1989 01 24 Agenda
.
.
.
~.
~
~.
AGENDA
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TUESDAY, J&~UARY 24, 1989, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
~.
~.
~
Call to Order.
Appointment of Acting Chairperson.
Approval of January 10, 1989 Minutes.
~,,~
Discussion of Totlot Purchase at City Center Park - Appoint
President - Carol Olson.
Review Grading Plan for Lake Ann Park, Laurie McRosti.
&~
Commission Canididate Interview, Richard Mingo.
Review Park Dedication Fee Schedule.
Recreation Supervisor's Update on Programs.
~
/9': Discussion of Totlot Equipment Purchases for Lake Ann,
~/ South Lotus Lake Park, and Greenwood Shores.
;(~) Priori tize 1989 Capital Improvement Projects.
/
./
~_./
11. Commission Presentations.
..;
12. Administrative Section.
".
AGENDA
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1989, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
1. Call to Order.
2. Appointment of Acting Chairperson.
3. Approval of January 10, 1989 Minutes.
4. Discussion of Totlot purchase at City Center Park - Appoint
President - Carol Olson.
5. Review Grading Plan for Lake Ann Park, Laurie McRosti.
6. Commission Canididate Interview, Richard Mingo.
7. Review Park Dedication Fee Schedule.
8. Recreation Supervisor's Update on programs.
9. Discussion of Totlot Equipment Purchases for Lake Ann,
South Lotus Lake Park, and Greenwood Shores.
10. Prioritize 1989 Capital Improvement Projects.
11. Commission Presentations.
12. Administrative Section.
e
e
;
e.
.
CITY OF
CHAHHASSEH
~
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park and Recreation Commission
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation coordinator~
January 20, 1989 '">
DATE:
SUBJ:
Appointing Acting Chairperson
.
As we discussed at the last meeting, the Commission directd staff
to prepare a rotating chairperson schedule. The first order of
business, once the meeting is called to order, will be to appoint
an acting chairperson. Below please find a tentative schedule
for your consideration.
January 24
January 30
February 14
February 28
March 14
Curt Robinson
Sue Boyt
Ed Hasek
Larry Schroers
Carol Watson
.
CITY OF
CHAHHASSEH
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park and Recreation Commission
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation coordinator~
January 17, 1989
DATE:
SUBJ:
Totlot Purchase for City Center Park
Carol Olson of the Chanhassen APT will be present at the next
Park and Recreation Commission meeting to discuss playground
equipment. The APT has plans to purchase equipment and would
like to coordinate efforts with ~he City to the extent possible.
1/
.
.
.
.
CITY OF
CBAHBASSEH
!5-
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation
Coordinator S
DATE:
January 17, 1989
SUBJ: Grading Plan for Lake Ann Park Expansion Project
.
Lauri McRostie of OSM will attend Tuesday's meeting to present
the grading plan for the Lake Ann Expansion project. Upon Park
and Recreation Commission direction, the grading plan will be
presented to the City Council on February 13th. The next step in
the process will be for the Council to accept the plans and spe-
cifications and authorize the advertisement for bids.
.
10
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park and Recreation Commission
DATE:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator ~
January 20, 1989
FROM:
SUBJ:
Commission Candidate Interview, Richard Mingo
I have notified all of the applicants for the Commission position
as to the date and time that they will be interviewed on January
30th. Richard Mingo contacted me, indicating that he will be
unavailable on that evening. Therefore, I have scheduled his
interview for Tuesday evening instead at approximately 8:30 p.m.
Attached please find the list of questions that were discussed at .
the last meeting. I have condensed them to some degree, please
let me know if you would like to condense them further. The cri-
teria is also attached. It was Council's direction to have all
of the Commission's develop a list of criteria. To date, the
Planning, Public Safety, and HRA have not done so. Therefore,
our list has not yet received Council approval. However, as this
list has been used in the past by the Park and Recreation Com-
mission, staff feels it would be appropriate to continue to do so
now.
.
f.
DATE cc4-d::er-U. 11K~'
I
APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION
POSITION DESIRED ~-ar-K..6 'tr~O" G,11I11? . ALTERNATE
NAME: ~\r~ctfd I~~D BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL) 2-Io-3-C>.
