a little bit about where you're coming from.
'[ I don't know if ou've expanded panded sznce 1972 or not. All I know is it's a real
mess out there. I get the impression in the discussions that you had with our
staff, that you are making an attempt. You are trying. The mere fact that
you're here tonight with your Attorney is an indication to me that you do have
good faith and that you're making an attempt to show it. I have to agree
' however that we're looking at a plan for the very first time. The Planning
Commission has not seen this plan. It would be unfair for them to have us
approve something tonight that they have not seen. I also read in my notes
that you are looking at the possibility of a 2,000 square foot building rather
' than this 12,000 square foot building so that's what I was kind of looking for
tonight because the notes appear to me, it says Mr. Carlson appears to be
willing to construct a 2,000 square foot building initially. I don't know
' where that note came from. Then secondly, there was a request somewhere down
the line for a waiver of the permit fees. There would be no way that I could
see that happening and I don't think this Council would allow that to happen so
' we can forget about that. I don't think it would be ro
p per for us to act on
this tonight other than to tell you that we appreciate your good faith Mr.
Carlson and your attempt to clean up that area.
' Councilman Johnson: I get to looking at this upside down drawing here with the
south property line on the top and everything and as I understand it you've got
a 30 foot, no I guess it would only be a 10 foot sideyard setback here but
there's a house right next door there if I remember the property right that
you're putting up a big building that's basically going to block all their
sunlight in the evening, 27 foot tall. It's a heck of a building. I'd like to
' see a lot more information in here. What's going to be utilized in the
building? What's the layout? What's the exterior like? Can it be moved
further from the property line so you're not squished up against your neighbor
like that? He's pretty close to his property line there from looking at the
' edge of the junk piles near his house. I see that there's a lot more
information here to show us that this building is actually going to clean up
the situation in hand. A layout showing that the trucks are going to sit and
here's how the trucks are going to be. We're oin to have
g g speed racks here
for putting in plumbing parts or what. All I see is some amateurish sketches,
lines drawn on a piece of blueprint paper. I think this is a way to clean it
up. I'd like to see landscaping also to hide this building a little bit. Some
' trees and shrubs and whatever. It doesn't need to be 27 foot tall. How big is
the biggest truck coming in and everything? This is a residential family area
as far as the zoning. I have a real problem with putting this big of a
' structure in this type of zoning area. When we redid the zoning, it was a time
to protest the zoning but I've got to see a lot more information about what
this is going to look like.
' Mayor Hamilton: There's a building, it appears to be similar to the size just
to the north of Mr. Carlson's property. Are you familiar with that building?
What size that is?
Barbara Dacy: Isn't that Headla's building?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, how big is that?
21
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Lowell Carlson: I think that's 60 by 150 or something like that.
Mayor Hamilton: It's not 27 feet high. '
Lowell Carlson: He's got three of them. He's got a riding stable and two
other big. '
Mayor Hamilton: They're quite a ways back, they're further back than yours I
think. The one that stands out is certainly the one just to the north of
yours. I don't think that's 27 feet tall. I'm not too good at heights but...
Wayne McCorney: It's a little bit different than his. He's got 14 foot
sidewalls and there's a peak in our sidewalls. It's a round roof so the total
to the peak would be about the same size.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it's not out of character for the area and if it would
help clean up the mess that's there, I would certainly be in favor of it but
I agree with Dale, it should go back to the Planning Colluuission for their
review and comment of this plan and along with looking at the plan, whatever
you need to go with it to show us how you're going to clean up and I think the
Planning Commission should at least discuss some deadlines. They'll say it's
got to be done by and put Mr. Carlson on a schedule so we're not sitting here a
year from now still messing around with this thing. '
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see if it's possible to move this back into
the property further away from the road, berming between it and the road and '
shrubery and stuff to somewhat hide the building more than have it sitting
basically as close to the road as my house is in my little subdivision. 30
foot from the road is not very far at all. Just some suggestions that might
help the overall affect.
Mayor Hamilton: Hopefully that will come up in the discussion at the Planning
Commission. If not, you can throw that out. ,
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table evaluation of the
building permit application to determine compliance with Conditional Use Permit
for a contractor's yard for Lowell Carlson and return it to the Planning
Commission for review. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Lowell Carlson: If you use that top line for the road, as far as setback, my
property line goes clear over to the last lane and then down below the hill,
the whole road is like on my property or whatever. That's the way it's laid
out so when you're saying 30 feet back from the edge of the road, you still got
another 15 or 18 feet or whatever and whatever happens to that when you change
the road I don't know. Will they move the road over or stay there or whatever?
Councilman Johnson: I'm trying to get that thing as far away from the road
where it's the least impact from the road for the people driving by as '
possible.
Mayor Hamilton: He's the last guy on the road.
22
' City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Councilman Johnson: The road goes all the way around and there are some houses
behind you there.
lit ' Lowell Carlson: Yes but when you get down to the bottom, the whole road is on
my That's not a
Y question I wanted to ask.
Councilman Johnson: So it's a private road?
Lowell Carlson: Yes, it was put in there years ago.
' Councilman Johnson: The road's not even shown on the drawing so we have no
idea of that.
Lowell Carlson: It don't show the lot line but on the bottom it's the road.
Wayne McCorney: It's been plowed. The City's been taking care of it for
years. It's a public road.
Councilman Geving: I think what we're trying to say here Mr. Carlson is...
' this building to the west and to the south.
Mayor Hamilton: Let's let the Planning Commission do that.
' Lowell Carlson: See, this is what I was saying. This stuff would be gone and
this stuff would be gone... Like you said, show the clean-up.
Mayor Hamilton: I think you have to come up with a plan.
Lowell Carlson: Where can I show that?
Councilman Johnson: Are you going to have concrete floors? What are you going
to have inside the building? Draw little cars inside there. Trucks inside
there. Racks inside there.
' Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we care what's inside that building. We care
what's outside right now and where that's going.
' Lowell Carlson: The Planning Commission they wanted a firm, now you build a
building and I give them their color and a nice building and now they want to
put up a berm and cover the building up. That's pretty impossible to do
because I'm on the south side of the road and the wind blows and covers the
building with snow in the wintertime. I don't know about some of these things.
Councilman Boyt: I think in terms of good faith, it's important that you start
making progress on cleaning up before you get your building built. You can do
that and that to me would demonstrate your intent to take care of this problem.
Lowell Carlson: Okay. I would love to take anyone of you out there. All the
stuff's that put on pallets, we stacked it and we spent all this summer putting
the stuff on pallets. I pick it up with a forklift. We got rid of a lot of
stuff. There's still some there. I'm not done and Barb and Jo Ann, they come
over before I torn that building down and checked it as far as the type of
building and that...
' 23
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988 '
MERLE VOLK LAND EXCHANGE, CITY OF CHASKA/CITY OF CHANHASSEN REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: I am asking that the Council reconsider this and I'm doing it on '
the basis that as I see this item progressing, I truly believe that we're
creating a lose-lose situation for both the City of Chaska and the City of
Chanhassen. The property under question is an integral part of their planning
process for their industrial park. Without the ability to include the Merle
Volk property as a part of those plans, they are significantly hindered in
their ability to develop that overall business park. They have approached the
City asking us to consider again, some form of a land swap or whatever else it
would take to allow them to develop that property. Without our approval, I
think that we really leave them with no choice but to try to approach the
municipal commission presenting their position regarding why this property
should be annexed to Chaska. If that does occur, I think that they have a
reasonable position in that presentation and I do not want to create a
situation again where the City of Chanhassen potentially gets into a lose
position without at least trying every other solution. From Chanhassen's
perspective, and I know there are a number of different opinions on City
Council as to what it is that we should receive as a part of this land swap.
The only thing I can state is that as the property currently sits, it can not
be developed. Metro Council has stated that we can not develop that property.
We can not see sanitary sewer to it. It will really never have sewer or water.
It will never be in a position of being able to be developed industrially or
commercially. The value of the property is $2,500.00 to $2,800.00 per acre.
The lands proposed by Chaska as part of the trade are $2,500.00 to $2,800.00
per acre land. We have one additional issue and that revolves around an
existing businessman, Gedney, who does need to take the work through, how to
provide fire services to his facility. Without question I can approach the
City of Chaska and ask that that be handled totally separate from this issue.
However, City of Chaska is aware of the fact that we have looked to the
potential swap of the 18 acres associated with Gedney's future expansion and
quite frankly I think they see this whole issue as being one of reasonable.
For them to act, we ask, very quickly saying we're going to treat Gedney's
issue totally separate is probably not very realistic. Again, I think that
they will but if we look at the broader perspective, one of trying to develop a
win-win situation for both communities, I think that the land swap really makes
sense. The fourth and final issue that I present is one that not every
situation has to be one in which you come out with everyone coming out exactly
the same at one point in time. We recently approved the substation for NSP.
That facility will pay taxes in excess of $100,000.00 per year. That facility
could just have easily gone onto the Chaska side of the border as the
Chanhassen. Since Chaska will be paying about 50% of the taxes from that
facility, there was a great deal of apprehension by them in terms of again,
potentially paying taxes and those dollars flowing back to Chanhassen. Yet we
reasonably looked at the situation in terms of where the best location for the
substation should reasonably be, approved this Chanhassen site and Chaska went
along with that proposal. If we were truly looking at it in terms of a win-win
or everyone gets exactly the same type of thing, I don't think that Chaska
would have agreed to that position at that point in time. Those are basically
the positions that I'm asking reconsideration on. I think that again, without
looking to some form of reconsideration, we will have created a lose-lose
situation for both communities and I don't think that is going to be something
that's health for either one of us in years ahead.
24
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
III ,
III Mayor Hamilton: Since I was the only minority vote and the one that has to
move for reconsideration, is that correct?
Don Ashworth: It has to be a member of the prevailing side and the prevailing
side was that the item not be considered so it would have to be one of the
other members.
' Mayor Hamilton: Do you wish to make such a motion Jay to reconsider?
Councilman Johnson: What we asked them to do was come back with a better swap.
' Mayor Hamilton: I'm asking you if you'd like to make a motion to reconsider.
Councilman Johnson: No, I'd like staff to do what we asked them to do. I've
' got some suggestions.
Mayor Hamilton: Dale, will you make a motion to reconsider?
Councilman Geving: No.
Mayor Hamilton: Bill?
' Councilman Boyt: I will. It even surprises me. I think to get to where you
want to go Jay, reconsidering it may be the best way to get there. I would
like to see us discuss it. We can always discuss it and vote down that
reconsideration.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to reconsider the request for
' the Merle Volk Land Exchange with the City of Chaska and City of Chanhassen.
Councilman Boyt and Mayor Hamilton voted in favor, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Johnson voted in opposition to the motion and the motion failed with
a tie vote of 2 to 2.
Councilman Boyt: Actually I was hoping we might discuss this motion because I
' think there's a point that sitting here, that we didn't discuss the first time
and I'd like to run that by Jay and Dale to see if it's convincing. Jay, I
agree with you. What I thought we did the last time was sent it back saying
' continue to talk. I didn't sense that we said we didn't want to work this out.
We simply said that that didn't seem to be an equitable arrangement. I think
Mr. Ashworth has done a nice job of pointing out to us that there are some
considerations here that weigh in this. As I explained to Mr. Ashworth earlier
this afternoon, I think that for me, we simply are not receiving something of
equal value. I know that this is a subjective sort of situation and Don
proposed that there might be another alternative here. That we could turn this
into a win-win, which I think currently stands at a win-lose. I don't think
it's necessarily a lose-lose yet, although it could become that. That's the
possibility of generating some tax dollars that Chaska and Chanhassen could use
together. Don, do you remember that discussion? Would you briefly review that
for the rest of the Council?
Don Ashworth: The reason I didn't go into it longer in my opening was because
' I think it could take a long period of time to develop. The entire tax
1 25
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
increment law and especially as it applies back over to school districts
establishes a situation where, let's assume that the 7 mil levy is approved by
the school district. As those 7 mils are applied back over to tax increment
districts, it actually creates a windfall situation for those districts in that
to insure that property taxes are equal on one side of the district line versus
another and we don't have a good example of that here but there are communities
where businesses on one side of the line are paying taxes and you have
buildings of equal value on the other side that are within a tax increment
district. The way that's taxed then is they calculate the amount of taxes that
are necessary for school, county, etc. and they totally eliminate the value
associated within the tax increment district. So let's assume that mils were
125 mils, it goes up 7 mils to 132. That 132 mils then is what then would be
applied over within the tax increment district. In other words, you then have
created a situation where the district would be generating, let's say 7%
additional taxes. The suggestion that I had earlier discussed with Chaska and
they have not explored it with their Council, but let's assume that the vote
was favorable as a part of the school district, if that were approved, each of '
the two districts, both Chanhassen's and Chaska's would stand to gain a
windfall over where they currently are with tax increment of generally 7%.
That is an amount of money between the two districts to fund a number of
different proposals one of which might be an ice arena. My suggestion was that
might be considered on lands currently owned by the school district in Chaska.
Bill's point was that since there's a very favorable position being offered to
Chaska as a part of the Volk property, that potentially Chaska would join us in
seeing these combined dollars to build an ice facility in Chanhassen that would
be a joint or would be a school district type of a facility. Again, I've
received support from Chaska in that area recognizing that it has not gone back
to their Council. The consideration as to where it might be built has not been
really discussed. Councilman Boyt felt that for him to be able to vote for
this type of proposal that he would have to see something to be of more equal
values and that potentially this type of solution might do that. Is that
correct?
Councilman Boyt: What I'm proposing is that I think we generate in this 1
situation, the opportunity to raise some money that the two communities could
jointly agree would be spent to build a facility in Chanhassen that would serve
the area. I think we all like what Tom said last time we discussed this, that '
this certainly helps the County and School District to make this property more
valuable. I happen to think that we have a better negotiation position than
Don thinks we have and I think this position could lead us to the gaining of
some tax dollars that we could spend to benefit the whole area. That's why I
would like to see staff take that idea back to Chaska and do what they can with
it.
Councilman Johnson: That's what we asked for last time. If we reconsider
this, that doesn't get that.
Mayor Hamilton: It's a vehicle to accomplish that. It's very clear and Bill's
idea was correct. Do you wish to make a comment Dale?
Councilman Geving: Sure, I've been waiting anxiously. I think it's totally
inappropriate for the City Manager of our city to make a proposal such as the
one being made here tonight. He has taken a position in favor of the applicant
whom we've not seen on at least two occasions. He's not here tonight. He's
26
1 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
11.4,-
the one who originally ro sed this land s
proposed swap. Where is he? Where is the
Ili ' land developer who wants to move into the direction of Chaska and we have a
city manager who's willing to sell us out. In my opinion, it's very
inappropriate of Don, for you to come before the Council and take that
position. We have not had this in the past. When an applicant comes before
I the Council we react accordingly. We have not done that in this case. I, for
one, voted to give staff the direction to go back and I believe we asked for
three things. I'll read than to you. That we wanted a fair exchange in terms
I of funding an equal value piece of property. Secondly, we wanted an equal
size and access as the yolk property. Thirdly, we wanted a piece of property
not on the floodplains but somewhere north of Pioneer Trail. Those were the
three conditions that I remember on the night of March 14th when we directed
I staff to go back and do that. Now tonight, with the reconsideration in our
hands, what are we reconsidering? The same thing that we talked about on March
14th. Nothing has changed. Usually for a reconsideration there has to be a
I change. There has to be a reason to reconsider it. I thought we gave staff
very good directions. I don't believe that was taken. I don't believe that
what they're attempting to do, the City of Chaska is not giving us fair and
equal value in the proposal that I have before me because there's nothing
I changed. The land that they're proposing south of the Arboretum is worthless
land to us. We could never develop that. That acreage means nothing to us.
In fact it will probably be bought and added to the Arboretum and be tax free.
1 There's no value there. Then again, why should we want land that's in the
floodplains next to Gedney's? I see no value in that. That to me is not a
fair and equal exchange that we asked for on March 14th. I don't believe,
III again, that I'm willing to give up one inch of Chanhassen territory without
just and due compensation pensation in like quantity and in like value from the City of
Chaska. To think that you're so naive to think that the City of Chaska is
willing to pay for and. fund an ice arena through Chaska and Chanhassen to be
1 located in Chanhassen, and I've been around here 22 years, I don't think that's
going to happen people. I really don't. I believe that there is a potential
here for bringing something back to the City of Chaska for consideration but
1 only under the conditions that we originally proposed to staff. Give us
something of equal value. Give us something north of Pioneer Trail that we can
develop and give us something of equal size. In terms of what has been
presented tonight, that a municipal community can make this decision if Chaska
I wants to proceed with it, if they want to proceed along those lines, let the
Court decide. If they really want to go that far, let the Court decide. I
think we've got a very good defense and that is that we want something of equal
I value. As I read this anlysis from Don, I couldn't believe what I was reading.
I still believed Don worked for the City of Chanhassen. I still believe that
he gets paid by the City of Chanhassen and to take up the standard for a
1 developer who isn't even present, I don't think should ever be allowed.
Especially when we directed staff to come before us and make a presentation and
to meet with Chaska and make another proposal and come back to us again. You
didn't do that. Staff did not do that. I can't vote for a reconsideration. I
II want to consider only what we talked about before. Nothing has changed. Take
our original proposal, meet with Chaska and talk about some alternatives. I've
got some alternatives. I've got three or four pieces of land that I think are
II applicable. They are very nicely located to areas that we can develop and I'll
show than to you on the map if you'd like but what bothers me is that we were
able to meet here tonight and ask for a reconsideration on something that the
II applicant probably doesn't even know anything about. We're making the proposal
and that's very unusual. The fact of the matter if, I know of very few
II27
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
instances when staff or the manager has ever made a proposal such as this one
tonight for reconsideration. It normally comes through the normal process from
a developer or someone who is making application for a change. So again, I
think this is totally wrong for us to take this approach. I think Bill, you
may have gotten an idea that has merit and going back to the Chaska people and
asking what they can do to make us an equitable swap but I don't believe we've
done that. My view is that the March 14th recommendation to the staff stands
and reconsideration in my view should not be considered. We just have not met
what we think is an equitable and fair exchange.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have anything addition? You've stated it three times.
Councilman Geving: I've stated it three times because I really am concerned.
I have nothing more to consider.
Mayor Hamilton: I have a couple of comments. I guess I'm absolutely appalled
by Councilman Geving's comments about the City Manager. I think we need to
take our blinders off sometimes and to realize that what we need to consider
are those things that are best for the entire area. Just because someone
doesn't happen to like the applicant, who in this case is the City of Chaska, I
don't think it's right to condemn the City Manager, the rest of the Council,
anybody else who happens to get in the way. We have an obligation to the
residents of this city, to the county, to the school district to do the very
best we can to generate funds for the whole area and to attract business out
here. If deannexing a part of Chanhassen into Chaska so it can develop
industrially and bring out more strong industrial users to this area, which
will also create residents for our community as well as for Chaska and Victoria
and other parts of the County, then I think we need to give that absolutely
every possible chance to pass that we can. We don't just throw it out because
of our own selfish ideas and whims. As far as a fair exchange, what's a fair
exchange and what's a piece of ground? What the hell is the difference if
we've got 40 acres worth x number of dollars in exchange for 40 more acres of x
number of dollars? I think we need to look, again, at the total picture and
not just a little piece of ground. We need to look at what the piece of ground
is going to do for the area. We need to look at what kind of income that can
generate for the school district. For the county. For the city. It's going
to build houses. It's going to bring people out here. To say that the City
Manager should not have done this, I commend Don on doing this. I think he
took the initiative because he had been gone on vacation and the staff took up
a memo that he had only partially written. If you read his cover letter you'd
perhaps understand that. He was merely coming back saying his memo was not
complete originally and he wanted us to reconsider something that he had
additional comments to make on. Just because the mentality of just because we
haven't done it before, stinks as far as I'm concerned. If we haven't done it
before then that's an opportunity for us to do it now. I guess maybe sometimes
I'm a non-conformist but I think to say that we've never done this before
carries absolutely not one iotas worth of anything as far as I'm concerned. It
just gives us another opportunity. If we haven't done it before, we ought to
do it now and we ought to reconsider these things and let's look at them for
the value of them, not because of our own selfish interest. So it's
unfortunate that some of us can't look past the end of our nose but I think
we've got to try to do that and not be condemning our staff in public, as we
talked about many times. The staff does an excellent job and I think in this
case the staff continued to do an excellent job.
28 ,
' City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
II
Councilman Johnson: I also would like to support staff on bringing this back
to us for the reasons that he did bring it back to us but I also think that
Iit's awful nice of the City of Chaska to plan their roads through the City of
Chanhassen. If you look at their plans here, it also goes into the other Merle
Volk property. They have roads planned in more so after they've annexed this
' 40 acres, they've already got the roads planned further into Chanhassen for the
next step which, if that's more Merle Volk property, maybe it's.. . I think
there are some areas out here that are available like I showed Don and I think
' that we should continue to work with the City of Chaska. I don't like that
little 22 acre piece up there. I don't think that we needed 40 acres for 40
acres. If we get 50 acres for their 40 acres or whatever, as long as it's an
equitable trade. Something that, in the old times that you'd be willing to
spit on your hand and shake on but right now, I don't know. There are several
pieces here that Chaska could, right now I think we've got their minimum offer.
Let's do some negotiating and find that middle of the ground. We've only got
' one offer so far, let's not jump on it. A lot of people never take a first
offer on a house. When you go to buy the house, you always offer them a heck
of a lot less than you think they'll take but a first offer, just negotiate
' your way back up. Here's a first offer, let's start negotiating. That's my
feelings. If we voted and everything had to be north of Pioneer Trail, I'm not
sure because I don't think the property they're talking about is within the
floodplain down by Gedney because it's on the north side of Gedney, not on the
' south side of Gedney. I think it would be a good idea to have the first
respond as a part of our negotiation to help out our businessman down there. I
think that's a very good suggestion. It has some value to the City because it
MIT
Ilt helps out. If he expands into that area, that helps us out with the tax base.
There are several other little funny jogs in our property line here where we
can adjust our property. We may end up having to take a little more than 40
acres for them to get their 40 acres. I'm willing to let them put their street
' through and then go ahead and develop up north of these 40 acres. I don't see
any reason why the City of Chaska can't go ahead and put their street through
as long as they want to pay for the street and put it right through the 40
' acres and they've completed their street plan. If that's what they're trying
to do, if that's what they want to do, we can help them complete their street
plan. They can put in an application to complete their street plan through
' here. The City can buy it from Merle Volk and they can be the developer and
develop it as city property. The City of Shorewood owns a park in Chanhassen.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to make another statement.
Mayor Hamilton: We're going to move onto the next item.
' Councilman Geving: Won't you give me a chance to rebut what you said?
Mayor Hamilton: No, absolutely not. You made your comments, I made mine.
That's all we need to have.
Councilman Geving: You made a shot at me that I'd like to respond to.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, you made shots at everybody.
Councilman Geving: Are you cutting me off?
' Mayor Hamilton: We're moving onto the next item.
1 29
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
1
Councilman Geving: You're cutting me off from making a comment.
Mayor Hamilton: You voted no and you made your comment. All of us made
comments so that's all I need. Once around is enough.
Councilman Geving: Thank you very much Mr. Mayor. I'll remember that.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
COUNCILMAN JOHNSON, GIRLS SOFTBALL DONATIONS, DISCUSSION ITEM.
Councilman Johnson: I haven't spoken with Gary Meister who was trying to '
organize a traveling girls softball league. As of the last time he had talked
to me, he had raised $240.00 from local businesses and various folks in trying
to get a sponsor for the traveling girls softball league. This would be to
help purchase the uniforms, equipment and the like for the team. I'm trying to
figure out ways and I think it would be a good thing for the City to have a
traveling sports team that travels around the Twin Cities and literally around
the county if they get into the tournaments and we have some very good girls,
young girl softball players. I'd like to see that somehow the City help out
this effort. This is my idea at this point. I'm not coming to you as a board
member of the Athletic Association that's sponsoring this team also. It was my '
idea. He's been working for about four months and he's come up with $240.00.
You can't start a traveling girls softball team, you can barely buy the
shinpads and bats and balls and stuff with that kind of money and won't have
decent uniforms. If nobody else will buy the uniforms, I'd like to see that we
could do something to match businesses or something to help encourage this
effort. I don't know what is legal or not. I heard that we may not be able to
do this kind of support. I'm not sure. Whatever is legal. Even it's only a
couple hundred dollars. Last time Gary talked about it, he was talking about a
minimum of about $1,000.00 to get the basic team. A really nice team with good
uniforms and everything with the matching uniforms and shoes for everybody. His
first budget when he was really dreaming about this was about $2,400.00 but
then he came to reality when he started trying to raise money. I guess they're
looking at selling pizzas or whatever they have to do to try to raise money to
have this team. They also need a good pitcher, a fast pitch pitcher. They're
trying out pitchers right now. Even this winter they were practicing in the
grade school. They are a dedicated group of young women that are a benefit to
the City. They went to a State tournament last year as kind of an impromptu
thing. They had never done fast pitch under those types of rules before and it
was kind of awakening for then but they're ready to go after it this year and
win a few games. '
Mayor Hamilton: It seems like it would be a difficult thing for the City to
support. When you start supporting one you're going to have then all up here
asking for money for uniforms and equipment. Has this been discussed at the
Park and Rec?
Councilman Johnson: No. I brought this up after seeing that no further
11714
donations were coming in and they were kind of stuck.
Mayor Hamilton: It's always difficult for any sports team I guess to find the
money to buy their uniforms and to survive but gosh, I don't think the City can
30 1
' City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
start donating anything for a team like this.Y 9 I realize that it certainly
would be a good thing to do but we're opening Pandora's box I would think if we
,` did something like this.
Don Ashworth: I think you've got a good suggestion in that it should go back
' to the Park and Recreation Commission. There are a number of programs that
they look to each year and they should be making the input or a decision as to
whether or not this may or may not be a program that they could endorse within
' a budget potentially the following year and part of it, as far as the legality
issue, I think should be explored at that level as well. In that the City can
participate in programs that basically we operate to the extent that you're
providing almost a donation type of a thing over to another group. That's
where you run into a problem. Again, I think the item rightly should go to
Park and Rec.
' Councilman Geving: How much money do you need? You mentioned $240.00 or
something?
Councilman Johnson: $240.00 is what they've collected so far. Their largest
donation has been from a firm that's not even in the City and it was $100.00.
Otherwise, they've $20.00 here and $10.00 there and $50.00 here.
Councilman Geving: You've contacted all the normal business channels?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. As a matter of fact, Gary reads the newspaper. If
he sees the name, if we talk to somebody in here, Schwaba today, he'll probably
' have a letter out to them tomorrow. Anybody that appears before any city
business interest. He's going after everything. Originally he went after our
normal sponsor donation list. I'm only talking $200.00 or whatever. Something
' just to help them to where the kids don't have to raise as much themselves.
Councilman Geving: How old are these kids?
' Councilman Johnson: I believe it's the 14 to 16 year old range.
' Mayor Hamilton: Okay, let's send this back to Park and Rec and they can
discuss it there to see if there's anyway to help them out at all.
' Councilman Boyt: I would like to see staff directed to bring back to us a
proposal for having a city organized pick-up of items that a trash collector
doesn't normally take. Things like old washing machines. Things that have a
' tendency sometimes to end up in people's backyards waiting for an opportunity
to be hauled off. I think the City is in a unique position to do that and I'd
like to see the staff come back with a recommendation.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to see you include, specifically in there, tires.
What people do I think is drive out in the country and they throw their old
tires out because it costs you $2.00 a tire to take them to a landfill if not
more than that.
Councilman Geving: Can the landfills even take tires?
Roger Knutson: No. I tried. Mine are still in the garage.
11 31
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Councilman Geving: I like Bill's idea. I think a citywide clean-up is an
excellent idea and it should be something that becomes a routine in our city.
Once in the spring and once in the fall and the City has the resources where we
can make them available to do. I like your idea.
Mayor Hamilton: And that tire thing, Councilwoman Swenson has always been so
strong on tires that it creates breeding places for treehole mosquitoes so if
we can come up with some creative ways to get rid of tires. Good idea.
BLUFF POINTE SUBDIVISION, CITY PLANNER.
Barbara Dacy: This is the colored version of the reduced plan that was in your
packet. The only thing that I wanted to elaborate beyond what I stated in the
memo was a little more description about the new TH 41 corridor. I'm not too
sure if any of you have even heard of that in your past experiences with the
City. Here is Pioneer Trail right here and Aubudon Road and CR 17 is right
here and the proposed TH 212 corridor slices through this site up on the north.
The new TH 41 would extend straight through the site in a north/south manner.
This is a perspective of Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie where you have
existing in place TH 41 right here, proposed TH 212 corridor over here and TH
101 across the river and then I-494 and CR 18 over on the east. If you called '
up MnDot today and said what about new TH 41, they'd say yes, it's on our long
term improvement plans and the number of probably matches the amount of
years... There was a river crossing study that was done in 1978 that looked at
[II
the existing crossing, this new crossing and the CR 18 crossing. That study
recommended that this new crossing along with the CR 18 be looked at as soon as -
possible. In fact, recommended this crossing over the CR 18 crossing but we
know in the last 10 years the political impetus for constructing CR 18 gained
support through the last 10 years. Currently Met Council wants to delete this
crossing and this corridor from their transportation policy plan. MnDot has
figures that say if an alternative north/south corridor across the river is not
constructed, then you're looking at vehicle volumes on existing TH 41 of about
20,000 to 30,000 average daily traffic. Now Chaska obviously is really
concerned about what that does to their downtown. Here we've got a classic
case of we have a long term improvement. We have money to build it. We have
not even an official map in place because it hasn't been deciced who's going to
be the implementing agency and yet Chaska has a development proposal pending at
this very time. You need to know that during the Planning Commission's update '
process for transportation plan, we are going to be recommending that the City
adds this as a study corridor in the plan. Currently right now this is not
even identified although the County's plan does identify it. The EIS for TH
212 will help us out in this study corridor in that we will be able to look at
the need for an interchange at this area and what type of direction the
interchange should take and what does that do to the volumes and the traffic
patterns to the east on TH 212 or the extension of Powers Blvd. and the
interchange of TH 101 into Eden Prairie. So, what the City of Chaska is going
to be looking at and what their staff is recommending, neither the Planning
Commission or the Council has acted on it, is that what they're going to do is
act on the first phase of the development in the extreme southwest corner of
the site. Rezone that so the developer can get started on that and reserve
this as open space and not act on it until some future answers are addressed.
Now the Chaska Council could come back within the next month and say the long
32
IICity Council Meeting
April 11, 1988
term improvement for new TH 41 is so far away that we just can't deal with it.
We prefer to look at maybe having MnDot analyze another interchange for
' proposed TH 212 and existing Audubon. If that's the case then obviously the
commercial area that's proposed in this area here is directly affected. Chaska
really holds the key as to whether or not this is going to reserve a corridor
for new TH 41. That's an update on the traffic situation. We made some other
comments about potential trail connections. The developer did confirm with me
today that they will construct a trail along the east side of Audubon Road that
' will match up with the current trail plan that Chanhassen has.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems kind of ludicrous that the State would expect a
growing community like Chanhassen to even designate a corridor for TH 41
knowing full well that TH 101 has been proposed for the last 35 years and
nothing has happened. TH 101, nothing has happened there so now we're supposed
to tie up more property and tell landowners they can't develop their land
' because there's a potential that 50 years from now there might be a road going
there. I have a real problem with that.
