The URL can be used to link to this page

PRC 1989 02 14 3 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION "....... REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 1989 Chajrman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt, Larry Schroers, Curt Robinson, Carol Watson, and Ed Hasek STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Todd Hoffman, Scott Harri and Mark Koegler APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Schroers seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated January 24, 1989 meeting as presented and the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission Meeting dated January 31, 1989 with the correction on page 23 by Sue Boyt to change the word "numbers" to "members". All voted in favor except Carol Watson who abstained from the January 31, 1989 meeting. REVIEW POTENTIAL PARKLAND ALTERNATIVES IN THE PHEASANT HILLS/LAKE LUCY HIGHLANDS AREA. Sietsema: As you may recall, we've been discussing the Carrico site as potential parkland property in response to requests for parkland acquisition in that area by the residents. It is a park deficient area. ~Before moving ahead and going out and negotiating with the Carricos to purchase their property, we thought that it would be a good idea to look at the entire area and vacant pieces of property to see what's out there and what would best serve our parkland needs. Mark Koegler is here to go over what he has found. Mark Koegler: I think most of you recall that the 1980 Comprehensive Plan that identified areas in the northern portion of Chanhassen that were deficient in terms of neighborhood parks. The standard that's called for in the Comprehensive Plan is essentially a half mile service radius which is what these arcs portray. At the time the 1980 plan was put together, Herman Field was in existence as a city owned parcel as it is today and the junior high was used for summer recreational facilities. Since that time, as you're well aware, Curry Farms has been added as another park as another park which like Herman Field is presently undeveloped. It has the potential to service a portion of that northern area that presently had been deficient. That area being between essentially CR 117 and CR 17 on the east and along Lake Lucy Road. The charge then when the Carrico project came in and there was public comment about the deficiency of the neighborhood park facility, was to take a look at that area objectively and determine if there were sites that may be suitable to provide that. Looking at the area, looking at aerials and discussing it with staff, basically we formulated six alternative sites, A through F that are called out in that exhibit. I'll just run through maybe some pluses and minuses very quickly on each of those. Site A, which is south of Lake Lucy Road and immediately east of CR 117 is about 12 acres of property. It is ~relatively available from the best knowledge that we can find. It's a large enough piece, 12 acres so that it can accomodate normal neighborhood park facilities. It will require some grading however. The site has a drainage area that comes through it and the farmstead sits high on the Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 2 ~ knoll. The negative side of that particular site is that given it's distance from some of the existing residential units, it really serves only about half the population that needs parkland within that half mile radius. Another slight problem for that particular property is being on the south side of Lake Lucy Road. Obviously the population is on the north and does require a crossing somewhere of Lake Lucy Road which ultimately in this city will be a fairly busy street. Site B that was looked at is about 7 acres. Like site A is on the south side of Lake Lucy Road. It was suitable in size at that 7 acre number. However, the area contains quite a bit of lowland and really is not sufficient for neighborhood park purposes. It also would serve only a portion of the deficient area. I think we noted in the letter report that if the City was ever looking for access on Lake Lucy, that may be a suitable site, where it's not suitable for a neighborhood park. Resident: Are these sites labeled up here? Mark Koegler: Yes, they are. Alright, I'll run through it. A is right here. B. C is up in here. It's this cross hatched area here. D is immediately east of there. E is this lined piece over here on Yosemite. F is north of a portion of the Pheasant Hill development right now. Those are the 6 that we reviewed. Site C on that exhibit which is the Carrico piece, again is right at 12 acres, plus or minus. It is suitable in size and topography and will require a minor amount, moderal amount of grading to accommodate, particularly a ball diamond, a neighborhood type ball diamond facility. It is very centrally located and does service the neighborhood that is in need of parkland at the present time. It also, given the street right-of-way that's platted in there, provides a good walking access to the park. -" Resident: How much property is it? Mark Koegler: About 12 acres. I think it's 11.8 if I remember exactly. A portion of that is lowland. I'm sure you're aware along the extension of Lake Lucy Road which is known as Lake Lucy Lane I believe, there is a significant lowland down in that area that is basically wet. Site D is east of that, that I highlighted on the map a moment ago. It's a much smaller piece. It's 3 1/2 acres. It does have suitable topography but the size would be a constraint to developing the normal types of facilities than having enough open space that typically the city has tried to place in neighborhood parks. Site E is east of Yosemite. It's a somehwat low area that's surrounded by wooded hillsides. We have some concerns just with soil and drainage in the area that it would be costly to develop as a neighborhood park. It would potentially be feasibile. The site is large enough. The final site that we reviewed was Site F. Again, it's about 5 acres and that's the one that I referenced being immediately north and a part of Pheasant Hills. It's suitably sized. However, this one I think potentially has the most drainage problems of any on the site. It's a very low area and it's one that accepts drainage from Ii terally all of the surrounding properties. Of the si tes that we .....", looked at, realistically, there are only two that should be considered for serious possibilities as neighborhood parks and that's Site A and C. A again being the one south of Lake Lucy Road and C being the Carrico Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 3 ,...., property. In looking at location criteria, potentially developability, if you will, of the two sites, we think C has the edge. It's centrally located, as I indicated. We did a very rough grading schematic to see what would fit on the site and could easily will accommodate a 250 foot or so ball diamond and a couple of tennis courts, a small parking lot, if it was desired off of Lake Lucy Lane, normal picnicing, trails, things of that nature. So our recommendation will be that the Park Commission endorse parcel C for potential acquisition as a neighborhood park. Schroers: Since C and D abut up to each other, would it be suitable to put those two together? Mark Koegler: A portion of D has an occupied single family residence on it. That's not true of C. It is true of some of the other parcels. A I think is the only other one that has a residence on it at the present time. That 12 acres and with the amount of open space that's there, I think C in and of it's own is certainly adequate to provide neighborhood park facilities that would service that area. So I don't think that 3 1/2 acres would really be a benefit. Robinson: I don't understand. I've got a question for Lor i. In your memo Lori, I don't understand because it says, if the Commission agrees with these findings. The City Attorney and staff should be directed to ,.....,negotiate with Carricos and, failing to do so, enter into condemnation proceedings. What do you mean by condemnation proceedings? Sietsema: If we want the Carrico property and we can't come to terms as far as a price for that property, agree on a price, then we would go through condemnation and the courts would decide the price of what we would have to pay for that. The City has the ability to condemn property for parkland. Robinson: Condemn at a determined prjce? Sietsema: We still have to pay for it if we condemn it but the courts then decide what that property is worth. Isn't that your understanding? Mark Koegler: Yes. There are...done by both sides in that situation. Ultimately it goes down to a panel of 3 and then it's determined out. Mady: Mark...,is that the Nye property? Mark Koegler: Yes it is. Mady: I've had two different phone conversations with Tom Nye over the past two weeks. He's interested in having the city look at his property. He's also said, if we don't want the Carrico property, decide we can't get it together on the property, he would be interested in talking to us ~about his property. He claims he has...acres but he will only give us 3.6. Mark Koegler: In looking at that particular piece, we made some generalized assumptions as to where the house sits now and what you might Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 4 -' be able to detach. If you found out, if he's got 8 acres, a parcel of 5 is not unreasonable. Robinson: When we discussed this before, weren't we talking in the 5 acre range that we would need at the minimum? Sietsema: Minimum. Robinson: Do you know of the site C, 11.7 acres, how much is not wetlands? Mark Koegler: I'm going to have to take an educated guess and I think it's in the neighborhood of 7 1/2 - 8 acres is clearly high and dry, if you will. There's probably a certain percentage of that that's questionable and then a larger percentage of what's left that's actually wet. The one copy of the City's wetland map that we have, does not designate that property as a city wetland but I can assure you it's very wet. Mady: That's the southwest corner of the property? Mark Koegler: Yes. The drainage course kind of comes around that exception property where the letter C is that is owned by a gentleman named Mr. Hughes. There's a drainageways that come around through there -' and picks up drainage all the way up from the Nye property. From there, it comes down through there also. Boyt: Since it's not designated as a wetland, we could grade to fill in some of that. wet area wi th special permi ts? Mark Koegler: Presumably so. Now it may subsequently have been designated on a newer version of a map. I think the potential is there and what would enhance that wetland and possibly open up some water in some of that lower area to where it is seasonally wet right now. Those are the kinds of things that we ultimately look at if it was acquired and we had been looking at plan options. Mady: I'd like to ask anyone that's in the audience to address any concerns or questions, comments, to please come the podium. State your name and your address and let us know what you have to say. Mary Cordell: My name is Mary Cordell and I live at 1730 Lake Lucy Lane. I've been coming to a lot of these meetings about the park plan and I'm a real supporter of getting some parkland in the area. I think the Carrico property is an excellent choice. I'm concerned about the other choices that would ~e directly on Lake Lucy Road which is going to be a very busy, and once it goes through to TH 41, if that does happen, it will become increasingly busy so I think the access off of Lake Lucy Lane which is a very low traffic area, would be good for the neighborhood. Also, there would be access across land for Pheasant Hill too so I think the -' wa1kabi1ity to the park is a great asset. Also the size of it. I think we should get as large of a parcel as we can for the area because these large parcels are disappearing very quickly with all the development. I'm Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 5 ,..... very strongly in favor of this. Particularly this parcel... Boyt: Mary, since you brought up Lake Lucy Road. I don't know if you attended the Council meeting last night but they discussed taking the trails off of Lake Lucy Road and I'd just like to say, if any of you live out there, you might want to let the Council know if you don't agree with what they're doing or if you agree with it. They'll be discussing it again in two weeks. Tom Steinkamp: Taking the trail off? Boyt: Yes, and changing it to a parking area. Steinkamp: Hho would want to park along Lake Lucy Road? Boyt: The people who live on Lake Lucy Road. Steinkamp: They all have half mile driveways. Mark Cordell: where they're which I think trails. """ Boyt: I don't think that was the consensus of the Council that they would take off the on road and put an off road. I think just take it off was~t. I think it would be helpful to talk to them because any park that goes into this area is going to be accessed by Lake Lucy Road and it's going to be pretty dangerous if there's no trail out there. They're talking about putting the bike trails up on top of putting the water lines. Having a bike trail off the road would be an advantage because most people don't ride on bike Sietsema: The Council's trying to be very receptive to what the residents of the City want and there are people that have come that have expressed a need to park on the road and not necessarily a need for the trail. They need to hear if there is a need for a trail. If you ""want it, then you should probably let them know. Hasek: I think it would also be helpful, our Minutes are verbatim too so if you do have a comment on that, now wouldn't be a bad time to get it into the record. Resident: ...parking along side the road? Boyt: No, they're talking about taking it off both sides. Mady: The problem, the way trail is, because it's on road, you can not have a bike trail with bike traffic going the opposite direction of the car traffic. Bikes have to travel the same direction as traffic so you can not just move the trail to just one side of the street legally. We ,.....can't do that. Watson: Unless it's off. Mady: Unless it's off road. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 6 ......" Schroers: I would like to officially comment on that. That is currently my jogging route and I don't want to jog in traffic. I definitely want a trail on the side of Lake Lucy. Sietsema: You're right. There was talk about putting an off street trail on top of the trunk watermain and that is an option and then they could have had off street trail with an on street trail on the north side for bikes and then parking on the south side. But the City Council has not heard that there's a need for a trail there at all. The people that have 1 i ved, that have been comi ng to the meeti ngs have expressed that there i. s no need. The people aren't using it and there isn't a need for a trail so if your views are different than that, they need to hear that because they want to be responsive to the residents. Tom Steinkamp: Someone should go out there on an evening and look at all the poeple walking up and down that road. better make some formal comments rather than sitting back all, as far as the parkland is concerned. in the summer I guess I'd there. First of Mady: Who are you? Torn Steinkamp: Torn Steinkamp. 1771 Pheasant Circle. First of all, as far as the parkland is concerned, I guess I would most favor, or mostly C, the Carrico property as well. I think A might be a good piece of property~ for parkland but I think it's kind of out of the area where I'm concerned about and I think if you look at it, just look at the population of the area, it looks like most of it quite a bit farther north and closer to C so I would favor C. I know that you mentioned, just skimmed over it but I think that there is a legitimate access from, is it Wood Duck that's into that Carrico property so as that gets developed more, so we wouldn't have a problem with people cutting through people's yard as those homes get built in there. In talking about the trail along Lake Lucy Road, I guess I would strongly object to removing the trail. I guess if we were looking at an alternative for a trail along Lake Lucy Road, I'd be interested in hearing what that is but abolish a trail on Lake Lucy Road to me would be foolish. That road was 15 feet wide 2 years ago and nobody could park on it. Why all of a sudden do people need to park on it now? I don't understand. That it's a nice wide road. You go out there in the evening in the summertime and you meet dozens of people along Lake Lucy Road. As Curry Farms gets built up later this fall, we saw more and more people walking on Lake Lucy Road. I know my wife walks to CR 17 every night on Lake Lucy Road so I think that it's important to keep a trail of some sort there on Lake Lucy Road. If it's acceptable, if there's the possibility of putting it off the road, that'd be fine with me but to abolish it or get rid of it completely, I'd be strongly ag~inst that. Hasek: Is it safe to say that your neighbors would be strongly against it? Torn Steinkamp: Oh yes. They'll hear about it. ..." Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 7 ,...., Hasek: If you can't make it to these meetings, you can contact Council by letter too. Or the City or phone. Tom Steinkamp: Has there been ongoing talk about this? Mady: They discussed it at the meeting last night. There was a motion made to have it come back to Park and Rec for review and Council voted against having the Park and Rec Commission review it. They thought they could handle it on their own at the Council meetings. I believe it's a very important issue that I think you need to... Sietsema: This is the second time it's been discussed at the Council level. Last night was. It was brought up and they discussed it so this is the second discussion of it. Mady: Actually, we're not even supposed to be discussing it tonight. That was the impression I got from the Council but it's important enough. . . Hasek: We are the Commission and I don't think that unless Council shows up here that they can really tell us what we can and can not talk about as long as it's related to Park and Recreatjon. ~Tom Steinkamp: I would think that it should be you the ones talking about it instead of them. Joe Schimml: I'm Joe Schimml, 1751 Pheasant Circle and located right here. I will heartily agree with, I chose C as the option for the park is concerned. I think it's necessary, it has to be where the people are and just in Pheasant Hill, right here, there are 87 lots. If you look at the families out there, there are probably 2.4 or 2.8 kids per family. Boyt: Little kids too. Joe Schimml: Little kids. Our youngest is 23 so I don't care if there's a park there or not but I think it's important for the neighbors to have a park there. On the Lake Lucy Road, I can't imagine sound judgment going into taking both of the paths off. If there's an alternative to putting them on the side of the road, I can see that but it is basically going to get busier isn't it so certainly I'd like to go on record as saying we do need, at the least, a trail along Lake Lucy Road. Tom Steinkamp: The traffic gets going pretty good now that you've made that nice road. The traffic gets going pretty quick on that road too. I think it's important to have something set aside for people for that reason too because it would be quite dangerous without it. Boyt: Well, and as the park at Curry Farms is developed too...park area. ~ Mady: One of the things I tried to bring to the attention of the Council last night in the discussion, the residents who were in attendance indicated there was a lot of traffic there and I mentioned to the Council that as we are developing Curry Farms park in the next couple years, Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 8 -' I informed them that the Commission is aggresive1y seeking parkland in the Pheasant Hills area. That we now have reasons for people going from one end of Lake Lucy Road to the other end. Those things there, people start to move and there isn't anything there right now does not mean 5 years from now it's not going to be a great need. We need to keep the future in mind when we do these things. We can't just do what's politically expediate today and find out that we made a big mistake 2-3 years down the road. Anything that we can do to help condemn it, just let us know. Hasek: I think one other thing about the trail that is currently placed along Lake Lucy Road is that it's not only there for the people that abut the property and use it from the park to wherever. It's part of a much larger system that's actually put in place and was thought about being in place for once again, all the residents of the city as opposed to just the people that abut the property and that's a concern often time forgotten. I think it's important that it's kept in mind. This body is here to represent all of the people of the City, not just the abutting property owners. Tom Steinkamp: When I looked at your trail system that was voted on at the last referendum, that's one thing I looked at. How do I sit in on this whole trail program? If the trails are all going to be on the other side of the City, well I'm not going to vote for it but it looked to me like you people did a good job of getting trails throughout the city and part of that trail is that trail on Lake LUcy and how does that connect me ~ now to Lake Ann? I looked and I specifically looked and I can ride a bike on a trail from my house to Lake Ann once the trail system gets in and that's one of the reasons I voted for the trail system. Not you're taking away that link if they do indeed do that. Boyt: And it is a link. It's part of the whole system. It's not just one road. Mary Cordell: I just want to add too. I didn't really comment on the trail system when it was up there but... Mady: You are who again? Mary Cordell: Mary Cordell and I live on Lake Lucy Lane but our property is also on Lake Lucy Road. To me personally the parking is not an issue but I definitely would be in favor of an off street bike path because I think it would be safer. The road is getting so busy that I probably won't let my kids bike on there until they're 12. I don't know. Which is 10 years from now. I would definitely favor putting in an off street walking, biking trail, whatever, but I would not want to seethe trail abolished by any means. If it has to stay on street, I guess on street is okay although I do notice that a lot of the bikers don't really bike in the trail because of the gravel runoff and that they bike in the road. Sietsema: That should be slowing down once construction slows down in that area too. --' Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 9 ,...., Mary Cordell: Yes, but if it was off street, that'd be nice. We moved here from Minneapolis and the bike trail system around the lakes and that was wonderful and very safe. Mady: I'll defend Don at this point because Don you'll at least be able to keep it for the next two weeks without Don's help it wouldn't even have been there. Hasek: Keep it? What do you mean? Mady: Remove it last night. Hasek: Somebody made that motion? Mady: Ursula. Hasek: You may want to write a letter or contact Ursula too. Mady: It's still there. Don's got some ideas on how we can keep it there so thank you both. Tom Steinkamp: You mean without any notice to any of the concerned people, I can come in here and speak my piece and if I put on a good -""',mough speech, I can get something passed wi thout somebody taking a look at it? Boyt: Not at this level. We just recommend. I don't know about the Council. Tom Steinkamp: But that's what happened at City Council last night. Boyt: Almost. Mady: Any other comments on the Carrico property? Lori, have you gotten any indications from Carrico's what their estimate of the park is going to be? Sietsema: Their appraisal is not completed because their appraiser has been ill. He had some preliminary numbers. I was supposed to meet with him today and I was ill but what he said is he was willing to 'sell to the City but not for a mere $55,000.00. He felt the property was worth $225,000.00 and he has a purchase agreement to that affect and that's how much he would be asking for the property so I have a hunch that's based definitely on water and sewer being available to the property. He can not get, the way I understand it, he can not get water and sewer without the support of the City and if the City should decide that they want the property, I don't see us supporting him pursuing water and sewer. Getting approval from the Met Council. Therefore, the property would be worth as .~ rural piece. I don't know if he would ever agree to that. That's where che Attorney comes in and negotiations start and if we can't come to terms, then we'd have to go through the condemnation process. Mady: Is there any other discussion? Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 10 """"'" Robinson: Do we need the whole 11.7 acres? Boyt: Yes. Because we don't have chances in that area to get large pieces... Mady: It's always nice to start as big as you can and get half the work down if we have an option. But if you start at the minimal... Sietsema: The bottom line is, if we were going to take a minimum of 5 acres, we're not going to take the wetland part because we want active parkland and if they can't build on it, we can't build on it. Therefore, he'd only have 2 acres left of buildable property and I don't know how they'd work around that. Hasek: ...positive response to area A. Boyt: It's rather removed from where most of the people live. Most of the lots around it are large lots. You also would have to cross Lake Lucy Road to get there. Watson: And there is a single family residence on it. Boyt: It would have to take a lot of grading. """"" Schroers: I'd like to move that we recommend to Council to pursue acquisition of Site C as a neighborhood park in the Pheasant Hills area to serve growing Chanhassen. Hasek: Second. Boyt: Does it have to be recommended to Councilor do we direct staff to enter into negotiations? Sietsema: I'm not sure. Boyt: In your recommendation here it says, we recommend that if the budget has to be amended. Sietsema: I think it would be wise to take it to Council now because it's going to ultimately have to go to them and why spend the money on legal fees without their consent. Hasek: We've gone through the hassle of having Mark take a look at this. Do we have a reasonable alternative is C just turns out to be... Boyt: A is our next alternative. Hasek: Do we want to stick that into a form of a recommendation? Mady: I don't believe so. If the Carrico property were to just disappear, it just wasn't feasible in any way, shape or form, then I think we would want to maybe redo it. -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 11 ,..., Hasek: That could be stated in the motion. Tom Steinkamp: I think we as residents would want to know if plans change. I wouldn't want you to put C first, A second and go on to A without us knowing about it. Mady: From my ~tandpoint, C is the clear choice. I don't have a second choice at this point. There's not a second choice here. Tom Steinkamp: Does anybody have a wild guess as to what kind of time frame we're looking at? Sietsema: If we have to go through condemnation, it could be a while. Tom Steinkamp: 5 years? Sietsema: No, I wouldn't think that long but it could be substantially a year to 2. Tom Steinkamp: I guess that brings me to the next comment. At the first meeting we had there was some talk about putting a totlot or something maybe for the time being kind of thing. I think it's fairly important to ~have parkland but is there any possibility for one of those outlots, I think there's really only one that's got any possibility on it and you people have to actually take a look at that and see, to put a small totlot on that lot. Playbox, swingset, something like that. There's dozens of kids in here that are under the age of 5 and they're all in the street right now. Mady: We looked specifically at the lot that Tom Klingelhutz had mentioned and it's got an awful steep back drop and it can't be more than, I don't know, if I remember right, maybe 8 feet wide. Boyt: Doesn't it back up to a wetland? Mady: It's steep. It's a real steep drop and it's right on the street... Tom Steinkamp: But that goes all the way around to that house that's there and that's 150 feet deep at that point. It's...steep as it goes towards that house. It backs up all the way against, right there. See, on the south end of that, that south end. That south end has got to be 100 feet deep. It's as deep as that lot is where that house is sitting on. Sietsema: The other thing to consider on that is that we do not have ownership of those outlots. It was not a stipulation of the development contract that they deed those outlots, although there was discussion that ~they would do that. The owners, the developers did not do that. There are taxes owed on it. We can not acquire it until the back taxes are paid. They're not paying, I don't know if they're going to pay the taxes but one way that we can acquire them in the future is through tax forfeiture because they haven't been paid for the last two years. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 12 """'" Tom Steinkamp: Is there any recourse you could take on other property as far as taxes are concerned? Taxes on the property that haven't been paid for? Sietsema: I don't believe so. It's really a County, I don't think so. Not that the City has that I'm aware of but I think that it's Outlot C that will be going up for tax forfeiture next year if taxes are not paid by that time so that would be available in 1990. Then the other two would be available in 1992. Hasek: What is our position on collecting lots like that? I know that eventually they go up for bid but if a government body, we get it first? Sietsema: We get it first. Hasek: That might not be a dumb thing to do in the interim. Take a little closer look at it and see if it is possible and if it makes some sense. Tom Steinkamp: They're playing in my yard now and that's great, I don't have any problem with that because I've got kids of my own. I like them to pay in my yard but that lot's bigger than my yard, the part that they're playing in, so I think that it's feasible. Granted on the north side of there it gets pretty steep and I think if it was just graded a little differently, you could knock some of that out of there. In other words, right now it goes from the back of the lot towards the street. If you sloped it the other way, went from the street to the ponding area, you'd cut a lot of that hill out, number one, and number two, you'd make it deeper because there's quite a bit of room once you go drop off the bank. There's still quite a bit of room to where the barrier, the erosion barrier was put in to protect the wetlands so I think there's some room there even after the dropoff if it was regraded a little bit. """" Boyt: One of the things we discussed, it was a while ago, that there are a limited number of dollars to be spent in this area and would it be better to put them into acquiring a decent piece of property or making do with a small piece. I think what we'd do if we decided we wanted to look for the best we can provide for your neighborhood. Tom Steinkamp: And we appreciate that. My only concern is that, if you go into condemnation with Carricos, you and I all know that it's more than 2 years. Boyt: Another alternative is for your neighborhood to get together and acquire that piece of property as an Association piece of property and develop it yourselves. I don't think we have the dollars to put into that. Mady: That's the problem we have is just the limited number of dollars we have to spend because we don't get any dollars from the property taxes. It-' comes straight from development fees. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 13 ."...., Tom Steinkamp: If you guys can get ownership of it, I can get it regraded. I'll grade it. Boyt: That's important to know. Tom Steinkamp: And we're not looking for any major... Boyt: But grading is normally a big expense. Tom Steinkamp: Well, I'll do the grading for you. Mady: Thank you very much for your help tonight. We really appreciate it. It makes our job a lot easier when we get good assistance. Mary Cordell: When will this be put before the City Council then? Is that in two weeks or is that a longer process? Sietsema: I'll try to schedule it for the next two weeks. I'll definitely notify you before that meeting. If the next agenda is too full, it will go to the following but it should be able to go within the next two weeks. I'll let you know. Hasek: I have a quick question and I know there's been some discussion on ~,the trail on Lake Lucy Road tonight. What is the City's policy regarding that? I know that a developer has an obligation to let people within x number of feet know that they are doing something. If the City has a project going on such as installation or removal of this trail, are they obligated to notify people within x number of feet of that project as well or not? Sietsema: I don't think legally we are. Do you know Mark? Mark Koegler: To the best of my knowledge, it's not an item that State Statutue requires any kind of .public hearing process at all. Hasek: Even though it impacts more than just the people that abut the property? The people that are here voicing an opinion? Mark Koegler: It's really a regulatory function of changing signage and striping. Yes, you take the trail off but really you're just changing the parameters of the road. That's not subject to public hearing as far as I know. Hasek: How would it be if a park were being sold for development... Mark Koegler: That action has to be approved by a jUdicial body in order to platting park property... Hasek: ...platted trail separate from the road and outside of the ~right-of-way or within an easement, then there notification would be going out but because it's within the right-of-way, it doesn't have to be done? Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 14 -' Mark Koegler: If it was platted, I would agree it would have to be. If it's an easement situation, I'm not too sure what. If that sheds a different light on it or not. When you have a platted piece of park property, it can be reverted back to private purposes but it's a legal process. Hasek: If you have an easement and you're not using it for the purpose that the easement was acquired, do you give up the right of that easement at that point? Mark Koegler: I'm not certain. Hasek: It seems a little short sighted on the City's part as far as I'm concerned to take an action like that without all of the affected property owners or users knowing what's going on and I think if the policy isn't in place, then perhaps the Planning Commission or Council should get together and put something down to do that. If the intent is to listen the abutting property owners, then I think all of the people that show up or are impacted by that ought to be notified that it's happening before hand so that they can have equal input. It's just a suggestion of course. Schroers moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission to recommend to pursue acquisition of Site C, the Carrico property, as a neighborhood park in the Pheasant Hills area to serve growing Chanhassen. -,. All voted in favor and the motion carried. FINAL REVIEW OF THE SIDEWALK PLANS ALONG CARVER BEACH ROAD. Scott Harri: I don't know if you all remember, I was here December 13th and we presented kind of I quess "final design" for the trail system. After some very good interaction discussion with a fairly active group of neighbors on Carver Beach Road, we kind of threw the ball back in their court and I had roughly sketched out for them a trail system along the north side of Carver Beach Road with a few notes on the plan which illustrated the types of features and tree removal and mailbox adjustments, etc. etc. so they could make some contact with their neighbors. I guess following 6 to 8 weeks of throwing the ball in their court, Lori was informed that they didn't meet with a lot of success in selling that trail system on the north side of the road. So pursuant to your recommendations at the December 13th meeting there have been one modifications made then to the trail system on Carver Beach Road. That would be to extend the trail from, if you recall, we were proposing a crossing of Carver Beach Road...and we would be eliminating that crossing, extending the trail system all the way up to Nez Perce where there exists now a four way controlled intersection creating a more formalized crosswalk at that location. Remodeling the fencing at the park to allow for a more attractive and inviting entrance to the park at that point and doing some fence work way on the west end of the park to discourage the people from crossing Carver Beach and going across private property. So those were the modifications we had yet to I guess implement them in the form of a drawing. We will do that if that is your pleasure before we .....", Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 15 ,.... take these plans for the Council's authorizing bids and accept the plans and things. In conjunction with this, I guess one of the items that has not been hit head on directly, we've been throwing out some cost numbers and I'm sure with the overall trail system plan, you had some perception of cost, numbers and other things. While I ran out a cost estimate for this portion of the trail system which I guess included both the Laredo Drive trail and Carver Beach trail as proposed plus the additional 375 feet. When I included contingency and engineer and surveying, testing, inspection, all those sort of factors, that the total estimated project cost was just shy of $83,000.00. $82,950.00. I don't think it would be our recommendation, because it makes a lot of sense to carry the trail all the way to Nez Perce but I think if we didn't build that last 375 feet, that there would be perhaps a net savings of about $5,200.00 if you didn't go ahead and build that last section there. It doesn't seem like it's cost effective to delete that so if you have budget constraints and I guess we're talking about budget. Boyt: What was our budget for this? Sietsema: $25,000.00 for the two segments. Mady: So tonight we need to put our heads together and find a way. ~Schroers: Your cost estimate represents also the new entrance to the park and at Nez Perce? Scott Harri: Yes. It includes the modification to the existing fencing and perhaps a small type of sign there. Nothing more elaborate than that perhaps. The extension of the trail or something... Schroers: I had a question on these signs. 9 each at $150.00 each. What kind of signs are they? Scott Harri: Predominantly they are pedestrian warning signs and pedestrian crosswalk signs. Because we have a four-way intersection, in my recommendation that we sign both the intersection from all four ways coming to it plus an advance warning sign that would alert traffic. So that would be 2 signs from each leg of the intersection plus one speed limit sign that I would recommend that we put up just west of the Nez Perce intersection on Carver Beach Road so that would be the total of 9 signs. Schroers: And those signs cost $150.00 each? Scott Harri: To get them made, installed and everything. Again, these are budget numbers. We would be hopeful that the low bid contractor would bid a little bit better on the price for these but these are in general what it would cost. II"'- Mady: Also our option would be to have city staff install the signs. Scott Harri: Could have them installed. These signs could be included as a part of a major sign purchase that the city would make to signing other Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 16 --" streets in new developments is another factor. So yes there is some scale of economy that you can get on some of these things. Mady: If I recall from our December meeting, some of the things that were going into the sidewalk cost included repair and some sewers, street sewer, drainage areas, curbing. I'm wondering if maybe there's any room in the City's street maintenance budget to pick up some of that. We're putting in a sidewalk on top of a city easement. I don't know how much we need to be picking up the cost of fixing of State streets too out of the park building funds. This is something I'd like to find out about. Sietsema: I can find out. Mady: I don't want to delay this either by doing that. It's just something that, hopefully when Council reviews it, there will be an opportunity there to see if maybe the street maintenance budget has ...to provide some help where we're actually improving street and the water drainage system. Sietsema: It's a possibility. Boyt: How many linear feet of sidewalk will there be? Scott Harri: There's 3,815 feet. A little over 7/10ths of a mile. 1 ...", Boyt: In both? Scott Harri: In both, yes. That's correct. Schroers: I don't want to put you on the spot Lori but I don't know anything about how staff feels about this figure. Sietsema: To tell you the truth, I was kind of blown away because I was anticipating it to be much less and in talking to Scott further, the number that we've been quoted before does not include the rehabilitation of disturbed areas. The fencing. The signs. Painting the streets. Sidewalk crosswalk area. It doesn't include a lot of those things so those are little nickle and dime items that have just gotten this budget way up higher than we anticipated it to be. There is money in the trail dedication fund. I don't have a firm figure on what that it is today and we have some money that maybe we can take a closer look at our capital improvement program and adjust that in certain areas. That may be another option or the other thing is that we may have to spread this over, wait with one section of it another year and budget it for next year. Schroers: I guess I'd be in favor of looking into our other options and having it ,all done at once if possible. Sietsema: Yes, I think that's the most economic way to go. Robinson: Is there a most reasonable, is asphalt cheaper than concrete or ~ is that even acceptable? Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 17 ,..... Scott Harri: Half price. Asphalt is half price. Robinson: Is that a reasonable alternative or not? Hasek: Is 63 any better than 83? Sietsema: I think that you'd have to ask the residents that. Mady: We'd have to invite them back in. Sietsema: I would say from the useability standpoint, but from somebody who's got to look at it everyday, they may have a stronger feeling about that. Watson: What is the longevity? The survival rate of asphalt as opposed to concrete? Scott Harri: It would be perhaps half. Concrete would maybe last 2 times, 2 1/2 times as long. Sietsema: So there are some long term savings. Scott Harri: But again your asphalt surface can be, it's useful. It can """Je extended quite long if it's routinely maintained with sealers and other things like we would put on there... So how much maintenance is attributed to the concrete is less sensitive to maintenance. You almost can ignore it basically. Asphalt's a bit more sensitive so even though it has a lower initial cost, to get good service life out of it, you need to stick some money into it every year. Weed control. Surfacing. This sort of thing. Schroers: I feel that since we've gotten to the point here where we've had public hearings. We've had the neighborhood come in. We told them that we could put the trail in for them. I almost feel that we've obligated ourself to a certain extent to get underway with this project and get it in. Hasek: The trick is to find a way to pay for it while not jeopardizing other things that we've also promised and intended we were going to do. Boyt: There might be some things on our CIP. Watson: It's more than 3 times the cost that we projected. Boyt: There's the Minnewashta Heights park shelter for $20,000.00 that maybe could be cut from this year's budget. Hasek: Those residents, one resident we've heard from indicated that a ~ark shelter may not be what we want there. They may want a half ~asketball court. Mady: What we need to do is talk with those people. We don't need to spend $20,000.00 there. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 18 .....", Boyt: There are other areas in our budget. Water and electric. Mady: There are some other things to look at. Sietsema: I think the access road to Bluff Creek is a good one. $10,000.00 there that... Boyt: That could be put off for a year. Sietsema: It's questionable whether we really want it. Access road to a drainage ditch. Robinson: Can we address this then. at the same time we address our CIP to see if this fits in? Sietsema: Yes. We need direction to proceed with this though or not to proceed. Schroers: I think we maybe have someone here from the neighborhood. Mady: Jeff's here for another matter. I'm sure he'd be willing to give his opinion on the Carver Beach trail. Jeff Bros: Sure. I agree with Larry. You guys have pretty much told us -' that we're going to have it this year. You'll have a lot of mothers really mad at you. What you're saying about maybe cutting back a little or doing it in sections. I don't know, Larry, you know the area real well. To save a few bucks to get started with, do you think you could just start it at Chaparral? There isn't anybody coming from CR 17. From CR 17 to Chaparral, I don't know how much it would get used from that point. Schroers: I guess I'd rather see a portion of it go in than none at all but I think when you do things in portions like that, instead of dealing with an issue once, you end up dealing with it 2 times or 3 times and it gets to be less cost efficient that way for sure and more expensive in the long run so if we could figure out a way to get it in, do it right the first time, that would definitely be my preference and I would prefer to work towards that end like we've been talking about look at the capital improvement program and seeing if we can switch some funds around there to cover the cost that we need here. Sietsema: Something that we may want to consider is back in here and ask them if they'd be willing to be a portion of it. Share costs. Something like that. willing to help pay for it? to call the residents assessed for it, for Would they be Mady: My personal opinion that Lori is that, if we had no other way of getting this done at our disposal and Council couldn't find a way, then we ~ would have to look at that but I don't even want to discuss that. Me personally, I don't even want to discuss that at this point in time. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 19 ~ Hasek: It seems to me that the trail system isn't in place simply for the abutting property owners and I'm going to get on my soap box once again. It's in place for all of the people in the city and it should be shared by all of the people in the City as should the expenses for parks and the accessibility of parks and trails and so forth. We're not talking about a stream of people that live along Carver Beach Road. We're talking about an overall trail system and park system and a way of life out here. Sietsema: It was an idea. I didn't say it was a good idea. Jeff Bros: Has there been any estimates on if the trail would be cheaper on the north side of Carver Beach? As a neighborhood we carne originally and asked for it to cross at Redwing there and then go up the north side. Would it be cheaper to do it on the north side than the south side or is it a wash? Mady: It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the others. There's some trade offs between both sides. Jeff Bros: Our main reason for the neighborhood, keep it on the south side because we've got zero response from the neighborhood and the Public Safety Department as to a stop sign at Redwing and that was our, if we could get the stop sign, then we wanted it on the north side but it ~10esn't look like we're going to get that so for safety reasons, it might as well stay on the south side. If it would be cheaper to run it on the north side, if we get some pressure applied from you people to the Public Safety Department... Sietsema: As I've indicated before it's not the publ ic Safety Department. You have to go to the Engineering Department to ask for that stop sign. Jeff Bros: We've asked the Public Safety Department to corne out and do a speed check. Sietsema: They did and they're included. Hasek: I don't know if you've seen these. Jeff Bros: No I haven't. Hasek: They've been out there on several occasions and the ones that I have, they've got speed limits, they've got people speeding up to 39 to 40 mph but they didn't issue any tickets and I guess my question is why? Boyt: Their philosophy has been, unless it's 10 mph over the speed limit, you don't issue a citation. Right now there are poeple asking to have that philosophy changed on the Public Safety Commission to try... IfI""', Robinson: I don't think is a Park and Rec issue and I don't know why we're discussing it. We told the residents when they were here they'd have to go to Public Safety so I don't know why we were issued this detailed report. We don't need to see the date, the average speed and why Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 20 --" they didn't issue a ticket or anything. Hasek: I think it was just a matter of discussion. Sietsema: It was requested and that's why it was brought back. Boyt: There's one piece of information in here that to me doesn't make any sense at all. The average speed of all the vehicles means nothing. If 10 of them are going over 30 mph and 4 are going under, we're concerned with those that are going above the speed limit. Every single one of them. Robinson: This is not a Park and Rec issue. Can .we get on? Boyt: Are we going to nominate Ed for Chair? Hasek: No, we're not. Next week. Schroers: Getting more back to the subject Lori, with this cost estimate, how much are we over what we had originally anticipated? How much money do we have to make up? Boyt: $58,000.00. Sietsema: We had roughly $25,000.00 to $30,000.00 that was put aside for this project so over and above that is what we have to come up with. That would be about $53,000.00. ....,., Schroers: We have a third almost? Sietsema: Right. Robinson: Can we look possibly at cutting that? Do we need to sod that area? There's maybe $500.00 worth of sod in there. Hasek: When I looked through this, I didn't see any of the items that could necessarily be eliminated. If there was something put on my front yard, knowing what the weather has been and knowing the maintenance that it takes to get seed to grow in this community, I certainly want them to replace what I've been maintaining so I think the sod is essential. If we go right down through it, the only thing, the timber retaining is necessary to hold up the dirt in order to get that trail in place. Pedestrian pipe railing is there to keep people on the trail and avoid a difficult situation. Schroers: what is the CB? Relocate CB? Scott Harri: Catch basins. The storm sewer. Schroers: Then we have two different thicknesses of sidewalks. One 4 -' inch and one 6? Scott Harri: Yes. The 6 inch would be in the driveway area. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 21 ,..... Mady: A comment on the sodding, I think the Commission should look at this project as the first step of our trail plan. I think it's very, very important that when we put in this very first segment, that we're doing it right. Where it's going to look beautiful. Have the minimum impact. I think that's very, very important for us to do it right the first time so if it costs a couple dollars more to do it right the first time, I think for the future of our trail plan and the future our City getting these things, be done correctly and look well. We need to do this first one right. I believe it's not going to be found in our capital improvement program for this year but next year do the trail things that we can get this job done. Schroers: quality. I agree with that too. I think that we have to go with We don't want to do half the job. We want to get it done. Hasek: Is this an indication of what we may be having to pay for trails in the future if we decide to go concrete or is this one exorbinate1y high because of some inp1ace structures and some things that have to be done? Scott Harri: Concrete will always be inherently more expensive than bituminous or asphalt trails. In this, if I were to break out the Laredo Drive portion from Carver Beach portion, again, the Laredo Drive portion would be on a pure foot basis cheaper to do because there's simply less """'obstac1es and less opportunities to solve this problems. But anytime you have a built up area where people have existing driveways and trees and hedges and benches, etc., these are the sort of remodeling things that need to get done. Part of the cost of the $15,435.00 is a contingency of almost $4,000.00 for unknowns. Things that may corne up during the course of construction that weren't reasonably predicted at the onset here. Mark Koegler: You always have the option to structuring the bid package, if you would so desire, that Laredo might be an Alternate A and Carver Beach might be an Alternate B and then you'd have an Alternate A and B so you essentially get 3 bids so if the budget was really a critical consideration, hopefully you could do it all, if the bids carne in favorab1e...high, you could do one segment maybe this year and one segment next year. I know that's not your desire but it may be, in reality, a good way to proceed. Hasek: How much overlap in cost do you think there would be? There must be something in moving equipment to the site and taking it back again. How high do you think the overall cost would go if we split it into two pieces? Another $10,000.00 to $15,000.'0 maybe? Just a shot in the dark is better than what we know right now. Mark Koegler: But two pieces you mean two different years? Hasek: Let's say two different projects. If it went in an A and a B as ~opposed to all at once. Mark Koegler: The experience we've had in other municipalities recently where it had detached projects for the same contractor has been very little penalty at all. If we got to subsequent years where we've totally Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 22 ,...-,1 got remobilization and everything, then I think your number's pretty good. But I don't know if the penalty would be that high. I can't envision a scenario that you would do A and B as separate projects. They need to be one project or they'd be separated in different years. Hasek: So then the overall cost you're suggesting might go $10,000.00 or $15,000.00 higher if we wanted another year or two? Schroers: What I would like to do here is I'd like to recommend that we' approve this final design and pursue whatever necessary funding for it. Mady: I'll second that. Hasek: Do we want to suggest the possibility at this point of sending it out to bids in two sections or can we just simply direct staff to do that? I think that's going to be a real viable or potential option here and I don't think that we should let this go without doing that and push it back another 2 weeks just because we failed to think about something we should have. Boyt: Does that need a motion Lori? Sietsema: Yes. Mady: Do you want to amend your motion Larry? Schroers: Let me just make sure that I understand what we're saying. '"""'" Hasek: What we're simply doing is trying to get staff to, instead of sending this out as one bid package for $82,550.00 for the whole piece, we're breaking it in two pieces. The Laredo section and the Carver Beach section. A and B so when it goes out to bid, the bidder is going to give us a cost for A. He's going to give us a cost for B. He's going to give us a cost for the whole thing. Then we've got our option. He's given us options that we can look at. If we can only come up with $50,000.00, maybe one of those sections approximately meets that and we'll get on that right now and get that done as opposed to letting the whole project wait. Schroers: Okay. Let me redesign my motion. Hasek: Why don't you just leave it the way that it is and just add an addendum to it. Just amend it to say... Schroers: Okay, amend it to include separate bids for A, Laredo Drive and B, Carver Beach. Sietsema: And C, both. Schroers: And C both. ....""" Mady: I'll amend my second. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 23 ".., Schroers moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to approve the final design for sidewalks along Carver Beach Road and Laredo Road as presented and to pursue the necessary funding. Also, to set up the bid package to include a bid for A, Laredo Drive; B, Carver Beach Road; and C, both A and B combined. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mady: Then we'll discuss the funding of this project when we go through the Capital Improvement Program discussion. VISITOR PRESENTATION - JOHN SEAMANS REGARDING SOFTBALL ELIGIBILITY. Mady: I had number 6 as a visitors presentation regarding softball eligibility. Lori indicated to me that John Seamans asked that this be pulled off of our agenda. There are some things that I'd like to talk about softball eligibility. I know Jeff Bros is here from CAA to give us some comments concerning this. Sietsema: Jeff will be here in two weeks with the rest of the people that are against the eligibility rule and they basically wanted to organize the people that were against it and why so they came together with a more ""'organized format I think. Robinson: Why was this put on the agenda in the first place? Sietsema: Because there are people out there that wanted to appeal to you to modify it or to change it or to delete it. To air their greviances. Robinson: You said there would be hundreds of them probably. Boyt: They're trying to get all of them together rather than coming in themselves so they can all come in two weeks. Hasek: I have a quick question for you. You said we sent it to Council have we not? Sietsema: It doesn't go to Council. This is our policy that we set. Mady: Council discussed it last night. Hasek: What was their comment? Mady: Well, it was just mainly Tom Workman in Council Presentation just wanted to make the Council aware that the policy was changed and that there has been some negative feedback already to the city staff and various members of the commissions and what have you and to just alert ~them to a very potential issue. Volatile issue. Schroers: I've been confronted by some people personally. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 24 .....,/ Mady: I've talked to a number of people...the youth sports coaches who are looking at this very favorably. This is a plus. Robinson: I guess that's my concern. Should we round up the people that are in favor of this and have them make a presentation? We made the decision. We knew it would be tough. Sietsema: But as in all other issues, we do provide people with the opportunity to discuss how they feel about it and how it affects them. We may not have reviewed all of the reasons, all of the ways it can affect people. For instance, it may totally dlsban the women's organization. The women's softball. Councilman Workman's concern was that it was going to affect the level of play in the open league. The over 35 league is concerned because there's people that have played there forever that are no longer going to be able to play. They want to make sure that you have taken into, right now it's viewed as a cold and heartless thing that you've done without taking their feelings into consideration and their situation and consideration. This letter has just been sent out and they are out without a voice. I think that they've all played here in the City and they should be able to come in and talk to us about it. It may not be comfortable but we should allow them that opportunity. Robinson: That's true. It's like taking away the trail on Lake Lucy Road without... .....", Boyt: I think what Ed said was right. That we maybe contact the youth sports people as well as the adult softball because it's not only the adult softball people who will be affected. Sietsema: That may help them to understand why it came to be and why we have to bite the bullet and do something like this. There may be a compromise out there that can soften the blow. Boyt: We've already looked at a couple of different options since then. There are some privately owned fields in Chanhassen. Two at DataServ and one at the Legion that maybe we can do something with those. Hasek: If we pick up the insurance on them. Boyt: If we do some work to the fields maybe or something but there are other options out there that we can look at. Hasek: This is coming up in two weeks? Hasek: How difficult a job would it be to take a look at rosters for all of the teams last year? Just assuming the same people are going to return to see how this would have impacted last year's teams. To take a look and see. Now I know that there's a lot of people, approving it is one thing and I know there's a lot of people on the over 35 rosters, I shouldn't say a lot, I do know of people on the over 35 rosters who did not live or work in Chanhassen but miraculously had Chanhassen addresses so that would be a little bit confusing but if we throw in say 10% or something for that. How hard would it be to find out how many teams have .....", Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 25 JIII'I' been adversely impacted? How many could not have fielded a team and how many fields that would have opened up and how would it impact the overall crowding of the fields? Hoffman: A couple of days for all the leagues. Hasek: Is that worth it? Would it help us? The thing that confuses me is, we've done something and I feel that we've done the right thing. I think that we made the right choice. The impact may not be there to the fullest extent this year but perhaps next year or the year after that is when we're really going to understand how important it was to make the decision now. The question I'm asking is, we're not going to know that until we see after the beginning of this year what kind of response we get and what kind of teams we actually fill. Now if we looked at last years, it might give us an idea of what kind of an impact this thing would have had had we made the decision the year before that on last year's team. Schroers: I think that's pretty much what I when we made our change. If we only allow 3 whatever, how much good is this going to do? us achieve what we want to do? I think your only way we're going to know is to implement it goes. """.. Hoffman: It's definitely going to open up more field space but as far as the scheduling match, trying to make a match in heaven for one year, these leagues have been used to playing on Tuesday nights so we implement this rule this year and if a Tuesday evening opens up, that may not be the best evening for the Babe Ruth or for the girls softball but over a period of years they'll mold into those spots. I'm not exactly sure what the perfect match of times will be but it will definitely ease the problem which is getting worse year after year. asked Todd at the meeting players or 5 players or Is it really going to help response to that was, the it and watch it and see where Hasek: I personally know of two teams in the over 35 league that will be eliminated and two teams that were in the, what was that, the open league we had our church teams in? Sietsema: Open. Hasek: Both of our Mt. Calvary teams will disappear this year. We can get around that. We've talked about ways of doing that but we're thinking about starting two leagues with people who live in Chanhassen playing on one team and people who live in for example maybe Shorewood playing on a Shorewood team or playing on an Excelsior team, whatever that is. Splitting it up that way. That's a lot more hassle than simply getting a group of people together from the church and splitting them down the middle and trying to even out the talent and so forth but right there's 4 teams which could potentially eliminate 1 evening of playing. Opening up ~a field. I think the impact is there and it's just going to be a matter of how great it is. I guess I still ask that question. Is it worth it to spend the time to take a look at what last year's rosters may have looked like and what kind of teams we could have filled it with last year if we had implemented the rule the year before. Then at least when these people Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 26 ......" corne, we can say, listen this is what it would have done and it will give us some ammunition to discuss it with. We're not going to sit up here saying well, we don't know. At least then we'll have an indication maybe of what's going on and what the potential would have. I don't want to sit here and just listen to a bunch of people yell and scream without having any response to them. Schroers: I think that we certainly have justification for our actions. I really don't feel insecure about defending our position on that. Everybody knows that our system was definitely overtaxed and we had to do something and if you take a look at the surrounding communities, the information that Todd provided for us, we are far in a way still more liberal than many of our neighbors so I think we're being reasonable at the very least. Hasek: I agree. I absolutely agree but you can hear the question already. How is this going to impact it? How do you know? Mady: As long as Todd has the time, if he can make the time available between now and then, it's important information for us to have. Hasek: Even if you can go through the important ones where there's the greatest demand right now. Just start with those and say, this is what would happen in this league alone. These teams would be eliminated which would open up another night which we could have stuck in this particular demand. Stick in this demand. -' Boyt: I think you need numbers from youth sports too. Girls softball and how that's grown and they're starting a new softball program