ADDRESS I ~C \ Gre.Z!-t- 1'l"O..! (\~ ~\0 ~ .
HOME PHONE ct~L\-,Z.3(., BUSINESS PHONE ,:)\g-Sb2-1'f~1 C~~)
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN ~ I ~ear~'
HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY
~.5. +tam 1,,,,- Un" fYl-'S- c..\1"'ff'+ 5t-~', ( WI"..,a)
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF
DurIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY-
MENT AS WELL) ,
t?e1-\r~ - ~(r11lf ~w,,;T~ and ~h (, ~~s}.j~H'S/
It> ~e~ \.J2Can'2- H.~. I I. ~~ ~/'-'Om}':j-h.r) kUJ~ ffs, :2 0c~
. ~ \l5ouY11 I "jk , L()uln H.~ J CdId I~ ~ec.n;. 'dl-=-orTJllIj-h., ~~<><1"1 J.J.S oj
-
ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (INCLUDE ELECTIVE OFFICES AND HONORS OR
RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED, IF ANY) M'e.5iL+- mnl, 1-h-A'v,.xJ..aol ~c.J..:,(.h.fl Cv:;l(h~
~
$S' n ~ 9~3t;S rr~ I ~ t- J)'S~T/d- I;! G)";~.e-he3 Ass- ~ Sh-,c I 0 ~,nL
L~c)^ 'D=.s~~1 ]))~~d'i5- 53 rs ~ fYlU1z5~ ~~I' rr711f. L,UI1J J.J-.s fiJI stir-
<.rd)c~~_q '\O~ n~\ I tj .0e..~. ' ~
REASONS FOR SEEKIBG THIS POSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS: V~ rn~
In~\::6 In ~cu<c.-h~ c.~ ~\ -3~ h'dlil~ OJ~ f-!?oh~,(j( 6.-!1Jhdr~
~y"' 30 ~-u-s \n ~.\,...'I'\ ~ f~C\.F':) ~1I~ in C! nu..,k-- c;.)t-
~oA-~ Ul) bJ aLl ~G ~+ <L] .
IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME,
ENERGY, INTEREST, AND PARTICIPATION WIL~ BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PRE-
PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE
ABOVE COMMISSION.
n.":';C~;VE.O
NOV
3 1988
~hdT7' ~o
SiGNATURE: .
.
-
CITY. OF CHANHASSEN
1'-<5. ~ W\ ~ e.n '"I 3' ~ AYt 2<1".. -\0 r fl1~(j+hs ~ rebhA~ ~.l
(n~ -.tn~ -:t. wo\J.Al rrt\SS ~ ~c:A,~. :c ~uJ~ ~~~ ~.
?f1r ...J?r ,~~ ~ r ~GI") t t'l-")c:.. "&'t- .s~"l'")c 0 j- ~ff!- fl'Keh ~ ·
r.
-..-/
2.
"
~
~
(
o
(.y.
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Do you feel you have the time to make a commitment?
What do you feel is the future of parks and trails in
Chanhassen and what should be the Park and Recreation
Commission's focus?
What is your impression of the current park and recreation
system and what do you feel you can add (expertise?
knowledge?) .
What do you feel is the role of the Park and Recreation
Commission?
What are your feelings regarding conservation and
environment?
6 .
How do you think park development and acquisition is funded?
Please elaborate on why you wish to serve on the Park and
Recreation Commission.
.
.
.
.
CITY 0 F
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator ~
January 13, 1989
DATE:
SUBJ:
Criteria for Commission Selection
The Park and Recreation Commission is currently reviewing 13
applicants for 2 Commission positions. As directed by Council,
the Commission has developed the list of criteria below by which
to consider each candidate.
.
1. Membership should represent all areas of the City to the
extent possible.
2. Membership should be representative of all areas in propor-
tion to the total population.
3. Membership should consider re-appointment of current
outstanding members wishing to be re-appointed
4. Membership should be composed of a variety of careers and
interest groups throughout the community, i.e. business com-
munity, CAA, school representatives, lawyers, architects,
maintenance workers, etc.