' Councilman Geving: Can I ask you, where did this idea for the proposed TH 41
come from?
Barbara Dacy: It originally came out of some of the traffic numbers and
' studies for TH 212. Even with TH 101 and CR 18, the projections by MnDot is
that existing in place TH 41 is going to be overloaded. There needs to be
another crossing across the river to take away the pressure on TH 41.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask you, why should we be anxious to tie up all of
that very nice developable land north of Lyman Blvd.? That open space there
' that we've got just lots of room to maneuver in the future and I just can't see
it. I just can't see bringing TH 41 in. This is the first time I've seen it
on a map and I can tell you, I'm not in favor of it. I would prefer to keep TH
41 where it's at. If it's heavily volumed, upgrade TH 41 but don't bring it
' over to the east. We're going to have all we can handle with straightening out
TH 101 and the TH 212 corridor and yet bringing in another, a third item that's
the proposed TH 41 realignment. I just don't see it.
' Mayor Hamilton: The State can't even fund one intersection for TH 101.
Councilman Geving: It's silly to put that on our maps.
Councilman Johnson: Does that run right through Gedney Pickle?
g Y
' Barbara Dacy: Fairly close to it, yes. There's no question, just as any other
highway improvement, there are impacts to not only existing land uses but the
terrain in here is awfully rough. It's the classic case that we have short
' term planning versus long term planning. We do know that we there will
probably be, and there have been a number of traffic studies to confirm it,
there is going to be a need for another corridor in this area. In fact, that
1978 study said that this one should be prioritized over this one so all that
we really want to look at is what has changed in the area and can we survive
without it.
' Councilman Geving: In fact, don't you go right through the middle of the new
Timberlane Estates or whatever that is that Otto is developing?
33
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Barbara Dacy: This is a conceptual alignment.
Councilman Geving: I know that but we're already developing a lot of those
areas and then to put a highway right through the middle at this stage of the
game, it's never going to happen. It's not even realistic.
Mayor Hamilton: As you look at TH 41 as it goes south of TH 5 now, it would
appear as though there is adequate room to enlarge that to a four lane without
a great deal of difficulty except when you get into downtown Chaska where you
would be, I think there are four lanes there now. You would slow it down some
but there's room.
Barbara Dacy: If you remember with Wally Otto's subdivision, that's exactly '
the alternative that the County wanted. They required extra right-of-way on
Galpin so if this couldn't be achieved, they could look at widening Galpin.
Councilman Geving: We'll have 500 homes in that area before that's ever even
put on paper officially.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Tell me what this discussion has to do
with the Chaska development. I saw it run right through the middle of the
Chaska development but I don't understand why we're talking about it right now.
Barbara Dacy: We're talking about it right now because Chaska has to determine
whether or not they want to approve the plan without reservation for some type
of corridor or if they just want to go ahead and say forget new TH 41. If
you're going to build it, then you're going to have to acquire all these homes
at that time.
Councilman Boyt: I think we should tell Chaska that if they want to deny this
plan for TH 41, we'll certainly look at the new TH 41 more seriously than we
are right now. Can we go to the development? I think staff's recommended
responses to Chaska certainly fit the direction we'd like to see them take. I
would like to see us notify everyone in Hesse Farms and any other developments
north of this within reasonable distance, that this is happening and the dates
in which Chaska will be considering it. I think that the citizens in that area
should certainly go to the appropriate council meetings.
Mayor Hamilton: May I suggest, that perhaps we notify them. I don't think I'd
want to rely on Chaska.
Councilman Boyt: Oh no. I think we should notify them and I think we should
send the staff report with the notification. Not the whole thing but the two
pages that staff summarizes it. I would like to editorialize for a couple of
minutes here on this. I think in looking at this development, there is the
possibility that developers of this size will go to Chaska rather than come to
Chanhassen and I consider that a big relief. When I see 12,000 square foot
lots as an average, it makes our PUD development look pretty good and I see
some regret that Chaska is burdened with apparently the inability to develop
the same quality development we can have in Chanhassen. I'm appalled, if I
read this correctly, on page 6 of the proposal, that they are talking about
developing 344 acres and they're giving 7.5 acres in park. I can't believe
that that's a reasonable park amount for that number of people and it's
34 '
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
certainly not what we would ask for. More power to the developers. Maybe more
Pe Y
people will go down there that want to have kind of development. That's my
editorial.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to have you discuss for a minute the commercial
' aspects of this. The comments in the analysis indicated that if the commercial
were available in this plat, that it would draw away from the potential for
commercial on our proposed TH 212. Can you give us some insight into that?
' Barbara Dacy: Right. Mainly I was referring to the commercial in the rural
area and not specifically along the TH 212 alignment but since our rural area
is not going to be serviced by water and sewer for many, many years, the
' proposed commercial at this location is at a major intersection and it will
serve a neighborhood purpose. Commercial belongs there where urban services
are provided. It takes some pressure off.
Councilman Geving: The reason I ask that question, I know Jim Curry is very
interested in the commercial plan for the proposed TH 212 corridor just south
of his Lake Susan Hills development. I'm sure that he's going to continue with
' those plans because that's... Could you show me the proposed Pioneer Trail
realignment? I didn't see that on the plan.
' Barbara Dacy: Here's TH 212 here. Here's existing Pioneer Trail and then the
proposed Pioneer Trail ends up in this fashion. Then it would parallel TH 212
further to the east and then it would cross TH 212 and connect into this
existing alignment down where Buck's are.
Iti
Councilman Geving: I'm sure there are property owners along there that are
going to be very interested in that realignment. Don't we have a developer or
' two that are working in that area now?
Barbara Dacy: Yes. Sever Peterson and they were all in abundance at our
' meeting on TH 212.
Councilman Johnson: On the north side of TH 41, I think the problem occurs
more on the south of the new TH 212. I am wondering if they could probably
keep the alignment with TH 41 and take it to four lanes or whatever, down to
the new TH 212 and then the new river crossing would just be the south side of
it that runs down there. That seems to make more sense to me. Rather than
' starting a whole new highway.
Barbara Dacy: And just constructing this?
Councilman Johnson: Right and then expanding the existing TH 41 going north.
Barbara Dacy: That's an option and Chaska obviously with the downtown, they
' are really concerned about the future impact of additional traffic and what
that does to downtown so that is an option.
Councilman Johnson: They could even do a by-pass up north of TH 212 as a TH 41
by-pass rather than cut through the middle of Chanhassen. We're.already cut by
too darn many roads. TH 5, TH 212. Everything in the world just cuts us in
pieces. They do have the room so that's what they should work on as far as I'm
' concerned. How soon as their meetings?
35
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
Barbara Dacy: Planning Commission is Wednesday evening and the Council meeting
I have to verify.
Mayor Hamilton: I wish you would remind us when that is. If this gets on the
agenda at Chaska.
Councilman Geving: I like Jay's alternative for the TH 41 because it still
gives than river crossing.
Councilman Johnson: And it cuts the traffic out of downtown which is what they
don't want.
Councilman Geving: But north of that, I just can't see. '
Councilman Boyt: You're saying that this is going to the Planning Commission
this Wednesday? '
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I would like you to contact the homeowner association people '
in the relevant developments so the presidents can let than know what's
happening.
Mayor Hamilton: Is someone from our staff going to attend that meeting and make
comment? I wish you would.
Barbara Dacy: I have a conflict that evening. I did attend the last one
though.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager 1
Prepared by Nann Opheim
36
Z4
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 8, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. .
tMEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Carol Watson, Curt Robinson, Jim Mady and
Ed Hasek
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Schroers and Mike Lynch
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd
Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor .
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Robinson moved, Mady seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meetings dated January 26,
1988 and February 2, 1988 . All voted in favor and motion carried .
SITE PLAN REVIEW - MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS.
Sietsema: This is the site plan for Minnewashta Meadows . TH 7 is down
here. This is Church Road. This is Cathcart Park. Basically, because
the park is right next door , it' s not park deficient and none of these
streets were identified on the trail plan for trails so I just went with
the recommendation to accept fees in lieu of parkland and trail
easements.
Hasek : Did I understand we' re not going to take an easement?
Mady: She didn ' t ask for it.
' Sietsema : I didn ' t recommend it because it wasn' t on the trail plan.
Hasek: I think we ought to connect this sucker to Minnewashta Parkway
' right now. I 'm sorry, to TH 7 and ultimately to Minnewashta Parkway. I
think we ought to take an easement along right to the westwern edge and
also across that little corner down there so if we want to come straight
' across into that corner of the fire property there, we can do it.
Sietsema: To get up to that park?
Hasek: Yes.
Watson: Is that park still used by kids in that neighborhood?
' Hasek: The reason why it' s not used by anybody in Chanhassen is because
it' s so difficult to get to. It ' s a city owned , Chanhassen owned park
that' s operated by Shorewood.
Si_etsema :. The church owns the property. Minnewashta Church owned the
property and they gave it to the City of Shorewood if they used it for
' park purposes because they didn' t want development on it so the City of
Shorewood, and I think there were some other stipulations as far as what
I
and Recreation Commission Meeting
Park a g
March 8, 1988 - Page 2
kind of activities it could be or that the church would be able to use
it or whatever. I 'm not really sure but anyway, they gave it to the
City of Shorewood because they felt they were closer or more akin to the
City of Shorewood than the City of Chanhassen so the City of Shorewood
maintains the park but it' s within Chanhassen. So we really have
nothing to do with it.
Hasek moved , Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recomend acquiring a trail easement along the west side of Church Road,
along the east side of Minnewashta Meadows, and accept park fees in lieu
of parkland. All voted in favor and motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - MCGLYNN BAKERIES .
Sietsema : This is the McGlynn Bakeries ' proposal . This is TH 5 along
the north and Audubon Road along the east side of the proposal . It' s
only 18 .5 acre site and it ' s about the bottom half that they' re
proposing to develop. With this intersection right in here and future
expansion over here. Eventually they plan to sell off the northern
piece. Lake Ann Park is right here to the north . This is not a II residential area. and this is part of the business park which is somewhat
served by Lake Susan as well as Lake Ann. We did not recommend for park
acquisition. Our trail plan goes to about here. It stops here. The
park road that goes through the business park and then it stays on the II street there and goes off to the east. What I 'm recommending is that we
revise our trail plan to go all the way up to TH 5 because we will have
a trail along TH 5 and connect to that. Just so we make sure we have II loops so we' re not just ending in the middle of nowhere. I think that ' s
what that would look like. We don 't need an easement on the south side
of the proposal because the trail ' s going to be on the north side of
TH 5. What I am proposing is to accept park dedication fees and trail
dedication fees and request a 20 foot trail easement . I talked to Gary
and he said as this area develops, Audubon Road is going to need to be
upgraded and at that time they will put the trail in but the II right-of-way that we have right now will probably not accomodate a trail
so he thought we should get additional right-of-way.
Boyt: He's talking off-street trail right? '
Sietsema : Right . What I 'm recommending again is a trail easement along
Audubon Road and full park and trail fees.
Mady: Have we gotten any easements along TH 5 anywhere or do we need
easements along TH 5? 1
Sietsema: I just had a meeting with MnDot who will be doing the
upgrading of TH 5. They are trying to get it done sooner. In fact, the
City just put $50,000. 00 toward the process to get that process moving
sooner. They have said they are going to need an additional 100 feet of
right-of-way to develop that into four lanes . They were thinking they
were going to do it on the north side but that would take 100 feet of
Lake Ann Park which we probably would have gone ahead and said that' s
11
1 '
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 3
' fine because we want it that bad but because we use LAWCON funds , it ' s a
two year process just to convert that land so they said forget it. We
want to have it done by then. They' re going to try and go with the
' southern route. In that meeting we talked about trails and they are
very trail happy. They are willing to construct the trails within the
right-of-way and they' ll do the construction.
Mady: If they' re going to upgrade it to four , that means they' re going
to use the two that are there as probably the westbound lane. They' re
taking the other to the south then. Does that leave enough room north
' of even the existing right-of-way on the north side of the easement to
put a trail in?
Sietsema: Yes , because the trail that goes out to Lake Ann now is
within the right-of-way.
Hasek : The right-of-way obviously isn ' t on top of the ditches .
Sietsema: No, I don ' t think so .
' Mady: As long as they know that ' s where we want to stick the trail .
Sietsema: They know that' s where we want it. In fact I just wrote them
' a letter to tell them exactly where we want other trails to intersect .
They' re talking about putting in an underpass where the creek goes
through so our Bluff Creek Trail can go right under the road . They' re
working with us very nicely. I was impressed.
Hasek: How far is TH 5 going to be upgraded?
' Sietsema: To TH 41.
Mady: The other question I had was , since TH 5 is such a busy street ,
would it make sense for them to put a trail on both sides of TH 5 at
some point in time? Maybe not in Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the trail plan.
Sietsema : The problem is going to be, if there' s going to be enough
' room because they are going to be like this close to Paisley Park ' s
parking lot . They' re going to be real close if they go the southern
route and there' s a mini-storage that' s going in down there. That ' s why
they wanted to do it on the north side because it ' s going to be so close
to developments that already exist. Yes , it would probably be a smart
thing to do but it' s going to be tough . If you wanted to get an
additional easement here so we had this .
' Hasek: Is there any way the City can give an easement across the park
until the process is completed in two years? Or can ' t they build on an
' easement?
Sietsema : It' s like federal and state funds used to purchase that
property in the first place so we can' t do anything but recreate on it.
It ' s a real long drawn out process and if you do it just step by step
right on time, get everything done, it takes a minimum of a year and a
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 4 1
half . You run into red tape and you can spread that out into two years .
I 've gone through it twice with the Lake Ann boat access and with the
Lotus Lake boat access and believe me, it takes at least two years to do
it because you have to find property to swap that' s of equal or greater
value, of equal or greater use, of equal or greater acreage and you have
to prove and justify all this stuff and then you have to have the State
approve it . When they say okay, we believe you , then you have to send
it down to the National Park Service and they have to approve it. Then
it comes back and you have to, it' s just unbelieveable. The list is
this long of what you have to do and you can' t do it before that
conversion process is completed because there are so many chances that
the National Park Service might not approve it. If there 's any chance
it can go to the south , they won' t approve it because you have to
investigate all other alternatives like not doing it at all .
Mady: If this piece of property, if they do sell of the top half for
further development, I would think that we would be seeing it back.
Sietsema : Yes .
Watson moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend approval to require a 20 foot trail easement along the west
side of Audubon Road, accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland
and trail dedication fees . All voted in favor and motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - LAKE RILEY WOODS SOUTH.
Sietsema: _ - this is Pioneer Trail I
right here and TH 101 would be over here. It' s difficult to get your
bearings but if you look at the bigger location map that I put in your II packet, this is the boundary line right here that doesn' t include.. these
houses . These are existing houses right here. The closest parkland to
this is the Bluff Creek Park. It ' s a linear park, our trail system and
also the next closest would be Bandimere Heights . This is in the rural
area so it' s outside the MUSA line and the trail plan calls for trails
along Pioneer Trail . We determined with the Vogel
property that that trail would be going on the north side so it doesn' t
affect this plat at all .
Mady: Has there been any discussion on the railroad? Is that going to
be an active rail line?
Sietsema : Yes . It' s my recommendation then to accept park and trail
dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction. This was II looked at , if you recall , way back about a year ago when we were talking
about the 15 acre parcel parkland down in this area and we determined
this to be too far to the east . It wasn' t centrally located . It was
this one we reviewed so this one is even further to the east. For the
same reason . . .
Hasek : We also looked at the Gagne property and on that piece of 1
property did we not recommend an on-street trail along the roadway?
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 5
Sietsema : Yes . So again, my recommendation is to accept the park and
trail fees in lieu of construction and easements.
' Hasek: How wide is that road?
Sietsema: I 'd say it ' s 60 feet for a rural section.
' Hasek: Would they be blacktopping it?
' Sietsema: I would assume so but I don't know the details.
Hasek: Doesn' t the City require blacktopping?
Sietsema: I 'm sure they do. I don ' t know of any other. It wouldn' t be
curb and gutter . It would be a rural section with 2 1/2 acre or more
lots but I don' t know of any other subdivision that ' s gone through
' except for Sunset Trail that they had gravel roads on. I think it ' s
safe to say that it will be blacktop.
Hasek: One thing I 'd like to discuss maybe just very briefly, I 'd like
to keep the Gagne piece open. The Gagne parcel that' s north of the
bluffs on this side. It would be a real sweet deal if that 15 acres
' somehow would go to the lake, which I know is almost impossible.
Sietsema: I think we signed off on it. We signed off on it a while
back .
Hasek: Because it is too far to the east?
Sietsema: Right. We determined at that time. I don' t know if we
recall the map that Mark brought in with the yellow areas highlighted
and that was one of them.
' Mady: I 'm still a little concerned that we be consistent with this
particular parcel versus the one across Pioneer Trail . Vern' s parcel .
We requested on-street trail didn' t we?
Hasek: I guess you' re right there. What was the configuration of the
road in the piece that you brought to us across the street?
Boyt: On Kerber ' s property, it was on-street. That was one that maybe
we should have asked for off-street.
Watson: There' s an interior street that goes like this, in a big
horseshoe.
Hasek: But does it cul-de-sac?
Boyt : No , but the Vogel property did and that' s where at first we were
going to ask for off-street and then we decided, isn't that the
property?
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 6 '
Watson : Because with Vogel , remember he had those trees and we were II
practically going to be running. . .
Hasek: That was on. I
Watson: That ' s right.
Hasek: I guess I 'd like to be consistent too but it seems to me like I II
remember that one reason why we decided maybe a trail was appropriate in
there was because the cul-de-sac that was in there ran almost all the II way, if not all the way over to the property line. We thought there was
a possibility that that road might go through at some future time.
Sietsema: Right, and it won' t. I
Hasek: This one is never going to go anywhere and it serves 15-16 lots .
Watson: How long is that cul-de-sac? II
Hasek: I have a quick question. What' s the 1-2 that' s on here? Oh,
II
septic system sites.
Watson : That ' s one heck of a long cul-de-sac . How long is it?
IHoffman: About 20.
Boyt : It ' s longer than that. I
Watson: You have to count the curves because that ' s a one way in and
one way out. I
Hoffman: It' s almost a half mile .
Boyt: I surprised that the City Council approved that. '
Sietsema : They haven' t gotten it yet .
Watson: I have one or two questions regarding your cul-de-sac requests. II
Mady: Since we don' t know and we probably won' t be seeing this come back II
to us, if the Council determines that the road is too short, too long ,
whatever , I 'd like to see us get an off-street easement .
Sietsema: Off-street? Okay. I
Boyt : We heard from the Fire Department before that this is not the
safe way to plan a development.
II
Hasek: I just can' t believe that the City is looking at these long
cul-de-sacs like this and accepting them. There' s no reason in the world II
why that thing couldn' t generally do exactly what it does and dead end
over here against this other property.
II
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IMarch 8 , 1988 - Page 7
Boyt : This is a waste of our time too. Staff should say, the City
doesn' t allow half mile long cul-de-sacs . It shouldn ' t come to us .
IWatson: This proposal is not going to be in this configuration by the
time. . .
ISietsema : It will change probably a couple of times before. . . The
developer can hear that from staff and still submit whatever they want.
I Watson : Do we still have a thing in the ordinance that says lots can' t
be, the length can' t be more than twice the width because he' s got some
awful long , skinny lots here too so there might be more than one reason
Ifor this configuration.
Robinson: Even so, for us , if it gets shot down and we go along with
I something tonight and the long road gets shot down, do we get to see it
again?
Sietsema: It depends on if it ' s denied at the Council level , then they
1 have to start all over again, as I recall .
Watson : Don' t we have the perogative to request to see something again?
ISietsema: Sure.
Hasek: Can we make that recommendation?
ISietsema: Sure.
I Hasek: If this in fact does go into a cul-de-sac, maybe we don' t need
to but that would just be an amendment to the motion. If the
configuration of the roadway changes , we'd like to take one more look at
it.
I
Hasek moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
I recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland
and trail construction with the proviso that if the road plan changes
from a cul-de-sac, the Park and Recreation Commission would like to
review the new plan. All voted in favor and motion carried .
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR TH 7/41 - HSZ DEVELOPMENT.
1 Sietsema: This one is kind of exciting because it brings us back to
Herman Field and our original plan and maybe we can do what we said all
I along . The property lies within the service area of Herman Field and
the road configurations , because of abandoning a right-of-way here, the
purpose of what they want to do is to limit the commercial traffic
l through the neighborhood. What that may involve then, this would be the
right-of-way that they' re abandoning. This is the project proposal .
Oriole Lane comes down here. This is the area that we had talked about
II
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 8 '
extending Oriole Lane. We had the feasibility study done to get down to
Herman park which is down here. If this proposal goes through, it would
bring Oriole Lane over here and down again. We could get an access off
of this curve here. If Oriole Lane is brought straight down, which II would be this configuration, we could get access just straight into the
park. That would allow us to keep our original plan, Herman Field plan
and we wouldn' t have to move the parking and we wouldn' t have to acquire
the additional easement off of Forest Avenue to bring the access in
there.
Mady: So what they' re looking at is extending Forest Avenue? ,
Sietsema: No. Forest Avenue, the alignment comes here, the road
right-of-way but it actually ends right here. What they' re saying is
Oriole Lane which is into this point, they may extend it all the way
straight down and then curve it over to TH 41 so they have a second
access into this neighborhood via TH 41.
Boyt: Should we make a recommendation on which of these Park and Rec
would prefer or is that something?
Sietsema: Yes , we could . That definitely would be in order . As far as II
this proposal, as I understand it, these two outlots are reserved for
future development. They may sell off or just for future , this company
may use for future development . I 'm not sure. It involves 31, 920
square foot retail center which would be located right here and face
towards the corner . The Comp Plan doesn' t identify this as a park
deficient area and the trail plan doesn' t identify trails going all the
way up to TH 7. Again , I think that' s something that we may have
overlooked and I think we may want to make that connection up to TH 7 ,
off-street. '
Hasek : . . . There is some discussion as to whether this is going to be,
if the alignment of Forest Avenue right-of-way is going to hit TH 41
where we' ve shown it or there may be some discussion. We talked to this
one that' s labeled existing home down here, which I think is the
nursery, about aligning that road and going right out to the school .
Either way it doesn' t really change. Forest Avenue, instead of hitting
TH 41 where it does , we' re thinking that maybe we'd like to see it come
out to the school and control that intersection.
Sietsema: Wasn' t there some discussion about moving the school '
entrance?
Hasek: That' s a possibility too. I know that there ' s been a lot of
things talked about but I don' t know exactly how they' re going to turn
out.
Mady: The point I was getting at, the West 64th Street , vacating that '
right-of-way, I feel we need a trail off of TH 41 that gets to Herman
Field somehow or another .
I
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 9
' Sietsema: I think when the street goes in, we should probably put a
trail along that street .
Boyt : We don ' t see streets though do we?
Sietsema: I do. I can work with Gary on that.
Mady: Since the City already owns the West 64th Street right-of-way, I
would hate to see us give that up and then not get something else
because that would easily go to Herman Field from there.
' Sietsema: It stops right at this point .
Hasek: I think the trade-off that they' re looking at is that , well
there are two things. There' s an issue of if you vacate the right-of-
way or that you don ' t use the right-of-way anymore then it' s not serving
the purpose for which it was taken and it has to eventually, at some
point get back to the property owners . Second of all , the owner who
owns this corner up here is looking at either working with purchasing
the rest of the property, including everything down all the way to the
' bottom of this graphic. He' s working with everybody down to this next
line which is actually the bottom of Herman Field . In working with the
purchasing of those parcels so they can all go together . They realize
if they cut off 64th Street, that there' s going to have to be something
done to the south and really this whole project up here kind of hinges
on acceptance of the whole plan at some point .
' Sietsema: I know the soils to the south of where Oriole Lane exists ,
the soils in here are poor . That was brought out with the feasibility
study we had done so we' re almost wondering if this isn ' t a better
' alignment and get access from here. Either one .
Boyt: What do the residents want?
' Sietsema: Either one. They' re still working with them.
Hasek: They have a meeting set up Wednesday night.
Sietsema : I ' ll tell you right now, these people that live right here
don' t want Oriole Lane extended.
' Watson : I know this will be very rough.
Sietsema: I think it' s the Zieglers that don ' t want Oriole Lane
extended at all if it involves assessments .
Hasek: How do they feel about Forest Avenue?
' Sietsema: Forest Avenue wouldn ' t be extended that far: You mean for a
park access?
Hasek: Really, I guess Forest Avenue is the one the that goes across
but if they don ' t want Oriole Lane going through, is it the park access
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 10
and people going past their homes? ,
Sietsema: No, they don' t want to be assessed.
Watson: They don' t need it. They say they have no use for it. ,
Hasek: But are the Zieglers the one with the cockeyed driveway right
there or the ones to the south of that?
Sietsema: I 'm talking about the people west of Oriole Lane right-of-
way. ,
Hasek: But they'd get assessed before them anyway.
Sietsema: They were against Forest Avenue being put that far through
too. They said as long as you only bring it to here and it doesn' t
affect us, fine.
Hasek: But isn ' t that already platted?
Sietsema: The right-of-way is, yes. But putting in the streets, the 1
assessments .
Watson: When we did the park thing, remember they sat there . It was
fine going back as far as the park but. . .
Hasek: It has nothing really to do with this project. I 've just got to II
chuckle at people who take that attitude. You can' t do anything on your
property because it affects me and the question I would ask them is ,
fine buy that piece of property. If you don ' t want me to do something
on my piece of property.
Watson : It ' s a much more complicated issue than that . Believe me, you
don' t want to vote on this and I don' t want to get into it. It 's far
more complicated than you are making it out to be. To be critical of
these people because of Oriole isn' t taking into consideration the
entire issue .
Sietsema: I would suggest two different motions . One on the street
alignment and one on just this proposal regarding park fees and trails .
. . It would probably be easier to get in if Oriole Lane went straight
through but it' s going to cost the City probably more money because the
soils are poor . Maybe you just want to make a recommendation that you
want one of them to go through. '
Mady: I don ' t see the benefits to the park with either one. I can see
some potential problems if you come straight out to TH 41 with people
•
outside getting into TH 41.
Sietsema: From a very strictly park aspect , this is a neighborhood
park. If it' s Oriole Lane that' s extended, it gives more direct access
from that neighborhood . Whereas if it comes off of TH 41, it' s not
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IIMarch 8 , 1988 - Page 11
I serving that neighborhood as directly. But again, I think we will be
benefitting if either street alignment goes through and I guess I would
recommend that you just recommend that some street alignment in that
Iarea goes through. Either one.
Watson: But it has to be either one of these? Not the Forest Avenue
one that we approved of before?
I
Sietsema: What I was saying is I put that whole thing on hold until
this is decided. We won' t do the other one if this goes through
I because there ' s no sense . We don' t need both park accesses on both
sides of that park.
IMady: That' s the one where we' ve got in this year ' s budget, isn ' t it?
Sietsema: That money is on reserve, yes . We got $30, 000. 00 when they
gave us the park.
IMady moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland
I and trail construction and to require a 20 foot trail easement along
TH 41 if trails cannot be constructed within the right-of-way. All
voted in favor except Hasek who abstained and motion carried .
IIMady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that a second access to the neighborhood be accomplished in
this area with the vacation of West 64th Street. All voted in favor
Iexcept Hasek who abstained and motion carried .
IAPPROVE CONTRACTS FOR JULY 4TH FIREWORKS AND BAND.
Hoffman: What' s most interesting about these bids is in an attempt to
get a more competitive bid from some of the other companies we've
I approached in the past years , instead of asking them for a show of
$3 ,000. 00 or less , we asked them for a show comparable to what we had
last year and I sent them a list of the show we had last year . As you
I can see it' s interesting what we got back. Our quotes anywhere from
twice as much to another 1 1/2 times as much.
I Mady: A comment on the 4th of July show. My dentist who used to be an
Edina resident to a Bloomington resident and now a Chaska resident. He
attended the 4th of July celebration last year in Chanhassen along with
some friends of his from Edina and they were distressed when it first
I started because he thought oh yes , sure, his friends . . .yes , sure we go
to some small hick town and we get a small hick town fireworks display.
Roughly 3 minutes after me made that comment, the show actually started .
I He then said that this was probably the best show he had seen and
probably better than anything you would see at the State Fairgrounds .
They routinely do an excellent job and there ' s no reason to even
Ientertain discussing any of the other people.
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 12
Robinson moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission I
recommend to accept Banner Fireworks Display Company for the 4th of July
fireworks show. All voted in favor and motion carried .
Boyt: Can we afford the White Sidewalls? '
Hoffman: No.
Hasek : I tell you what. They do a fun job but if you've seen them
once, it' s the same show everytime and a lot of people have seen them
around . They perform at Medina almost weekly. 1
Hoffman: St. Hubert' s and the Firemen have them now for their .
Boyt : Let ' s just not turn the PA up quite so high. '
Mady: I think you have that with any group performing outdoors .
Boyt: No , it doesn' t have to be that loud .
Hoffman: Any of those other bands , the Back Behind the Barn Boys, Alive
and Kickin . . .
Sietsema : If you listen to them and you want Back Behind the Barn Boys , I
you can request that Ed reconsider his motion at the next meeting .
Hasek moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept the bid of $1,200. 00 for a performance by the
Hi-Topps for the 4th of July celebration. All voted in favor and motion
carried. '
APPROVE CORE APPLICATION FOR FISHING PIER AT LAKE ANN PARK.
Hoffman: This application, Lori handed out some information from the
Department of Natural Resources . CORE project which stands for
Cooperative Opportunity for Resource Enhancement. I thought Lake Ann 11 was optimal location for a fishing pier . The fishing resource out there
is excellent. It doesn' t get used enough. One of the reasons is that
it ' s a non-motorized lake and a lot of people don' t like to have to take ,
or is there, to take their big boat. The landing there, we' re trying to
get it improved so you can launch your big bass boat there without
dragging bottom. Last year Dale tried to push some of the gravel
further out with a front-end loader . He got it so there' s a big hole
but then it still rises to about a foot and a half of water so we've got
to clear that out somewhat more so the local fishermen around here get
to know that that is indeed an access that they can take their larger
boats . Then we' ve got to clear up the notion on whether you can take a
boat with an outboard motor mounted and just out of the water on that
lake. The Bait Store says there has been people who have called back or
stopped in and said that Chan Public Safety or the Carver County
Deputies have stopped them and said they would ticket them if they
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 13
' indeed go in Lake Ann with a motor on their boat but I believe in City
Code it says if your motor is in the up position, you' re still legal in
Lake Ann .
' Mady: As long as your gas line is disconnected .
' Hasek: I was just going to say, the only thing I would have against it
is the City of Minneapolis requires you to disconnect your gas line.
Prior to getting into the water hopefully.
' Hoffman: In that location, as I 've indicated on there, you are familiar
with that, there is the 36 foot dock that is used there. We used it
last year for the kids fishing tournament . A lot of people try to fish
off of it but it' s inadequate because as you can see, the water depth at
80 feet from shore is only 5 feet deep so that thing is sitting in about
3 feet of water. But if we can get this fishing pier that will extend
out 80 to 100 feet , then you' re in the 9 to 12 feet of water which would
be good fishing.
Watson : What does a fishing pier look like exactly?
Hoffman: There ' s quite a few of them throughout the metropolitan area.