for younger girls this year and how many kids are in T-ball, ragball, and pee wee compared to a year ago. We need the numbers of the children and the numbers of the adults. Hasek: Because it's not only, I know who's going to be here mostly. I know it's going to be the adults and it's going to be mostly the over 35 people that are here. At least that's my gut feeling. The problem is, they're not the only league and I want to make sure that we have at least... Sietsema: The only league that won't be affected by this is the industrial league. Hoffman: I can give you a pretty clear understanding of how each league will be affected. However, you can't just base your total knowledge on that because softball teams, like any entity are very moldable and they'll change. I could say, well I think we're going to get 10 teams back in our over 35 league where we're at 15 last year and we could well show up with 13 to 14 teams just because people are going to have to go there and find some Chanhassen people that are eligible players to play. That is a very real thing that can happen. I just think it's a real sound policy which we've instated. I've answered a lot of questions. Talked to a lot of """"" people. Everybody agrees that it is a good policy but they have a problem with it because it affects them and are we going to change our mind? Are we going to bend the rules for one league? Are we going to bend the rules Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 27 ,..., for another league? I think we're in a real good position to go ahead and start this policy this year. Hasek: Most of the time, the people that will be here are probably the ones that have a problem with the policies that we've tried to implement. They're the ones that show up and they're the ones that speak the loudest. However, they don't speak for everybody and often times the people that are 1n favor of it don't show up simply because they agree with it. They figure it's going to happen that way. Is it possible that we, and maybe that's our job. Maybe we should simply try to get a hold of those people but maybe the people who are in charge of the leagues, are there any people that are like in charge of Little League? I don't know what's going on out there. How those things are structured but maybe they should be made aware of our policy. Mady: Jeff is President of CAA. Boyt: Chanhassen Athletic Association. That's K through 5. Hasek: It would be nice to have those people here too so that they understand that the decision that's being made is intended to help the leagues and not to discourage the leagues. ~Mady: I had a call from Brad Johnson who I guess is attempting to get Babe Ruth teams actually for Chanhassen, requesting that the baseball field at Lake Ann be set aside for baseball at least every night of the week for the first hour at least. These are things we need to look at. Maybe we can leave the lights on at Lake Ann an extra hour. Sietsema: That's another thing that's been approached by some softball players in the open league. They asked if they could not grandfather in the existing out of town players and play 4 games on the lighted field. Play longer on the lighted field and free up field #3 for Little League or whatever that would take. The problem with grandfathering in is that doesn't, that means we've got the same number of teams and everything that we had last year. It doesn't cut it down. Hasek: Well, in effect we are grandfathering in, 3 or 4? Hoffman: 4. Hasek: We decided on grandfathering in 4 people. If they wanted to do that, they have the right to grandfather. We just said we simply can't afford to grandfather a whole team in or a majority of the team or a team that consists mainly or to a large extent, with people who live outside of Chanhassen. Because it's going to change. It's got to. Other communities have already realized it and they've gone ahead and made that decision already and they've gone through the same sqwak that we're going ~to get so we might as well just bite the bullet and do it. Boyt: Since Jeff is here, did you want to say anything tonight or do you want to wai t? Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 28 ...."" Jeff Bros: We're struggling too, as a community and as an athleti.c associati.on. Last year we had a real hard time putting together a Babe Ruth team which are boys, late junior high, probably freshman in high school. That age group. 13 to 15 I believe. As we've talked with Todd before, one of our biggest problems is playing with Chaska and Minnetonka teams. We don't have a good baseball field in this town so that's been one drawback. It's been partially our problem too from the fact that we've had a real hard time getting the population into the sport. This year Brad Johnson's working on it. Last year we filled up 2 teams for Babe Ruth alone and I think we had 2 or 3 Little League teams. Boyt: Four. Jeff Bros: Was it 4 and they have minor and majors so they're playing different levels there also so you can't mix those. The same with the Babe Ruth. They have two different levels there so you can't mix those. They have to have their own time on the fields. Six teams last year, I guessing it's going to be probably 5 Little League teams this year. Our population of baseball last grew 30% over 87 in all the leagues. Boyt: It would be higher if it were in Chanhassen but a number of kids drive out when the parents find out they have to go to Minnetonka to play. They just drive them out. Normally it's the parents that drive them out. ....." Jeff Bros: Being the ages that our kids are, having the lack of organization that we've had for those age groups has been a problem. It's going to grow and this year I think you'll see a big jump in that. As far as the K through 5 kids, we don't have a problem because we're at the school or the Chan Estates or last year we used Carver Beach Park and those are find for the little kids. The smaller the better as far as I'm concerned but it gets to be the Little League and Babe Ruth where we need to be able to supply these kids with some good quality fields which we're close. The ballfield over at Lake Ann isn't too bad but we need to give them the quality time on the fields also. That's the big thing. Boyt: We have had kids from Eden prairie and Chaska participating in our sports programs so that's something that, if we're going to put restraints on the adults, are there going to be restraints on the children? And from what you said, the Chaska sports program is kind of going downhill so we're apt to get more kids involved in our programs over the next year from Chaska. Mady: You also should recognize the fact that we have Chaska kids, Eden prairie kids, Minnetonka kids going to school in our area. And Chan Elementary. Watson: Jonathan down into Chaska, they go to school here. Their friends are here. Mady: And they play together... That's the rationale to have them here. One other thing I wanted to mention on the eligibility policy we stated last meeting, we put in a $100.00 bond that each team has to submit each ....." Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 29 ,-., year for their eligibility. I would like to see us, part of that policy is if a team is shown to be ineligible and forfeits their bond, that they also forfeit all their games for this year. They do not play any longer in Chanhassen and next year they can not be in Chanhassen. I think we have to make sure this gets, if this is what the policy is going to be, some teams $1~~.~~, they'll spend the money, they'll spend any amount of money to get a place to play because the fields that are open that you can play in, some cities have a lot of openings, there just aren't any fields available so I want to make sure that we do this, that we have the proper teeth in... Hoffman: As it's stated right now, the player and/or players involved and the team involved would be suspended for the year. Schroers: I think that's adequate. I think that's making a strong enough statement. If they're caught being ineligible and we disban the team for the year, that's going to get the point across. Mady: I just wanted to make sure that was there. I wasn't positive when we brought that up for discussion. Is there any further discussion because this is coming back next time? Schroers: Just very quickly, a couple of more controversial or vocal ~peop1e in regards to this issue have approached me and when you lay all the cards out logically, it's just like, what would you do, there really aren't a lot of options. You have to make sense. It's one of those issues where there isn't a totally right or a totally wrong answer and no one is going to be happy. You just have to do the best we can do under the circumstances and I feel that that's what we've done and it's going to be pretty hard for anyone to legitimately argue against it. Mady: Last night the Council, when I was giving just a brief synopsis of my feelings on it, I told them that I felt that the City's recreational programs with the softball and baseball league and a few things, the City has historically been biased toward adults in field use and that we need to start getting a little more biased towards our kids because that's where our future is. Those are the people who we need to make sure keep out of trouble. They need to have their time organized. A tape changed occured at this point and discussion changed to the next item. PRIORITIZATION OF 1989 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Mady: ...money being spent for other projects, makes the most sense. Something that's been mentioned maybe coming out of the pot is the Bluff Creek signage and access roads, $11,~~~.~~. ,.... Sietsema: If I could just clarify something about that. The reason I believe that the Bluff Creek Park access road was put in was an anticipation of the trail plan going through and that would give us a vehicular way to access the rural trails and the nature trails in the Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 30 ...; southern part of Chanhassen. It would be a get on point. Because that didn't happen and the nature trails are not going to be something that's going to be done in the near future, I looked at that as something that could be put towards, the money could be put towards something more immediately needed. Not that it's not something that we're not going to want to do but that we don't need to do it right at this point. I think it's important to remember or, I don't know, maybe just reflect in the Minutes or for the Council's benefit, that by reprioritizing these or reallocating funds doesn't mean that any of these are not something that we don't want to do. It's just that we feel that the Carver Beach and the Laredo trail are immediately needed. I would just hate for it be perceived that we've got a bunch of stuff in here that we don't really need to do and that we just put this to pad the budget. I would hate to get that perception and then in the future we wouldn't be getting the money that we need to do things because these things all need to be done. It's just a matter of some things come up that are not anticipated. Boyt: What are other sources of revenue for the trails besides our budget? Besides our CIP? Is there any money in the general fund available? Sietsema: No. development. thi s fund. The CIP is the only money we have for park and trail There's money in the trail dedication fee which is part of ....."" Mady: coming paying by the Lori, do you have any feeling on the new building permits that are in this past year, what percentage of those were new ones that are the trail fee and what percentage are parcels that weren't affected trail fee or do all of them pay it now? Sietsema: All of them pay it now with the exception of Lake Susan Hills West and Curry Farms. Mady: So in other words, any building permit that gets issued now, unless that development, we waived them, that we are getting something? Sietsema: Right. And that's been in force for a year now as of last February. Mady: Okay, so most of them, a good share of them anyway, are paying the $133.00? Sietsema: Yes. Now some of that is allocated because Saddlebrook is building it's trails and paying for them and we're paying them to put them in. So they're being charged the trail dedication fee so that money is not available to put towards other trails. T.hat's the only case like that though I believe. Chanhassen Hills is paying trails. Curry Farms is not paying trails and Lake Susan Hills West is not paying trails. I believe everybody else is. Mady: Jim Chaffee indicated last night that the City permits this past year. So would 200 be a reasonable $26,000.00. Somewhere in that neighborhood so there ......, issued 389 building estimate? That's has been some money Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 31 ,..... put into that fund this past year. Looking at this thing, our Capital Improvement Program, there are some items that you might be able to move to the future. Why don't we kind of just go down the row. Hasek: Go down the list? Mady: Go down the Commission. Robinson: Are we first talking about what we may push out? Mady: Delay. Robinson: Then we will go and prioritize later. Hasek: May I go first? Mady: Whatever. Hasek: Lake Ann I think we need. North Lotus Park, we're talking $500.00. I think that that can stay. South Lotus Lake I think we can stick with one tennis court for $15,000.00 and pull $10,000.00 out. That will give us $10,000.00 towards the trail. Carver Beach, I'm not exactly sure what's going on there but it's a minimal amount and I think it can ~stay. Carver Beach along Lotus Trail, $3,000.00. I think that needs to be there. Bandimere Heights Park. It's a very small park. I have a question on that. If we're still looking at land and if land adjacent to that is a possibility, perhaps that figure can be delayed and included in something bigger. Something to talk about. Minnewashta Heights Park. We talked about maybe the lack of desire or whatever on the part of the neighbors for a shelter. They're looking at basketball. Perhaps we could put in a half court basketball and two nets there for $5,000.00 and pull $15,000.00 out of that. That gives us $25,000.00 so far. City Center Park, I think ought to stay alone unless we can cut something on the totlot equipment and I think that's badly needed so I think that should be left alone. Bluff Creek, we can pull $5,000.00 out of. Chanhassen tree restocking, I think that program needs to be kept going especially with the weather that we've been having. Miscellaneous. Grills, $5,000.00, I think that needs to stay there so I've gone down through the list so far and pulled out a total of $36,000.00. Boyt: Did you pull $10,000.00 out of Bluff Creek? You said $5,000.00. We can pull $10,000.00 out. Hasek: Bluff Creek's $11,000.00. Boyt: Bluff Creek's access road. Hasek: I pulled the whole 11 out of there. What I said was Minnewashta ,.....Heights Park would be cut from $20,000.00 to $5,000.00. $5,000.00 would pay for a half court basketball and two nets. Schroers: You cut $10,000.00 out of South Lotus Lake Ed? Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 32 -' Hasek: Yes. Schroers: Where was that? Hasek: Putting in 1 tennis court instead of 2 and I counted 1 as about $15,000.00 because you still need more surface for one than you would. It's more than half to put one court in as opposed to two so I think that cost would probably be about $15,000.00. Boyt: What are the warming house improvements for City Center Park? Anything specific or just improvements? Sietsema: No, it was just general. Depending on what goes on with the community center, that may be coming out so that would not be spent immediately either. Boyt: That's another $2,500.00. It's not a lot. Watson: What about the totlot equipment at the City Center Park and the potential for splitting some of those costs with the school? Boyt: They were here and they have a minimal... Watson: They don't have much. --' Schroers: They don't have much. Mady: We're going to need about $50,000.00 to do it. Boyt: $10,000.00 doesn't buy very much in playground equipment. Watson: Especially if we're going to do a park plan for up there. Schroers: But the problem with that is, we have $40,000.00 allocated for totlot equipment for City Center Park and we don't know what's happening with City Center Park. It's contingent on what happens with the community center. Boyt: But it could change in March or April. Mady: We should have a pretty good indication I hope by April. Schroers: So your feeling is then that you would like to see that $40,000.00 left in there? Mady: Yes. We may not be able to get the play equipment for the City Center Park in June or July but I would sure hope that we could have it there by September when the kids go back to school anyway. Boyt: Is there anyway that we can get the water and electric put in on --' the east side of the new baseball diamonds and put into the new Park Development Fund? Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 33 ,...., Sietsema: The budget's really tight on that. Boyt: We had extra money from the machines here. Sietsema: She misspoke. She said it was 185. It was 285 out of the 300. Schroers: She also said that you felt comfortable with the fact that we were going to be able to do everything on that plan with... Sietsema: We can't get water out there except to dig a well. Mady: That's $5,000.00 right there. Boyt: Can we dig a well in the new part? Sietsema: You think it's $5,000.00 to dig a well? Mady: Yes. Schroers: I think that would be worth checking into. Sietsema: We could probably do it as a bid alternate too. """Boyt: I think that was Jim Mady's idea. We talked about this back and forth. Mady: If there's something there that we can look at. Hasek: I guess the question is, is there anything that we can absolutely take out besides what I've mentioned? Does anybody have any problems with what I've mentioned? Mady: I'm not sure on the South Park. Curt maybe will address that. There's a couple other ideas I had. In tonight's discussion, one of the things we have been looking at is the play equipment, totlot equipment that we're purchasing for this year. We do have $5,000.00 worth of equipment left over from last year. Now if we use that $5,000.00, added $5,000.00 onto it, just bought another half a set and put that in South Lotus Lake, that would pick us up $5,000.00. Robinson: Where was it purchased for? Mady: Greenwood Shores. Robinson: That's later on the agenda. Mady: Correct but Council last year authorized that not be installed so we do have that equipment still sitting here and we know South Lotus Lake ,....,wan t sit. Robinson: Just a comment. There are very few houses in that South Lotus Lake park right now. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 34 ---'" Mady: But it will probably be full in two years. Boyt: It serves those houses... Hasek: It serves the people next door. Robinson: Where? Hoffman: The apartments. Mady: It's not just the new South Lotus Lake. Boyt: It serves everything within a half mile. Sietsema: And up the east side of the lake a ways. Mostly the Meadows and your neighborhood. Hasek: Okay, there's another $5,000.00. Mady: We also have left over from last year $2,000.00 that was in our budget for Greenwood Shores parking which didn't get spent that could get broken in. Hasek: Is that still available Lori? ....." Sietsema: If it wasn't rebudgeted, it's gone. Mady: Okay, we didn't rebudget it. Robinson: What did Ed corne up with? $36,000.00 and Jim had another $5,000.1313? Hasek: Yes, so that'd be $41,131313.1313. Robinson: If we all agree with that. Boyt: There's the possibility of another $2,01313 from the City Center. Hasek: There's the possibility of a few things happening on there and I don't know that we necessarily want to pull down the whole amount and not implement some programs simply because we're over cautious here. Boyt: Yes, we don't know what the bids are going to corne in at. Hasek: So we're within, what was that, a total of $41,13013.013? We're at $66,000.1313 right now so we're at about plus or minus $20,131313.1313 short. Mady: I would like to see us maybe amend our budget, of Capital Improvement Program this year by $20,13013.130 on putting in the trail to get the job done. -' Sietsema: There's $21,13113.130 that are unallocated. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 35 ,...... Hasek: In the trail fund? Sietsema: In the 410 budget. The trail and park dedication. That's what we have. If we spend $20,000.00, then we have $1,000.00 that's unallocated. Hasek: Has that been our policy to spend it all or do we keep some in reserve for emergencies or is there any reason why we shouldn't use it? Sietsema: Yes, generally we do have some reserve but maybe for cases like this. Mady: We also have,...the Chaska Lion's lately? Sietsema: Not lately. Mady: That's always been $8,000.00. Sietsecia: Last year I think we got $18,000.00. Mady: I've gotten a little bit familiar with the pulltab business over the last month. They have to account for their funds almost on a monthly basis so I would hope that they have some indication of what they can do ",....... for us too as a possi bi 1 i ty for our future. Sietsema: They're not obligated to give us anything though. Mady: No, they don't have to give us any but they know what they've got and maybe a phone call would give us an indication of where they getting since they do give the City, since they pull them out of Chanhassen, they do give it back to Chanhassen. Hasek: What happens if the Carrico property comes up for sale this year? Sietsema: Then we look at our, we have under reserve, fund reserve. That's for matching grants for LAWCON and that type of thing. There's $100,000.00 in there that we could use that. Boyt: Should we talk about priorities on the list then? Hasek: Let's look at here? Is everybody comfortable with what we've done to this thing now? The way we've hatcheted it. Do you want to go through it real quick so we can see what's going on here? Schroers: Why don't you just go on the ones where you cut the money and see if we all agree? Hasek: Okay, under South Lotus Lake Park, we've taken $5,000.00 off the ,......totlot equipment. So just write that on the right hand column. Cross that out and put $5,000.00 over here. The tennis courts, we've taken $10,000.00 out of the tennis courts and we've reduced the tennis courts to one instead of two. Down under Minnewashta Heights Park, we've suggested, and this will have to go through the community out there, the possibility Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 36 -' of a half court basketball and two nets. I'm guessing that at about $5,000.00 based upon the half court price above here. So we've taken $15,000.00 out of there. That's reduced from $20,000.00 now to $5,000.00. We've gone down to Bluff Creek and pulled everything, $11,000.00 there. The total of that is $41,000.00 that we have pulled out of there which is going to go back into the Carver Beach. Sietsema: Also, warming house improvements. Hasek: Okay, we're going to pull that? $2,500.00? Boyt: I think so. And there's the possibility of water at Lake Ann. Water and electrical. Hasek: But that's a possibility. We don't want to take that off of here until we know...so now we're at $43,500.00. Sietsema: Todd's just indicated that if the Community Center does not go into the City Center Park site, that warming house does need work. It's used a lot so would hesitate to take that out. Mady: We fund our fiscal year, isn't our fiscal year September 30th though? Sietsema: No. January. ...."" Mady: We're on January I? Hasek: Okay, then I'm in favor of putting that $2,500.00 back in then. Schroers: I'd agree with that too. Hasek: Okay, now we're still, we've taken $41,000.00 out of this thing. Schroers: We're short $17,000.00 so if we can't come up with, have the water and electrical added in with the new development at Lake Ann, we can still resort to our surplus for the $17,000.00 and that would leave us $4,000.00 in there then right? Sietsema: Right. Boyt: That's assuming that we won't get a favorable bid too that might come in a few thousand dollars under that too. Schroers: Yes, this is assuming the full price. Sietsema: So we can take the $41,000.00 out of this and then ask for a budget adjust for anything else depending on what the bid comes. Hasek: So everybody understands what the motion is then? I will move that if it's alright with you guys. Can we prioritize this thing? Robinson: What would the budget adjustment consists of? -" Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 37 ,...., Hasek: Minus $41,000.00. Robinson: Yes, but that's not enough? Boyt: There's some more in a surplus fund. Robinson: Oh, that's the $20,000.00 or $2l,000.00? Sietsema: Yes, there's $21,010.00 that are unallocated. We've got some in reserve. We've got some in reserve for Lake Ann shelter. We've got some in reserve for Lake Susan Park. Mady: Is there a second? Boyt: Second. Mady: Okay, we've had a second now we can discuss. I had a question for Ed. A quick question on the bidding process. Have you seen any indication how bids are coming in on your job? I've heard something that maybe construction was going to be slack enough so bids are getting a little... """'Hasek: Yes, I think that's very true. My business, we have not had in the last 8 years, the year that has been as light as this year and it's a mystery why. I think that you're going to see a lot of hungry people out there. The reason they're holding back, my feeling is because of the new President. It happens every single time we get a new President. There's a lot of apprehension about what's going to go on with the economy and how things are going to settle up. Developers hold back and they're going to hold back until the water settles a little bit so there's going to be some hungry people out there this next year. I think we ought to get some real good bids out of this and if not, there might be some room to negotiate some of the bids. If we don't like them the first time, we'll submit them again. Watson: I hate to go in on this without any doing any denying. You zapped the Greenwood Shores play equipment without even discussing it. I don't have little kids anymore but there are a lot of little kids in that neighborhood. Schroers: Do you want to object to that? Watson: I can't vote yes on the changes in the capital improvement program until we've had at least some discussion about whether there is... Schroers: Well I definitely have a point of view on that. In our quest for parking at Greenwood Shores, it came up time and time again that the ~residents of Greenwood Shores want Greenwood Shores Park left alone. They don't want almost everyone that was a representative from Greenwood Shores said they don't want volleyball. They don't want totlot. They don't want parking. They don't want anything at Greenwood Shores. They want it left alone. I say, leave it alone. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 38 ...." Watson: I think that when you wrap the whole thing up in a parking package, you were going to get negative to anything else that was going on. Boyt: I don't think it was wrapped up in the parking package at that time. I think they were saying, regardless of what happens, we like it the way it is. I don't know, Jan, did you want to talk about it tonight? Jan Lash: My name is Jan Lash and I live in Greenwood Shores. I think Larry pretty well hit it on the head. I can't speak for everybody. I haven't been in contact with very many people but my feelings from last year was, really people are happy enough with it the way it is and they really don't care... Watson: You really don't care. If we lose it, it's gone and nobody's going to care? Jan Lash: I really don't know who ever wanted it in the first place. If somebody calls... Watson: I don't either. I just didn't want to lose it as far as the money to put it in goes, if there was some interest because my kids aren't little anymore so I don't need a totlot there. ...", Jan Lash: Most people have swingsets for their kids. Watson: We have big yards. Mady: Also recognize that too, if something changes, there's nothing to say you can't come back and say we want it. Jan Lash: People there are starting to get older. We're one of the younger families there and my youngest one is 6. He would probably use it if it was there but we have a swingset in our yard so when we go dow there, we go to swim and we don't go to, it sounds like you guys have a lot of better plans for it anyway. Boyt: There is another point that came up from the people who live in Chaparral. I spoke to my neighbor, they use that park. They would like to see totlot equipment there. Like I said before, this park supposedly serves Chanhassen. Not just Greenwood Shores. That's something that's come up over and over again. What's the best way to serve Chanhassen? We need to think of the whole city and not just neighborhood or not just people adjacent to the park. Jan Lash: Is there totlot equipment in Chaparral already? They have a big ballfield and I think there's playground equipment there? Boyt: They use the Greenwood Shores Park because it has swimming. ""'" Jan Lash: I know they use it. But they have totlot equipment... Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 39 '" Boyt: One of the things that constrained us last year was the parking. We were not allowed by Council to develop the park if it was not accessible. If parking wasn't there and I think we need to find out how Council is going to react this year. Are we allowed to put totlot equipment in a park if it's not accessible? Have the rules changed this year? I don't think a message has come down to us yet on that topic. Hasek: Part of the further confusion is the word accessible. If you look in the parking industry, the word accessible has to do with getting everybody, handicapped and normal people. It doesn't mean that you can get there anyway possible. Rolling down the hill. Walking. Driving your car. It means that everybody has the ability to use that park. If you put in a path, a path by accessible simply means that you can roll a wheelchair down it. That park right now is not accessible by definition. It isn't. 500 feet is not close enough to park a car and get a handicapped person down there with anything that you might want to take so that's not an accessible park as it stands right now. If you draw circles around that park, half of Chaparral is taken in as is Greenwood Shores with the ballfields. Those two parks actually serve that group of neighborhood down there. I'm really torn about this issue because I know we talked about the possibility and one of the neighborhoods said, we don't like parking down there but maybe in our neighborhood isn't where it should be coming from. Yes, there is a traffic problem but it's very """possible with the Eckankar development coming in now, that we're going to lose the possibility of putting parking anyplace else but out of that neighborhood. I still intend on pushing for parking. The Comprehensive Plan, if you look at the Comprehensive Plan, it talks about ultimately, they say no parking. They don't want that. They know that there's some problems, or whoever put that plan together realized that there were some problems with access through that particular neighborhood. But at the same time, they suggested taking the beach out of that particular park. That's in our Comprehensive Plan. One of the tools that's supposed to be driving our decisions here. It's like, well, we'll take out what we want and we'll throwaway the rest. When a developer comes in we'll use what we want to get with him and we'll throwaway the rest. I think it's about time that we start using the tools that are in place and if we don't like them, then we implement change of them as opposed to just adhoc making irrational decisions. My feeling is that I think that park should have totlot equipment in it eventually. I don't think that unless it's accessible to the users, that now is the time to put it in there. I think that park needs to be upgraded and I don't say that because it's a hot issue. I truly and honestly believe in the policy that parks are for the people. Yes, it's there mainly because that neighborhood was there but it also belongs to everybody who pays taxes in this town and everybody should be able to use it and until that happens, I just don't see how we can feel comfortable with upgrading it for that particular neighborhood and that neighborhood alone. ~Watson: And they don't really care. Hasek: The neighborhood doesn't care, right but the whole city. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 40 --' Boyt: ...what's going on, there were people from Greenwood Shores who called and said, what I don't go along with what everyone is saying. There are some people with a different opinion. Watson: I know that Sue. I remember the whole thing as though it happened the day before yesterday and I don't really see any point in kicking it around again. Number 2, I was on the Planning Commission when we wrote the Comprehensive Plan and I was the one who voted no and it's probably one of the things that I appreciate the most in my tenure here. Hasek: Did it pass? Watson: Of course it passed. I was the only person who voted no. Hasek: Then it's the policy for the City. Robinson: Lori, is there some reason for your recommendation or ar, you saying staff feels that it would be... Did you get input from someone or is tha t jus t . . . Sietsema: I've gotten input from people outside of the Greenwood Shores neighborhood that use the park that would appreciate totlot equipment. Watson: They're all people from Chaparral that walk down there. ......" Sietsema: And that's what that's based on. Jan Lash: I guess that whole thing is up to you. I guess where my confusion comes in in the whole thing is that last year when we went through the whole thing, and I've got all the Minutes and I practically have them memorized, there was a statement from Lori to Clark Horn when he asked, I thought that we had decided not to put in any improvements. Not to put in totlot equipment unless we had parking. You said, yes, that's correct. And he said, then why is this in here when we don't have the money in the budget and you said, well, it's not in the budget. We'd have to put it in next year. Now you guys have just discussed how you already purchased that equipment last year when from what Lori said in the meeting, you didn't have the money in the budget for it. I have Minutes from a meeting of yours in August where you made the budget and it said you were going to budget... (A tape change occured at this point.) Mady: ...spending the money to do it but then they took at a later date and said, you won't even put it in. So it's there. Jan Lash: It's just when you're reading this whole thing over, it starts looking kind of fishy. Sietsema: I'd have to read those. That's out of context so it's hard for ~ me to respond to that but all I can tell you is that it was the perception of the staff and the Commission that we were supposed to look into putting parking there and at that time they said no totlot equipment without Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 41 ,.,.., parking so we budgeted for both. Having that been perceived that that was our direction to pursue parking, we purchased the equipment thinking that the City Council was going to approve it. It didn't turn out that way so now we have the equipment and no parking and that's why I brought it up. What do we want to do with this equipment? Jan Lash: Is there a purpose for purchasing it before? Sietsema: It takes a while to get it and it's cheaper to buy it all at once. Jan Lash: So basically what you did was you ended up with it and you don't have a place to use it? Sietsema: We've got a lot of places to put it. Jan Lash: But don't you think that the proper way of doing that would be to wait until you know that you have the authorization to purchase it? Sietsema: We had the authorization. Jan Lash: Based on the parking going in. ~~ady: No, because it was included with the parking. The parking was all approved. Everything was approved in our budget when we did it. Hasek: It wasn't not approved when the parki ng was not approved. Jan Lash: So you were ordering it based on the assumption that the parking would be approved? Mady: Yes. They did approve it. They approved our budget. Sietsema: They approved the funding for the parking so it was anticipated that that would be approved. Jan Lash: So you should have all of that money left though? Mady: We didn't rollover in our 1989 budget so it left. Sietsema: It goes away. If you don't reallocate it, it goes away. Jan Lash: I guess with what Larry said, I guess that's obviously that's the way I feel. I haven't changed my mind in 6 months. When I look at the motion from July, I can quote Hamilton but I'm not going to do that. Sietsema: Excuse me, I missed the first part of your discussion. you're against or for it? iI""" . Jan Lash: I guess I would be waste of money to put it in. that it's important to have. of teenagers down there that So against it. I sort of feel like it's a There may be some people who really feel It's a difference of opinion. I see a lot do vandalism and I think it's one more thing Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 42 --' for them to try and trash and then somebody's going to get hurt on it and then you've got call the city and have them fix it. It just seems like it's a continuous circle of spending money unless there's just really a, if you had a bunch of people like from Pheasant Hills in here saying we want a totlot and we want equipment, hey, fine. If you can scrap the money together... Watson: But you don't have to... Jan Lash: That's whay I'm saying. I was out there scooping garbage out of the lake I don't know how many days last year. Hasek: What isn't understood here is that the people that are here, that take phone calls from those people that aren't here, it's assumed that we are here and...it's not only the people that show up either for or against an issue that have anything to say about that issue. I can't believe that the only people that should be believed are the ones that corne in and sit in these chairs. We're appointed like the Mayor is appointed. Like the Council people and the Planning Commission, to represent the entire City. It's not just the people that show up and fill these chairs that have to be accounted to. One of these days, maybe... Watson: There's no question about that and that's why I said, let's go to number 9 and look at it. If you think that the people in Chaparral who-, are not here really want that thing, that's the consensus of opinion, then put that totlot equipment in. It's there. Hasek: Exactly. Watson: That's why we're discussing it before we put it South Lotus Lake Park because that's what this is. Hasek: I guess what I'm saying, and I'm not disputing the discussion about the equipment there. I guess the issue I'm bringing up, and it's like lobbying or anything else, the point of it being is certainly to represent the people in the City, not just the people who show up here. Janet spends a lot of time here and I certainly appreciate the time that she spends here as everybody that shows up but it seems like the only time people show up is when they're against something and now when they're for something. The reason those people don't show up when they're for something is because they 'trust us to give their opinion in their steed. You know? I don't know why that's such a difficult concept to understand. We'll look at the one other thing too. Council when they gave the motion on Greenwood Shores Park said that we weren't supposed to bring the issue up. Well, they can say that all that they want to but if we want to bring an issue up here or anybody in this community wants to bring up an issue, they certainly have the right to do that. Council can not direct us not to bring an issue up. That's silly to see. I don't know if it got written into the Motion but if it did, that's certainly silly there too. --' Jan Lash: Yes, it is in the motion. But, I guess I can see some logic to that. If you want to has over the same topics every 6 months and send it back to Council every 6 months, that's up to you guys if you like to spend Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 43 .""..... a lot of time on the same things. From a taxpayer's point of view, those are the kind of things that really get people mad. It's like, there's a few people that are in power and when they get an idea, by god they're going to keep bringing it up and bringing it up until they wear you down so bad that you're just going to say, oh fine, let them do whatever they want. And that makes people mad. Boyt: Please, stop the discussion. Mady: Okay, we need to prioritize this unless you want to make a motion on Greenwood Shores. Otherwise let's prioritize the' budget. Watson: I just wanted to discuss it before we voted. Hasek: I think we've got a motion...and I apologize for getting off base. Mady: Okay, we have a motion on the Capital Improvement Program with the changes as noted and there was a second. Boyt: Do we need to include in there that someway of returning these projects to the budget as funds become available this year? Whether it's through lower bids or some other way? ..........Mady: Yes. Watson: Do you want to prioritize how they'd return? Mady: Upon bids coming in, we'd had the option to re-review them if the bids come in lower. Watson: Okay, and then we'd prioritize how we want them? Hasek: Wait a "minute. Why don't we just go through and prioritize everything as it stands right here and if it falls out because we need it someplace else, then it just by-passes that issue? That would save us a lot of hassle wouldn't it? Doesn't that make sense? Prioritize everything that's here and if we do take out, if we need the money from Bluff Creek Park, then that one falls out. If it's number 5, then we go to number 6. Sietsema: I need a motion on what you're going to take out of the budget and change to a different thing though because it is a budget adjustment that has to go to Council. Hasek: You didn't get that? Sietsema: Yes, but are you going to include this other part or not? ...,......,Hasek: Let's call for the question. Sietsema: So you don't want to add anything to the motion? Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 44 ...-Y Mady: One point of clarification first. Does that include amending the budget to include another $17,000.00 too? Sietsema: Budget adjust, yes. Robinson: I still didn't understand what we decided on the $5,000.00 from Greenwood Shores. Watson: It's going to go over to South Lotus Lake Park. That was the motion and there didn't seem to be reason to change it I guess. Hasek moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission adjust their 1989 Capital Improvement Program budget to move the following items from the 1989 budget to the trail development for Carver Beach Road and Laredo Drive: $5,000.00 from totlot equipment and $10,000.00 from the tennis courts for South Lotus Lake; $15,000.00 from Minnewashta Heights Park and $11,000.00 from Bluff Creek Park for a total of $41,000.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mady: The next is to prioritize. Boyt: I have a higher priority. South Lotus Lake Park for the ballfield construction. .-, Robinson: Now, first of all, we're prioritizing these things so Dale Gregory can get going? Sietsema: Right. Robinson: So the things that Dale Gregory doesn't do, we don't need to address? Mady: He has pretty much an impact on a lot of these things. Sietsema: Right. He works with... Robinson: Water and electrical to the shelter? Sietsema: No. Watson: That would be subcontracted wouldn't it. We'd have to bid that out or something. Mady: The amount of blacktopping the City does for basketball courts... Sietsema: I can tell you what he has to do with. He has to do with the totlot replacement, tennis wind screen, general improvements and ballfield construction and totlot equipment at South Lotus, off street parking and park identification signs at Carver Beach playground, general park improvements at Carver Beach, both things under Bandimere. If it's going to be a basketball court or something different at Minnewashta, he'd have ...."" Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 45 "'" to do with that. Chanhassen Pond woodduck houses. Watson: That's a priority. I like those. Sietsema: All of the things under City Center Park. The tree restocking and the miscellaneous. Hasek: The tennis courts was the only thing he didn't have something to do with. Mady: And the water and electrical. Sietsema: Water and electrical and tennis courts. Boyt: And Bluff Creek. Hasek: Bluff Creek is gone anyway. Mady: One of the things we need to define, if we put up the wood duck houses up at Chanhassen Pond Park. For those to do any good this year, they need to be in before the nesting season. Siestema: I think there's an Eagle Scout that's going to work on that. "'" Watson: That's what I was wondering. If that wasn't something that they could do because they're not very complicated. Sietsema: It's got to be in conjunction with something else but there is someone who's talking about doing it. Watson: Can you see Dale sitting there putting up wood duck houses. Ther must be someone else. Sietsema: On a 30 below zero day, it's a good thing to do. Boyt: He's not going to stick to this exactly but... Sietsema: And he delegates a lot of it out so he just needs to know what we want done first. Boyt: I think South Lotus Lake Park and I don't know if I should say just ballfields or probably everything? Hasek: The whole thi ng. Boyt: I think we need the ballfield desparately probably and so that's my high priority. Other than that, I don't care when the rest of it gets down. ,.... Hasek: The City Center Park, play surface, totlot equipment. That's going to be on hold until the issue of the community center. Sietsema: The same with the warming house. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 46 -' Hasek: We need to talk to the neighbors at Minnewashta Heights before we make a decision to put anything in there. Watson: And the restocking, they'll do that when it's opportune for them to do that. Boyt: The same with miscellaneous. Hasek: So that leaves us really with Bandimere. Now, Bandimere, are we still seriously considering a piece of property adjacent to Bandimere? Sietsema: It's still on the list. Mady: I guess nothing is out. Hasek: Nothing is out. When are we going to make a decision? Are we talking. . . Sietsema: I was going to have that come back this time but due to other things, hopefully it will be back on the next agenda. Hasek: list. Okay, so then maybe that's down towards the bottom now of the I'd like to put Lake Ann down as number 2. '-'" Sietsema: Lake Ann will have to probably wait until after the construction is done out there. The ballfield construction. Hasek: Are they going to go through the old area? Sietsema: It would seem to me that, that way they wouldn't have to work around it. Schroers: If it could be done in conjunction, hopefully we're going to get that included into it. Hasek: Okay, then I'd like to make a suggestion. Is it possible that we could pullout the existing play structure that's out there or really take a serious look at making it a little bit safer than it is? It's in really pathetic shape. It's falling apart. Mady: That's what this is. Sietsema: Is replacing it and trashing what's there. Hasek: Yes, but if we're not going to do this irmnediately, if we're going to wait until something else is done, I'd like to get the old one out of . there before somebody gets hurt on it or at least get it... Mady: Let's make it high priority. -' Sietsema: Put it high priority and he can work around it. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 47 ,....., Schroers: We can make the Lake Ann a two part thing. The water and electrical one thing and the totlot something else. We can prioritize the totlot and then hopefully the water and electrical goes in with the construction. Hasek: So we've got 1 and 2 figured out. How about, is there anything else on here? Mady: The wind screens would be nice to have in as soon as the tennis courts are available. Boyt: How long does that take him? I don't know if we need to put all this stuff on our list or just the major things. Watson: Because he needs the flexibility to kind of work around the weather and everything else. Hasek: How about Carver Beach? Boyt: I'd like to see Carver Beach and Bandimere Heights, off street parking because they service the children's baseball. That's where that off street parking goes and that starts this spring. ~Schroers: Which is used more, Bandimere or Carver Beach? Boyt: Both. They're both used the same. Bandimere is summer soccer all summer and fall soccer so I think Carver Beach is used sooner with the baseball. Schroers: Okay, so we could put Carver Beach 3 and Bandimere 4? Sietsema: He'd probably do them at the same time. Hasek: He's got that option. I guess he's looking for direction from us. Is there anything else here worth prioritizing? Mady: No. Keep in mind at Carver Beach, general improvements, we told the residents that we would be meeeting with them before we did anything there so that's also... Sietsema: We were talking about playground weren't we? Off street parking? Mady: I'm talking about the one next on Lotus Trail. Sietsema: Yes, that's on our next agenda. Schroers: Let's just note that we want the wood duck houses at Chan Pond ",",open before wood duck breed i ng season. Watson: Which isn't very long from now actually. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 48 --' DISCUSSION OF TOT LOT EQUIPMENT PURCHASES FOR LAKE ANN PARK, SOUTH LOTUS LAKE PARK AND GREENWOOD SHORES PARK. Mady: We need to discuss the types of totlot equipment. Boyt: I'd like to look at the catalog. Mady: Don't you have one? Boyt: No. I'd like to work with Lori on this and maybe is anyone else wants to. Mady: There are some really neat things in here. Schroers: I'd help out with that. Boyt: Maybe we could get together. Schroers: We should go take a look at the play structure at Hyland Lake Park. Hasek: Is that Mexican Forge. That's the catalog that we've got here. Is that where we buy most of our stuff? Sietsema: Yes. .....", Hasek: Do we know where there's a big complex of that around so we could take a look at it? Sietsema: I can find out. Boyt: Let's take a Sunday afternoon or something. Sietsema: I know there's some in Edina and there's some off of Crosstown. Mady: Eden Prairie. Sietsema: Eden prairie, most of theirs is Mexican Forge. Watson: The big one up there across from the airport. Hoffman: Staring Lake. Mady: Staring Lake is a beautiful example of a nice park. Nice play structure. Boyt: Let's go look at some parks. Larry said he would like to do it. I would like to be. Jim has the catalog. Sietsema: When would you like to do this? A Sunday? A Saturday? ......", Schroers: When it's a little warmer out. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 49 '" Mady: Later in March? Boyt: We need to order some of this stuff soon. Sietsema: When do you want it up? Boyt: This summer. Mady: It'd be nice, as soon as it's dry. Sietsema: That's May. Schroers: If you go look at totlot or playground equipment right now, you're not going to see a lot. Sietsema: It's all above the snow. Watson: It sticks up out of the snow pretty high though don't you think Larry? Schroers: Yes. But some things are taken down like nets and other parts of the apparatus are in storage. ",""Sietsema: I think that Dale's going to want to put it up in the early part of the summer before the grass is all growing and he's got his help right away. I think it's like an 8 week delivery time. So if you want it up June 1st, we have to know what we want by April 1. Hasek: How about if we just make it real quick and we'll go take a look here. Boyt: I can do it this Saturday morning. Schroers: Not this coming Saturday I couldn't. Hasek: How about if we just pick one, just find one for us to go take a look at we'll go take a look at it on our own. Schroers: How about if we go sometime more towards the end of the month anyway. End of February or beginning of March. Hasek: I think what she's going to do is just try to find one for us and maybe by the first meeting. Sietsema: I'll get a map together, whatever, a bunch of addresses and you can go on your own and look at different equipment or we can set up a group. If you can't make the group time... ~Mady: Would a week from Sunday work for anybody besides me? Boyt: Not at night. From 5:00 on. Mady: On a Sunday, I mean 1:00 in the afternoon. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 50 --' Sietsema: What's the date? Mady: That'd be about the 26th. We really miss our calendars here by the way. Hasek: You're going to put together map? If you pick a date, that's fine but there's no obligation to go? Mady: No. PARK DEDICATION FEES. Sietsema: The last time we talked about the park dedication fees, you asked if there could be three separate, one for the rural area, one for the urban and one for the commercial/industrial. Based on the land values given to me by the County Assessor, what I have in the staff report is what would be, what they would work out to. The only one that is more than the current on is the commercial/industrial and with the type of development we've got going, I do not believe that achieves your goal to increase the fees. Therefore, to either leave it the way it is at the rate that it is, or else use the formula where we use the average or real land cost, it's really the only way that I can see. That I can come up with because we have no source, we have no reliable source to tell us what-, real land values are different than what the County Assessor. If we could come up with something different, we could use that. Hasek: Get a copy of the guy who owns Carrico's purchase agreement. That's the real life. I don't know if I mentioned it last time but Plymouth is taking down, I hope I get the number right, $3,200.00 an acre for commercial. Sietsema: Yes. $650.00 for residential and it's $3,200.00 for commercial industrial. Eden prairie just raised theirs to $725.00 for residential and I believe it's $3,000.00 and something an acre for industrial. Boyt: Do you know what percent that is? Sietsema: According to their assessor, they have a city assessor so that's 10%. They base theirs on 10%. Mady: My feeling all along is that our County Assessor is kind of looking at this because he's based out of Chaska and the rural area. I really seriously believe that Chanhassen that's in the MUSA line is a lot closer to being Eden prairie than it is to being Young America. But for whatever reason, we can't seem to get what I would consider a reasonable opinion out of the Assessor so we're stuck with this. Watson: He keeps coming back, let's give him credit. He's consistent. -' Hasek: I don't see in here what our original numbers are. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 51 ,.... Sietsema: It's the attachment. It would be $425.00 per unit or 11% or the raw land value based on the developer's purchase agreement. Whichever is greater. Haesk: And each one would be looked at as they were brought in? So if we said 11% to them, it was a lot higher than that, we'd get it? Sietsema: Right, and the same would be true for the industrial where it would be $1,050.00 per acre or 11% of the raw land value. Hasek: It says 10% here. Sietsema: 10%, excuse me. Again, that would raise more than 11% if the density was higher. So it would be 9% for residential and it would be 13% to 20% on multi-family depending on the density. So it's the third paragraph on the first page of the attachment that outlines that. Hasek: So it's the back of the first page? Sietsema: Right. Dated January 18th. State Statute allows the City to require parkland dedication or fees in lieu of parkland through the subdivision process. Staff is proposing a formula that would be based on the average raw land values or the real raw land values, whichever is ~3reater. In other words, park fees would be $425.00 per unit until the raw land value was determined to be higher than $10,500.00 per acre. At that point, the park charge would be 11% for urban single family residential, 9% for rural residential and 13% to 20% on multi-family residential per unit depending on the density. Commercial/industrial would be done in a similar fashion. It would be a charge of $1,050.00 per acre or 10% of the raw land value. Again, whichever is greater. Therefore, raw land values of more than $10,500.00 per acre would create a fee of more than $1,050.00 per acre. Hasek: I guess I don't see any problem with those. It begs one question though. It say, we'd charging them $1,050.00 or 10% of the land value, whichever is greater. If $~1,050.00 were 12%, we would be doing something about... If the $1,050.00 were a greater amount. Sietsema: It would have to be pr,oved that 12% is unreasonable. Hasek: Okay. Then, if 12% is unreasonable, I say we go ahead with the whole thing but let's put in $500.00 for residential and let's put in $1,200.00 for commercial and work the figures that way. Watson: So the park fee would require...higher than $10,500.00 and then at that point at 11%. Sietsema: $500.00 a unit for residential? "... Hasek: Yes. Sietsema: Do you want to have something different for commercial industrial units? Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 52 ..."., Hasek: Yes, whatever. The $1,2@@.@@ instead of the $1,@5@.@@. Sietsema: I mean multi-family. Per unit. Right now it's $425.@@ for single family and it's $3@@.@@ for multi-family unit and it's $1,@5@.@@ per acre for commercial/industrial. Hasek: Based upon the numbers that we're looking at, what would you suggest? $35@.@@. Sietsema: $35@.@@? Mady: That's pretty close to what you did. Hasek: If there's no other discussion, I'll make the motion. Mady: I'll second it. Robinson: We discussed last time I think about the administrative end of this and getting appraisals and what not. I still think that's a possibility that this could be an administrative nightmare. I also wonder why nobody else has done this. Nobody else uses a percentage. They all use flat fees. Sietsema: It's easier to administer a flat fee. That's the bottom line ~ but with the requirements of the subdivision, we could make it a requirement to have to submit a purchase agreement so that we know what they paid for the property. That would solve that part of it. The other thing is that it's getting to be with everybody, there's so many different subdivisions out there that are now paying a percentage of their flat fee because they made park or trail dedications land, that I have to look up just about everyone anyway. I get every building permit across my desk to sign off on and I have to look up, in their subdivision to determine how much to charge them. It's getting to the point where so many more are not paying the flat fee because... Recognizing that state statute allows for cities to require a dedication of parkland and/or park dedication fees, Hasek moved to reccmrend that the city adopt a park dedica- tion fee schedule as follows: $ 500.00 350.00 1,200.00 Single Family Unit Multi-Family Unit Commercial/Industrial acre, except in cases where the real land values are higher than $12,500/acre, in which case the fee would be as follows: 9-11% of the cost per acre - Single Family, depending on density 13-20% of the cost per acre - Multi-Family, depending on density 10% of the cost per acre - commercial/Industrial Additionally, it is reccmn:mded that a purchase agreement be submitted at the time of application. Mady seconded the motion and it carried unanim:>usly. -" Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 53 ,..... COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: Mady: Under Commission Presentations, speaking of Curt, we were remiss in not doing this first off. Congratulating Curt in being reappointed to the Commission by the Council and Dawne Erhart was also appointed to fill Mike Lynch's vacancy. Number two, one thing from Todd. On North Lotus Lake basketball court request. Are we going to be reviewing that next week or at our next meeting? Sietsema: That's next meeting. Mady: Number 3 on here, Thursday night this week at Chaska Sr. High School commons, there's going to be a meeting with the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association and a number of other interested people concerning Eurasian Water Milfoil and there having someone at least the DNR speaking there. I plan on going to the meeting. Anybody who is interested I urge to go. I've had at least two different calls concerning Water Milfoil and what can we do at the boat access and how are we going to keep it out of Chanhassen lakes? There are some very, very, very interested people on Water Milfoil and I'm glad to see that. I'm glad they're taking an initiative on it. I think there's some council people that will be going to that meeting. A lot of neighborhood people are going to it. Anybody on Thursday night at 7:30 because it does affect everyone of the bodies of """'water in this city and actually the way it sounds, the entire State is threatened with this. We need to get some good information and get some discussion going on it. So that's Thursday night at 7:30 for anyone who's interested. That's at Chaska High School commons. The last thing I've got is, two years ago we met with the City Council in a general work session. Everything was on the table. It was informal. It was just put the tables together and talk and see where we need to head and what our thoughts are on various different things. I think it'd be nice, especially since we have a new Council, to do that again. Kind of get their thoughts. We all know where we're kind of heading. They might not know what we're thinking and we try to know where they're thinking and it'd be nice to kind of get a consensus of what their thoughts are anyway. We may not agree on everything but at least we know what their thoughts are. Boyt: Maybe we can meet like a half hour before their Council meeting or something since they're already there so we don't have to inconvenience them. Hasek: A lot of the City Council's take a half an hour or hour either before or after for general... Mady: staff them. ,..... Boyt: Let's go before. I guess I'm going to make a motion to direct to put the request to Council and we'll meet at a time convenient to ASAP. Second. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 54 ......,; Mady moved, Boyt seconded to direct staff to request the City Council for a joint meeting between the Park and Recreation Commission and the City Council at a time convenient to them. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Schroers: Just for your information, I have provided Scott Drummer with a set of plans for a bridge for an Eagle Scout project to compliment our other bridge. I mailed the plans to him the other day so I don't know exactly when he intends to actively start construction. Sietsema: Over the wet area on the other end of the pond. He was the one that was going to maybe do the a bridge or walking thing and the wood duck houses because he didn't think the wood duck houses would count for much. Schroers: He didn't talk to me at all about wood duck houses. He was just asking for a design and a plan for a bridge. So that's been provided for him. He has it. Mady: Is that a floating bridge? Schroers: No. It's a Polyenasian bridge. It's sunken down with pillars. Sietsema: Does anybody have any comments on the administrative section? ....."" Hasek: I do have something here. We were talking about Eckankar church and maybe this directed more to the mayor today. The City of Chanhassen doesn't have a zone for churches and institutional. Watson: It's a conditional use... Hasek: I understand that. The problem with that is that we lose the possibility of controlling what happens to those pieces of property. That church, if they did desire, could legally subdivide their property without us having anything to do with it. They could carve 4~ acres off of it and sell it to someone else and then at that point then we would have control over it but they can subdivide the property through the County without us ever seeing it, if they wanted to. If we implemented a zone or talked about the possibility of putting a zone in place now that would cover those, that anytime they wanted to do anything or even if you wanted to build the church, it would be rezoning for the existing piece to that particular zone. Whatever. If it comes out a residential or commercial, whatever, it'd be a rezoning. Because it's rezoning then, we could have some control over what happens on it where as it stands right now, Eckankar could conceivably legally can build that church and we've got not a darn thing to say about it as long as they meet the zoning ordinances. We're losing a lot of opportunities on that particular property. The second thing in regards to that, is that road that was on the western side of that property, dedicated? Sietsema: Yes. ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 14, 1989 - Page 55 /"""'" Hasek: So we have the right to use it now? We can still put our access in there? sietsema: Yes. You're talking about the right-of-way that's along the side of Lake Ann Park, yes. That is dedicated right-of-way. It's a paper road. Hasek: So we still have the right to use that. If we want to put a street in there for a second access or whatever out of the park, we can still do that? Good. It's just something you might want to think about. Talk to the Attorney and see if there's something we can do about it. It's not only for churches. It's a lot of other things that could go through... We have a lot of plans for that. Mixed residential. Commercial. Residential. If that doesn't happen, there's a lot of taxes... Hasek moved, Boyt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator ,,-.. ~repared by Nann Opheim 1""". ../ ........., ......",. -...."""