5. Membership should, to the extent possible, include a variety
of age groups.
6. Candidate selection should be based on the interview.
The Commission will be holding interviews with the 13 candidates
at a special meeting on Tuesday, January 31, 1989 at 7:00 p.m.
The Commission has extended an invitation to Council members
wishing to be involved in the interview process. Upon Council
approval the Commission will proceed with the selection of can-
didates based on the proposed criteria.
.
CITY OF
CHAHHASSER
.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 5~317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park and Recreation Commission Applicants
FR OM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator ~
January 13, 1989
DATE:
SUBJ:
Candidate Interviews
Thank you for your interest in serving on the Park and Recreation
Commission. The Park and Recreation Commission has scheduled a
special meeting for commission candidate interviews. The meeting
will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 31, 1989 at
Chanhassen City Hall. Please refer to the enclosed schedule for
your interview time. You should plan to be at City Hall about 15
minutes before your interview is scheduled in case we are running .
ahead of schedule.
Please contact me at 937-1900 if you are unable to attend and we
will try to make other arrangements.
.
.
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Tuesday, January 31, 1989
7:00 7:10
7:15 7:25
7:30 7:40
7:45 7:55
8:00 8:10
8:15 8:25
8:30 8:40
8:45 8:55
9:00 9:10
9:15 9:25
. 9:30 9:40
9:45 9:55
10:00 - 10:10
Candidates were scheduled in
Curt Robinson
Dawne Erhart
Erik Paulsen
Hi-' .xi IlL!::r-
Janet Lash
Wes Dunsmore
Jerry Maher
Jeff Bros
Gary Bass
Jim Storm
Barry Johnson
Michael Schroeder
Jeff Farmakes
the order applications were received.
.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
.7
.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park and Recreation Commission
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator//
January 18, 1989 /
DATE:
SUBJ:
Park and Trail Dedication Fees
The Park and Recreation Commission and members of the City Coun-
cil have expressed a desire to increase park dedication fees. It
is felt that the County Assessor's average raw land value estima-
tation of $10,500 per acre is low and that park property cannot
be purchased for that price. As was discussed at our last
meeting, one way to increase the park fee would be to change our
standard parkland requirement from one acre per 75 people to one .
acre per 50 people. Staff was directed to work up the figures as
they relate to the rural, urban and commercial/industrial areas
(please see attached).
This illustrates one way to increase the fee, however, this
becomes a requirement of 15%-19%. The standard, which has been
upheld as "reasonable" when challenged, is 10%. It is
questionable whether 15%-19% will be considered "reasonable"
should it be challenged. Therefore, staff has looked into other
alternatives.
State statutes allow 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 average raw land
values or real raw land values, whichever is greater. In other
words, park fees would be $425 per unit until the raw land value
was determined to be higher than $10,500. At that point the park
charge would be 11% for urban single-family residential, 9% for
rural residential, and 13% - 20% on multi-family residential
(depending on density). Commercial/industrial would be done in a
similar fashion - $1,050/acre or 10% of the raw land value, again,
whichever is greater. Therefore, raw land values of more than
$10,500/acre would create a fee of more than $1,050/acre (see
illustration on next page).
.
.
.
.
Park and Recreation Commission
January 19, 1989
Page 2
Urban Single Family Developments (Density 2-4 units/acre):
Land Values per Acre: 11% Fee per Acre:
$ 5,000 $ 550
7,000 770
9,000 990
11,000 1,210
15,000 1,650
20,000 2,200
Per Unit Fee:
$ 200
275
353
432
589
785
If land is required, the same process is used as has been in the
past. If cash is required, the developer would be required to
pay $425 per unit, or 11% of the raw land value; whichever is
greater. As is illustrated using the table above, $425 per unit
is the greater amount until land values are higher than $11,000
per acre.
Staff feels that this is an equitable way to deal with the Park
Dedication Fee and helps to allieviate the problems that have
occurred when the land being developed is unsuitable for parkland
and such must be acquired outside of the subdivision.