It' s made out of 2 x 6 treated lumber . 10 feet wide . A railing all the
' way down. It ' s a permanent structure. It ' s got handicap accessibility
is one of their requirements so you have to have a trail connection to
the parking area. It ' s got handicap places for the railing where it is
down lower so a person in a wheelchair can cast over the railing . They
are manufactured at Stillwater Prison and they are bought by the DNR for
approximately $22, 000. 00 for one of the models and then $5 , 000. 00 more
for the other one. The only thing the Park and Rec Department has to
' cooperate with on this is in some sort of enhancement which we could do
in creating an easy trail easement. Right now where the trail goes, it
runs straight into the boat landing . It doesn ' t really connect with the
parking as such. We could connect it with the parking lot. Do some
shoreline enhancement there to make it a real nice place to go fish off
that fishing pier and that would be our end of the project. Other than
that, the DNR would install it . They would still own the pier . It
wouldn' t become city property. It would just stay there. If they
indeed pass this , they see no reason to move it at any later date . We
had to get this in for their consideration by the end of March.
' Watson: Then why are acting on it?
Sietsema : Because we can ask them to withdraw.
' Mady moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
accept the application to the DNR for a fishing pier as presented by
' staff and pass it onto City Council for their approval . All voted in
favor and motion carried .
Mady: Can we do the same thing at Lotus Lake by the boat access there?
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 14
Hoffman: The problem in reading through there , what they want to see,
they want to see a lot of other recreation going on in the area but not
real adjacent to it. They don ' t want to be right next to the boat
access with a minimum amount of property that we own down there. At the II
boat access , we could not put it there. We could look for another site.
Hasek: How about north of there. Is there any chance we could get it
there? '
Sietsema : It ' s marshy all the way out to the water . My guesstimate
would be 100 feet. 200 feet? '
Mady: Otherwise , do we own the land along Carver Beach Road? There' s
one heck of a drop-off just, I believe it' s west of the beach. It goes II from about roughly 6 to 8 feet of water to 24 feet of water right around
a 10 foot span. It is one hell of a fishing spot. It ' s hard to get on
that spot. Look into that possibility.
Hasek: Is there anything along there now?
Mady: We've got something . I
Hoffman: You need a trail . You need parking adjacent to it and grades
that will allow you to get handicap people there and back.
Sietsema : How close is it to the beach?
Mady: It' s not very far. It' s just south of the beach. '
Sietsema: Because there is a foot path .
Mady: I can show Todd where it is . ,
Hasek: You can get the handicap down anyplace. It' s getting them back
up again. '
LAKE ANN PARK ENTRANCE FEE SCHEDULE. ,
Sietsema: I really anticipated this meeting to go really long because
as the week got towards the end , I started taking things off the agenda II because I didn' t have enough infomration to put it all one so the reason
this is such a short and somewhat incomplete memo on the Lake Ann Park
fees is because I wanted you to start thinking about it and if you
wanted to do something else than what I was going to be recommending,
than I would ask you put it on a future agenda. I know there are some
thoughts that there maybe shouldn' t be park entrance fees at Lake Ann
and there is also some schools of thought that think that that fee 11 should be raised . I anticipated that there might be a • lot of discussion
on this item but my standpoint is that we' re at a pretty decent level . I
wouldn ' t mind seeing the daily fee even go down a dollar but I think
where we' re at might be a good compromise. I 'm not sure now what the
feeling of everybody is but I know that in the past I ' ve disagreed with
I
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
IMarch 8 , 1988 - Page 15
I what the Park and Recreation Commission wanted to do with the park fees
at Lake Ann. I finally got the Council to lower it a dollar. It used
to be $4 . 00 and now it' s $3 . 00. This is going to be my recommendation
I and if you want to discuss it further now, that' s fine because we' re
definitely not running out of time or if you want more information, you
can table it and I can bring it back next time.
IMady: I 'd like to have each one of the commissioners give their
thoughts on the Lake Ann fees just as a poll and then go into a little
discussion .
IBoyt : I 'd like to see no fee . The fee charged to the softball teams
should cover the use of the park for non-residents. I think that' s the
I major group of non-residents that use the park so if we need these funds
for upkeep, that ' s where the funding should come from.
Watson: I would just as soon see it free provided we had adequate funds
I
to continue to maintain it as we'd like to. Continue to provide new
facilities . We haven' t always been successful in getting LAWCON grants .
The last few we applied for were down the list a ways and there' s got to
I be enough money so we can do the things we want to do out there but that
issue by itself, I 'd rather see the fee be free.
ISietsema : So you' re saying no fee if we can afford it?
Watson: Right .
IRobinson : Does the City pay for the person at the gate out there?
Sietsema: Yes. Some years we' ve been able to get a CETA person or kids
I through the CETA program and then the County or the Governor ' s program
pays for their wage but in the last, I know for sure last year we didn' t
have anybody on that program so we paid them all and the year before I
1 think we only had one. They have sent me information again this year so
we may be able to get somebody this year . You never know until school
is out.
IRobinson: Is that a big expense? What do we pay them?
Sietsema: It' s about $3 , 000. 00 to $5,000. 00 a summer .
IRobinson : High school graduates?
I Sietsema: No. 14 to 18 except for Mae who is 68 or something .
Robinson : If you made it a free park, we could do away with that
expense.
ISietsema: I have to say, I was really surprised at how much we had
taken in last year because I remember 3 to 4 years ago we didn' t even
I take in $7 , 000. 00 and last year we took in $17 , 000. 00 and that' s when
the fee was higher .
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 16
Robinson : What was it last year? 1
Sietsema : Last year it was $17,239.00 and when the fee was $4 . 00 a day,
and $4. 00 for a season ticket, they took in between $7 ,000. 00 and
$8 , 000. 00.
Robinson: I 'd like to see it remain the same as last year .
Mady: I wrestled with this one a little bit. When I found out it was
$17 ,000. 00 last year , that became a significant number . When it was
$7 ,000.00 to $8,000.00 and I knew that you were using at least $4 ,000. 00 II
in fees , that' s just ridiculous for using , we' re actually preventing
people from going in the park which is the stupidiest thing I 've ever
heard in my life . It' s a public park. People are paying for it in
their taxes already. I 'm not sure how far $10, 000. 00 goes toward
maintaining the park. There' s a lot of grass out there and I have a
feeling it' s not covered anyway but I 'm of the opinion that Lake Ann is
a community park. It' s already being paid for by the entire residents
and this is just another little way of getting a little bit more money
and preventing people from going out there . . . . increasing the City
revenues so actually the fee is more of just another tax on people and
it ' s not really doing anything for the parks . The way I 'm looking at
it, let' s not called it a park because it' s basically something else
because it' s not going for use for the parks . It' s not being given to
Lake Ann specifically. It' s going directly to the City' s general
budget.
Robinson: Is that true? '
Sietsema: It does go into the general fund but maintenance is paid out
of the general fund.
Mady: That ' s where I 'm heading .
Sietsema: So you' re saying no fee? I
Mady: No fee.
Hasek: I have a couple of quick questions . The year before we came,
what did you say about $7,000.00?
Sietsema: This was like 3 or 4 years ago. When I first came on . '
Hasek: It went up last year was the first year?
Sietsema : No , it went down the year before last . The daily fee . In
like 1985 it was $4 . 00 per person per day.
Hasek: And what were the revenues in 1985? Just roughly. '
Sietsema: I was going to say $7,000. 00 to $8,000. 00.
Hasek : Then in 1986 it went to $5. 00, everything else being equal?
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
1 March 8 , 1988 - Page 17
IISietsema : It went down to $3 .00 a day.
Hasek: The daily fee is what you' re talking about. Okay, the daily fee
went down to $3 . 00 and in 1986 we got how much?
Sietsema : About $13,000. 00.
IHasek: And last year it stayed at $3. 00?
Sietsema: And we got $17,000. 00.
IHasek: That right there I guess indicates to me that if everything else
remains equal as in 1986 and 1987, that even though there is a fee, the
I fee is so moderate that people don' t mind paying it . I like the idea
that people who use the park. . . I played ball out there but some of the
maintenance that happens on that particular park, from the standpoint of
the ballfields, is less than what you see in some of the other cities
II
around the area . The ballfield type park is going to be expanded as a
ballfield type park, at some point in the future I anticipate that
there ' s going to be a request for lights on some of the other fields and
I I think if the revenues are expected to come out of the ball teams , what
you' re going to do is kill the softball teams, if they' re expected to
carry the burden by themselves and ultimately you' re going to use up the
II park. . . If that ' s the case , maybe we should have put it before the
people to purchase the acres of land so I 'm in favor of keeping them
where they' re at. I think that it' s a very moderate fee. The one thing
I would like to work at is the possibility, and I know it would be a
II hard thing to administer out there . If we ' re charging $5 . 00 for the
residents, that should get them into the park whether they've got 1 car
or 5 cars . What you' re actually doing is asking them to pay $5. 00 for
I each vehicle that they take in and I don' t know how that could possibly
work. If you could print double tags for two cars . I can see people
coming before you saying they own two cars and letting somebody else in.
ISietsema : What we could do there is get like a piece of plexiglass or
whatever and put the sticker on that and hang it on their rearview
mirror . Then they can trade it .
IHasek: Yes , except that can get passed around too and I guess I don' t
want, there will be a few of those people who will do that. They will
Isay, oh heck just use my pass and give it to someone else.
Robinson: You' re right, that really is annoying .
II Hasek : What I do is just shuffle them back and forth and I just never
attach it to the vehicle but it stays in my cars. My wife' s car is
going and I put it in hers .
ISietsema: I just wonder how much people would really go to the trouble
of finding somebody who has already bought a pass so they don't have to.
I I think if they' re regular park users , they' re just going to go pay the
$5. 00 to get their own sticker and then shuffle them between their own
2-3 cars .
. 1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 18
Mady: What you can do, we are all required to carry the stub off of our II
license plat on our vehicle. It' s State Law. You' re supposed to carry
it with you . You could require them, if they want two different cars ,
present that up at the City Hall . ,
Hasek: To me it doesn' t really matter . It was just a little bit
annoying. I would like to see them remain where they' re at.
Hoffman: Some input on the sticker . It is difficult to administer out
there. Trying to get the attendants that are on-duty there to, they get
so many stories from so many people on where their stickers are or
they' re husbands are playing ball or the wife is playing ball and they
want to get in. As it is written , I believe it is a parking permit so
each car that parks there, that' s how they originally got around to
putting that permit there . It ' s a parking permit . Each car that ' s
parked there needs to have a permit. So if you have two cars there,
each one needs a permit. That ' s what it ' s called in the City Code is a
parking permit. Trying to get around from doing that, your $5. 00 pays
for more than one sticker . It ' s difficult . I don' t know of any State
or County park system that allows that. We ' re under a different
situation . It ' s a city park that we' re charging our users for but just
trying to get people to stick that thing in their windshield is hard
enough and trying to tell the attendant what his job is there , I ' ve
tried to say you should stick that thing on. When you sell that, have
them stick it on their windshield . That ' s where it is . It' s in that
car and you' re going to hear all these other stories so I would like to
see through this discussion tonight , either create some more discussion
at a later time and a decision being made or some sort of motion being
made at this meeting , that we do in fact charge $5. 00 per vehicle or we
look further into finding a solution to the problem.
Robinson: That is a good point . I guess I ' ve never gone and looked at
it as a parking fee.
Watson: I thought it was park useage and not as a parking permit. I
didn' t think about that.
Robinson : But when you saw Lake Ann Park fee schedule. . . '
Mady: I didn' t put it on my car because I was going in two different
cars . It does say parking permit on it .
Sietsema: I know at the schools they parking have arkin permits for different
parking lots , when I was going to school and they put the thing on a
piece of plastic and put it on a little string and you put it on your II windshield . That way if you carpooled , you could change it from one car
to the other .
Boyt : My mother who is a professor would give me her special tag , that
me as a student could park in the teachers lot.
Sietsema: There' s always going to be those who do that. Who are going
to say, I 'm not going to the park today, here neighbor you can use my
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 19
deal but again, I just wonder how much, if you ' re a regular park user ,
how much you' re going to do that. Because then you 've got to go back
and get it .
' Hasek: I guess that is really true . I guess it' s annoying for those
couple of times that. . .
' Sietsema: And if you want to take both cars , then you have to get two
stickers .
Mady: Do we require any motion at this time?
Sietsema: Not if you want to table it.
Watson : It says the revenue generated from Lake Ann Park is put into
the general fund and used towards it' s upkeep along with being used for
a lot of other things. Why oh why are park things , things associated
with parks, not put into a park budget instead of the general fund?
Sietsema: Because there' s no way that $17 , 000. 00 is going to pay for
' the beach and the maintenance and the gate keepers at Lake Ann Park so
why set up another fund? Just throw it in the regular fund and take
everything out of that fund. It goes there indirectly anyway.
Watson: But our park fund wouldn' t be just Lake Ann Park. It would be
the park dedication fees from various properties and all kinds of
stuff.
Sietsema: That ' s a different fund . That is a separate park fund .
' Mady: That' s a capital improvement. This is an expense.
Watson : So maintenance of all the parks , Meadow Green Park and all
' those things come out of the general fund?
Sietsema : The park dedication fee is not used for maintenance at all .
' Watson: I understand that. I just don ' t know why some of this goes
into the general fund.
' Boyt : Could you bring us the budget next time?
Sietsema: Sure. The capital improvement program or the whole city
budget?
Boyt : Just the budget that pertains to park and rec things .
' Hasek moved, Mady seconded to table the Lake Ann Park Entrance Fee
Schedule so the other two Park and Recreation Commissioners could be
present to voice their opinion on the matter at the next meeting. All
voted in favor and motion carried .
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 20 I
REVIEW TRAIL ALIGNMENT - PLEASANT HILL SUBDIVISION. I
Sietsema: I have to admit that this is a real odd deal . Pleasant Hill
was given final plat approval in 1983 and as a condition of approval , the I
developer was required to give a trail easement that went this alignment
right here . This is the school property. This is 65th Street . For that
trail easement he was given 50% credit on his park dedication fees. That '
trail easement was never recorded and the document was never finalized .
All of these lots now have houses on them and have been sold. This one
has a house on it, it' s a new house but the developer still owns it.
This was brought to my attention quite a while after Bill Monk left and
I
he left me a memo outlining some things that he hadn' t followed through
on. This is one of the things that he said that he had talked to the
developer and the developer was interested in an easement that would go
through these two lots and then run up here and go to the top of this lot II
here and that' s what I got so when I 'm talking to Curt Ostrom, the
developer, this guy contacted me, that lives on Lot 5. He' s got a fence
right along the property line. He has no interest in having a trail
II
going along his property line and although he' s indicated that he
probably would give this one, he would rather see it go a different way.
So I talked to Curt again and we discussed this alignment. This is over
many months . At that time, the school called me and said they would like
to see some trail go through this because they can eliminate part of the
bus route if there is trail access to the school property. So Curt said, '
why don' t we go along this lot and this line because I still own Lot 6 .
It happens that the city watertower is right here on this property and we
can put that trail right on the city property so we don' t need an extra
easement from this guy. There is a gate so they can get through. So II what is before you tonight is do you want to go with the original
easement or would you like to go with the new proposed easement? We did
get as far as the Attorney' s office with the red easement, the one II outlined in the red , and Mr. Ostrom' s attorney got back to us and said
yes, they would give us this easement but it couldn' t be wider than 6
feet and it had to be this and it had to be that . A whole list of II conditions to which I said, no, sorry.
Robinson : Why the conditions :
Sietsema: Because he wanted us to put a fence along the trail so people li
wouldn ' t go shooting across his backyard and he didn' t want it be wider
than 6 feet which in the development contract it says the pavement can ' t
go wider than 6 feet but the easement itself needs to be wider than that
in case we need to meander around anything. He didn ' t want us to take
out any trees which we probably wouldn' t do anyway if we could work
around them. I can ' t remember the whole list but he had a whole bunch of
them and I got back to him and said , no. You have to give us an easement
somewhere . This all came to a head when the City proposed putting an
access road into their watertower property and all these people in this II neighborhood are up in arms because they don' t want truck traffic going
to the watertower . Now they' re not sure if they want a trail going
through there anyway. I also got a letter from someone else in this II neighborhood that wanted to remain anonymous , saying that he didn ' t
prefer this alignment because it doesn' t give anybody within the
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 21
' Pleasant Hill Subdivision access to the school . If you live on Lot 6 ,
you can ' t get to the school . You can ' t get to that trail easement. It
only gives access to these people so he was suggesting that we go with
' the northern route.
Hasek: Is the guy that owns this orange dot the guy that put the plat
together?
Sietsema : Yes .
Hasek: And he failed to register the easement?
Sietsema: Right.
' Hasek: Could that be litigated? Is it worth it to litigate that or not?
Sietsema: We could still put pressure on him to get the easement but
' he' s going to have to go back to each one of these homeowners and get
them to sign off on it and that is really his problem and not ours
because he failed to do it in the first place but they' ll come back to us
and say, how come you ' re doing this to us? We didn' t know. The
developer never told us . The realtor never told us that we were going to
have to do this. Whether they did or not, no one will ever know.
Hasek: Is the developer in good stead in that neighborhood still?
I know at one point they all thought he was God. Is he still?
Sietsema : I don' t know.
Hasek: It seems to me, if I were to own that piece of property, that it
' would make the most sense to put that purple line. I wouldn' t want to
get 10 feet off the back of the lots simply because it really restricts
what you can do with that lot. The purple line that' s on there between
Lots 6 and 5 , seems to make a little more sense .
Sietsema : One of the other things is that his house is built . . .
' Hasek: Close to that line I 'm sure.
Sietsema: His driveway is right up against this line so it would require
' the trail going right over his driveway and Boudrie has a fence right up
against the property line so that means we'd have to give the 10 feet all
on Lot 6.
Hasek: It seems to me like he hung himself and we ought to just take the
10 feet around the edge of that property and that ' s the way it' s going to
go .
' Mady: Who owns Lots 4 and 20 on this thing?
Sietsema : I don' t know.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 22 1
Mady: Because we' re impacting on that person now. We' re impacting on
whoever owns that Lot 20 also because the developer who owns number 6
didn ' t do what he was supposed to do a long time ago. To me, the most
natural place to put this trail is between 5 and 6 because that' s where
the kids are going to walk. I don' t care what anybody says . They' re not '
going to go around that guy's yard, they're going to go through his yard.
Watson : But are they now?
Mady: I don't know if they do now or not.
Watson : The gate has existed , the kids have walked through there for 1
years now. What is the present track to go through there?
Sietsema: I think they' re going down to this gate here.
Watson: The kids have been doing this for ages and when 65th didn' t go
all the way through and those people were so thrilled , the one thing was II
that that end of 65th Street, that those kids could continue to come
through there and there would be access to the back of the school . In
spite of the fact that 65th didn ' t end up going through and connecting to II
Ostrum' s there , to that cul-de-sac . That was the original proposal .
That was when 65th was going to go all the way through.
Hasek : That ' s the way it should have been done.
Watson: So when they didn' t extend 65th Street they said, well at the
end of 65th they will continue, people can use that as a walk through and I
they can continue on through so they've been walking through for a long
time. So whatever the traffic pattern is now, probably wouldn' t be a bad
way to go because the kids are doing it . '
Mady: The school could stop that simply by closing off the gate. If the
trail goes through to the large gate, the kids will move to the large
gate if they close off the small gate .
Sietsema: Right, and the school building itself is down here so it ' s
going to be out of their way to come up here and then go there . I 'm sure II
that their traffic pattern is to go this way through this gate but again,
they' re not doing it on an easement right now. They' re just going there
and by closing the gate, it would force them to change their traffic
pattern .
Mady: An easement means it goes through the city watertower property and
somewhere around Lot 6. To me the most natural thing to do would be to •
take a diaganol line through Lots 5 and 6 into the city watertower
property. If the small gate remains open , the kids aren ' t going to use
it anyway. '
Watson : They' re going to go the way they' ve always gone.
Mady: The developer has a real problem here. I don' t have a problem 1
going anyway. As long as it goes there. I think it' s the developer ' s
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 23
' problem to solve it since he is required in his development contract .
Sietsema : But I need your recommendation if it ' s going to be different
than what the development contract says .
Watson: And we' re going to pave it?
Boyt : A 6 foot wide trail?
Sietsema: Yes, it could be.
' Boyt : That will encourage the kids to use it wherever it goes .
' Sietsema: If they' re going to pave it, it should be done this summer .
Robinson: Going straight to the back of Lot 6 there, your red line , he
' didn ' t like that because his lawyer said. . .
Sietsema : He was just going to put a bunch of stipulations on it but I
don' t think he' s going to . . .
' Robinson : But I think that ' s back to his problem again. You either go
north there or if you want to put all those stipulations , then you get
' that bottom solid line fixed down by the small gate . It' s his problem.
I think we can get that.
Sietsema: What I 'm saying is if you ' ll accept the red line , I need that
' in a motion because it ' s different . I need a recommendation to amend the
development contract .
Hasek : Can we do it like we recommend to take the original alignment if
at all possible. If not, in lieu of that, we would accept the red line?
Sietsema : What ' s not possible?
Hasek: If it is possible , than maybe we should just stick with the
original one if that' s what we want. There is certainly less impact on
the whole development by going the red line .
Boyt: If you go the red line, all the kids in the development can get to
it too .
Mady: My problem with the red line is the corner there. Going around
Lot 6. You' re impacting two lot land owners who have been there forever
' that don ' t need the impact .
Sietsema : This guy here , his house is up in here by this corner .
' Mady: He still might not want people going across his property.
Watson : The guy on 65th there , they' re accustomed to this foot traffic.
Mady: Not going through their yard like this .
I
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 2'+
Watson : No , but they knew that was a trade-off when they didn ' t have
their road go through. Believe me, they were doing everything but
dancing in the streets when 65th didn ' t go through.
Mady: I can believe that but what I 'm looking at here is there is no
reason to put the trail up there when we can just do it in the diagonal .
Sietsema: I guess what I would say Jim, looking long range, Curt Ostrum II
isn ' t going to own that house. He' s going to sell it and somebody is
going to have kids trapsing by their bedroom window only a foot away and
across their driveway. Do we want it to go a foot away from their house
and over their driveway or around their backyard? That' s the options and
if it were my house, I would rather have them going around my backyard
than right next to my window. I wish I had a picture of where they built II
the house on this lot but as I recall , there ' s only a 10 foot or
something setback and he' s right on the setback line.
Hasek: Boudrie' s have a lot of room on this side that he' s on. I
certainly wouldn' t want somebody, he' s got a pool in his backyard, I
wouldn' t want somebody running across . I think he would probably be
willing to give it back simply because it ' s so far in the back, he' s got II
a kind of natural area back there anyway.
Sietsema: He' s got it fenced regardless .
Mady: His whole property?
Sietsema : Yes . I
Mady: He did put a fence up.
Sietsema: He' s got a fence right on the property line between 5 and 6. i
Mady: He must have done that when he built that house because it wasn' t
there last summer .
Sietsema: He called me within the last 6 months and let me know there
was a fence up. '
Watson moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the trail route go along the edge of Lot 6, cross the
street and go across the watertower property to the larger gate in lieu
of the original trail plan. Along with that recommendation, that the
school effectively close off the small gate. Also, that the trail would 1
be done unconditionally. All voted in favor except Jim Mady who opposed
and motion carried .
Sietsema: '
S We leave it back up to Ostrum. He either give it to us
unconditionally or he has to go back to those homeowners and get the
easement from them.
I
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 25
' Watson : And that access along the back of that lot has to be the regular
width and everything has to be standard. No conditions because he ' s
already effectively paid for this . Lori , when things like this happen,
exactly how does it happen? Who 's responsibility is it to see to it that
these things are filed? On all these various developments we look at and
we pick out trail easements and we do all these things, who follows
' through to see they are in fact.
Sietsema : They' re done as a condition of approval at the final plat time
so what Barbara does, Barb now is the one who goes through all the
conditions to see that they are all met and then she takes the plat in to
be signed by Don and Tom. But at that point in time I believe it was
Bill ' s responsibility to do that because this happened before, or maybe
' it was Weibel 's because this was before Barb and I were here. This was
at the time of Scott and Weibel and Bill so I don ' t know who ' s
responsibility it was at that point in time.
' Boyt : We' ve had conditions recently too where our easements have been
abused because certain people didn' t know that we had the easement there
and they couldn' t do whatever they wanted to do. Who follows up on
' that? Who watches our easements? Like at Chan Pond Park where they
decided to dump dirt and you can ' t just do that .
Sietsema: Who follows up on the easements? The whole thing about the
easements, it' s really a difficult thing because legally they can not
show up on the plat .
Mady: They can ' t?
Sietsema: No , they can ' t . It ' s not up to just you , it ' s up to us too
' but if we don' t catch it, it ' s helpful to have other people bring it to
our attention .
Mady: That landowner has to be notified that he ' s in violation of an
easement.
Sietsema : What part of Chan Hills?
Boyt: It' s old.
' Sietsema : The original development over there?
Boyt: Yes .
Sietsema : They don ' t have an easement there.
Boyt: No, it' s not on their property. It' s on Chan Pond ' s property.
It' s a very steep hill down to the pond where they' ve cleared maybe a 10
foot strip. The very southern half but still , they should not clear
trees on parkland .
' Hoffman : We' ll fine them for a tree . Hennepin Parks does . That guy was
cutting firewood in one of Hennepin Parks and they took him right to
11
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 26
court and he got $1, 200. 00 per tree and he had to pay and he had to do
public service.
UPDATE: CONDITION OF THE INDOOR ICE ARENA CEILING. '
Hoffman: That was a while ago we talked about that and I was concerned
about it because of the condensation that occurs in there . I didn' t see
how the condensation, why it would stop once we got up inside the ceiling
but indeed it does . It goes back about 3 feet where the insulation is
matted down with a lot of that moisture dripping down and there is ice II formed up there and past that the insulation is still looking in fairly
good condition. The roof was in there. The ceiling material there which
is outlined here , what it consists of, steel mesh material that is
attached to the lower ceiling members and covered with a lightweight
sprayed plaster which then was sprayed with a K-13, a cellulous fiber
insulation. That' s in real good condition so the existing ceiling there
shouldn ' t be a problem but as noted in here , if any further development II does occur in that building, it should be looked at to replace the entire
ceiling material . How it' s built there.
Mady: A little update, I talked to Clayton Johnson one day because he
represents the Bloomberg Companies and they own the piece of property.
Bloomberg Properties , as far as they' re concerned, they don' t care
anything about that building . They' re not interested in doing anything
with it. If they could get the proper zoning , they would just as soon
see both stores get placed in the winter . . . so just a point of reference .
We aren' t going to see them doing anything over and above the call of
duty for that building .
Sietsema : Except out of the goodness of their hearts . '
Watson: But it was reassuring it wasn' t in as bad a shape. At one time
you were talking the ceiling was going to fall in. It was nice to
realize that it really isn' t going to fall in. ,
Mady: This white cellulose, it hangs down a little bit and over the
years it' s gotten really dirty and it just looks terrible but it does
function .
Watson : But it isn' t dangerous and that ' s the only thing everybody was
concerned about .
UPDATE: REFERENDUM RESULTS .
Mady: The Dominoes Pizza people once again did a bang up job for the
City like they've done in the past. Any other pats on the backs we could II
pass onto those two businesses .
Hasek: Precinct 4 is where?
Hoffman: Minnewashta .
r
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 27
Hasek: Is that the whole Minnewashta?
' Hoffman : West of TH 41.
Hasek : I found out some very disheartening things about some of the
votes out there. It seems to me like they' re fairly decent . . .but it' s
just unfortunate that two of us couldn ' t have gotten to one more person
or two more people and gotten it done. . . I also found out that the people
who were voting against the trail out in that area based on publication
' that they had looked at and I believe it was one of. the Minneapolis
papers , and don' t quote me because I don ' t know exactly the
conversation. . . What happened was that it was not clear to these people
out there that Minnewashta trails, either wasn ' t on the first phase or
wasn ' t one of the first trails that was going to be done and because of
that , they made that vote against the trails which was not good and very
unfortunate. I think we need to address that with just a little better
' public information. I certainly, being a resident out there , have
no . . .the trail system because I know that there' s problems out there but
apparently none of those people feel . . .
Boyt: At the public meetings we had , when I was there and we said
Minnewashta Parkway was in the top three to go in .
Mady: At the public meeting held at the Minnetonka West Intermediate
School , there were maybe 22 people there. I believe 20 of those people
were from Chanhassen proper , right downtown. There were two people there
' that I talked to who lived in that area . They did not come to the
meetings. They just don' t participate. That ' s just the way it is .
' Watson : They don ' t feel attached to Chanhassen . No matter what we do
out there, they' re Excelsior residents . They' re Excelsior Post Office
and sometimes you have to tell people that they live in the City of
Chanhassen. Some of them don ' t seem to know. If you talk Carver County
or Chanhassen , they give you a blank look.
Hasek: In defense of living out there, there are reasons for that. One
' is, not having your road plowed out until 2: 00 in the afternoon and then
having the plow go only as wide as the blade coming through the middle of
it. Then having it plowed two days later out to the curbs so you
' actually have it shoveled three times. That ' s part of what contributes
to that and why the Post Office failed out there was part of the reason .
They feel that they' re getting the best Post Office that they can. If
they change to Chanhassen , what ' s it going to be like. . . 4 : 00 in the
' afternoon because we' re still on the outside of town.
Watson : But Ed you' re telling me that their attachments to this City are
' associated with their snowplowing?
Hasek: . . .we paid for it . Some of the highest taxes in the city occur
on the other side of that lake.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 28
II
Boyt : I hear that no matter where people live in Chanhassen , we pay the II
highest taxes . Whether it' s southern Chanhassen, Lotus Lake,
Minnewashta . It ' s we pay the highest taxes in Chanhassen and we deserve
the best services available. I hear it from people in Hesse Farms. II People who live on Lotus Lake.
Mady: Face it, we all pay the same taxes . It ' s just that some have a II little better houses so they pay a little higher tax .
Hasek : Anyway, I think there' s an attitude that has to be adjusted out
there and I think it's the same frustration that the rest of you 've got . II
Sietsema : I was just going to say, any suggestions . Because we made
phone calls and when I got to that area, some of them didn' t even know
I
there was a referendum coming up .
Hasek: Do you recall when you first talked to Greg Potilla?
Sietsema: He did phone calling . I gave him lists . II
Hasek: He said that he had talked to people who were against it because II
it wasn ' t the first trail . . . But there' s a difference between top three
and number one.
Sietsema : Not much .
II
Hasek: But that ' s the way they feel out there and I don' t even know how
to begin to address that. I felt very good that we were a part of Phase II
1 knowing the trouble there was going to be getting that thing in and how
expensive it' s going to be to put it down there. I just don' t consider
it as important enough to be in Phase 1 let alone be number 1. It ' s II like, perhaps what I 'm reading is that we brought the issue up for the
City and it was because of the issue that we brought before the City,
that they took a look at their trail plan, now we' re not number 1, what' s II the deal with that . I guess the answer to that is , yes you are a portion
of number one and you are important and how much more can you do?
Mady: This comes up in a new referendum and you start voting on what II goes first and when, unless there' s a referendum, that precinct
demonstrates a desire to have trails, they drop from number 3 on my
priorities down to 4 or 5. Number one, they don' t want them.
II
Hasek : This is embarrassing for me, no question about it but it ' s the
attitude behind how it got to where it' s at that' s even worse. I want to
be number one or I don' t want to be at all and that to me is just '
unfortunate. Again yes, they do want a trail . There' s no question they
want the trail . It' s the attitude behind their desire I think that needs
to be somewhat higher addressed. I
Boyt : I had a neighbor call me and say Sue , I really want the trails ,
what can we do to get them? This was the day after the referendum. I II said , we need a community action group, a pro trail group. We need to be
vocal in the Minnewashta area to organize. To go out and educate the
r
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 29
I public . We can help a little bit but we need some people besides us that
will get there and work the trails and if they would do that.
II Hasek : I was hoping that the precinct , when you said everyone west of TH
41, I was hoping it was more definitive than that to really tie it down.
There were a lot of people on the north side of the lake who voted and
Ithere were a lot of people on the west side.
Sietsema : There ' s not that many people on the west side. West of that
west side if park.
IHasek: The north side is kind of a different issue out there. It' s not
the same.
ISietsema : Those people up in the Manor and the Heights and up there ,
they didn' t have much to gain by the trails because they' re really right
street trails and that ' s what they' re using their streets for anyway.
Ion
Hasek: And you can get all the way from Smith ' s greenhouse property all
the way over to the shopping center , the school , TH 41 , without going on
I the freeway. I take that back. There ' s that one small piece where you
have to go but eventually that will be closed off too .
I Watson: But they' re going to be much more interested in what Shorewood
does with their trails because they see themselves oriented in that
direction. Not back in to Chanhassen but towards Excelsior and that way.
Shorewood trails would probably gain more excitement in that part of
I Chanhassen than our own because they see themselves oriented towards
their school which is out of our city. Everything they go out of
Chanhassen.
IMady: Get out of that precinct to the other one , Precinct 2, which was
even worse.
IHasek : Where ' s that one at?
Mady: That ' s the north Lotus Lake area . I sat in this room the night
I before the referendum talking to a neighborhood group and they wanted to
know what guarantees I could give them that we not put a trail through
Lotus Lake Estates even though the property' s not proposed and I looked
I them square in the eye and I said , look we ' ve only got $800, 000. 00.
That ' s going to do what we have on the map. We don ' t have anymore money
than that . I can ' t do it any other place. There ' s no reason to run
through your property. There' s nothing we want to get to. Then they
I started talking about the City has an easement along the lake there, they
want that abandoned. They were so anti-trails .
I Hasek : Until we said TH 41 and then they were kind of excited about
having it on TH 41 although I don' t think anybody believes that .
II Watson: The only thing that made it was the Fire Station. Apparently the
only they' re interested in is not burning down.
I
Park and
Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 30
Mady: And that didn' t make it by much . So we've got some very negative II
comments out there and the only thing good that can be said about having
a small referendum is that the bulk of the voters will come out there,
the people that live in this town in the central of Chanhassen, they
approved everything . They were in favor of everything and we seem to get
a little bit more information to those people.
Sietsema: Trails were fourth . r
Mady: That one amazed me, the south park.
Hasek: That was confusing to me too . That they were willing to buy a
piece of land, undeveloped, with no connections to anything .
Robinson : A guy told me that lives out north , it must be Precinct 4 , ,
that he got down to the number 5 and it only said $300,000. 00, he said
why not.
Sietsema : I think both Lake Ann and the park were such low dollar
amounts .
Watson : Most people can identify, a bigger portion of people can '
identify with Lake Ann. They play softball there. The kids take
swimming lessons . Something relates to Lake Ann Park so we probably
don' t have any problem with that and the little amount of money we ask
for for parkland maybe they thought , well gee , maybe I better say yes to
something. They saw number 5 and they thought , oh what the heck , let
them buy some property now. '
Mady: Isn ' t it safe for us to make a recommendation to the Council now
on this thing?
Sietsema : I don ' t think it would hurt to make a recommendation . To put
it back on the November .
Mady: The discussion I want to have come out concerning some of the
items, I want to make sure that the Council has at least my input on and
hopefully everybody elses , concerning when these things take place
because we still have the trails and the community center coming back.
In some way, shape or form there' s going to be another referendum this
year and I think we need all this stuff still and still save some money. r
We don ' t necessarily have to go and spend $600, 000. 00 this year . There
are ways of doing this without spending the money and I want to make sure
that the Council understands that . I think some of them do but I 'm not
sure all of them do.
Watson : How soon will we know what the Community Center Task Force is
going to do on this?
•
Mady: I hope it' s going to happen soon. We have to wait for the Council
to get a new Task Force and they' re supposed to be meeting next Monday.
r
1 ,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 31
' Watson : I got a chuckle out of some of the suggestions of pieces of land
to put the community center on.
' Mady: Obviously we did not get the information out. There are just not
available pieces of property.
Watson : They want us to buy this piece of property right out for here
for example.
Mady: The Charlie James property. We need 5 acres of land and that
' stuff's going for roughly $3. 00 to $4. 00 a square foot. That puts it
right at $150, 000. 00 an acre. Yes , we can buy it for $750,000.00.
Watson: That' s what I say, maybe 5 years from now if we all save our
pennies we might be able to come up with it.
Mady: We also have a problem with the Eckankar property in that if you
' attempt to rezone that, which we would have to do, you open up the other
side which I don' t believe people thought it through. There are other
problems.
' Watson: Or they weren ' t the people who were here for that issue and saw
the hysteria that accompanied that.
' Mady: We need to get that information out . The Task Force didn' t
foresee that. Sue mentioned something about a Saturday session. I 'd
like to see us , if there' s something we need to do , the City just bought
' the old train depot that sits out at Natural Green. That ' s a nice piece
of structure that maybe we have a use for . Initially I was thinking ,
maybe that ' s our bath house down at Lake Ann but it ' s not big enough for
that unfortunately but we still should take a look at it and start
thinking about it because it should be used someplace in a city park.
There are other things that need to be looked at . Frank and Mel Kurver
' made available their barn, it could be moved to a parkland. Now Lori
said the City thinks it might cost $18 ,000. 00 to move the structure. I
still would like to have us go look at it. It ' s a fairly small barn and
there might be a way of doing it . Now if we could move that to Lake Ann,
' there' s a way of modifying it so that it would work very well for a
bathhouse , I don ' t want to just see that dropped . I think maybe we all
need to look at that. I don ' t know if anybody has gone out to Lake Ann
to look at the gazebo going up. It wouldn' t be so bad to go take a look
at that sucker too.
Hasek: I ' ve seen it from the road . It looks pretty small .
Mady: It sure is. It ' s not as big as it looks in the plans .
Boyt : We' re also supposed to put together something about criteria for
future Park and Rec commissioners .
' Hasek: I was listening to discussion by Council on the TV the other
night. Actually I kind of enjoy it. It ' s unfortunate that they' re 3 to
4 days after they meet here but they were talking about attendance and
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 32 '
they were looking at some of the attendance records . I still take a
vehement issue with some of the things they were saying. To me, to
maintain 75% , those were the number of meetings that were talked about
when we were put on this commission, is ridiculous in lieu of the fact
that we realize that we have a heavier load than we agreed to . If you
look at it from the simpliest point of view, a person that gets onto a
volunteer committee knowing that they can make these meetings and the
week and the night that 's there and realizing that they may be at 100%
over the course of a year based on 1 night a month, knowing that they
can' t make another night similar to that in the whole month going into it
and the one night happens to fit , then you double the meetings, you' ve
got that person automatically back from 100% to 50%. The commitment is
still there by that particular person. The only thing that ' s changed is
the workload that's being put on those particular people and I would I
submit that you would find it very difficult to find somebody willing to
sit on this commission knowing that it' s two nights a month as opposed to
one night a month . As development comes down and perhaps gets heavier
and heavier and heavier and the meetings may have to be extended beyond I
10: 00 or 9 : 30 or whatever it' s supposed to be, so I think if they want to
have a mandatory level , that they ought to adjust it according to the
number of meetings they' re meeting right now being asked to attend and 11 change the asterick. The ones we volunteered to attend. I feel a lot of
us can maybe set the level for which we feel is appropriate rather than
them arbitrarily saying 75%. I would say if you' re on the Planning
Commission or the Council , positions for which you were elected , you
ought to be there for every single one of them. That ' s my feeling and
I 'm not looking at it only from my standpoint . I 'm looking at it from
the standpoint of others . . .
Watson: I have to say, especially at the beginning because when we came
on and it was going to be one meeting a month, it took time to adjust to II
fact that it was only one meeting . I can look back at my attendance ,
it was the first few months where I had trouble pulling in this item. Now
it doesn' t matter anymore because everything is adjusted to meet that II expectation where originally that wasn' t what we were told. At first it
seemed like I got screwed up on the second one.
Robinson: Has anybody ever gotten any crap? I heard you say a couple
times to us , that you 've got to have some kind of a guideline. The
guideline just happens to be an arbitrary 75%. Nobody has ever gotten
any crap, I don' t think, for hitting only 74%.
Sietsema: Not in the last year but it has happened on this commission in
the past . I wasn' t at the meeting that you watched but I got the
impression that the Council wants to hold a firm 75% and it' s not just a II
guideline . That it is a mandatory 75% because they feel there are people
within the community who would be able to put in more time. Not that
maybe your input isn' t valued but maybe they should continue to look who
can be there more often. Do you want me to send a message to them or
just have gone on record with your opinion.
Hasek: I would just like to once again go on record that at some point
in the future, if I continue to hear some of the malarkey that I 'm
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
' March 8 , 1988 - Page 33
' hearing out of those particular people, I think we' ll end up going back
to one meeting a month and as long as we pass a motion to that effect
because I think it' s a little bit unbalanced the way that the measure of
' performance. I think there ought to be some other things that are
included in that . That question certainly does not ask that the meeting
when I began. I asked the question, oh by the way when are the meetings
and I was told , and I hope that doesn ' t give you have problems. Once a
month, I can arrange my schedule to be there that one time a month.
Twice a month , if I have to take, I haven ' t had a Thursday night off in 3
months , maybe 4 months now, where I haven' t had a meeting. This week
' I ' ve got two meetings on Thursday night . I generally know, they know as
well as I do, that the Planning Commission and Council meetings aren' t on
Friday night. If this thing was on a Friday night , we'd probably all be
' here because there is no meeting and there would be any other obligation
but Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday are the big nights on everybody' s
agenda.
' Sietsema : I again will try to keep it to one night a month. That was
the original intent was to keep it to one night a month and then if it
went past our 10: 00 time, then to put the rest of the items onto the next
' agenda. Then we'd have two meetings a month. I already know that
I pulled off a few that have to be on within the next two weeks . This
time of year is our busiest time of year . Once we get into the summer ,
' it' s not as busy either .
Boyt : We have such a nice balance , I think, on the Commission . The
problem is on March 22nd . We' re going to be talking about one of these
' things and Mike or Larry isn ' t aware of what we' re talking about . I 'm
sure they have real legitimate reasons.
Mady: What you' re saying is if we make a legitimate effort, let the
people know, there' s a lot of citizen input that ' s going to come forward
and we' re just saying , if you give your best effort . If your best effort
' doesn' t meet the criteria, then we' ll look for somebody else.
Watson : It has been a problem in the past . People who simply have never
shown up.
' Hasek : . . .What ' s the problem. That ' s coming out of the mouth of a
person who ' s elected and he' s missed some meetings himself. I don' t
' understand . To me if you' re elected to a position, your obligated . You
are hired to do a job for crying out loud. You should be there but you
also have the opportunity to fire .
' Mady: Lori , follow up on that having a Saturday field trip type thing .
Sietsema : I ' ll put that on the next agenda for setting a date. I think
' it would great to go out but I think we should wait until it dries up
just a tad if we' re going to go hoofing through the mud .
' Hoffman: I think we should go look at the dump at Bluff Creek. We can' t
have a dump in a city park.
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8 , 1988 - Page 34
Mady: Is there one there now? '
Hoffman: Sure.
Mady: Where? At the end? '
Hoffman : Right where you drive to the golf course. At the clubhouse,
you look off to the left that's Bluff Creek Park and it ' s a dump. A lot I
of garbage in there.
Mady: One final thing on the discussion on the referendum, put down on II
the agenda for next time discussion of the Lake Ann and the south park.
We need to start talking about that so the Council knows we' re aware of
it.
Boyt : That was something , if you were interested at all , Bill had wanted
to go through with us .
Mady: Yes , and we need to talk about that .
Boyt: It 's a time commitment though. This is something that ' s like he II
does for his job.
Sietsema : Didn' t he say it was like a 3 hour deal?
Boyt: Yes, 3 to 4 hours .
Watson : I want to know well in advance because that' s not an easy thing . I
Sietsema: I will put it on the agenda for next time to decide when it
should be.
Boyt: If not a Saturday morning, maybe an evening with dinner type of
thing. Maybe from 6 : 00 to 9 : 00 or something.
Watson : That would be better because Saturday mornings are real bad .
Mady: One of the things maybe we need to start doing, because it ' s II starting to get an hour early, into our busy time, and the more put off,
the worse it' s going to get. I don' t want to see, and I hope this goes
on record , I don ' t want to see the Council act on the referendum items
dealing with Park and Recreation needs prior to us having some discussion
on them.
Robinson moved, Hasek seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in
favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
1
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 22, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Larry Schroers , Jim Mady, Mike Lynch, and
Curt Robinson
MEMBERS ARRIVED LATE: Ed Hasek and Carol Watson
' STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
Boyt moved , Mady seconded to move the Lake Ann Park Parking Fee Schedule
' to the end of the agenda per Ed Hasek' s request. All voted in favor and
motion carried .
' PARK DEDICATION FEES.
Sietsema: This item was tabled after the January meeting . If you recall ,
the Park and Recreation Commission asked staff to research further what
exactly we base our fee on instead of picking a number out of the air or
simply being comparable to other cities. What I 've done is kind of
outlined how we come to what our fee is based on what our park dedication
' ordinance outlines. If you read through this, it shows that it' s based
on the average raw land value of the undeveloped land which , if you
average out all the different areas, it comes to $10,500. 00 per acre .
I 've shown three different illustrations of what would be required of a
developer with a 100 acre site. The examples illustrate that our current
fee is pretty close to right on target. We could raise it somewhat but I
' think it is comparable to what other people are charging and if we do it
in this manner , it ' s staying within the intent of the State Statute . If
you wanted to raise the fee, it would be $425. 00 for a single family
residential from the $415. 00 and $1, 050. 00 for the industrial and it ' s
' currently $1, 035. 00. That would be up to you.
Lynch: Lori , I ' ve been hearing that $10,500 . 00 for a long time. The
' $10, 500. 00 average land value. Wasn ' t that compiled. . .
Sietsema : Where I got it was the County Assessor and I called him up and
this is based on the 1987 survey of what he did. It ' s an average of the
' all the different land values . It takes into account what the rural land
value is in the industrial and the urban residential and averages that
out and that ' s how it came to that number .
Lynch: It just seems to me I 've been hearing that number for 10 years.
Doesn' t it seem odd that land values would stay that for 10 years .
Mady: That' s my big concern. A question on how old that number is.
Sietsema : He said that he did the survey in 1987 .
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 2
Lynch : Look at it this way, if what we have now matches the $10,000. 00
or whatever. In other words, we take the $424. 00 and work it backwards,
does that justidy the $10, 500. 00?
Sietsema: You lost me.
Lynch : Start out with the fee that we have and the percent of x that it
equals. Run a standard algebraic equation on it and see what x equals. I
What kind of percent of the land value now are we charging versus anybody
else around the surrounding communities? Not so much dollar value. In
other words , fine it' s a $424 .00 charge. What percent of the land value II
is that?
Sietsema: Every city does it different and nobody really knows how they
come about it but I did include, I think the last time. . .
Lynch: I looked into it myself about 6 or 8 years when we were trying to
figure out then what we had done and it wasn't at all clear then and I
found out that it isn' t very clear in any city. It' s just sort of well ,
we've always done it that way or we started doing it that way and it
seems to work so we still do it that . We raise it when we feel we can II get away with raising it. In other words, $424. 00 is based on how many
lots per acre?
Sietsema : 2 1/2. It should all be spelled out in the bottom of that II memo. 100 acre site, 2 1/2 units per acre. 250 units times 3 people per
unit and our standard is 1 acre for 75 people. That would make a
requirement of 10 acres of parkland. If we chose to take the cash in
lieu of the parkland , it comes out to 10 acres times $10,600. 00 equals
$106,000.00 divided by the 250 units is $424 .00 per unit. What we want
to do is be able to standardize this so that we don ' t have something
different for each different subdivision or each different development.
Boyt: That' s what the courts have said. . .
Sietsema: I know that the courts have upheld that.
Lynch: Are we getting back to that 10% again? The magic number?
Sietsema: But the courts won't uphold it if it's just a straight 10% .
It has to be based on density so in our industrial , because there isn ' t
any density, that should hold up but in the residential , in the court
cases that we have reviewed, just because it ' s 10% for the sake of being
any kind of percentage, is not a good reason. It has to be based on
density which gets back to your 1 acre per 75 people and it happens to
work out in our equation to be 10%. If we want to increase it, then we
should go 1 acre per 50 people or something like that and change our
density rather than. . .
Boyt : Who would set the density? Could we set that?
Sietsema: You set that with the update of the Park and Rec Section. I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 3
Mady: When you talked to the assessor , this $10,500. 00 , was his estimate
of the land in Chanhassen itself? That 's not including like Waconia?
Sietsema : No , that was Chanhassen.
Mady: I 'm a little concerned , if the number is including, because the
bulk of development is happening in the sewered area. That land is worth
a heck of a lot more than the land that' s being developed outside the
sewered area.
Sietsema: But he said that the land in the sewered area was appraised at
like $7 ,500. 00 per acre and he indicated that the developer couldn' t
purchase land for more than that and still make a profit .
' Lynch: That sounds awful low.
Sietsema: It sounded low to me too but I didn' t know what else to do
' except call an appraiser.
Lynch: Do you know what some of the lots have sold for in my immediate
neighborhood?
Sietsema: But that ' s developed . That ' s got utilities on it. That
includes roads and utilities so you can' t count that. It' s got to be the
raw land value without any improvements .
Lynch: What I 'm saying is that the $7, 500. 00 sounds low because this
acreage is going for 6 or 7 times $7 , 500. 00 whichhcertai_nly doesn' t equal
$7,500.00 an acre plus assessments which is way over the top of that.
That ' s why I think the $7 , 500. 00 sounds so low.
' Sietsema: I thought that it did too but I called him twice and asked him
to check his figures and that ' s what he came up with. I don' t know who
else to base it on other than the County Assessor.
Lynch : Well , in the sewered area , I was under the same misunderstanding
perhaps that Jim had . I thought the land in the sewered area in was more
' valuable than that in the rural area.
Sietsema : The rural area was going for like $3, 500. 00 an acre.
' Lynch: Then how do he come up with a $10, 500. 00 average?
Sietsema: Our industrial is worth anywhere from $15, 000. 00 to $30,000. 00
' an acre.
Lynch : And there' s that much of it?
Sietsema: I just took the figures and averaged them. ,
Lynch : A per acre average?
Robinson: It' s not a weighted average?
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 4
II
Sietsema : It would go down because there' s a lot more area in the rural
area than there is in the urban.
Schroers : Did the Assessor give you the figures for the tax base for II that property that assessed?
Sietsema: I asked him the fair market value . The raw land value. I
asked him for the fair market value and that' s what he told me. '
Boyt : That' s supposed to be real close to the assessed value. I think
we should call a realtor.
II
Public: I have just done some research because I was looking to purchase
at $5,600.00 an acre. Lake Susan Hills is $6,700.00 an acre
and. . .$6 , 500. 00 an acre.
II
Sietsema : And what was Eckankar going to go for?
Public: We' re not going to talk about that. II
Sietsema: That ' s considerably higher.
II
Public: Eckankar is selling his property for around $12, 000. 00 an acre.
Robinson: Is that commercial? I
Public : There is some commercial zoning in there. There' s 173 acres of
property and about 40 acres of that is commercial . I
Sietsema: The zoning map is right behind you. Part of that is
residential and some of it' s business campus.
IIPublic : So that increases the value.
Sietsema: That gets into the neighborhood of the industrial . I
Boyt: It' s also the assessor ' s we use. I think what we can look at
though is the density. When we think about our neighborhood there are 50 II
families and if we looked at a 1 acre survey.
Mady: I wondering if the 75 people per acre number, the density number ,
is enough. I
Sietsema: It' s not set in stone yet . It hasn ' t gone to Council for
approval and if you' re going to change that standard, it should be done
II
now before it does get sent onto Met Council .
Mady: That changes all of our numbers. II
Sietsema: I would recommend that we have justification for changing
that.
II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 5
1
Mady: I almost think that this year go with what we' ve got then let ' s
start taking a good hard look at the number .
' Sietsema: The Comp Plan won' t be updated for another 5 years so whatever
you put in that Comp Plan, you ' re stuck with for the next 5 years. What
I 'm saying is , our policy is not to accept anything less than 5 acres so
you have 5 acres of land for 375 people and given the mixed population
and park users and non-park users .
Boyt: We' ve seen that what we have in parkland is way over what we
' require we are barely meeting the needs for citizens in Chanhassen so
I think shows us right there that are numbers are off for our population
and density.
Schroers : What were those figures you quoted before Lori on the single
family? You just said something about $424. 00 or $425. 00.
Sietsema: What we currently charge is $415. 00 for single family. If we
went strictly by what I 've outlined in here, we could justify an increase
to $425. 00 from $415. 00. And from $1, 035. 00 in the industrial to
' $1, 050. 00.
Schroers : That doesn' t seem like a lot of money.
Sietsema: I don' t think anybody would really balk at that slight
increase . But if you make slight increases year by year as you evaluate
what that assessed value of land is and change it little by little rather
' than every 5 years and change it by $100. 00, it ' s a lot less noticeable.
Schroers: Is that why you' re proposing? Is that what you'd like to do?
Sietsema: I didn' t really make a recommendation because $10. 00 isn' t
that big a deal. If you felt like it needed to be increased minimally,
that would be reasonable but otherwise , if you don ' t think that it' s
' enough money, then instead of raising the fee just at the end, we have to
look at the density. That ' s where I 'm coming from.
' Boyt: I think we need to look at density and hold off on this until we
decided on the density question.
Mady: We have a real problem with density. I 'm thinking too that we've
' got the parkland and how it' s being utilized, we' re short. We really
truly are .
' Sietsema: But remember , another thing to consider is this is not the
community park development. This fund is for neighborhood park
acquisition and development. So if you look at our neighborhood parks ,
are we serving our existing communities with what we have? I would say
at City Center Park, no we' re not but at Minnewashta Heights, yes we are.
And at Meadow Green Park, I would think we' re right at.
Mady: I really think we' re deficient and seriously deficient in any
park. Chaparral might be close as it ' s exists right now but with the new
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 6
II
stuff coming on board this year , that park' s full . The density really
II
something maybe we should be looking at.
Sietsema : So what ' s your next step? Do you want to direct staff and see ,
how many people are using the existing parks or are in the service areas
of existing parks? If you table this , I would like some direction on how
to proceed. -
Boyt : I think we should look at all the parks that we use now and have I
some sort of information on that.
Sietsema: So you want to table this and find out how many people are in 1
the service areas in each park now?
Mady: Yes .
I
Schroers : Then we also have to look at those plats for proposed
developments. Take that into consideration. We' ll have to look at the
I
plats for the proposed developments and consider that also.
Boyt: Like Lake Susan.
I
Sietsema: That one is directly related to 1 per 75.
Mady: We won' t be changing anything. 1
Sietsema : We can' t.
Boyt: No, but we need to look at it. II
Sietsema: No , but if we change the fee, they' ll be charged more because '
they' re at 50% so right now 50% is $207 . 50. If we change it to $500. 00
for single family, it will be $250. 00.
Boyt: Isn' t that only a small portion? The important thing is serving
II
Chanhassen.
Robinson: When we tabled this before simply because I think we wanted I
more money and told Lori to go do this. She comes back and it looks the
same. It sounds to me like we' re saying, by god we' re going to justify
this for money. Go look at density and if that doens 't work out, we' ll
have you go look at something else until we' ve got $500. 00-$600. 00 it
II
sounds like.
Boyt : I don ' t think it' s to get more money and I ' ve seen the figures
saying Chanhassen needs this many acres of parkland to serve this number
of people and we' re way beyond that and we don' t have room for our kids
to play baseball . That our numbers are wrong. We need to deal with
I
that.
Mady: Ed was the one who pretty much wanted us to table it at that time
and he was looking at how many people in his firm, he wanted that I
information.
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 7
1
Sietsema: I did work with him when I was putting this all together and
he was comfortable with it.
' Lynch: One thing we have to keep in mind is that some of the old burden
neighborhood facilities that exist now, the upper Carver playground
facility and the old Chan Estates , these went in during the 50 ' s. People
with one acre plus, they were pieces of property that happened to be
' there and were given to us or a developer put a park in there to sell
houses and those are some of the low park facilities .
' Boyt : We know how many acres we have.
Mady: One thing we find though, if we find out how many people we have
in the service area , and the number of acres of parkland we have, then we
have a pretty good feel for how each park is being utilized, we ' ll have a
good idea of what our density should be. If it' s too high or too low.
Then we can proceed for future park development. Is it possible to get
that information for our next meeting?
Sietsema: Yes.
' Lynch: My memory is not good enough to recall why we picked the number
that we did.
Sietsema: Because that' s what Lakeville did.
Lynch: I couldn' t remember if it was Lakeville or Metro Council .
' Hoffman: One thing to consider is the time lag we have between some of
the new parks and some of the new development that is coming in. That
' will serve more people in some of those service areas that are a little
over crowded now and once those facilities are available, it will spread
out some of the people that are using certain overrun and rundown
facilities. Some of those things are in the works.
' Boyt : We' re getting a lot of people into the City Center Park area that
use the park.
Mady moved , Lynch seconded to table the park dedication fees item until
the next meeting pending information from staff concerning densities of
existing park areas . All voted in favor except Robinson who opposed and
motion carried.
' Hoffman : What type of specific answers or numbers can we come back with
to you? We don't want to just come back with generalizations .
' Boyt : That service area 1 has 10 acres of park and 75, 000 people in it.
Hoffman: And what type of organized programs takes place in those parks
at this time?
' Lynch: We' re addressing neighborhood parks .
i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II
March 22, 1988 - Page 8
II
Mady: There aren' t any organized things going on. I
Sietsema: We have playground programs and tennis programs.
II
Hoffman: Chaparral is really booked Monday through Friday with girl ' s
softball and we can' t book anymore people down there.
Mady: Is that considered more of a community thing or neighborhood? II
Hoffman: Meadow Green is neighborhood. i
Boyt: It' s a neighborhood park but it serves a community need which
there' s a question as to whether it should.
I
DISCUSSION OF REFERENDUM RESULTS .
Sietsema: I just wanted to bring to your attention that they have I
scheduled a meeting for April 4th and I still don 't know what time of day
that will be. It may be a work session over dinner . It may be later but II
it' s tentatively set for April 4th and I would recommend that anybody who
has some input or message they would like the Council to hear regarding
the referendum, to either let me know that or put it in writing so I can
forward that to them or attend the meeting. I
Lynch: Will some sort of a schedule of tentative action be available at
that meeting or will it be discussed at that meeting as far as when each I
of the items. . .
Sietsema: I think they are planning to discuss the schedules.
IIBoyt: Just Jim and I looked at another piece of property.
Sietsema : I haven' t had a chance to go out and look at it closely.
I
Boyt: It's available and it' s cheap.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - WOODCREST ADDITION. II
Sietsema: This proposal is located just north of the Triple Crown
I
Estates Subdivision on the south side of Woodhill Road about a 1/4 mile
east of Nez Perce. The proposal lies within the service area of the
Carver Beach , Meadow Green Park and Chanhassen Pond Park. As it' s I
currently being served by those parks, additional parkland is not being
called for and the trail plan does not call for trails in this area . It
is my recommendation to accept the park and trail dedication fees in lieu
of parkland and trail construction.
Schroers : I think staff has looked into this and I don' t see a problem
with that at all .
I
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 9
I
' Schroers moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland
and trail construction. All voted in favor and motion carried .
SITE PLAN REVIEW - TRAPPERS PASS.
' Mike Flaum: A little bit of history. Some of you may recall , in fact
some of you were even present when this project originated in 1970-1971.
It has been off of the municipal floor and on the development floor and
' back to this proposal . . . The basic trail concept was connecting that
line here, an on-street trail up to here, on-street trail here and here
and here. The original concept had nothing of a trail going on this part
' of it. The only non sepeletric type street that that trail , with this
section. . . These are basicly strip unit, residential streets. I 'm not
sure exactly how your policy reads but normally we don' t see off-street
trails in other communities on typical residential streets. Typical
' residential streets are deemed perfectly safe and adequate for pedestrian
traffic. These are all typical residential streets. The other
observation I would make, other than the fact that it will do damages to
property in terms of valuation. As has been pointed out, there is
development here and as I just said, normally a residential street is
safe for pedestrians. There' s an outlet every 300 to 500 feet of this
outlet. There' s another trail off of the street. The other question
' that crossed my mind is, if you start a paved trail running down the
street. . . is contrary to what has been approved on the project before ,
what happens when it gets to the point where it goes back to the street?
' Basically you can plan people to go someplace and then dumping them right
in the middle of another bracket on a subdivision. My expectation is
that you' re going to have people wandering around not really too certain
' where they' re going and agitating people who are living there.
Mady: I think you might be a little confused as to what we' re talking
about a trail . We ' re not asking you put in an 8 foot trail in. It ' s
' basically a 5 to 6 foot trail . It ' s just like a street set-up. We' re
not talking about putting a major trail in there. It' s just a collector .
It ' s for getting those kids who live in that development to the park
without going on the street. I believe I speak for the Commission, the
view of this commission is there' s no such thing as a safe street to walk
on.
' Mike Flaum: Is it the City' s policy to put these 5 or 6 foot trails on
all of the streets that you construct?
' Boyt : No , not all . We have a trail plan .
Mike Flaum: Does the trail plan show this , not the design included in
the trail plan , I guess my confusion is , this to me is the normal way to
get in the street.
Sietsema: The trail plan covers the subdivisions that had not been
designed at the time the trail plan was, by saying that any through
streets , we aren' t putting trails or sidewalks along cul-de-sacs but on
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
March 22, 1988 - Page 10
II
through streets and connecting streets , there will be sidewalks. The
II
City has made a commitment in providing a safe way to get from
neighborhood to neighborhood, from neighborhood to parks and other areas
of interest within the city. That 's basically the basis of why that II trail is being recommended by staff because it has been set forth by the
Commission through the trail plan policy.
Lynch : That was not a capricious decision, if you 're wondering , this
II
Commission gave a lot of thought and research and discussion as to
whether or not the City should have a sidewalk type format all over the
City or whether we should simply have streets. . . .undoubtedly there will ,
be other subdivisions such as yours which are not going to have sidewalks
in some portions and will in other portions . I agree with you that
there' s going to be some hazards. There ' s going to be some old . . .There ' s
never going to be a perfect date that we can come up and say, well now il
we' re going to start doing this and there won' t be any dead-ends . I
agree with Jim' s point in that I 'd like to point out a trail on Pleasant
View that goes back in the neighborhood . I look at it from the other II end . I look at it keeping people on the neighborhood on these collectors
and moving out to the main park which is across the street. You
certainly wouldn' t go home that way but I think your residents will , I II have a feeling that they will would much rather have their children walk
down to the park on that walk rather than on a normal neighborhood
street.