Trail fees are difficult to determine. The Park and Recreation
Commission must decide if we want to fund sidewalks in residen-
tial areas or connecting trail systems. To expect a trail fee to
cover both is unrealistic. At best we can require new develop-
ments to make a contribution as the trail fee would have to be
exorbitant to cover the cost of sidewalks within developments and
connecting trail segments.
Staff feels that the Park and Recreation Commission should pass
the responsibility of sidewalks on to the Planning and
Engineering Departments, asking them to consider whether it
should be made a requirement of the subdivision. The trail dedi-
cation fee would then be put into a fund to construct an inter-
connecting system.
Again, it is difficult to determine how much to charge a new
development for a trail system. A fee equalling 1/3 of the trail
dedication fee seems reasonable and staff would continue to
recommend such.
Fee Worksheet @ 1 Acre/50 People
.
1. 100 Acre Single Family Urban Development:
100 x 2.5 units = 250 units
250 units x 3 people/unit = 750
750 ~ SO/acre = 15 acres required
If cash is required in lieu of land:
15 acres x 10,600/acre = $159,000
$159,000 . 250 units = $636/unit
2. 100 Acre Single Family Rural Development:
100 acres x 1 unit/lO acres = 10 units
10 x 3 people/unit = 30 people
30 . SO/acre = .6 acres of land
If cash is required in lieu of land:
.6 acres x $10,600/acre = $63,600
$63,600 ~ 10 units = $636/unit
.
3. 100 Acre Multi-Family (R-12)
100 x 12 units/ace = 1,200 units
1,200 x 2 per unit = 2,400 people
2,400 7 SO/acre = 48 acres required
If cash is required in lieu of land:
48 acres x $10,600/acre = $508,800
$508,800 : 1,200 units = $424/unit
.
CITY OF
eHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation coordinator/o
January 12, 1989 :>
DATE:
SUBJ:
Park and Trail Dedication Fees
.
The Council discussed park and trail dedication fees at their
last meeting. A number of questions arose regarding how
the fees are determined and what amounts other communities are
charging. Attached please find the information used to determine
the current fees and the minutes with the Commission's
discussion. This is simply to inform you of what has transpired
on this item to date. The ParK and Recreation Commission is
reviewing this item at this time to determine what the 1989 fee
schedule should be.
.
1./
CITY OF
CBAHBASSEH
.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation coordinato~
DATE: December 30, 1987
SUBJ: Park Dedication Fee Requirements
Existing cash park fees for the City of Chanhassen are as
follows:
,
Single Family Unit
Duplex
MUlti-Family & Townhouse:
Efficiency
1 bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
4 bedroom
Commercial/Industrial
$ 415
415
110
200
330
405
425
1035
.
The Park and 'Recreation Commission is required to review the Park
Dedication requirements on an annual basis and submit a recommen-
dation to the City Council. The fee schedule above has not changed
since 1982.
Enclosed is a copy of a report completed by Schilling Environment
Consultants for the City of Vadnais Heights regarding park dedi-
cation fees. This report compares the park fees of fourteen
cities within the seven county metropolitan area, and points out
several interesting facts. The most common method for charging
cash park fees is a flat fee base for residential land use. For
commercial/industrial land uses the most common method used by
local governments appears to be based upon a percentage of the
total site to be required in either land or cash equivalent.
Chanhassen uses a flat fee for both residential and commercial,
office and industrial.
,
.
.
.
.
Park and Recreation Commission
December 30, 1987
Page 2
The comparison between cities that have flat cash dedication
fees is as follows:
1. White Bear Lake
Single Family
Duplex
MUltiple Family
Commercial/Industrial
2. Little Canada
Single Family
Multiple Family
Commercial/Industrial
3. Eagan
Single Family & Duplex
Townhouse
Apartment & Condo
Commercial/Industrial
4. Woodbury
Single Family
Duplex
Multiple Family
Commercial/Industrial
5. Lakeville
Single Family
Duplex
Multiple Family
6. Eden prairie
$375/unit
$750
$250/unit + $75/
bed added above
the 1st bedroom
$1,500/acre exclud-
ing streets and
roads
$300/unit
$lOO/unit
5% of the fair
market value of
undeveloped land
$440/unit
$365/unit
$275
Cash equivalent of
$.04/s.f. of devel-
opment less roads
$400/unit
$300/unit
$200/unit
Cash equivalent of
$1200/ac. - Indust.