Mike Flaum: One of the reasons we design the streets the way we do is to II
account for that. It' s like a pile of worms and one of the reasons it
looks like a pile of worms is to save aesthetic values and I guess living II
values for the people aspiring to have slow and go traffic in their
community. Obviously we have cul-de-sacs where you have extensive looped
streets as a means of traffic control. I know that when you are II engineering the streets there is a higher degree of danger with
pedestrian traffic. I really don't see that particular problem here. I
was a little surprised about having a trail that goes almost all the way
from someplace that you get to by using a street. . .
I
Mady: You have to understand that children being as they are, they' re
not going to go 500 feet out of their way to stay on the trail . They' re II
going to take the most direct means and the illusion I think that traffic
is going to move quickly on a winding road, I live on a road that has a
hill on it and some sharp curves right by my house. There' s a stop sign
at both ends of the block. My neighbors, for whatever reason, feel that II
they need to go 40 mph by my house and it' s not a long road but they do.
People being what they are seem to be in a hurry to get to wherever
they' re going to get to no matter how wide the road is and how severe the II
curve. They take a challenege sometimes and that' s why my personal
feeling is we should be putting trails off-street wherever . We have the
opportunity to start planning this city out so 20-30-40 years from now II when this city is full , these kids have a place to get to wherever they
want to get to without having to go across either private property or
have to go out in the public streetway where other traffic is happening .
II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 11
Schroers : I think that after considerable deliberations we have set
policy that is stated that wherever possible there will be off-road
trails .
' Robinson : That' s right . It' s wherever possible and I had a problem with
that. I thought it should be wherever possible and practical but we went
wherever possible .
' Schroers : And that is our policy.
' Robinson: 6 to 8 months ago.
Schroers : I don' t see anything here that would indicate that we want to
try to change our policy.
Sietsema : I have just one other thing to add and that is that in the
existing neighborhood I have had requests that the on-street trail that
' goes along Near Mountain Blvd . be striped on one side of the road because
they do want a definite place that's just pedestrians and not for
vehicles . Some of the neighbors in that area are considering petitioning
' for an off-street trail in that area so it won ' t just end anywhere, we
will eventually stripe that so that it does continue but it will be on
street.
' Hoffman: Another thing that' s probably obvious to us all , it just hasn' t
been brought up tonight is not only are those off-street trails
pedestrian traffic flows but they are an actual play area for kids to go
' out and ride their bikes, put their skateboard jumps. It brings the kids
off the street, off that hard surface onto an off-street, non-traffic
flow area for their activities. I think they all can use that in their
' day to day activity.
Schroers : If you are unfortunate enough to live right on Carver Beach
Road, you would definitely be for that. It would take about 5 minutes of
' observation to do that .
Lynch : I 'm not sure where the neighbors from the area are more vigorous
' than my old neighbors or what it happens to be but the pedestrian road
traffic has got to be up several thousand percent . You used to see 1 or
2 fellows jogging once in a while and most of our children grew up
playing in the street, that ' s basically where they were but now when I
' drive home, you can see at least 2 or 3 or 4 sometimes, sets of
pedestrians on the east and west part of Pleasant View and you can see
another 2 or 3 on that north-south leg. Up in the Trapper ' s Pass
' Subdivision, on the streets there, and there ' s going to be a new park
road, in driving through there and you' re talking 15-20 sets of
pedestrians . The area is really getting used . They are walkers and
bikers and baby buggy pushers and dog walkers and practically everything
you can think of. It ' s interesting to see the multi-uses. I think the
park is really going to be used.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22 , 1988 - Page 12
Lynch moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that trails be constructed along Trappers Pass, Oxbow Bend and
Timber Hill Road with 100% credit in trail dedication. It is also
recommended that park dedication fees be accepted in lieu of parkland .
All voted in favor and motion carried .
Lynch: A quick question, if I could sneak it in, is the ballfield going II
to get functionable?
Sietsema : We' ve got plans . I'm rattling Gary' s cage to make sure that
he gets the final grading done so they can get that done early spring,
summer .
Lynch : Do you think we' ll have an outfield for the season? ,
Sietsema: I would say that it would not be done by June but it will be
done. . .
Lynch : August?
Sietsema : Yes , I would think it ' s pretty safe to say they would have it '
done by August.
Hoffman: Can I ask a side question here? When we ask these developers
to go ahead and build these sidewalks, trails, whatever, do we have some
set guidelines as to what specifications? Is this going to be asphalt? '
Sietsema: We have specs. He can either do it in 6 foot bituminous or 5
foot concrete . It has to be centered within the remaining right-of-way.
Hoffman: Are we going to keep tabs on this?
Boyt : Who' s inspecting it? '
Sietsema: The Engineering Department is right on it. Gary tells me he' s
out there inspecting and telling them where they' re supposed to go and
what they' re supposed to do.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - CHANHASSEN LAWN AND SPORT. '
Sietsema : This site plan includes a 19 ,048 square foot commercial
building located on West 79th Street right next to the MGM. This being
West 79th Street, MGM and over here would be the Holiday gas station.
There aren't any parks currently serving this area. Although there has
been discussions that the holding pond would be a picnic area for the II downtown people to walk down and have picnic lunches and what not there.
The trail plan does not call for trails along this street.
Boyt: I think we should put it on. I didn ' t see that before but I see
kids walking down to the Video stores down there.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 13
1
' Mady: The Community Center is down there right now. Every kid in town
is hanging out at the Holiday station or Kenny' s .
Sietsema: There is a trail along TH 5 and there would be a trail along ,
if you take the north side of the railroad tracks.
Mady: I would like to see us in the commercial developments , retail-
commercial developments which this City is not real strong in. We want
to help these people.
Boyt : But we encourage more customers coming in.
Schroers: This is for the new Lawn and Sports Building?
Sietsema: Right .
Schroers : How would this location lend itself to people riding
' snowmobiles in that particular area. The store where they have now,
there ' s always somebody plowing through the alley to see what ' s wrong
with their machine. They make an adjustment or two and then they get on
it and drive around a little bit again . Does that area down there lend
itself at all to that?
Sietsema : By the tracks between TH 5, no.
' Schroers: Are they taking into consideration with other future plans
going out to that area?
tHoffman: I 'm not so sure that in the future this city might take another
look at a snowmobile regulation. Right now it' s real lax .
' Lynch : Along the same lines , is there anything that ' s intended or is in
that area now where noise might be a problem? They do sell chainsaws .
You have to try one outside.
' Schroers: They did up here.
Lynch : Sure, every chainsaw store does . Even Lyndale Hardware has one
and it' s right downtown but if there is some sort of a noise sensitive
building next door that it will bother a lot of other styles of
businesses . . .
Boyt : There' s a motel right across the street .
' Sietsema: I think planning will address those types of things and I will
forward the Minutes so if they don ' t think of it , that it' s brought to
their attention. It' s more of a planning item.
Schroers : Those kind of things are mainly done during daytime hours and
it' s something that probably wouldn' t affect most hotel guests .
Lynch : Some of it could occur at 8 : 00 in the morning .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 14
Sietsema : If you want to put a trail along West 79th Street, what I II would recommend is that you direct staff to see if we can' t do it within
the right-of-way.
Watson: I 'm guessing that we should be able to put that within there. '
Sietsema: That should be wide enough but I could check with engineering .
We don' t have any additional right-of-way along any of the other
frontage.
Boyt : On that road? '
Sietsema: On that road, right.
Boyt : It would all be on the north side of the street . Any trail would I
have to be on the north side.
Mady: The pond is on the other side. '
Boyt: The gas station is on the south side.
Sietsema : They have the same setbacks as anybody else from the right-of- '
way. The road is built right down the middle of the right-of-way. I
really don' t know. I ' ll have to check with Gary to see if he thinks
there' s enough room in there or not. I don' t know what you want to do.
Mady: Is Market Blvd . going to have a set of trails along that?
Sietsema : Market Blvd. will be coming in two lots over to the west. You I
see the up and down line between BG and BH zoning on your map? It comes
in somewhere through there.
Mady: The new pond doesn' t show on this because that is going to be a
fairly nice drainage space. I 'm of the view that anywhere in the retail
establishment, especially this is our downtown, people are going to be
walking, supposedly walking back and forth. If your taking your lawn
mower to the Lawn and Sports and you' re going to pick up a case of beer
or a six pack or something, you'd just as easily going to walk as you' re II
going to drive. We should have walks for people.
Sietsema: The question comes in, where do you want the sidewalk because
the parking lot is in front of all these buildings and it' s not, in my
way of thinking, I don' t think they put a walk out here and walk up to
MGM. They' re going to cut right across the parking lot so maybe we want
to have, we need that sidewalk in front of the building and if anyone
wants a sidewalk that connects right in front of the building but if
they' re going to walk from the corner down to the park area , then they' ll
walk out along the street .
Mady: Can we ask planning to take a look at it and tell that we would
prefer a trail being put on there and ask them how it works best in a
retail establishment area. If it' s more of a mall type thing because
that' s basically what we' re talking about doing is getting people from
IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22 , 1988 - Page 15
I
I one retail area to another retail area versus a trail that ' s actually
going to be used for people going from St. Hubert' s over to the pond.
I Boyt : I think people will walk to that area from another area of town, I
don' t think they' ll walk. The kids will walk from St. Hubert ' s. A few
kids will walk from the edge of town down to this area to the Video
store.
IRobinson: It ' s a bear right now. They walk down to Holiday and there' s
just no place to walk. . .
1 Mady: We have an opportunity to make that a better situation. Start
getting it and the other two properties will develop as that road gets
I open so we should at least make the effort on how to do it right. Show
them what we want to do. I 'm not comfortable where to put the sidewalk
myself.
I Robinson : I don' t see anything wrong with just a place to walk. You can
walk in front of MGM and the videos . You can walk in front of Pryzmus'
Barber Shop and he' s got a little sidewalk there . Maybe it just needs
Isomething should go . . .
Schroers : How about if we just move to accept the park dedication fees
and ask the Planning Commission to look into routing pedestrian traffic
Iin an acceptable manner?
Mady: I 'm not sure if the Park Commission is the one who should be
iplanning this . . .
Boyt : We' re not giving up the trail fees?
ISchroers: No, we' re not giving up the trail fees .
Mady: Basically we' re allowing the Council to make the change.
IBoyt: The Planning Commission should make a recommendation to us or they
can make a recommendation, if they want to make like a mall type
I atmosphere, they can be looking at this saying you ' re giving us a trail
plan. . .
Mady: They would have their own sidewalks around the parking lots but
Ithey don' t connect between buildings.
Boyt : No , when you go between buildings you ' re walking across parking
Ilots and roadways.
Sietsema : Then over the little green .
ISchroers: I don' t feel real comfortable down in that area myself. When
you pull into parking and stuff , it just seems a little cramped . It' s
like you don' t have a lot of room to pull in to park and back up and turn
I around . It ' s kind of cramped in there already so I don' t really know
what the answer would be but aren' t we just talking about making a
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22 , 1988 - Page 16
connection from there to the pond area? That ' s all we' re talking about
but we' re going to save the trail dedication fee and hopefully have
something to work with them depending on what the Planning Commission
recommends. I
Mady: What we' re asking for is the Planning Commission to make a
recommendation to us.
Schroers moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend accepting trail fees and park fees in lieu of parkland and also I
to ask the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on pedestrian
walkways in this area. All voted in favor and motion carried.
SET SPECIAL MEETING DATE AND AGENDA (SATURDAY) .
Sietsema: At the last Park and Recreation Commission meeting we talked
about setting special meeting dates , one being a Saturday to go visit
different sites and some things that have come up that we haven' t been
able to do. The other one to have a session with Bill Boyt on selecting
a southern park site. Some of the items that I had for the Saturday
meeting , or potentially a Saturday meeting, the agenda included the old
Chanhassen Depot, going to look at that. Reviewing what uses it could
have. Kurver ' s barn. Going to see the Lake Ann shelter . I incidentally I
had talked with the person who is working on that and told them that the
Legion ' s deadline is to have a memorial service on Memorial Day and they
wanted to be able to have it done and the structure complete so that the '
Legion could come and finish the inside by Memorial Day so that is in the
works. The other one was looking at different parks , southern park
parcels and then looking at the Bluff Creek Park where there is a dumping
problem.
Mady: Also you should add on the Commission tour of Carver Beach
Playground. ,
Schroers : Are we going to plan on doing this, all of this on one
Saturday? '
Sietsema: Yes .
Mady: I have a feeling that the south park acquisition is more or less
just going to be a kind of a look and see right now and when we get down
to it, this summer actually really walking a bunch of areas .
Schroers: That was just what I was going to say. If we' re going to get I
out and actually get into it and be looking at things like at the Bluff
Creek park area and actually get out there and walking around, I think
you' re going to want to do that after the spring thaw is over . If you
try walking around out there now you' ll be falling down and it ' s muddy
and wet and slick.
Sietsema: Maybe we want to take that off .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 17
I
IMady: Those two items off until May.
Sietsema: I don' t think we have to go very far into Bluff Creek.
IHoffman: Bluff Creek you can look at it from the gravel road .
Sietsema: We can look at it from the road, what we wanted you to see .
I We can take the southern park acquisition site review and do that at a
later date after the session with Bill Boyt .
I Mady: What Bill ' s looking to do, is basically a seminar teaching us
decision making processes and what to look for in the decision making
process more than what we should be looking for in parks .
I Boyt : He does have selecting a park format. I talked to him about the
week and saying an evening would be easier for us to attend and he said
that he would prefer to work with us on a weekend morning because we are
Ifresh then and it would go better.
Schroers : What we' re looking for down there is an active use area ,
Iright?
Boyt : Right .
ISietsema: Right . I think our priorities were suitable for active use .
Schroers: I think generally what we were thinking about was youth
I accomodations down there more than anything right . We wanted to get the
sanction regulation type Little League deals and soccer fields and all
that .
I Hoffman : A flat, level area with good drainage is going to be important
if you' re creating two ballfields , two of this ballfield, a soccer field,
you' re going to need a lot of flat , tillable drainable area .
ISchroers: There is some but that area back in through there, there are a
lot of hills and ravines and rolling terrain back there also . The flat
I area that I 'm thinking about is mostly low. Low ground. I 'm not sure if
that ' s necessarily desirable either . Can that be flooded?
Sietsema: We can set up the meeting with Bill to discuss the decision
I making process and then schedule a time at that point to go out and look
at different sites. Staff will have done some research and some review
and some elimination in that process too so I 'm not taking you to swamps .
I I ' ll have identified areas that could potentially be suitable and we can
make our decision from there . I think first off , I guess it doesn ' t
matter which one we do first. The one with all this agenda or the one
with Bill .
I
Boyt : We need two Saturdays .
ISietsema : Yes, it sounds like we need two Saturdays .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22 , 1988 - Page 18
Schroers : Do we need a quorum?
Mady: No. There are no decisions to be made. It' s just informational .
Schroers: I don' t know how peritnent this is to anything but I 've got my
house for sale right now and Saturdays are just nuts . There aren' t
enough hours in a Saturday for me right now.
Boyt : Are you trying to sell it yourself?
Schroers: No, it' s going through a realtor but Saturdays are really the II
only time I have to get things organized. They' re dragging people
through 2, 3, 4 showings a day and with my work schedule and everything,
I need Saturdays to clean and reorganize and do things like that.
Boyt: I don't know about the other people, maybe Sunday afternoon to
look at things .
Schroers : Sunday afternoon would be better for me than Saturday. '
Lynch: It is for me too. My wife has a tendency to organize Saturdays
pretty strongly.
Sietsema : So does anybody have any ideas on what dates?
Boyt: Sunday the 10th in the afternoon.
Schroers : I was going to say, Larry has us going to this beer bust on
the 9th.
Boyt: This after Palm Sunday and after Easter and it ' s also right before
the next Park and Rec meeting. I
Sietsema : How does Sunday the 10th sound for everybody?
Mady: I think the 10th sounds fine .
Sietsema : Fine with Larry? Mike? Curt? What time? To go look ats?
Lynch: 1: 00 here?
Mady: What time do you get home from church? ,
Robinson: 12 : 30-12: 15.
Sietsema : What time, 1: 30?
Schroers : Lori , can we ask for a little note or a little memo?
Sietsema: Sure. Meet here at City Hall at 1: 30 30 on April 10th.
Hasek: That' s a little too close for me. Can you move it back? We' re
taking our Sunday School class to a Baptist church downtown Sunday
IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 19
I
Imorning and we' re not going to be back until 2: 00.
Sietsema : 2: 30?
IHasek: That would probably be alright .
Sietsema: Then for the next meeting.
IBoyt : How about the 17th? 1 : 00?
I Sietsema : 1: 00. This is a four hour session so we' re commiti.ng to 1: 00
until 5: 00. Okay, we have the 17th from 1: 00 until 5: 00 with Bill Boyt
then . That' s a Sunday also. I will send you notes . Please let me know
if you can ' t be there as soon as you know.
I
SET CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE.
ISietsema : The Council is now meeting on the 2nd and 4th Mondays . I
listed the next about 6 or 7 meetings .
IMady: I haven' t said a word and I ' ve been to a lot of them.
Lynch: I ' ll take March 28th .
IBoyt : I ' ll take April 11th .
IRobinson: I ' ll take the 25th.
Hasek: I ' ll take one in June sometime .
ISietsema : Which one do you want Ed?
Hasek: June 27th .
IBoyt: May 9th is open.
ISchroers : I ' ll go with that .
Mady: I ' ll take May 23rd. Carol gets June 13th .
LAKE ANN PARK PARKING FEE SCHEDULE.
I Mady: Two weeks ago we talked about it and I asked each commissioner to
give their feelings on parking fees at Lake Ann and staff went over what
the fee has been in the past and what kind of money is generated .
ISchroers: In my opinion I think we' re in good shape. ,I think $3. 00
daily is fine . A resident seasonal $5 . 00 is very good . Non-resident
seasonal $10.00 is acceptable. The access only is for a season?
ISietsema : Yes . Under the LAWCON regulations we can not charge, for
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II
March 22, 1988 - Page 20
II
someone who just wants to come in and use the access only we can ' t charge
a non-resident fee that's more than a resident fee. So if someone from
Chaska wants to come in and they say all I want to do is use the access ,
we couldn' t charge them $10 , we have to charge them $5. 00 but then all II they can use is the access and they have to have a boat with them every
time they come in. Nobody's ever asked for it. It 's just something for
LAWCON more than anything .
Schroers : And I definitely believe that Senior Citizens should be free
so as it stands, I would vote to keep it the same as it is.
Lynch : I don' t mind $3. 00, $5.00. I think the non-resident is too low. II
Sietsema: We can' t charge more than double the resident under LAWCON.
Lynch : I still think it' s too low. The access only as with the I
facilities and I may have missed this but where do the buses get
introduced here?
I
Sietsema : They've always had a fee for buses way back because we
sometimes do have like a field trip out there. Maybe a bunch of girl II scouts will go out there.
Hasek : We' ve also had softball teams show up by the busfull .
Sietsema: Or company picnics or like an elementary school field trip. I
We usually let them in free.
Lynch : That ' s what I was going to ask. You don ' t charge the schools to II
go in for field trips?
Sietsema : Well , they' re not in session , they don ' t do that when we
II
charge out there anyway. We don' t have a lot of buses .
Hoffman: Some company picnics are probably going to get smart and get I
around that. They have 200 cars come in, they pay a substantial
amount to have their company picnic there and the company picks up that
tab. A lot of this money that is generated for a daily fee comes from
II
some of the bigger company picnics that were held out there last year .
Lynch: Are we ever going to establish a straight line fee for company
picnics as has been discussed in years past? I know it ' s becoming more
II
appropriate to discuss it now that we have some companies that have
picnics. In the past we haven' t had companies that had picnics .
Sietsema: The thing is, the local companies, the majority of them like II
United Mailing , Instant Webb, the Press and Victory Envelope and now some
of the other ones have been making donations for the fireworks and in
Iexchange, we give them season passes for their employees so it' s out of
the non-resident businesses that come in and have picnics and we do have
quite a few of those . They get charged the daily fee for every car .
Lynch: The company grouping you just rattled off there, how about our II
11
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 21
I/
I friends in the record business and some of the newer businesses? That
donation to the fireworks , maybe that' s a good thing for Sue. Maybe it' s
one of these things where you want to go to a new business and say, all
II the businesses do this and for this they get.
Hoffman : We do that .
II Sietsema : We get them at their budget time. We send them a letter ,
budget for the 4th of July.
1 Lynch : Someday I would think that we would want to look at something a
little more policy.
Sietsema: We do have a policy in that they do have to book a big group
Iwith us and there is a damage deposit that they have to put down. This
is all starting this year , and a form that they have to get a permit. In
our ordinance it' s always stated that you have to have a permit to have a
I big group at any of the parks and we now have that form in place and a
damage deposit required so I think we' re working towards that more and
more every year . But they still are charged the $3 . 00 per car . Often
II they' ll let us know ahead of time that the company wants to pick up the
tab so we' ll send them tickets in advance and we ' ll charge them for as
many tickets as we collect. Then we just bill the company.
I Hoffman : That park reservation ticket is just waiting to be printed
after this is all approved. We put down $150. 00 damage deposit for a
group picnic and groups also reserve the picnic kits and we put in there
I a deposit for those also so we make sure that all the balls and bats and
all that gets returned . There is no fee for reserving any of the parks
at this time so that 's something that can be looked at. Definitely in
lthe future . I think all other communities probably have that.
Mady: The softball teams all pay a league fee to use the facility as
well as paying to get into the parking . Kids who get swimming lessons
I there pay for their swimming lessons as well as having to pay to get in
the front gate .
IHasek: How about if their parents drop them off?
Sietsema: They show their receipt for their program and they don' t have
to pay for parking . Most of them do because they are residents and they
I have the sticker anyway but if they have paid for the program, they
haven' t been charged for parking .
1 Mady: Then why do we charge softball teams when we pay a fee to use the
park?
ISietsema : That ' s a good question.
Mady: This all gets back to where my contention all along that I don' t
understand why we charge people to use the park. That particular park
II offers nothing that a different park in Chanhassen doesn ' t already offer .
It' s got a beach there, we've got a beach at Carver Beach and in
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 22
Greenwood Shores . '
Sietsema: Not a guarded beach that costs $12,000. 00 a year to run.
Schroers: And this generates $17,239.00. That' s the reason for charging II
the fee right there is just to pay for the guards . Can we back up here
for a second? On this access only, I see a problem with that. I don' t
think we should have an access only. I
Sietsema: We have to.
Schroers : How are you going to enforce that? '
Sietsema: We have to. No one' s ever gotten it. Nobody ever asks about
it. Nobody really even knows about it but because of LAWCON regulations ,
we have to offer it. So for them, we have to.
Schroers : That seems like. . .
Sietsema : What we would do is if anybody came in and said I 'm a non-
resident and I want a sticker to use the access only, is we would write
in big black marker across their sticker "boat only" and when the
attendant sees that, they have to have a boat with them or they' re
charged the daily fee . So they would have the sticker plus a daily fee .
to my knowledge I ' ve never sold a boat access only in
the last 3 years .
Schroers : I wasn ' t aware that it was required . It just seemed like
something that was kind of unnecessary.
Sietsema: It is but it' s an unnecessary requirement .
Mady: My contention was and still is, I don' t understand why we charge a
fee for someone to use a park, this park. If we do it here, why don' t we
do it to all those community parks. I don 't feel we ' re being logical or
consistent with the use of our community parks . All I see here is we' re
trying to raise some revenue. That' s all I see it and that ' s basically
what I feel the City is doing is charging me a tax for a park. If they II
want to do it there, maybe do it at other places. I don't like to see us
restricting our parkland to Chanhassen residents who are already paying
taxes anyway because this $17 ,000.00 doesn't even come close to covering
the upkeep for that park. That' s where I came from. 1
Robinson: As I said two weeks ago, I vote to leave it.
Hasek: I also felt that it was a good idea to leave it in place just
because of the useage of the park. There was a comment made by someone
that Excelsior doesn ' t charge. Well in fact they do, they have parking
meters and the parking meters help pay for the park so yes they do.
Boyt: I 'd like to see -,no park fee.
Mady: I believe Carol also had that opinion.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 23
' Sietsema : Given that, we have 4 leave it and 2 drop it.
Hasek moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to adopt the 1987 Lake Ann Park Parking Fee Schedule as
presented by staff for the year 1988. All voted in favor except Mady and
Boyt who opposed and motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
& ,
���:� tti f�N'
Boyt moved, Hasek seconded to direct staff to encourage Council to
establish uniform policy on conference attendance . All voted in favor
and motion carried.
REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE 1988 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Boyt: Before we start on 10, I just have a couple of general comments
about the budget. I wondered if it was possible to get the quarterly
' printout of how much we' re taking in in park dedication fees and trail
fees in what areas of the City?
Sietsema: Yes .
Boyt : I 'd like to see that. The park fees are turned over to the 410?
What is it?
Sietsema : The 410 budget which i.s a fund and it' s the last one on item
2. That money goes into that fund and that' s what we do our capital
improvement program with .
Mady: When you say matching grant , that ' s what we use for matching
' grants. It's our development money. That ' s where our capital
improvement program comes out of.
Boyt : Last year we had 335 housing starts . If those had all been in
' developments that didn' t donate land, we would have taken in $139 ,000. 00
for park development for that year and our budget isn ' t anywhere near
that.
Mady: If you look at the bottom of the reserves for the ' 88 budget, Lake
Ann Phase 1 grading, we' ve got $100, 000. 00 in there. It shows
$100,000. 00 for the installation. . . We' re setting aside $50,000. 00 for
Lake Susan. We' re looking to keep $100, 000. 00 there for just anything
that comes up. Then Herman Field has the existing $35 ,000. 00 reserve
there.
' Sietsema : At the end of 1987, I asked the Auditors today, it' s real hard
to get a clear picture of what exactly is in this fund because you are
shifting funds . Money from the 410 fund into like the Lotus Lake Boat
Access. We put the local share into and develop a new fund and wait for
the State and Federal money to come in and we put that in and we pay all
our bills out of that fund. When the projet is closed, then we close
' that. Whenever we start a new project , like a major project , let' s say
we' re going to do the Lake Ann Park grading, we will develop a new fund
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
I
March 22, 1988 - Page 24
11
and we will take whatever we' ve got set aside out of the 410. Take that II
money out of there and put it into the new fund so there' s money shifting
around . We might have money left over from another fund and that goes
back into it. At the end of 1987, we had $293 , 243. 00 in the 410 fund .
That is these things that are on reserve. The Lake Ann, the Lake Susan
and the Herman Field and the LAWCON reserve.
Hasek: That' s not on here . '
Sietsema: Not the $293 ,000.00, no. We have $285,000.00 that' s on
reserve and we've got scheduled for improvements in our neighborhood
parks a total of about $95,000. 00. You add the capital outlay, the
contractual service and the materials and supplies together and that' s
what we've got to spend on the capital improvement program. I do have
every month what the totals are each month and subtotals on the park
dedication. I can bring that in. If the City' s broken up into areas and
the $415. 00 goes into the area that that development is so I have that
broken down. ,
Boyt: What did we rent?
Hoffman : Indoors ice arena is under rental land and building. I
Sietsema: Under what fund?
Boyt : 4400 and then Lotus Lake. . .
Sietsema : 146, that' s ice arena . All of our programming comes out of II that. Your Karate classes. The 4th of July. The Easter Egg hunt. All
of those things come out of the 146 . The softball . Any other questions
on that.
Mady: Okay, let ' s move on to the Capital Improvement Program because
I 've got some ideas and thoughts on this thing.
Sietsema: Gary had asked me to prioritize the Capital Improvement
Program as I envisioned it happening because he's the one who oversees
the park maintenance department and has to get things going . So this is 1
basically how I prioritized it for him. If you want to change this
priority, then I should know.
Mady: One thing on here that, after the referendum results on trails, I 1
took a good hard look at it and I felt all along that the trails were
going to go through and we were going to get the very badly needed two
segments of trails in, approximately 1 mile of trails. Because the II referendum didn' t pass , we' re not going to have an opportunity to do that
until next year and I don' t want to see us lose a summer with these kids
walking on roads going to the two major parks in town. So I looked at
the capital improvement program and looking at what we had done in the
past, what we did last year . We had to cancel the wellhouse site and
tennis court at South Lotus Lake. Now I believe we need a tennis court
at that site in a public parkland. I'm concerned though that that
particular site is not as important to the wellbeing of the citizens of
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22 , 1988 - Page 25
' Chanhassen as a trail , and actually more of a sidewalk situation along
Laredo Drive and Carver Beach Road. Especially Laredo Drive where we
have kids walking on that road every day of the year . School and then in
the summer going to the park. I took a look at, I clocked both streets .
The Carver Beach Road requires from Nez Perce right to CR 17 is one-third
mile. And Laredo from West 78th Street to Frontier Trail is two-thirds
of a mile so that ' s one mile of trail . Mark ' s estimate was at about
' $28 ,000. 00 to $47,000. 00 for a mile of trail depending on what was
necessary to put it in. Looking at those sites , there ' s not a whole lot
that ' s going to be necessary in bad slopes or that type of thing.
' Especially on Laredo where it ' s all developed land right now. It ' s just
putting in new subsoil and putting a trail on top. Carver Beach Road is
going to be a little bit in one swampy area right at the start but after
that it' s just cutting into this area. I was talking to Larry Brown, it
sounded as if we had sufficient road easements to put the trail in in
both areas so I 'm going to ask the Commission to set aside and recommend
to the Staff and City Council to amend our budget to put the trail in on
' Laredo and Carver Beach Road early this year. By early I mean as soon as
the frost is out of the ground and we can get going on it . Everyday a
kid has to walk on those two roads, especially going to school everyday,
' bothers me. There are a lot of kids on that street everyday. I 'd like
to see us amend our capital improvement budget to put those two trails in
this year as soon as possible and defer the tennis court at the wellhouse
site until next year .
Schroers : Is that a motion?
' Mady: I guess I 'm going to make it in the form of a motion either now or
later. That' s what my feelings are right now. I ' ve got some other
thoughts for the improvement program but that was the most important
' thing I had.
Schroers : I think that ' s really good . I appreciate your efforts on that
and I ' ll definitely support that.
' Mady: Carver Beach is a real problem.
' Schroers: It' s dangerous. I get scared everyday. You hear the tires
squealing and you don ' t even want to look.
' Hasek: Where ' s the wellhouse on here?
Mady: For South Lotus Lake. $25,000 . 00. Right by Curt' s house .
' Robinson: And I 'd be opposed to your change because it is next to my
house and I want a tennis court there .
Boyt: This is just something to bring up but the access road to Lake
Susan, right now they' re doing some work out there. What is that?
Sewer?
' Sietsema : It ' s the Lake Ann Interceptor .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22 , 1988 - Page 26
Boyt : Can a road go on top of that? I 'm wondering , since they have it
torn up.
Sietsema : Yes , there is a holding pond that 's going to be right in the
low area so I have to go out there and look again and see exactly where
they' re going . As I recall , it' s closer to the lake than where we could
put an access because there's going to be water standing there.
Hasek: There' s a problem with, that' s the interceptor going there?
There' s a real problem, they have to redesign to stick that in before
they put a road on top because roads tend to drive across the street. '
Schroers: They have problems with subsoils there probably.
Sietsema: But the $50,000.00 would be adequate to put the road in along
the property line and that's what we had applied for a LAWCON last year
for that.
Boyt : I just thought if these people were in there working , take
advantage of that.
Sietsema : The other thing is would cut the park in half with the access II
road rather than having it along the edge.
Boyt : It' s pretty much over to one side. Where they' re working right
now. It ' s not down the middle of the area and I just thought if we could
save $50 ,000. 00 or $25,000. 00 to put that road in but we can' t so.
Hasek: I guess my position is, if we do have a problem with the trails ,
I 'd be in favor of voting for the trails and not necessarily against the
tennis courts .
Mady: We need the tennis court but I was hoping that we were going to be
able to solve a public safety problem on Laredo and Carver Beach Road
with the referendum and we' re not going to be able to do that now until
next year which means those kids are going to have to walk on the road
for another full school year . I don ' t want to see that happen .
Robinson: Is there room for an off-street? '
Mady: Yes . I talked to Larry Brown and he felt, he gave me the
dimensions at one time. I said how much right-of-way do we have there?
It' s not a lot of right-of-way but we can get a 6 foot trail in and some
green space also.
Schroers : There is a daycare there on Carver Beach at a private '
residence. There' s 12 little kids at one spot at one residence. There' s
a lot of kids there. We threatened a guy with a shovel there today. He
was passing another car. We had to kind of shake our finger at him and
he' s coming down the street passing .
Sietsema : I know I get on this often but the best thing to do is to take II
license plate numbers down and report it because documentation will do,
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
t ng
March 22 , 1988 - Page 27
' the police can do so much more if it ' s documented with instances so
anytime you see that happening. I know you' ll be on the phone every 5
minutes but especially gross incidents like that.
' Schroers: It makes you so made that you don' t even think about it.
You' ve got a shovel in your hand and not a paper and pencil . You ' re just
kind of looking at the idiot behind the wheel and not watching for the
' license plate number . That ' s really a problem area .
Robinson: Have you got any idea of what this would cost?
Mady: I 'm going with Mark' s estimate was $28, 000. 00 to $45,000. 00 for a
trail for a mile and this is a 6 foot instead of an 8 foot and I doubt
' that we have to acquire any land .
Sietsema: I would say $30, 000. 00 would be a ballpark figure just because
the person isn' t in there doing something else. It' s cheaper if they' re
' putting in the street at the same time.
Mady: There are some other things in this budget that Lori found out we
just aren' t going to be able to do all that we asked for. The open
shelters are $10, 000. 00 to $15,000. 00 and not a grand so when we' ve got
three open shelters sitting in here.
Sietsema: Yes , I don ' t know if you guys had something in mind that you
knew about .
' Boyt : No .
Sietsema: I didn ' t either . I didn ' t know how much it was going to cost
' either but in talking to the guy who sells the kits , they' re $15,000. 00
starting .
Mady: You have to look at the situation , they' re going to get a lot of
abuse so you have to build a minimal . . .
Hasek: When you think of a number and then you triple it , you ' re
' probably real close to what it actually is .
Sietsema: I didn ' t realize all that went into a park shelter . I thought
' you just set it out there is fine but you ' ve got to make it tornado safe
so it doesn ' t pick up and fall down on top of people . So there ' s a lot
more to it than I had thought.
' Mady: I think we have the room in our budget to do it this year and I 'd
like to see it done.
' Mady moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to amend the 1988 Capital Improvements Budget, to delete the
tennis court at South Lotus Lake and to install a trail along the west
side Laredo and the north side of Carver Beach Road in early 1988 .
' Direct staff that as soon as Council approves it , to move it to the top
of the priority list. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II
March 22, 1988 - Page 28
II
Mady: There are a couple other things in here . Lori brought out , at
II
Lake Ann, we' re asking for a totlot equipment down by the lake and also
up by the softball fields. The thought was to expand on the totlot
equipment at the softball fields. I talked to Lori and that ' s a handmade
type of arrangement and it' s not conducive to adding other types of
structures to it.
Sietsema: Not so much that but they won' t take the liability of doing
II
it. It's not that it can' t be done. It's that the company won' t take
the liability.
Mady: One of the things I asked here, in looking at putting totlot I
equipment in a number of places throughout the city and one of the places
is Greenwood Shores which is a small use park. It' s never going to have il
a large totlot equipment. It 's going to be a basic structure.
Watson: It has a lot of use but it doesn ' t have a lot of room.
Mady: Yes , so a small structure would be perfect for it. The one at II
Lake Ann right now is a small structure. It ' s got three swings on it , a
nice slide and a climbing apparatus. It' s not real big. If it' s II feasible to move that to Greenwood Shores and use the $5, 000. 00 plus the
money budgeted for Lake Ann into something that can be expandable.
Sietsema : I did not get a chance to talk to Dale on whether the
II
structure would survive the move and if it isn' t , it might have only 5
years left in it .
Hoffman : It ' s not in the best of condition. I
Hasek: I was just going to say. My kids play on it and I almost
Iencourage them not to .
Boyt : It' s dangerous . The way it was designed is dangerous . When the
kids swing, they' re coming right at children coming off another piece of II
equipment.
Sietsema: So maybe we just want to take it out .
I
Boyt: Maybe there's a church that we could donate it to.
Hasek : On this Lake Ann , are you thinking about two separate large
I
pieces of totlot equipment?
Sietsema: Yes . I
Hasek: That ' s necessary with the ballfields .
Sietsema: Especially with the addition of three more ballfields. I
II
thought another site would be appropriate .
Mady: I think you' re right. We need a more centrally located site for
II
the ballfields.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 29
Sietsema : Even two sites .
Hasek: Yes , I think two sites . Just keep it small so you don ' t get a
' ton of kids and a lot of problems. Just spread them out a little bit.
Mady: Maybe what we should do, since we' re going to be looking at the
park shelter there in a couple of weeks and it ' s only 50 feet away, we
can hold off .
Hasek: Are we going to prioritize your trails?
Mady: I asked for that to be number one.
Sietsema: I put that in the motion.
Mady: We need to talk about the park shelters , the ice skating shelters .
We were asking for $2, 000.00 for them.
IHasek: Have we found any structures or have we had our eyes out for any
structures at all? Pieces of buildings or pieces of houses?
Mady: I' ve got a couple to look at . Monday night at the Council meeting
they were talking about a Senior Citizens fund that's there. They spent
$15,000.00 but there' s still $22, 000. 00 left . If there' s a way for us to
' put our monies together and maybe we could use, say the depot, if that' s
useable for our purposes , we could make that into a senior citizens drop
in center part-time and also use it for our purposes part-time.
Boyt : Maybe the barn would be better suited for that . I don' t know what
they use it for. It' s a public building . Isn' t that a barn by Chutes
' and Ladders?
Schroers : No , that is an outdoor recreation center . It ' s a very new,
expensive facility.
' Boyt : What ' s the building called?
Hoffman: Recreation Center .
Boyt : There ' s a building that ' s there that you go inside of.
' Hoffman: Recreation Center .
Boyt : That ' s what it' s called?
' Schroers: It's the outdoor recreation center .
' Boyt : I don ' t think the seniors are going to want to go out to Lake Ann .
Mady: Maybe they would. As long as they can park close to it and they
get into Lake Ann free anyway because they' re senior citizens .
Schroers : What are we using for that depot?
. i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 30
Boyt : We talked about maybe putting it up here in place of the warming
house. Take the warming house out and use the depot for the warming
house. Use it as a warming house , concession stand and. . .
Schroers : So what are you going to do? Move it out to Lake Ann for the II
senior citizens and then move it up here for the this?
Boyt: We talked about different possibilities of use. It ' s there to be '
used and if we can come up with a good idea , we might get it .
Mady: I just heard at the City Council meeting , $22,000. 00. ,
Hasek: How big is it? How many square feet?
Mady: It' s about 16 by 30 maybe. '
Hasek: Big enough for like a woman ' s restroom on one end and a men 's
restroom on the other end and a concession stand in the middle? ,
Mady: Oh yes, easy. It' s at Natural Green right now.
Hasek: That structure up there is not what I had envisioned. I guess I
saw it laying on the ground and I thought we were going to have a
building of something approaching not quite but almost the size of this
room that would have some bathrooms in it and concession stand . Maybe a
little storage area. That isn ' t big enough for a mens room. I tell you
that would take care of a lot up there.
Sietsema: By the ballfields you' re talking about .
Hasek: I guess what I 'm thinking is a warming house , when you think I
about warming houses and how they get beat up and most of the times it' s
not intentional .
Sietsema: It ' s hard on them though and if it ' s got historic value. '
Hasek: But it' s inadvertent vandalism by kids that are kicked in the
middle . They don ' t think about what they' re doing . I think it would II just get destroyed for that and if it' s not large enough for a center, at
least then it is big enough to serve that purpose and maybe we could get
some restrooms in there and also, if we do decide to do that, I 'd like to
see the women' s restroom twice as big as the men' s so the women aren' t 11
standing in line 50 feet long and guys are walking in and out. I haven' t
seen it but maybe that would be a good use for it .
Sietsema: That sounds like it would be a good idea. If it' s up on the
hill closer to the road . Jerry Schlenk brought to my attention of the
things, he said I don' t think you want a wood structure down by the lake
because wood structures go through a lot of abuse and with all the
vandalism we have down there in the isolated, we've had to have a steel
box just to keep the beach equipment in and it gets broken into every
year a couple of times . '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 31
' Watson: That ' s because you can ' t see down there.
Sietsema: It's very isolated. Once the park is closed and if they get
in there .
Hasek : You' re talking about closer to TH 5.
'
Sietsema: By the ballfields so you can see it from the road. That
sounds great but he really had some legitimate concerns about a wood
structure down by the lake.
Mady: We also have the possibility of the Kurver ' s barn too .
' Boyt: I think that would make a good senior center .
Watson: Where do the seniors want their center to be? Have you asked
them?
' Sietsema: They like where they are .
' Watson : That ' s right. We' re not going to move them very far . I don' t
care what grandiose plans we have. They' ve got it in their minds they' re
not going there, you can forget it. They' ll end up in the elementary
school cafeteria .
Mady: I have a letter sitting on my desk at home from the seniors , a
group of concerned senior citizens to the community center task force and
' they were looking for a pool table, tables for playing cards, a drop in
center, a place to have a coffee pot. They want room. They want a room
about this size. Something they can spread out a little bit and have
' their own that they can call theirs . They don' t have to share with
anybody.
Watson: But the school is very restricted .
' Mady: It's not restricted enough. 10 minutes to eat lunch. It' s not
the seniors fault. I think it' s the school ' s fault.
Boyt: Council I think probably has some ideas what they want to do with
it so we can just request.
' Schroers : How long is that structure at Lake Ann right now? Is that big
enough or can we stop and take a look at it?
' Hasek : Larry, I don' t think it ' s 12 feet across .
Hoffman: Oh yes it is .
Mady: It' s 12 feet across but not more.
Schroers : Is there a concession stand in there?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II
March 22, 1988 - Page 32
Mady: About a third of it is supposed to be concession. It' s going to
be small . I was amazed when I saw it. I was just amazed.
Sietsema: Where we' re going with this is that we have to figure out if
you' re going to consolidate all the park shelter money because we had
identified park shelters in a couple of different places . Where do you
want to put it?
Boyt : Maybe we can use the park shelter money towards relocated the
depot.
Mady: I 'd like to see us not act on the park shelter money at this '
point.
Sietsema: That' s fine . '
Hasek: I bet we can get that thing moved for , it was moved to where it
is so it's just setting there. '
Mady: It' s not on a permanent foundation . It' s on concrete block.
Hasek: I bet we get that thing moved out to the park for $2,000. 00.
Watson : It isn' t very far away either .
Hasek: It takes money to pick it up and get underneath it but I bet
$2, 000.00 would that thing over there.
Schroers : Maybe we should add that onto our agenda on that Sunday when
we look at things.
Sietsema: It is on there . So let' s just leave the rest of these . We' ll II
decide what we want and just put it on another agenda after that Sunday
meeting and we've looked at it .
Mady: Then we can talk about the Lake Ann totlots . Were there any other II
capital improvement items that anybody wanted to talk about? I believe
the Greenwood Shores thing , did the Council ask us to do anything? Do we II
have to go back to the residents? They approved this thing so I 'm
envisioning that we can just go and do this now.
Sietsema: The Council asked us to see if the problems were solved at II Greenwood Shores and then readdress this year the opening of the parking
area. That will be on a future agenda to discuss opening the parking
area . '
Mady: We should probably set that for our second meeting in April then.
Sietsema: I do have a memo from Jim that came in too late to put on this I
agenda about the policing of the parks and what ' s going on so I will
schedule this for initial discussion in the first meeting in April .
Lynch : Lori , what does the Council expect us to do with . . . 11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22 , 1988 - Page 33
' Sietsema : The reason they didn' t approve the opening of the parking area
at Greenwood Shores last year was because the residents came in and said
there ' s always this problem. There' s always that problem. They've got
' this. They've got that. We said, we' ll have a park person on duty and
they' ll patrol it and we' ll solve those problems then we' ll reevaluate it
and see if we can open it next year if those problems are solved. So
according to Jim, there wasn' t any problems and we should be able to go
ahead and open it. It's just putting it on the City Council agenda.
Lynch : They have another open meeting anyway? They're simply going to
' be another series of reasons why they don' t want it.
Watson: You' ve got it .
Mady: At least let them air it out.
Sietsema : We can do this and decide at that point that this is the last
' time we' re going to try this .
Lynch : I 'd be more in favor , if Jim says the problems are cured out
there, you ought to be able to produce complaint calls . The number of
complaint calls that came in and what the reactions were and if there has
not been a problem out there of record, why are we having the next
meeting? I really resist these useless meetings that are for somebody' s
' political benefit.
Sietsema: So what are you suggesting?
Boyt: We don' t need another community meeting.
Sietsema : We don ' t need to invite the residents into our meeting . All
' we need to do is put it in a motion to the Council to say, this is the
Minutes from last time . These were your concerns . We' ve solved them.
According to Jim everything is hunky dory. We recommend opening it. At
' that point it will be a public meeting and the residents will be invited
to come in.
' Boyt : I have one more thing that was not on the CIP. The church I
belong to has 3, 500 members . It' s a large church. They have something
called a wish list that ' s published . Things they want . I was thinking
we could do that for the City so when I bring my brownie troop in and
t we' re looking for a project to do for the City, I can look at this list
and say oh, they want flowers planted at Lake Ann in front of the sign or
if all the brownies i.n town want to do a project , they need bleachers at
' Chan Estates Park. We could raise enough money to do that. Maybe we
could all think of a few things and make up with a list for Park and Rec.
So when the eagle scouts come in and they' re looking for a project, the
' list is already done .
Lynch: We' ve been asking for a list of this sort for some years but
there haven' t been that many of the projects that were "worthwhile"
' projects take some funds to accomplish and we either haven ' t had the
funds or if we had the funds, we said oh, we have the funds, have the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II
March 22, 1988 - Page 34
II
city approve, put it in there so if the funds were there it was an II immediate project. I had a young man come in the other day and Roy and I
were scratching our heads about what we had that was appropriate and had
funds available for it and could be done this summer. I hate to tell the I
kids go out there and put a tennis court in next to Curt ' s house.
Mady: Maybe what we should do then, each one of us sit down and scratch
our heads and figure out what projects to do. I
Sietsema: I ' ll put it on the next agenda.
Lynch: We should make up a list but we just never got around to it. I
Sietsema: I ' ll put that on the next agenda. Establish wish list.
Lynch: I know a couple that are cost free basically. Carver trail is in II
terrible shape . It needs some culverts put in. The one that runs from
the beach.
II
Mady: The last thing I had was concerns with our meetings. I believe II our last meeting agenda was in the paper. I would like to see us put at
least a preliminary agenda in the paper prior to our meeting if it' s at
all possible and public our meeting date. Every meeting should be
published if at all possible. I
Hasek: Can we put a standing notice that the Park Board meets . . .
Watson: But we have some agenda items that have created, we got several II
calls after the last agenda people hadn' t known and they maybe would have
come.
IISietsema : On what item?
Watson : TH 7 and TH 41. Not knowing that we were discussing that road I
and that we had anything to do with where that street would go. It ' s a
very hot neighborhood issue. They wanted to know what we based our
opinion on and I said, really nothing but park access because we don' t II have any information besides that. We aren ' t given any background . We
aren' t told who ' s going to pay for the street. It just looked like a
good way to get to the park.
Boyt: We just make the recommendations .
Sietsema: The thing on that one though is that , it wasn ' t that we were
I
going to make the decision that the road was in or not. We were just
saying , if it does go in, we' d like park access off of it. When we had
the discussion of whether we were going to extend Forest Avenue to get 1
park access off of that , we did invite them in because the only reason
that would be extended was for that purpose but this was going to happen
anyway. We' re just going to tie onto that to get into the park. So
there was some confusion on their part that we were requesting that it go I
through so we could get access . I said no , that ' s not the case at all .
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 35
I
We will get access if the road goes through but they're not going to put
the road through so we can have access .
Watson : But they would have maybe known that if they had been able to
read the agenda and see that.
Mady: That ' s what I 'm looking for is to have our meeting published and
' in the paper. I 'm also looking at we should reserve time at the
beginning of our meeting for visitor presentation. Some citizens come
across and ask for stands at the City Center park. There should be time
available and we should also have time available for Commissioner
presentations at the end of the meeting.
Boyt : Maybe we should set a time limit for each citizen to speak.
' Mady: I think the Chairman can take care of cutting off .
t Sietsema: Just to tie in on that , there are some items that come up that
you would like to see. I 'd like to see this and we should put this on
and we should discuss this . If you could call me with those . If you
' think of them in advance. I try to build the agenda by Friday, it would
have been built a week ago last Friday so I have a whole week to work on
my reports and get it copied and the packets together and in the mail so
if you think of them, even if it' s the Wednesday before , if it ' s not a
' packed agenda, I can add things on. If it gets there Friday it' s going
to go on the next agenda . But even then, I have a file that ' s agenda
next and I can shoot it in there and then I know. I ' ll just put a note
' in there that that ' s what you want to discuss or like you did today,
could you bring this information for me tonight. Then I have it here and
I don ' t have to go upstairs and dig for it or I might not have access to
it after hours. So anything that you want in addition to what' s in that
' packet, feel free to call me and ask me for it. To bring it or to put it
on the agenda or whatever. I would encourage you to do that.
' Hasek moved , Robinson seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in
favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
' Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
II
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 12, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 50 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Ed Hasek, Jim Mady, Mike Lynch, and
Larry Schroers
MEMBERS ABSENT: Curt Robinson and Carol Watson
' STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mady moved, Hasek seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Park and Recreation Commission meetings dated March 8 , 1988 and
March 22, 1988 . All voted in favor and motion carried .
GREENWOOD SHORES :
Chris Maher , 7101 Utica Avenue: We went around the neighborhood and got,
it's probably three-quarters of the people who couldn' t be here tonight
that is against parking at the beach .
Boyt: Do you know that the Council does not want us to develop the park
any further unless there' s parking?
Chris Maher : We went through this whole thing last year .
' Boyt : They wanted some steps to be taken to be reviewed a year later .
From what I 've heard, there haven' t been complaints to the public safety.
Chris Maher : That ' s not right because just the other day there were
parking tickets again on several cars .
Boyt : Have you made phone calls to the public safety?
Don Chmiel , 7100 Tecumseh: I ' ve called the police at least 15 times .
Sietsema: That ' s the input that I didn ' t have at the time that I wrote
up this report.
Don Chmiel : I ' ve personally gone down there and told people to move
their vehicles. That it wasn' t a permitted use for them to park. That
'
if they did they would wind up getting tickets and I 've done that several
different times.
Hasek: Isn' t the chain up?
Don Chmiel : Yes , the chain ' s up but they' re pulling on the grass
adjacent to the street. That' s just what happened the other day as Chris
Maher said. The Maher ' s called and he issued tickets for that so it' s
still happening.
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ` II
April 12, 1988 - Page 2
II
Boyt : Is it nighttime parties or daytime gatherings?
Jeff Farmakes: The majority of the people are teenagers . I
Boyt : From outside the neighborhood?
II
Mady: What are they doing though?
Jeff Farmakes : Drinking . I
Don Chmiel : I saw two girls going down with a bunch of guys that came
down later with a bag.
I
Mady: What kind of time was it?
Don Chmiel : Probably pretty close to 8 : 30-9 : 00.
II
Jeff Farmakes : It' s not always at night . It just depends.
Boyt: Do you have any ideas on what we can do besides calling the public II
safety all the time?
Chris Maher : That' s what we were told to do. Any infraction they were
II
to be called so they had a record all the time. That was last year after
the meeting when it was down. Cars were coming in, lifting up the chain
and riding across the park. Things like that started happening . They
were down there real quick when they were called but it ' s kind of hard to
catch them unless they' re over at the park.
Jeff Farmakes : There was a decrease however when the chain went back up. II
The previous November it was kept open. . . Once that chain went back up,
the beer busts slide. I would say about once a week rather than probably
every other night and they got smaller. Eventually what we've got now,
for about month. . .
Boyt : Do you think some landscaping instead of a parking lot would go?
II
Put trees and bushes up there instead of parking lot?
Mady: What we' re trying to do is open up the park. Right now it' s a II private park.
Chris Maher : No it' s not.
Don Chmiel : I guess that ' s a debateable issue. When you say it ' s a II
private park, there are people who go to Chaparral who use that park
consistently. You have approximately 80 homes within that area who II really support and use that park. Any resident if they want to park
beyond the no parking signs and they can walk there just as they do as
they park in Lake Ann Park and walk down to their beach. It' s the same
distance.
II
Boyt : It sounds like the problem is the people driving to have parties
so they need to get a place to park. I
r
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 3
Mady: The parties are happening at night . . . We can ' t even discuss that
issue until we see what Public Safety brings to us .
Boyt : . . .what we can do with the park for the neighborhood . If you pull
the parking lot. . .
' Chris Maher : The thing is, that beach is really small . It' s not very
big and it can' t support a lot of traffic. . . so people who do live
close can utilize it easily. There would be cars parked . There would be
' all kinds of people. A lot of kids down there. . . It just isn' t big
enough to have a lot of people using it . There are no patrols . There ' s
just not enough police staff to be going there everyday on the weekend
and during the summer to check to see if you have five parking spots , are
' there five people or are they overflowing all over onto the grass and
parking wherever they want to . Who enforces it?
Mady: Our plan though for that park is to line the parking area with
poles defining where the parking area is . Not along here because those
kids they' re getting more cars in.
' Chris Maher : Right now you basically can ' t get things in there.
Hasek: Right now you can probably walk from. . .
Chris Maher : No , there ' s no parking .
' Hasek: I 'm saying you can get in. The gate will come down and you can
drive anyplace you want.
' Mady: What we' re saying is we' re going to define the area and fix it.
Jeff Farmakes : Under the circumstances, when I saw the plans that you
were proposing , you' re using 50% of cleared area into a parking lot .
' When you refer to it as a park, what it is is a parking lot that will be
used as a neighborhood park in the area that ' s developed . They' re using
it.
' Lynch : Part of the plan , there wouldn ' t be anymore area with boulevards
on it than is already gravel now. The little road would go down.
' Jeff Farmakes : There ' s no parking there right now.
Lynch: I realize that but there wouldn ' t be anymore land eaten up.
' Jeff Farmakes : That was put in there to service the pumping station and
not a parking lot which is different.
Lynch : Agreed but a gravel driveway is simply not used for park. Forget
the parking for a minute and it always bothers me, and I 've been around
long enough and I ' ve gone through this party problem in several parks .
You don ' t see any practical solution, mechanical solution? Could the
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting II
April 12, 1988 - Page 4
II
Jeff Farmakes : There is a light .
II
Lynch : But I mean down further in the park. Is there anything else that
we can do?
Jeff Farmakes , 3100 Utica : I think the real issue here is there is
parking there and within your own parameters of 200 feet walking to the
car , it fits your own guidelines and refuse parking that people choose I
three different areas. Three different streets to go down. Park their
car . There is a drop-off existing there and the real issue here is that
there isn ' t any parking there. Your alternative is to take half the park II
and turn it into a parking lot . Now we keep on again, referring to it as
a park where we see this pasture scene and full moon. That ' s just a lot.
Chris Maher : The parking down below, this was discussed before too ,
I
there' s such a hill , an incline up to the street, that it' s hazardous to
kids on their bikes . They can not see from the parking lot , when they go
onto the parking lot, they can' t see to that street until you are up on '
that incline and kids on their bikes and walking and it ' s just dangerous .
It' s just not worth it. I have small kids and most of the people there
do and it' s just not worth it.
Jeff Farmakes : I resent the issue that we heard at the meeting once and II
I think the issue is a non-issue. One of our children got hit there by a
hit and run driver , I think it was three years ago and it was on that I
corner. I don' t think this should be referred to as another issue. That
area that the traffic flows was designed 30 years ago when there were
three homes there.
I
Mady: Can I ask a question? What you' re telling us is you don' t want to
have parking there, they should park on the street 200 feet away?
Chris Maher : Right .
Mady: So those kids then should be fine on the street which is where I
this kid got hit by a car . What we' re asking to do is, we may ask to do,
is to open up the parking to 4 or 5 stalls whatever , I can' t recall the
exact number on the plan anymore, which would allow people to park inside '
the park so they don' t have to walk on the street .
Jeff Farmakes: But our children walk through the street to get to the
park. That would be like putting them in a target area . I
Mady: Maybe what you need to do is talk with all your neighbors and get
them all to agree to allow us to put in an off-street trail along that
II
road then we don' t have the problem anymore but that street isn' t wide
enough for us to put the right-of-way and it ' s not wide enough for us to
put the trailway on the street in there so we ' re stuck. We can' t do it
unless we went out and buy the land from you.
I
Jeff Farmakes: But you ' re ignoring the issue that you' re encouraging
further outside traffic into an area that wasn ' t designed for it . That
in itself is inherently unsafe. The children are there and they' re
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 5
' coming out of that parking lot or anyone else is walking down there or
riding their bike or anything else.
' Schroers : I think we' re having a problem with the interpretation here.
What we' re trying to do is to make the park available to the citizens of
Chanhassen who want to use it. We ' re not trying to encourage additional
parking. I live in Carver Beach right across from Greenwood Shores and I
' go to Greenwood Shores quite often. I drive to there and if I decided
that I wanted to go fishing through there on Lake Ann or Lake Lucy and I
wanted to take my canoe down there , how would I get there?
Mady: You want to get to Lake Lucy from where?
Schroers : . . .Greenwood Shores , park there with a canoe or down to Lake
Ann.
Mady: There ' s a drop-off point in front of the beach there .
' Schroers: What if I don ' t want to go all the way around. What if I just
wanted to go down to Greenwood Shores park?
Chris Maher: There' s not supposed to be boat launching there.
Schroers : Yes , but people in the neighborhood go down there with their
garden tractors and pull their boats down there and launch them. What
we' re talking about here is what ' s fair is fair .
Jeff Farmakes: Excuse me, on Greenwood Shores park, there is an area
between the fence and the road where you can pull your car off from the
flow of traffic , off Utica, dispose of your canoe, turn around, go up
' half a block, park your car and walk back down .
Mady: But that' s not legal .
' Jeff Farmakes : No it ' s not .
Mady: What you ' re telling us is that it ' s unsafe to have kids walk up
' there. It' s unsafe to have cars trying to drive by that parking lot that
we put in but it' s safe for Larry to park his truck and on top of that
take his canoe off?
Jeff Farmakes : Wait a minute now. He asked me a specific question of
where there was an area and I responded to it. I don' t see how that ' s
any less safe in encouraging cars to drive back and forth through there
' all day and someboby can come in, make a temporary stop, drop their canoe
off and turn around and park somewhere else . The point is that he asked
where a facility was available and I responded to him.
' Mady: But not a legal facility. It 'd be the same as parking in your
frontyard. Exact same thing.
' Schroers : If there were signs all around that said no parking , if the
authority wanted to be a jerk about it he probably could give me a ticket
r
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
II
April 12 , 1988 - Page 6
1
just for stopping to unload my canoe. I don' t know about the law
II
specifically but say someone just called up to complain about somebody
parking in a no parking area there and I was just unloading my canoe and
the policeman comes down and says, you' re parked and you' re in a no II parking area so I 'm going to write you a ticket. So I get a ticket for
just trying to unload my canoe.
JoAnn Potz, 6991 Tecumseh Lane: There are people who . . .all these people
out here who are better than the rest of us and they make their own
parking spots . They do . It happens . . .
Schroers: I understand and I agree with you and what was discussed in I
our plan was a 4 to 6 parking spots , was to chain and bollard the parking
area and to design it so there was room for 4 to 6 cars and that' s that. II There' s no place else to go .
Jeff Farmakes : Is it more important to have room for 5 or 6 cars for a
50 by 100 feet beachlot in our neighborhood park?
I
Schroers : In an area immediately adjacent to the pumping station there
is room for 4 to 6 cars without taking up any additional open space. As '
people use , they' ll aerate it down below the yellow and grass area ,
I haven' t seen anyone spend anytime doing anything in the gravel area
other than walk to get there.
IIJoAnn Potz : I ' ve seen these people also get boats in that area . . . . they
take boats on the Greenwood Shores to make it even more. . .
Schroers : That would certainly be, in that situation , you definitely I
want to call the authorities. We' re not promoting that .
JoAnn Potz: But it ' s too easy for them to sneak it in . If they can
II
drive down.
Mady: But if we bollard and chain the parking area , you can can' t II physically take a motor vehicle or boat through that parking area .
Schroers : You would have to lift it up over a chain.
II
Jeff Farmakes: . . .everybody here has seen the blueprints that you have .
One of the questions I have is , when you did the blueprints , how come you
didn't show how the parking would relate to the rest of the open area?
II
What you have is more parking lot than you have park.
Hasek: That was probably just a way that the person who drew the plan up II
decided to show the parking area . I don ' t think there was any intent not
to show the entire park. Maybe it was a matter of taking . . .on a scale he
wanted to show that . I think we understand what the neighborhood is II asking for . Just to move things along what we might suggest is, before
this issue comes before us again, maybe staff could take a look at some
of the issues that keep coming up. I am not a traffic expert and I 'm
sure . . .sitti.ng out here in the crowd unless I 'm mistaken . . . . if we could
get the staff to take a look at it and maybe tell us whether they think
II
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 7
it' s safe or not . What would be safe down there. If there ' s room to put
a trail off of the street and just some of the issues related to
pedestrian and traffic . I think you' re going to get people going into
any park drinking and the only way to control that is to police it. . . We
don ' t have enough staff to watch it all the time, then that ' s part of
your job as it' s my job and the rest of us. I don ' t know that that
particularly is an issue other than it happens in all of the parks so I
' think the real issues are safety and perhaps even beyond safety, what was
the intent of that park when it was first developed . What is the service
area of that park and how many people visits for the service and how far
does that encompass . Those are some things that we can look at before it
comes back again.