$lSOO/ac. - Commer.
$1800/ac. - Office
$370/unit
$750
$250/unit + $75
above 1st bedroom
Single Family $420/unit
All Other Residential $320/unit
Off/Commercial/Industrial $2300/acre
Table three of the report indicates a comparison of how much park
fees would be raised from a typical single family residential
subdivision in the various communities as well as a multi-family
residential subdivision. Eden Prairie, whose fee structure is
most similar to Chanhassen, is sixth out.of fourteen in the
amount of fees that would be generated from single family resi-
dential and is number one in the amount of fees that would be
generated from multi-family residential. The amount of money
that would be generated from commercial/office/industrial for the
City of Eden prairie indicates the largest degree of inequity in
comparing with other cities in the survey; however, when compared
Park and Recreation Commission
December 30,1987
Page 3
.
~ with other fast-growing cities such as Eagan and Woodbury, the
City of Eden Prairie feels they actually generate more dollars
per amount of commercial/office and industrial developed.
This survey points out that there is no totally fair and
equitable method for comparing how cash park fees should be
generated from single family land, compared to multiple, or com-
pared to commercial/office or industrial property. The bottom
line test for a court of law must be whether or not a city can
prove that the proposed development generates the same amount of
need for additional parks or recreation facilities as is charged
by the city. Obviously, the easiest category to prove a need is
single family residential. Multiple family residential is also
relatively easy, however; it is more difficult to prove what
amount of need commercial/office and industrial users bring to a
city. As long as cities such as Chanhassen allow individuals
who "live or work" in the City to have equal access to facili-
ties, leagues, etc., it is much easier to prove the additional
need for recreation facilities and parks with new
commercial/office and industrial development.
,
Another aspect to be considered in Chanhassen is the newly
established trail fee of $138 applied to residential develop-
ments. Few cities have a trail fee, however, most other cities
have trail construction requirements, i.e. developers are
required to build trails identified on trail plans as construc-
tion occurs. As our trail fee is new, and primarily affects
residential developments, staff feels an increase in single and
multipl~ family fees would be excessive at this time.
.
In light of this, staff recommends no increase in park dedication
fees for single family developments. Additionally, it is recom-
mended that a'flat fee be established for multiple family develop-
ments, rather than the variable rate (this figure was determined
by taking the average unit fee). As commercial, industrial and
office developments are not impacted by the trail fee, it is
recommended that the fee for such be raised by 10%. The recom-
mended dedication fee schedule appears as follows:
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Commercial/Office/Industrial
$ 415/unit
295/unit
1,140/acre
.
~
.'
.
.
}, )
...~..Y.:t....>;(...
'~.~.~.:':~~~.~. .
-~I- ~.-:. ;;~..-: ....
Schilling Environmental Consultants
f
i
2785 White Bear Avenue. Suite 210 . Maplewood. MN 55109. (612) 777-6606
REPORT ON THE ANALYSIS OF PARK DEDICATION FEES
OF
SELECTED CITIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA
Joel G. Schilling, Principal
October, 1987
INTRODUCTION
The following report presents an analysis of park dedication fees of fourteen
(14) cities selected from within the Seven County Metropolitan Area. The cities
included are as follows:
Arden Hills
Coon Rapids
Eden Prairie
Eagan
Lakeville _. Little Canada .,
Mahtomedi Oakdale
Roseville Shoreview
White Bear Lake Woodbury
Vadnais Heights White Bear Township
The process of selection included in first priority those local governments
immediately surrounding Vadnais Heights, second those cities in which a
substantial amount of residential and/or commercial-industrial development is
occurring (Eagen, Eden Prairie Woodbury) and finally some randomly scattered
cities (Coon Rapids, Oakdale, Lakeville, Mahtomedi). The analysis included both
the examination of schedules for land as well as cash dedication formulas or
fees.