Lynch : I 'd like to make a statement Jim and point out an example. When
' the Council originally raised this issue, they raised it saying, an
individual council representative said that the parking arrangement
that' s now available there is (a) not convenient, (b) not known to other
people in the community that might come there . I , for one , if I drove
over there and saw no parking signs right at the park, that ' s where my
focus is , that' s where I want to go , I 'd drive down the road a ways and
' I 'm right in front of somebody' s house. I 'd be kind of hesitate to park
right in front of their house on a road that' s as narrow as yours because
of what I would feel are possible safety problems. Now, I 'd like to
point out to some of the folks that are here tonight who are friends of
' mine, . . .and I see Potz and some other folks in that neighborhood . . . , we
used to have a little baseball team and the only place available for us
to play then, because of the field use, we had to go to Chanhassen
Estates little park that had a small ballfield . . .but there were 2 or 3 or
4 parking places down there and we parked there. Now that' s a perfect
example of a neighborhood park being available for whatever purpose it ' s
intended. It was not intended to be a community resource but for our
ballteam, it was the only place we had to go play to go practice in those
days. Without those parking spots , again, if that had all been marked
off, I don ' t know if I would have parked, with a road structured as
' theirs as bad as yours , with the sharp curves and corners and hills. I
don ' t know if I would have wanted to take my team over there and park on
a street in front of somebody' s house and walk 200 to 300 feet down
below. Again, the Council that it be conveniently accessible to all
residents. That ' s what they' re thinking about. They' re thinking about a
person can drive there, have small , several places to park. The Carver
Beach park has gone through the same metomorphisis where there was an
' extremely bad party problem. All parking was blocked off. The
Commission looked at this and was in favor , the problem was so bad. That
sort of went away. It was blocked off for several years and the Council
' decided to open it. To date now there hasn' t been any big problem.
We' ll see by the end of the summer . There is now about 3 or 4 parking
places. So that' s kind of where the Council is coming from and that' s
where we' re coming from. I think the key really is that can we have
convenient access for all without causing teenage problems. There are a
few problems that are aggravated problems .
' JoAnn Potz: What was brought up that where the end of the no parking
signs are is the same distance from there to the beach as it is at Lake
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
II
April 12, 1988 - Page 8
Ann from where you park and where you walk to the beach . '
Mady: I 'm not going to cut off any further discussion on this item.
It ' s not on our agenda and we have a full agenda yet for tonight . You' ll '
be invited to come back when it is on our agenda. Thank you for your
comments.
Sietsema: I will notify you when it ' s back on the agenda . I will notify II
the neighborhood.
Schroers : Can I make one quick comment? I would just like to get the
point across that we are not working against the residents of Greenwood
Shores . We would like to work with you to accomplish what would be an
acceptable solution for everyone so we would be more than open to any of
your ideas or suggestions if you want to come up with a reasonable
solution.
Jim Schluck : Is it possible to have the records when this park was
deeded over from Greenwood Shores to the Village. Do we have accurate
records? Can you get that?
Sietsema: I don ' t know that I even have all that information. ,
Mady: Again, I 'm going to cut this off and staff can do what they can
find . '
ESTABLISH POLICIES FOR TYPES OF TRAIL USE. '
Sietsema: In putting this together, I 'm not expecting that we ' re going
to be able to come to a conclusion to develop a policy tonight as far as
what' s going to be allowed on different types of trails , but I wanted us
to get thinking about it and thinking what the different uses and
different requests are out there. Also, that it probably is going to
take, whatever we decide is going to take backing up by beefing up our
ordinance or maybe amending the ordinance, depending on what you come up
with. The reason that ' s it on right now, why I 'm bringing it up to your
attention is because we do have some nature trails that are on private
land that we don' t actually have the easements for . The private
homeowners are developing, putting those trails in and he is requesting
that no horses be allowed on those trails . I need to know if I 'm
supposed to order signs for that or if we' re going to make a policy that II
in our rural area where there ' s the only spot in the whole city left to
ride horses, are we going to allow horse riding on those trails so it' s
just if you could give me some direction on that specific instance and
then also, start us thinking about what our trail rules and regulations
are going to be.
Lynch : Can I start by asking Larry a question? What ' s the metro park' s II
policy?
Schroers : We have designated a forest trail and I guess the state of the II
art in trails these days, a word that always comes up time and time again
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 9
I
I are multi-use and multi.-purpose. What we do is allow horse riding on
some of trails that are primarily constructed for cross country skiing
but in the off-season and they also serve as hiking trails . It works out
I quite well really. There' s no reason why people can' t hike on the same
trail that horses ride on and anytime there is a problem is when you get
snow on the trails and the trails are open for cross county skiing then
it' s closed for horse riding. It ' s for skiing only at that time. I
I think normally during the winter months, I don ' t know how much trail
riding goes on at that time of year anyway. That ' s the way we handle it
in Hennepin Parks .
ISietsema: What are they doing in Hennepin Parks about horse droppings?
Schroers: Nature takes care of that.
ISietsema: Most of those are either mowed trails or deer paths or
something like that anyway.
ISchroers : They are mowed , cleared trails that otherwise most of them are
20 foot wide trails that are brushed out and stumped out.
ISietsema: But I mean where we ' re proposing a lot of them are deep in the
ravine along Bluff Creek and are probably going to remain just what the
deer paths are.
ILynch : I 'm sure that we' re going to need to look at some multi-use
aspects in size of terrain because if you for instance do get in a ravine
I and three hikers and three horses meet coming the wrong way, somebody' s
got to get out of the way. If you guys have not had any problems, and
have long experience with it , they have very wide trails . Very wide open
trails .
ISchroers : We also do have an extensive maintenance staff that if someone
calls up and complains in one particular area , there' s an unreasonable
I amount of droppings on the trail or whatever , then we' ll run our guys out
there to clean it up and haul it away. I don' t know if the City has
that kind of staff available for that sort of thing . On the private
I land, the private landowner is letting us use that land for a nature
trail , they surely have the right to say if they do or don ' t want horses
on it. I think the responsibility of the City at some point in time,
when you reach that stage of development , to provide facilities for as
I many uses as you can. We should be able to have at least a specified
area of whatever size in the southern part of town that will accomodate
horses.
IHasek : I have a question. Do we have any ordinance that address what
size parcel of land you have to have in order to have a horse?
I Sietsema : Yes , you have to have so many acres . Maybe you know that
Carol .
I Carol Dunsmore : I believe it' s one acre per horse. Two acres for two
horses.
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 10
Hasek: Are there setbacks that relate to farms and setbacks that relate II
just to residential?
Carol Dunsmore: It' s just the standard setback.
Hasek: So actually on a one acre lot if you wanted to have horse you
could jam the lot with a barn and horse. What do other cities that are
generally close or far away from the metropolitan do? I know Orono has
several horses in it. Medina does too but Medina ' s a heck of a lot more
rural than we are. Orono wants to be rural , they count themselves as
rural .
Sietsema: I really don' t know what other cities are doing. I haven ' t
checked into it that far. I
Hasek: You might look into it. Again , there are some boundaries where
development , maybe it is beyond certain areas where we could establish a I
trail system that would connect with Eden Prairie has one . That ' s all it
would take.
Boyt : We need to put a- snowmobile trail system in the area . Do you ride II
in the winter very much? That' s what I 'm wondering if that be turned
over to the horses in the summer .
Hasek: Aren' t those trails leased from the private owners? '
Boyt : Yes , but those people were willing to share hunting on their
trails . They might be willing to work out something with horse lovers .
A tape break occurred at this point .
Hasek: Why do you think he took that opportunity away from you?
Carol Dunsmore : I really don ' t know. '
Hasek: Have you talked to him at all about it?
Carol Dunsmore: Yes . '
Hasek: And he hasn' t given you any reasoning. Just no more horses .
Carol Dunsmore: Not directly because we have our . . .
Sietsema: What he told me was that the horses chew up the grass and it
makes it hard to mow the trail .
Carol Dunsmore : Another area that we can ride in is Vern Gagne' s
property. We ' re just finding that areas we used to ride in when it came
to Chanhassen are now suddenly have houses on that property so I
appreciate the City taking a look at this . We really need it. There are
a lot of horses in the area so I appreciate if you could be thinking
about where people can ride that will be. . .
I
IPark and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 11
I
ISchroers : One thing that you should maybe aware of is that , Hennepin
Parks have trails that are for horse riding. They are not necessarily
directly connected to a community where horses come from. We have
Iparking areas at the beginning of the trail and people trailer their
horses to the trail and then bring them out and ride them. How do you
feel about that?
ICarol Dunsmore: We do that also but we' re losing what ' s close to home
and we' re not interested in every time you want to riding, putting the
I horses in a trailer . It seems that we' re living in an area that we
should promote riding. . .changing as the City changes .
Sietsema : They are concerned that for their evening ride, they have no
Iplace to ride anymore for their evening exercising of the horse.
Karen Hasse : And I ride in the day. . . so everytime I come home from work
to take the horse trailer and take them 10 to 15 miles for a ride. . .
Boyt : It would be nice for Chanhassen to have a facility so they
wouldn ' t have to trailer their horses .
I
Hasek: Like I said , maybe it' s not as big a number . . . to another system
so we can get into a bigger system.
ISchroers : Is there an area the size of property in your neighborhood
that would be suitable?
ICarol Dunsmore : Well we ride in adjacent areas but they really aren ' t
established trails. We try to stay in fields . . .and it works out alright
but there' s always the question of is it okay that we' re here and it ' d be
Ikind of nice to know that it can be used for that purpose.
Mady: If we get the opportunity with that parkland in southern
I Chanhassen. . . .maybe we can set aside something, I 'm hoping to set aside
a good share anyway as a natural area and maybe we can designate some for
horses .
ILynch : I 'm sure what you ' re going to run into Jim is that for every. . .
area aside it' s going to immediately adjacent to probably 10% of the
horse owners . The horse owners are going to have to ride the highway to
Iget there if they don ' t have trailers .
Carol Dunsmore : Unless you have room on the existing trails . . .
ILynch: That ' s what I mean. . . in that area. . . a lot of problems developing
just for a narrow trail for pedestrians . When you get the extra width
you need and perhaps the extra say for the horses , that may be too much
to ask for the future.
Carol Dunsmore : Speaking from experience , . . .but 4 to 6 is half the size
Iso it' s not necessary to make it. . .
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting II
April 12 , 1988 - Page 12
Hasek: There has to be a safety factor for two horses meeting or a horse I
and another use so that ' s where it comes in. . . You' re not going to want
pedestrians along where horses are going down the trail . I wouldn ' t want
my kids to be. 11
Lynch : You could sum up our job here by saying that we want to put in
everything that we can afford, reasonably, that is going to be used. The II
cash comes , we can afford reasonably, because sometimes things we think
we can afford the Council says we can not afford.
Mady: I might suggest that you contact Dick Kost since he represents the I
snowmobile trail committe from this area and find out what they've got
and how they went about getting it. They get some money from the DNR
somehow and there might be an opportunity that exists for horse riders . I
Maybe they just take back off what they have in their in system, share it
but we' ll keep your needs and desires in mind when we' re looking at
trails and how we can use them and where they exist but I think Mike' s '
pretty much accurate on our limitations with the budget. We' ll do what
we can but I guess I don' t foresee us going out and obtaining 10 or 15
miles of horse trails . We' ll try to do as much as we can with as much
Imoney as we get and we' ll you in mind . It would work best with the
snowmobilers and they' re going to be running in 5 years I would guess too
as the city develops .
Sietsema: They' re already running into problems . I
Mady: So it' s not a unique problem and they' re looking at it , maybe I
that ' s a realistic way for you to expand what you' ve got . They at least
have the contacts and they know because they've done it. That may be
very helpful to you .
Carol Dunsmore: The dotted line there on the map, are those trails I
already designated for specific use or are those the ones you ' re working
on for the future and what those can be used for?
I
Sietsema: The ones we' re working on. We haven' t obtained them yet.
Lynch: Those are proposed .
I
Carol Dunsmore : So you talk about if they' re paved or woodchips , grass
or what?
I
Lynch : We probably would be talking about that if the trails ever get
passed.
I
Schroers : The trails program just got voted down on the referendum.
Carol Dunsmore: If a trail is on a person' s private property, . . .
I
Sietsema: It would be some. Again, the problem with Tim's property is
we don' t have an actual public easement over it. It' s something that I
I ' ll be working on but I don' t know that Tim is willing to do that . He ' s
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 13
' willing to maintain a trail for public use but he' s not actually willing
to sign off on it. We can't make him do that without paying him for that
easement so he has the right to say no horses if he doesn ' t want horses
on his private property. If we have a trail easement that goes along the
whole length of Bluff Creek and it is an actual easement that we own,
then we have the jurisdiction to say yes , horses are allowed on this
trail . But where you come to an area that is on private property like
this , it would have to be signed no horses on this nature trail .
Carol Dunsmore : I appreciate your time and that you' re thinking about
' this but in a more general planning sense, as the city continues to
develop, I think manage to maintain a trail system, something would
appeal . . .
Mady: We would like to do that too. We work on this about every
meeting. We can do little things . We can do more planning but we can ' t
put anything in. We have very little money to do that .
Schroers: One thing, if you 'd like to let your neighbors know that if
you do want trails , spread the word and get out and vote yes on the next
' referendum. Our hands are tied .
Carol Dunsmore: . . .Hennepin parks has got beautiful trails .
' Lynch: Our referendum only went down by two votes and I 'm sure we ' ve got
a couple of votes on there. Go talk to those folks . To give you an idea
of the financial ramifications. A mile of developed trail is $40, 000. 00.
' Carol Dunsmore : Is that just a mowed grassy area or are you talking
about paved trails?
' Lynch : That ' s a narrow paved trail . That ' s a 16 foot right-of-way with
a 6 foot paved in the middle but it' s extremely expensive.
Carol Dunsmore : A horse trail is a little cheaper . Real cheap.
Lynch: It may be that when and if we ' re able to develop down there and
' some trails are laid out for horse trails , we may welcome them all on .
The Chanhassen Horse Owners Association to get out there and brush and
clear and help the ground crews . Even if the referendum passes , we' re
going to have to spend that money very, very carefully to get the most we
can out of it .
Sietsema : One more thing about trails . Just a feeling , if I could just
' get a feeling from the Commission here about pets on trails. On the bike
trails. Are we going to allow pets on trails? If so , we have to think
about leash laws and pooper scooper laws.
Lynch : We already have a leash law.
Sietsema: Do we?
Mady: Yes we do.
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
II
April 12 , 1988 - Page 14
II
Sietsema: But we also have an ordinance that says no pets in parks and II
trails are considered lineal parks so we have to amend that.
Hasek: I don ' t see any problem with animals. I don' t actually see any
problem myself with animals in the parks. It' s not the animals, it' s the II
mess they leave behind and the idiot who owns the dog that thinks it' s
okay to leave it there. That's what I have a problem with. If we could
educate the idiot that owns the pet , that would be okay. I
Lynch: I don' t think you can reasonably prevent that because we' re
asking subdivisions now that they have off-street trails . Well , you' re II talking sidewalks . You' re going to tell a guy who lives in that
subdivision that he can' t walk his dog at night? I wouldn' t want someone
trying to say that.
Sietsema: I personally would not like to see us allow animals in parks . II
I wouldn' t want to change that. Trails are fine.
Hasek: You don' t find people laying down on a trail very often and I
that' s what really makes you mad. You put your blanket down and you sit
down and you feel this squish .
IISietsema: The reason for that is because people in parks have a tendency
to let their animal run. On a trail they' re going somewhere. The animal
is with them but in a park, you' re trying to have your family picnic and
II
somebody' s dog is jumping on top of your kid and taking his chicken out
of his hand , then he leaves his mess behind and you 've got all kinds of
things to deal with. That ' s my own personal feeling.
II
Mady: I 'd like to see also , if we do develop some natural park areas
that are next to a walkway, it might be advantageous to the people around
who are hunters be allowed to have their dogs, train their dogs in the
II
water.
Lynch: It'd be easy enough to set a little place aside. Even like where II
the Lake Ann trails between Greenwood Shores , that little spot. Say this
is the dog training area .
ESTABLISH "WISH LIST" . II
Sietsema: The reason I asked for this to be changed is because we do
II
have a potential eagle scout in audience who is looking for a project so
if anybody had something on their wish list that would be eligible for an
eagle scout project, let' s hear it. I
Lynch : I ' ll give you mine . This is for everybody elses benefit, one of
the reasons why I asked Lori to put this on is that we get requests a II lot , we' ve got John and there are two more kids coming up in the troop
here in town and that ' s only one of the troops where we get applicants .
Of these jobs , the scout masters eagle instructions is that an eagle
project has to have lasting benefit. It can be a lasting social benefit . II
A lasting physical benefit . A lasting safety benefit but it has to last .
11
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 15
Of these jobs , the scout masters eagle instructions is that an eagle
' project has to have lasting benefit. It can be a lasting social benefit.
A lasting physical benefit . A lasting safety benefit but it has to last.
If you look down the list here, the first one would be fine. Little
' pick-up wouldn' t go although it is something that needs to be done and it
might be good for a star project for some of the troops. Clearing trails
along Carver Beach Road . That' s a little heavier duty project than that.
It needs to be, and you might note this on yours Lori , it' s resurfaced,
culverts added and sides timbered in some spots . It has to be straighten
out and it has to have some work done. Plantings around Legion Shelter
would be a good one. Bridge construction at Lake Ann would be great .
' Hasek: Plantings around Legion Shelter. They can do something like
that?
' Lynch : We' re talking a landscaping job.
Mady: I ' ve never seen one around, especially if it' s used as much as
that one gets used , that ' s going to survive. I think it ' s just a waste
of money.
' Boyt : Another place you could do that is Carver Beach Playground needs
landscaping.
Sietsema : It' s not necessarily bushes I guess . It would be just flowers
' and that kind of thing.
Boyt : We need spectator seating at the parks . Like Chan Estates . It
' could be small . It could be benches but we need spectator seating .
Lynch : At some of the ballfields there , if we put heavy green timber
benches in there.
Mady: Like Lake Ann.
Sietsema : Are you talking terracing the hill?
Lynch: No, putting benches . . .
Sietsema: I don' t know how hard that would be to mow around but I know
that we have had people say that for older people it is hard to sit on
that hill .
' Boyt : You put your benches in a line and you put some gravel underneath
them so you get a straight line for mowing .
ILynch : You couldn' t do that on a hill .
' Schroers : The only way you could do that would be to terrace.
Lynch : Yes , and that would be too big a job.
Mady: A couple other projects that need to be done. We have a number of
r
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting 1
April 12, 1988 - Page 16
II
Sietsema: Is that still there?
II
Boyt : It was supposed to be taken down last year . Chanhassen Pond Park,
it was supposed to be down. I haven' t noticed it up.
I
Mady: The ball is still there.
Boyt: It' s a new city ordinance. I
Schroers : I don' t know about the barbed wire. It looked like somebody
cleaned up some of the mess down by Greenwood Shores Park. Did you give II
direction to clean that up?
Sietsema : Yes , we talked to Dale about it when he was in here that one II time. One of the times that he was in here we brought it to his
attention.
Schroers : No , this was on Sunday.
I
Sietsema: At Greenwood Shores , yes there was a girl scout troop that
cleaned up that night . I
Lynch : . . . some person is not particularly responsible for . Somebody
who ' s responsible for it or tell Lori and she' ll tell them to get it out
of there . If it' s something that there' s no particular responsibility,
II
call me, I ' ll call John' s scoutmaster and I ' ll get a barbed wire removal
over .
Sietsema: I don' t know if it' s been removed or not but I know that there I
was barbed wire between Greenwood Shores and Lake Ann along the trail
there and there was by Chanhassen Pond . I believe that we asked Dale to
remove it but he was so shorthanded last year , I don ' t know if he ever II
got down to it.
Lynch : Let me know if it doesn ' t look like it' s going to get done
II
through normal channels and I ' ll get some of the Schmitz' boys and we' ll
go down there and rip it out.
Hasek: What about bridge construction on Lake Ann? I
Sietsema: I went out there and I don' t know that it' s going to be like a II scout project or not because it ' s that big ravine that goes down into
Carver Beach that runs through the tree farm. They'd have the trail
going along the north side of TH 5, they' re going to have to get over
that because we don' t want to go out onto the four lane highway. I think II
it ' s going to have to be like a huge bridge.
Hasek: We don' t own that ravine do we?
II
Sietsema: Yes .
Hasek: We own that ravine all the way up into the park? I
r
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 17
II
II Sietsema: Yes .
Hasek: Maybe we can take the trail and push it into the park a ways and
Igo down that hill and cross the creek.
Sietsema: Except for a biker who ' s coming from Victoria and headed for
I St. Paul on a big long day bike trip. He' s going to end up going out on
the highway. He' s not going to want to do that .
Hasek: The guy' s that going from here to St. Paul isn ' t going to be on
IIthat trail anyway. He' s going to be on the road .
Sietsema: Out on TH 5?
IHasek : You bet . There are bikers going into Minneapolis on I-94 in the
morning.
Mady: I 've got a couple other items . There ' s a lot of playgound
equipment that could be painted bright colors . Some of the wood
structures should be stained . Not any specific site but . . . The shelter
II at Chan Estates Park, we were talking about just rebuilding that. I
believe was it Jeremy that did the bridge down here? The help he had , a
couple of fathers that are carpenters that were looking at that earlier ,
I it ' s just to stabilize that structure and rebuilding it. That could
probably be a scout project.
Lynch : The project that you accomplish , he goes out and he ' s charged
1 with going out and finding one. His scout master can' t find one for him.
He shops around for what he wants to do and then he makes a preliminary
write-up. He takes it to his scout master . The scout master says yes or
I no . The scout master says yes , he goes to the troop and he explains and
they say yes or no. They say yes , he takes it to the district and let ' s
them look at it and they say yes or no . If they say yes , then he comes
I back and he says I want to do this . This is what I want to do and the
way I want to do and these are my plans and this is the money it ' s going
to cost and time. Then he goes out and he does it in a reasonable length
of time. Reasonable for the project that it is . Then he has to go all
I back through all those same people and they have to look at what he ' s
done and say yes , he did it and he did it right . This is obviously to
get the youth out of his unit and out to meet with strange people. The
I key words in the eagle project is it has to be a lasting value . It can' t
be of any benefit whatsoever to scouting and the majority of the people
that he works with in the project , have to be others . He has to give
leadership to others. Jeremy spent the whole summer building a bridge
I down there with his dad . He did a beautiful job. His job was to
organize the other people to do the job. Organize everything and there
are regularly youngsters who fail . The reason why they make it that
Itough is they want to see them stretch themselves .
Boyt : Some of these do not pertain at all to eagle scout projects . Some
Iof these would cost a lot of money.
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting II
April 12 , 1988 - Page 18
II
Sietsema: This is what I need because I have Girl Scout troops and
Brownies and like I had a Cub Scout group call me on Monday and say, we
I
want to pick up trash somewhere , where can we go?
Boyt: Park shelters at parks with lights . Trash pick-up everywhere. II Flowers at each park sign. A large flower planting at the playgrounds.
Spectator seating by ball diamonds such as Chan Estates and Chaparral .
Plantings like trees , shrubs and flowers . Field lighting at Lake Ann. II Equipment to be used at the parks . Paddleboats and canoes. Bike racks
at some parks . Concession stand at the City Center Park. Playground
equipment at City Center Park. Basketball courts at Carver Beach
playground and Vandimere Heights . Bandshell or gazebo for the City II Center Park. Donation of land of 5 acres or more for parks. Trail work
for bridges in the Bluff Creek area . Fishing docks .
Schroers : . . .consider where we might want to have an archery range. I
Lynch : Any of these projects that come up that are on there now that
look like something, not just a wish list but something you really would I
need to be done , call me and in like 20 minutes I can call four or five
scoutmasters that are around here and see if somebody will pick it up to
do the next weekend .
II
Sietsema: We need trash pick-up in all the parks . They' re all ugly as
sin with trash right now.
II
Mady: The whole city is this year . It ' s just terrible .
Sietsema: It' s just all the construction and all the blowing around and II
everything , there ' s garbage everywhere. That ' s an immediate need that I
see so if you know anybody that needs an afternoon project.
Lynch: John , was there anything there that you saw that particularly I
appealed to you? What you can do, Lori in a week you' ll have that list
typed up?
IISietsema: Sure .
Lynch : Is contact Lori and get the list and sit down and really take a I
hard look at it.
Schroers : I have a question. These flower beds and flower gardens are a
good idea but who' s going to take care of them? You can plant trees and
shrubs and put a few woodchips around them and they' re okay but a flower
garden, that needs constant care. They need to be weeded and watered .
Sietsema: We do have a couple of spots around the City that the master I
gardeners take care of and one of them is this little flower bed that' s
outside the library. I
Lynch : Could we notify that organization that we'd like to see some work
done in specific areas because that master gardener organization is a II neat deal . They've always got new blood coming in there and they have to
II
IIPark and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 19
II
do their project to get their master gardener certificate. So that ' s
I what it amounts to. They have to do a public project and they have to
keep it for a year . It has to look neat .
I Schroers: Weren't you talking about something for your Brownies but
after they initially put them in , then will they come back and maintain
them and take care of them?
IIBoyt : Hennepin did the daffodils or the crocuses along the creek.
Thousands of them. They come up, crocuses come up, they bloom, and they
wither . It was just beautiful last year . They planted it in amongst the
Igrass .
Schroers : I 'm just asking because I don ' t know a lot about it except
II that the few flower beds that we have around where I work take a lot of
care.
I Sietsema: Sue, do you have to go out and water those or anything?
Boyt: The tulips that my Brownies put in last year, we put them next to
a sign . They' re going to come up year after year and you don' t have to
IIworry about them. That ' s just it. You don ' t water them.
Mady: It would be nice if every park sign in the City had a small bed or
I tulips or irises or something perennial that comes up early in the spring
because those usually don ' t need a lot of water and maintenance or
anything. They just come up. They' re there. They' re there for about
two weeks and then they' re gone .
IHasek : You can do those things in the grass area and they' re usually
gone before the grass cutting season even starts .
ISchroers : And they' re not like bulbs that have to be dug up in the fall?
I Boyt: No, you just leave them in year after year . You don' t get as many
flower blossoms in the following years but you still get some . I talked
to Dale about it last year before about seeing what we should plant.
1 PARK DEDICATION FEES .
I Sietsema : I came up with some numbers for service areas for the park
dedication and that' s what this map up here is. It shows each park and
the black circle around each one of these parks represents the service
area for each park. As you can see, we' ve got some overlapping ,
I especially in here and here, so it' s difficult to measure how many people
are actually be served by that park when they may be served by as many as
three parks . Then when you count the service area for this park along
I here, you can not really count the people on this side of the lake
because of the barrier so we didn ' t count those numbers but if you just
take how many people are within each different service area, you can see
I that we are over the 1 acre per 75 people. jn Carver Beach playground ,
City Center Park and Cathcart Park) All three of those have shared
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 20
service areas so that decreases really that number because if you
consider Cathcart Park and Minnewashta Park, all these people are being
served by two parks . I don ' t know how you want to determine that.
Hasek: I think the way that has to be done is that really has to be
closer looked at based on barriers . It' s kind of like a fire response
study. It' s not a matter of drawing a circle and saying this is the area
we serve because they have a time deal that figures out exactly what that
is and looks at how far they can get and that kind of stuff. I really
think that ' s what happens here. You have a projected population that you
want to serve by each of those parks and just knowing that there' s an
industrial area within part of that , does that extend the role upon ,
another park? Is there time involved in their distance a little bit?
Some judgment has to be made on some of that . For example Cathcart Park,
the service area for Cathcart Park is probably all up in Shorewood .
Sietsema: It' s very questionable if any of these people over here are
being served. That they' re going to cross TH 7 to get over to Cathcart .
Hasek: The only reason that that park gets used is for like playground
stuff like the ballfields and soccer and hockey.
Sietsema : Organized play.
Hasek: Then the parents are taking the kids across because TH 7, nobody '
in their right mind let' s their kids cross that highway. That little one
in Minnewashta there, nobody goes skating there except for those people.
They' re the only ones that use it. If you want to do something more
recreational , you go across the street to the one that' s in Shorewood . I I
also think that maybe if there are any that abut our community, like that
one in Shorewood , just north of TH 7 right across from Minnewashta Shores
there, if there are any other in another city that actually serve a part
of our area , we should know about those too . In other words , maybe what
appears to be a hole in here really isn' t. Cathcart serves Shorewood.
It' s owned Shorewood . No , it' s ownedby us but it' s maintained by
Shorewood.
Sietsema: It' s not owned by us , it' s owned by Shorewood .
Hasek: It is owned by Shorewood and maintained by Shorewood and it' s in II
our city limits .
Sietsema: Located within our city but owned by Shorewood . '
Hasek: These are just the city parks .
Sietsema: Right . This is just neighborhood parks . It didn ' t inlcude
Lake Ann or Lake Susan so basically you can see here that our populated
area is being served. Except for these few holes that we've got in the
Eckankar property and Saddlebrook property is now being filled in,
there ' s not a whole lot more development that ' s going to go on there.
It' s pretty much filled. We do have a hole right here in Pleasant Hills
and that ' s already filled but we don ' t know what area in there that ' s
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 21
I
going to become available for us . We do have a few small outlots within
IPheasant Hills that may be conducive for a totlot, small totlot or
something but nothing that if you could just put an ice rink on one of
the ponds.
IHasek: This is all brand new in here too isn' t it? How come we don ' t
have a park in there?
ISietsema: The final plat was done before I was here so they' re just
doing the last phases so by the time I got here it was too late to make a
request .
IIHasek : Maybe what we should think about then, if we' re serious about it,
there are still empty lots in there. Maybe we should think about buying
I a lot.
Boyt : You said to maintain the ice . . .
ISietsema: There' s an outlot that has a holding pond.
Mady: Can we get back on the subject . It sounds like we' re talking
IIabout the next item on the list .
Sietsema: I ' ll start over . At the last meeting I was directed to find
I out how many people are being served by each park. How many people are
within the service area of each park. So we went to each park and drew
the service area around each one and that' s what this represents. Each
II one of these , here' s a park and the circle represents the service area.
As you can see in a more populated area , we' ve got people served by more
than one park. I think the most within the service area is three parks
at the same time. The only hole that I really see is up here in the
I Pheasant Hill area and again , we have two or three outlots that were
dedicated to the City that would be big enough for perhaps a totlot.
It' s just that there is usually a holding pond on those outlots and so it
I would be up to the Commission to decide if they think totlots or
something should be located that close to a body of water like that. I
don ' t know what the liability or what those implications are. On one of
those outlots where there' s a holding pond , we do maintain it as an ice
I rink in the winter time so we are serving them to that extent.
Otherwise , where our development is coming in , Saddlebrook is here so
they' re covered. Chanhassen Hills is here and they've dedicated a park
I within that , it' s just not developed yet . Lake Susan Hills West is over
here and they' ve got three different park sites here so they' re covered .
When we asked for parkland , we figured it to the 1 per 75 . So the people
II per acre is over the standard on Carver Beach Playground, Cathcart Park
and City Center Park, but again , some of the people in those service
areas are served by another park as well so it ' s difficult to figure out
where we really are deficient . I don ' t think that our parks , where they
II are right now, are overused except for when we start talking about the
league sports . I don ' t think that we need to alter our standard so we
require less parkland. I don' t think that should happen at all but as
I far as neighborhood use I think we' re doing pretty good . I still firmly
believe that we' re going to have to beef up our community park because
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 22
right now, as Todd can testify, the youth programs are absolutely filled
up every single space we have in every neighborhood park throughout the
City so we' re at capacity right now as far as our community use .
Therefore, my recommendation is to raise the fee as shown. Did I include
in your packets the old memo? '
Mady: Yes. This one?
Sietsema: That has the outlining?
Mady: Yes, with the calculations on it.
Sietsema: Based on that memo and the calculations that that will
justify, I 'm recommending that we raise it to that level and then
concentrate on beefing up our community park as we are doing with the
Lake Ann expansion that' s planned and the southern area.
Hasek: What were the old numbers?
Sietsema: The old numbers were $415. 00 per unit for single family,
$415. 00 per unit for duplex and the multiple was varied. I just
consolidated them and took an average. The industrial was $1, 035. 00 per II
acre so the biggest increase was $15.00.
Hasek : The only concern I have, I guess when we did this before and I
think I talked to you about on the telephone a couple of times , is that
there was justifiable means for doing that . As long as that' s down and
we can defend it, that' s all I really care about .
Sietsema : I think that our City Attorney would be very happy with the
way we've got this and he would have no problem taking it into court.
Mady: I 'd personally like to see you go higher but I don ' t think there
is anyway we can justify going higher without just being arbitrary and
capricious . Since that doesn ' t stand up in court very well , we' re going
to have to go with what' s defensible. This is what it is .
A motion was made at this point with the following discussion.
Lynch : When these first came into being , they seemed to represent a much II
larger percentage of the value of the land than they do now because I ' ve
been on the board long enough and was here through the years of 20% II interest rates and the 15% and 20% and 25% per year increase in the land
value and we did not take but 3% to 5% increases on this fee in that era .
Not remember what those fees were in those days , it' s obvious that the
percent we have now versus what the land is, was not what it was in those
days . It was felt that it was a controversial thing to do when they were
established and they got beyond that so I don' t think that this is enough
probably. The $15. 00 is not too much . I also think it' s not enough. I II
think i.t could be more.
Haesk : I felt exactly the same way. I think when this first came out ,
what concerned me was I guess I didn't want to, I spend my day working
11
IPark and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 23
I
for the developer and this is kind of on the other side of the fence for
I me but what can you do but when I looked at it I wanted it be fair from
both sides . I see so many cities that we go into that are way out of
line with the way that they calculate and the way that they figure it.
I They simply say, that' s the way it is so that ' s the way it is . You know
if you want your project you' re going to pay the piper unless you've got
so much money and you ' re such a big developer that you want to contest
I it. That' s why when I talked to Lori the first time, I wanted to make
sure that there was a way to calculate it and it had some rationale
behind it and what she ' s basing it on is land values.
1 Lynch: Let' s say for instance that a developer wanted to put in 25 units
and we were to raise this $50. 00. On a 25 unit development, it' s
$2, 500. 00 and that ' s not going to deter a builder . The builders are used
II to the fact now that they have to pay these things. I 'm sure if they
were all sitting in a room and we said would you like us to raise these
$50. 00 fees, they'd say no but I think we could raise them $50. 00 apiece
and I ' ll bet you we wouldn' t have two people in the next year say, hey
you raised that $50. 00. I don' t think they'd ever see it.
Sietsema: Probably not but do we want to do what you can get away with
Ior do we want to do what we can justify? That ' s the bottom line .
Lynch : You can justify what you can get away with. That ' s a
I justification in itself. I 'm serious . I think we' re bending too far to
the side of conservatism here .
II Sietsema: I don ' t care one way or the other . My personal feeling , I
don' t think it makes that much difference but our fees are not out of
line with what other communities are doing . We' re right in the
mainstream of what we ' re doing and then you take into consideration that
I we have added a trail dedication fee so the park and trail dedication fee
is now up over $600. 00. If you take that all into consideration, we' re
doing pretty good but again , Roger has no problem holding this up in
II Court and taking this to Court if anybody should contest it. He ' s
comfortable with it. I 'm comfortable with it .
Lynch: Where does Roger reach a problem though?
IISietsema: He reaches a problem when it is not based on land values . It' s
got to all come back to density and land value. In dollars, I don' t
Iknow. He doesn' t care how much it is either .
Lynch: Is approaching the limit $500. 00? Is it approaching $600. 00?
I When I go out and design and sell industrial systems , I decide what that
customer can pay maximum for that system and my price is below that.
Very close below that .
II Sietsema : Based on what our land , the County Assessor has said what our
land values are, this is what his limit is . He hasn ' t picked out a
number out and said I can ' t hold anything . I don ' t know what you want me
Ito say Mike .
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 24
Lynch: I ' ll tell you what I 'm asking for . The County Assessor has come
up with figures . Let' s take a rough number . Let' s say he says $425. 00
is reasonable . Everything has a plus and minus . What' s plus?
Sietsema: This is plus. I took it all high. '
Lynch: I know but I mean , where do you reach the point where this is no
longer "reasonable" . I don' t think, what I 'm asking, you don' t know
that. I don ' t know that. The County Assessor doesn ' t know. Nobody
sitting at this table knows it so if we 've got, it only costs a nickle to
ask. If we ' ve got to establish a new number , we don' t establish it , the
Council establishes it. So instead of making it $425. 00, let' s make it
$450. 00. If they say no , we say okay, make it $425 . 00 then .
Hasek: I think you' re missing the point. '
Boyt : Instead of that way, we could say, because we have to change the
number or the cost per acre or the number of 75.
Hasek: What you have to do is you have to go back to the County Assessor
and get him to say that the value of the land is not worth $15, 000. 00 an
acre, it' s worth $20,000. 00 an acre which would justify coming down to a II
$450. 00 instead of $425. 00. What the City Attorney is saying is he
approves of the process that we' ve gone through using the numbers that we
have which makes it defendable for him. Now he doesn' t care where that
bottom number comes out as long as the process is correct and that ' s all
I asked Lori to do. I wouldn' t have cared if this came out where
everybody paid , and I feel exactly the same way you do , I think that the '
developer is going to charge the person. You ' re going to see it. It
goes into a 30 year mortgage. Who cares? That' s exactly the way I felt.
The problem is that when you pick a number that this is based on, then at
that point you are being arbitrary and capricious . Reasonableness
doesn' t even come into it because they' ll hit you on arbitrary and
capricious before you ever get to reasonableness .
Lynch: During the year of 1988 and I was talking to a realtor the other I
day, the land prices are supposed to start going up. You' re in the
business. Now he was talking 5% to 12% depending on where you live and
what kind of property you had . Why can ' t we say, I don ' t think it ' s
sneaky to say, we set this, this is good for all year . By the end of
' 88 , your property, we' re not going to make that 10% anymore or whatever
percent that is . We' re going to be less than that so we' re going to
shoot for a midrange.
Hasek: That might be something that we could do. See I think that that
would work.
Boyt : That' s legitimate?
Sietsema : Sure.
Hasek: Adjust it for inflation .
11
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 25
I
Sietsema : So who' s word do we take that it ' s going to increase a certain
Ipercent? Do I go back to Scott Winters and say how much do you
anticipate the land values to increase in 1988? He' s the one I got the
figures from in the first place. He' s the one who does the actual
Isurvey. The Assessor .
Hasek : Maybe what you could do is either ask him or ask the Attorney if
I it would be alright to take the word of like, there must be a State
Realtor Association of some sort that would have sort of the land
projected inflation rates on land that is a valid number. Maybe there' s
even a State agency that does that type of plan. Makes a projection
1 based on state taxes or something like that.
Mady: The State does it just from property tax .
IHasek: Yes but Lori , this has got to be frustrating for you. I feel the
way he does . I was hoping that there was some way that this number could
I come up higher and be justifiable. Really, because it disappears anyway
but as far as I 'm concerned , it has to be justifiable.
Sietsema: To be perfectly honest with you, the numbers that I got from
IScott, I 'm pushing to the absolute limit for $425. 00.
Boyt: Those are good numbers but if the land prices are going to go up
I25% in 1988 , then we can ' t project . . .
Lynch: When was this evaluation taken?
ISietsema : In 1987 .
Lynch: When in 1987?
1 Sietsema: January of 1987 .
I Lynch : Alright, so we' re talking January, 1987 . We' re a year behind
already.
Mady: I have a feeling that what we' re looking at is , the realtor is
I going to say in the neighborhood of 10% and that ' s where we' re going to
end up. We' re just going to bump each fee 10%. I think what we' re
trying to do is justify raising the fee. I think the inflation, that' s
I what our job is really is to voice all this out and see where we can get
to so we can make a recommendation that the City can stand behind in
Court.
ISietsema : I feel like saying, pick a number and I ' ll go back and justify
it. I ' ll rearrange it to justify it.
IMady: That ' s kind of how we started this whole process .
Sietsema: Then you want me to say it ' s $425. 00, that' s what the fee
I should have been for 1987 . Based on the 1988 projected land values , that
should be increased by such and such percent?
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 26
Hasek : Yes , if that can be done . If you can find a source for that. '
Lynch: I 'd even like you to look at it on an 18 month basis. Say we'd
like to look at median 1988 values . That would be halfway through the
year so January, 1987 to June-July, 1988 at whatever rate of increases
that you can find to do with it . I really felt badly back in the days of
the heavy duty inflation because those few years ate into our park equity II
money a great deal and we lost money and we weren' t able to raise the
rates . The philosophy at that time was that we wanted to wait. We
wanted Chanhassen to develop and it was necessary to keep these rates low
for the developer . I disagreed with it at that time, I guess I still do II
but that ' s why we lost those increases .
Mady: I 'm going to move to the vote on the motion. '
Hasek: The motion is to accept it as suggested by staff and we've got
some discussion that goes along with that. The suggestion would be that
we simply let the motion fail and make a new motion.
Hasek moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to adopt the existing park acreage standard and to establish
the 1988 Park Dedication fees as follows :
Single family $425 . 00 per unit '
Duplex $425. 00 per unit
Multiple Family $280. 00 per unit
Industrial $1, 050. 00 per acre ,
Hasek voted in favor , all the rest voted in opposition to the motion and
the motion failed. 1
Sietsema: I need a motion to direct staff .
Hasek moved, Schroers seconded to direct staff to take one last look at
the numbers that they've proposed in light of inflation over the next 12 II
to 18 months and see if they can' t justify a slightly greater increase in
the park dedication fees . All voted in favor and motion carried .
REVIEW REQUEST TO PURCHASE PARK PROPERTY IN THE NORTH SECTION OF THE
CITY.
Sietsema: This item comes from homeowners in the Lake Lucy Highlands
area . This is Lake Luch Highlands here, this is Lake Lucy Road. It goes
right along here so they' re on the north and south side . They feel that 1
they are in a park deficient area and they are requesting that parkland
be acquired in that area . The closest park to them is . . .
(A tape break occured at this point in staff ' s presentation. ) '
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 27
I
IMady: I have a real problem there. I drove it today just to find out how
far those people are from the property across to the park. It ' s
approximately eight-tenth' s of a mile for some of them and our standard
I is a half a mile. I 'm personally probably about six-tenths of a mile
from a park and I 'm not park deficient . . . I don ' t think anybody can
expect that everybody can be right next door to a park. As long as
I that ' s not a fully developed area , we will be able to address them in the
future. These people bought their property knowing that there was no
park, at least they should have known if they checked it out , that there
was no park immediately adjacent to them. As long as I 've been on the
I Commission , we don' t go buy parkland for neighborhood parks , we get it as
it develops and that area there , maybe it' s not developing this year but
it' s all open area and will be developing and that ' s the best way of
I getting it. Otherwise, we' re going to spend a lot of money to get 5
acres of land for a neighborhood that developed without it . By that
standard, they don' t acquire it.
Boyt : Is Prince ' s property directly adjacent or is there some farmland?
Sietsema: This whole block here. . .
ISchroers : Also , there are trails on both sides of Lake Lucy Road that
gives them pedestrian and bicycle access down to Curry Farm. What are
Ithey doing with all that?
Mady: Sewer ' s going through.
ISietsema: It' s the Lake Ann Interceptor .
Schroers : They have really cleared a large area .
IMady: I guess on the issue , it seems to me that if , based on the
standards that we have, that they are not park deficient, I think that we
I can recognize that the area is platted right now and when the next one
comes in and we can purchase a park in there or we can get a park
dedicated to us that will serve a major portion of Pheasant Hills and
close that gap.
I
Mady moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct
I staff to go back to the individuals to inform them that under our
standards, their area is not park deficient and tell them why. The Park
and Recreation Commission does recognize that there is probably a need
I for a neighborhood park in that area and it ' s been our position in the
past that we acquire that parkland as it' s made available through
development and recognize in the Comp Plan that that area should be
served by a neighborhood park in the future and as that opportunity
I presents itself, it will be picked up but will not acquire parkland at
this time. All voted in favor and motion carried .
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting 11
April 12 , 1988 - Page 28
I
Sietsema : Basically you' re saying , you want me to go back to the I
residents and tell them that technically it ' s not a park deficient area ,
although we see the need arising and we will look at the next. . .
Mady: We will constantly be looking for a way of doing it but it' s not I
the way we do it. We don ' t just go out and buy parkland .
Boyt: We' re not going to purchase two lots. They can do that through
Itheir Association.
LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF LAKES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
1
Sietsema: Do you want me to go through this again or you read it and you
just want to ask questions or comments or whatever?
I
Mady: I guess I 'm familiar with it. What it looks like here is we need
to spend $8 ,300. 00 to get the ball moving on this thing and staff
Irecommendation is that this is very important to the City and we should
do it . It looks good . I know we definitely need it. Lake Lucy needs to
be cleaned up. Lake Riley needs to be cleaned up badly. Lake Ann I
think is in good shape . I 'm not sure what Susan is like.
I
Hoffman: Susan has rough fish .
Schroers : When they say clean up, I guess I 'd like that defined a little I
better .
Sietsema: It means fish kills , getting rid of all the rough fish .
I
Hoffman: Fish barriers and shoals .
Sietsema : Aeration systems. I
Hoffman: Stocking programs .
I
Schroers : Anything about aquatic growths , weed harvesting , weed
treatment or chemical treatment?
Hoffman: If it would become necessary. 1
Sietsema: And it is necessary.
I
Mady: One of the things that the rough fish take care of, the lake
bottom, over time takes and naturally fixes itself . I
Sietsema: It also involves upland draining . Chemicals from farmland
draining, fertilizer and working on not only the drainage problems but
educating the people that live around the lake that fertilizing their
I
lawn every week is not good for your lake and that kind of thing . It
involves the whole spectrum. They' re looking at all facets of cleaning
up these lakes including not just the fish but also the weeds and the
I
whole thing .
I
IIPark and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 29
II
II Schroers : I would like to somehow be able to discuss it and point out
that at least in appearance, Lake Ann seems to be neat and clean and a
great place to swim and people don' t come out of there very often with
swimmer ' s itch and these kinds of problems. I would not be in favor of
I anything that could contaminate or in anyway lessen the water quality of
Lake Ann.
I Sietsema : That ' s a point very well taken and staff, myself, will take it
into consideration when we' re going through this process. Especially
with the boat access on Lake Lucy. If it is absolutely impossible for us
to get access on Lake Lucy, I don' t know that DNR is going to hold up a
I million dollar project because of that one access on a 90 acre lake.
They may swap on that but right now, I don' t know them to be willing to
do that .
ISchroers : Have you gone to that little creek there?
Sietsema: Yes .
ISchroers : Would you personally like to see that dug out big enough to
accomodate boat traffic?
ISietsema : I don ' t think it ' s the optimal thing .
I Schroers: I really think by digging that down, all the loose sediment
and things that are in there, the flow is from Lucy to Ann and it ' s
running north to south there, and if you dredge it out deep enough that
I you' re going to be able to get a boat through there and open it up,
you' re asking for a lot of that sediment from Lucy coming right down into
Ann. Nothing ' s going to stop it and it ' s got to deteriorate the quality
of the water. I don' t see how it couldn' t. If you look at the two
I lakes, they are two totally different lakes . Lake Ann is generally a
hard bottom. Not particularly weedy or fertile lake and if you go into
Lake Lucy, it is just a mudhole . Full of weeds. I just wouldn ' t want to
Isee anything happen.
Sietsema: I hear what you ' re saying .
Mady moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City of Chanhassen participate in the Riley-Purgatory-
I Bluff Creek Watershed District clean-up project and spend the $8 , 333. 00
that ' s considered our share with the caution that the City of Chanhassen
will participate fully in it. However , if we feel that there will be
I anything that will hurt Lake Ann in any way, shape or form, that the City
will do everything in it' s power to pull out of the project and stop the
project. All voted in favor and motion carried .
IMONTHLY PARK DEDICATION FEE RECEIPTS .
I Sietsema : This is just for your information . If there are any
questions?
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 30
Mady: I like seeing this Lori and appreciate getting it at least. '
Sietsema: When I get them, you' ll get them.
UPDATE: COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING.
Sietsema: The special meeting was held to study the two issues that 1
didn' t pass on the referendum. What came out of the meeting was the
forming of two new task forces . One to study the community center issue.
To look for a new location for the community center and the trail task
force would be, not to redefine the trails. It was more of getting the
word out to the people. Getting it publicized. Getting the picture of
the trail plan in the papers and out . It was more of a campaign whereas II
the community center task force was not only for the campaigning and
selling the issue but also more study on a new location. We would like a
commissioner or different commissioners on each of the task forces and
maybe more than one on the trail task force because this group knows the
trail plan. You' re the ones that put it together. This is your baby.
Mady: When the Council talked about this item, I stressed to all them
that I was very concerned that if a new task force was formed on trails ,
that if they came in and started to second guess the trail plan or to
determine what gets done when, that I 'd be very much against it because
we have a body here of seven people who are very knowledgeable on trails
and put a lot of work into it. As a matter of fact, the trail plan has
been worked on for the past 8 years and that we feel we have a very good
plan. They reassured me that the new task force is simply going to be
doing the campaign work. How to get the information out . How to hold
meetings . Who to contact. I feel it' s very important that this body
take a very active stance on the trails and have as many commissioners as
possible to work on that particular project. Myself, I prefer not
working on that particular body because I will be putting my efforts back
into the community center . However , if the body needs some help I will
work on it but I 'd just as soon ask the rest of you, if you' ve got the
time, to try and participate in it.
Sietsema: Again , I don' t know if it just is starting now writing '
articles about the trail plan or what the different types of trails
include . Maybe Ed could talk about the trails in his area and Mike
could talk about the trails in his area. Then when it gets down a little II
closer to campaign time , closer to the referendum time, then you would be
the ones that are at the community information meetings and organizing
the telephone callers and that group would be the captains organizing all
the people that are going to volunteer to help out with this thing .
Mady: I 'd like to see what happens on this whole campaign for both
articles. The community center , the task force we formed, they' re going I
to be looking at other sites and other ways of doing things and the money
and the whole shot. I foresee them kind of being creating a plan and
going public like in August to say okay, here ' s what we' ve got , tell us
what you want and then we' ll campaign but I don' t think that 's going to
I
IIPark and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 31
' happen with trails . I don' t think it needs to happen with trails.
Boyt: I think we need to get the public information needed to support it
because people got very excited because they got misinformation.
' Sietsema: That's why I 'm thinking about now, like in early summer ,
getting some articles out that are about, this is what we have, this is
' what we' re proposing and just go area by area maybe or whatever .
Mady: We do have a problem I just found out last night . The Villager
wasn' t going out to the Lake Minnewashta area up until late February.
Sietsema : I didn' t realize that. She said they went to every household.
' Hasek: The information that we talked about that I had no idea it was
even out there.
' Boyt : The people with the 55317 zip codes .
Sietsema: She gave me wrong information because I asked her.
Mady: In the Minnewashta area they were asking about the article that
appeared in the Star and Trib which didn' t mentioned anything about a
trail on that side of Lake Minnewashta . The trails that were talked
about were in central Chanhassen so that ' s why that area lost out there.
Those people didn' t even realize they were going to get anything . They
thought it' s just going to downtown Chanhassen, the heck with them.
' Sietsema : That all fits together because I did phone calling and I
called people up there and they didn' t even know there was a referendum.
That makes a lot more sense .
' Boyt : They say it' s going out to those people now but it ' s still not
getting to people in Hesse Farms .
Mady: Part of that may be a problem with Post Masters .
Sietsema: The Sailor will be covering Chanhassen. They' re putting out a
' Chanhassen edition starting May 1st so by the time this all gets rolling ,
they should be hitting people. The South Shore still has the Chanhassen
route and they' ve been very, very good about covering Chanhassen news
still , even though they' re not the official newspaper so by the time this
gets around , between the three of them, and we ' re just going to have to
submit all of our letters and our articles to all three papers so we make
' sure everybody hears about it. As time goes on I learn more and more
reasons why things failed.
Hasek : This doesn ' t need anything right?
' Sietsema: No, it' s just to let you know and if you are interested in
serving on the Commission , either one of the task forces , please let me
know and I ' ll get you an application.
1
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting II
April 12, 1988 - Page 32_.
Lynch : I ' ll do what I can on the trails .
Boyt: So will I .
UPDATE: RECREATION PROGRAMS .
Hoffman: This is just an item for Lori ' s and your information on the
adult winter recreational leagues that were formed this year. There is
the need out there for them. Some of the people had a real problem with
the facility that we had available, the elementary school but then again II
they insisted that they play and they continued to play up there. We
played both basketball and volleyball . Basketball played Monday evenings
and volleyball played Thursday and Friday evenings . They seemed to enjoy '
it. They voiced, we 'd like to do it again next year. Can we get some
space that' s more like the gyms down at Chaska? If so , look into that.
I have spoken to the people down there, both community ed who schedules
time at the Jr . High School and then the athletic people down at the Sr . II High School , schedule the time there. Tom Redman in Chaska Park and Rec
has that placed booked solid with volleyball and basketball and then
again, you get into the high school sports so trying to open up some
space down there is just impossible so at this time expanding these
leagues is a real difficult notion. It ' s just a struggle to keep them at
the level that came out this year and played . We had 6 adult basketball
teams playing and 10 co-ed volleyball teams play. '
Mady: What about Minnetonka West Jr . High?
Hoffman: I haven ' t checked up there as of yet. That' s a possibility.
Sietsema : The problems we had in the past with them is that the
community education books that one pretty solid. They have men' s
basketball and they have youth basketball and volleyball and they have
other programs also so they utilize that gym for the people up in that
area. '
Boyt : I 'd like to see these sports self-supporting .
Mady: I 'd like to make a comment on fees. You' re charging $25. 00 which I II
think is great to kick this thing off to find out what interests were. I
believe, I 'm not positive, you guys need to find out what other cities
are charging because I think the facility at the grade school is second
rate. If the ceilings are too low, there' s not enough space to do
anything . I don' t believe we should charge more than half of what like
Eden Prairie is charging for their leagues but we do need to get the fee II
up. $25. 00 is just too low.
Boyt : What we try to do is figure out what we' ve got, divide that by the
number of teams so that we meet our costs . I don ' t really want to waste
another $600 . 00 per season on sports .
Mady: I had a couple other question I wanted to ask about. Sue pointed I
out that Chaska is starting to develop a large block of land by Hesse
r
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 33
Farms. They' re looking at putting one dinky little park down there.
Boyt: The development is 340 acres and their Park and Rec Commission
asked for 7. 5 acres of parkland .
' Mady: I would like to see us as a commission, send a letter to the
Chaska Park and Recreation people telling them we feel that they' re park
and recreation requirements are higher than what they' re showing and we
feel if they don' t get their park and recreation requirements up, those
people are going to spill over into our area and we just aren ' t able to
handle them. We' re concerned as a neighbor, as a cooperative neighbor
that they' re going to have a spillover and it ' s going to cause some
' problems for us. I 'm interested in seeing that they receive some
information from us that we' re concerned that there ' s not enough park
there. One other thing, when you put the listing of the new park
' commissioners , like the Council and the Planning Commissioners , they' ve
got their phone numbers all listed. I don ' t know if you people want to
be bothered but I think it 'd be nice that when a listing is shown of park
' commissioners in the park section of the paper , and other commissioners
contact them, our phone numbers should also be listed .
Hasek: I would just as soon mine not be listed . I would just as soon
' that they would call me at City Hall and tell them they can get ahold of
me through City Hall .
' Sietsema : So when they call me and ask how to get a hold of you .
Hasek: They can call the city and ask for my number. I don' t mind being
listed but I don' t want it in the phone book.
' Sietsema: So do you want me to give our your p hone number then.
' Hasek: I don ' t mind you giving it out as long as the people call here.
Sietsema: Our policy is not to give out work numbers but only home
' numbers .
Hasek: That ' s fine . It' s just a little bit more sincere . I know that
they' re interested and they' re making an effort to get a hold of me.
' Otherwise it might be just some crackpot calling everybody just because
it ' s easier.
' Mady: The way I look at it, it has to be a commission call one way or
the other . Maybe we can talk about it at the next meeting . Put it on
the agenda to be discussed . The last thing I have is the Legion
' ballfjeld . I don' t see it being used. It' s being rundown. I 'd like to
see the Legion allow us to maybe take over some of the responsibility
because we' re not meeting our Babe Ruth and Little League needs .
' Sietsema: They do use it . They have Legion ball and they also let the
Babe Ruth play on it on the nights that Legion ball isn ' t being played .
I
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ,
April 12, 1988 - Page 34
I
Hoffman : They've taken some action last fall . They did some
improvements on it. They don' t have the money to give it to the dugouts
and so forth but they do play on Tuesdays and Thursdays down there and
then they have their practice and they' re also allowing now, Babe Ruth,
just in the meeting previous to this one, they got a new coordinator and
they play their games down there and have their practices down there so
you should see that field used pretty extensively this year .
Mady: It ' s just never been, every time I drive, I 've can only think of a I
half a dozen times in the 5 years I 've lived in this city, that I ' ve seen
a kid on that field. It stands open. That tells me the Little League
kids could use it .
Hoffman : It' s got different baselines and different mound lengths than
Little League.
Mady: I 'd like to see them allow the City, the CAA take over some of the I
use of that. Maybe they get first use with their schedule and then we' ll
fill in the rest of those times but right now as I see it , and maybe I 'm
wrong, but it looks like it's a hit and miss type of deal . It 's only up
to them to do everything so nothing gets done.
Hoffman: Exactly what you said there is what it' s scheduled to do this
year so you should see an improvement up there on the useage of that
field.
Mady: It ' s a nice field , at least it could be a nice field until they
move or rebuild or whatever, we should be utilizing it. It ' s really a
community resource and I think they think it is but I think it could be
improved .
Hasek: Do we know what the status of the Legion? I heard that NSP was
taking that piece of property back.
Mady: No , NSP had a difficult time buying an easement for the power
line. They were being real difficult in the way they wanted the easement
but . . . I 've been told by a couple legion members that they will , at some
point in time, building a new legion building but where and how.
Hasek: What I had heard was that the property actually belongs to NSP.
Sietsema: A substantial amount is going to be eaten up with the TH 5
improvement because it is going to be expanded on the south side , or the
latest word is anyway. That could change, and then they would like to
rebuild their building .
Hasek: Build it on the corner? '
Sietsema: I don' t know if they' re going to because , it' s a valuable
piece of property, they could get a lot of money for it there so if they 1
got a good offer , they probably would sell it. I really don' t know.
11
I - Paric and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 35
I Mad y•: One
last item, the change to the capital improvement program, are
Ithey going to be our agenda next time? '
Sietsema : Yes . They've been pulled twice , because I couldn' t figure out
how to get my new machine and Don was in the hospital .
Lynch : I 'd like to ask for a motion for a staff directive. I toured the
I Carver Beach trail and I 'm over there quite often, and they've dumped two
more loads of sand on that place. They continue to develop the beach.
The two loads are up by the street. There are two dumptruck loads
obstructing any possible trail at this point . That floating dock
I platform is pulled up on the beach on that site. There is a canoe and a
boat. One on the trail further down in the woods towards Carver Beach,
none of which are supposed to be there.
ISietsema: Before you make a motion can I make a comment? Staff put that
sand there. Not this staff. I drove by there and saw it and I thought
I that dirty dog is putting his own private beach in and I went in to Scott
Harr and I was going to raise holy hell about it and then I found out
that Jerry Schlenk did it because there was some erosion and drainage
damage that was done during the big rain so they filled it in with sand.
IILynch : There ' s too much sand there. You can ' t have a trail . There is 2
feet of sand from last year over the top of the chips. You have to dig
I down in the sand there like I have to find where we had a trail . That' s
not the most sand that' s gone in there but right now there' s way too much
sand . . . . they can get a cable on it now with a tow truck and pull it
right up and haul it off because now they' re using illegal lake use.
It' s on park property right now.
Sietsema : So you want the boat removed and the raft removed and what was
Ithe third thing?
Lynch : Well , the sand removed and I 'd like to see them go in there with
I a backhoe and pull a lot of that sand out of there. It requires that
they bank that , put some timbers in or whatever they have to do to keep
that from falling over , that' s a city road crew maintenance problem but I
don ' t want it on a trail . I want the two boats that I saw and if there ' s
I any others out there in Carver Beach and the old access , I want them
confiscated . They' re illegal . They' re not supposed to be there and then
I want that boat platform pulled out. Now generally, they've gotten it
I out to the middle of the lake, it is difficult to get there . Staff would
actually have to go out there on the lake and pull it in which would be
an extremely difficult job.
IISietsema: I checked with Scott Harr because I did talk to him about ,
there is another one on the other end too and I did talk to Scott Harr
about it and explained to him that it wasn ' t supposed to be there. I ' ll
Icheck with what the status is and try to light a fire under him.
Lynch : We tried it before and there ' s no way to identify it . In the
Ipast, if you know who' s boat it is, I want them out of there so that' s my
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting I
April 12 , 1988 - Page 36
motion .an wa '
Y Y
Lynch moved , Mady seconded to direct staff , within the next two weeks ,
staff get the sand off of the trail on the Carver Beach and to remove the
two boats and raft from the trail . All voted in favor and motion
carried.
Boyt : I don ' t think we should take excuses of wait until we find
someplace else to put it because that 's happened. There' s Novak-Fleck
sign on the parkland and I asked them if they'd move the Novak-Fleck
sign. Well , we don't know where to move it so it' s going to take a
little while . There choise is either park property or their property and I
park property isn' t an option. I think you should just get the boats
out. Just take them.
Sietsema: They did that with another last year that was left , chained to I
a tree down at the South Lotus Lake boat access and one of the park guys
got a nice new boat .
Boyt : I think it should be impounded and them put up for public auction.
Mady: They should go to public auction. '
Sietsema: Yes , Jim knows what the legal thing to do is and they held it
for a number of weeks and nobody claimed it and then they did whatever
they were supposed to.
Mady: One last thing , do you want us to make a motion on the sign? '
Boyt: No.
Mady: It ' s being handled? '
Boyt: Yes .
Hasek: I ' ve got one that ' s just a discussion item and that' s all . We
finally did get something done with our over 35 league. It took 5 or 6
votes I think it was but I think in 2 years we are going to have a legal II
over 35 league in the city and it ' s just going to be nice. I think there
was item in that whole package that related to not going to state
tournament if you got some sort of a penalty. Do you have that II someplace? We should consider that too. A lot of cities will not allow
you to get into the league the next year if you don' t get your team in
the state tournament. They just try and that ' s it .
Hoffman: All those teams, all the 15 teams will have a team that is
eligible to post season tournaments .
Mady: Some of those teams just will refuse to go . They' ll get the berth II
and then refuse to go. Don' t have enough guys that get off of work or
whatever it is . '
I
I - Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12 , 1988 - Page 37
I
Hasek: That ' s what the other cities are saying is you get a berth, you
I send a team. If you don ' t send a team, you don' t play in the league next
year .
IHoffman : Yes , because it takes away the opportunity for somebody else.
IHasek moved, Mady seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and motion carried . The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
IPrepared by Nann Opheim
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I