LAND AND CASH DEDICATION
Table I illustrates the land dedication formulas or fee percentage for eleven of
the fourteen cities.
Over half the local governments have a land dedication
formula based upon a sliding scale depicting a percentage of the dwelling site
density versus the development area.
J
"
-2-
'-
Those cities which do not show a land dedication formula, rely instead upon cash~
dedications being adequate for the outright purchase of park property needed.
Table II describes the formula or fee schedules used by all fourteen local
governments for cash park dedications.
In both Tables r and II the park
dedication requirements are shown for both residential (single and multi-family)
and commercial/industrial landuses. In contrast to the land dedication table,
only four of the fourteen cities make use of a density based cash dedication
formula for residential landuse. The more common method appears to be a flat
fee base for residential landuse. For commercial/industrial landuses, the most
common method used by local governments appears to be based upon a percentage of
the total site to be required in either land or cash equivalent.
A group of
five cities use either a fee per acre basis (White Bear Lake, Woodbury, Eden
Prairie) or fee based upon either square footage of the building or development
site (Vadnais Heights, Eagen).
ANALYSIS
Next an attempt was made to provide a perspective upon the various
government park dedication fees by using specific development examples.
local A
Table ..
III presents three different examples of actual developments within the City of
Vadnais Heights together with the actual or probable resultant park dedication.
Example No.1 is a single family residential development of. 81 homes upon 42.84
acres. The park dedication for the City of Vadnais Heights was $ 33,544 which
falls in the upper half of the fourteen local governments surveyed. The amount
of dedication by Vadnais Heights translates into $ 414 per home which is similar
to the flat fee amounts used by a number of cities (Woodbury, Eagan, Eden
prairie, Coon Rapids). Small residential developments (less than 5 acres, both
single family and multi-family) in Vadnais Heights are not treated equitable as
are larger similar developments which will be discussed later. The top half of
the cities in Table III have cash dedication amounts which are nearly identical
to the undeveloped land dedication amounts (equivalent cash values). The lower
half of cities, however, would find it particularily difficult to justify a
taking of land instead of cash. A compounding problem for the upper half of
cities is the value of the finished land in the above
example.
In this
$ 55 - ~
-
example, the land when finished with utilities and streets has sold for
75,000 per acre (less the residence) and $ 150 - 300,000 with the home!
.
'--
.
.
-3-
Therefore, a city finds it very difficult to take a land dedication which is
often worth less than half the value of the bare developable property. Instead a
city often receives land which requires the expenditure of considerable funds to
fill low areas, remove unstable soils or has steep undevelopable slopes.
Example No. 2 is a mUlti-family residential development of 113 apartment units
on 7.25 acres. It _ is apparent in this example that there is a much larger
spread of park dedication cash amounts. Vadnais Heights is in the lower half of
the fourteen cities with a cash dedication equal to $ 154 per unit. While
initially this seems quite low, it should be stressed that the City may require
an additional expenditure by the developer in the form of a small playlot. In
nearly all the cities examined in this study,: mUlti-family developments
contribute less cash on a per unit basis than single family residences. While
this is certainly not equitable, the Vadnais Heights approach of sometimes
requiring an additional play area to be built provides some logic in requiring
less cash payment on a unit basis [Some local governments have a similar
requirement] .
Example No. 3 is a commercial/industrial development consisting of a light
manufacturing building of 24,644 S.F. on 1.9 acres. Here is found the greatest
disparity among cities in how cash dedication is handled. Two thirds of the
cities require a percentage of the land in equivalent cash value on the order of
5 - 10 %. Other cities have required a fee based upon a per acre or square
footage of development. The former example seems to be logical in that it
equates the value of the dedication with the value of a similar amount of land
which could be taken. In other words, in the case of Vadnais Heights it would
seem impossible to take a land dedication valued at $16,553 when the required
cash dedication is only $1,200. Conversely, White Bear Township could take
either land or cash as they would be equivalent. The requirement for any land
or cash dedication for commercial/industrial landuse arises occasionally and
should be discussed. First, it would seem that many cities have been requiring
a substantial cash dedication for some time with no problems with respect to
development (Roseville, Arden Hills). Second, clearly a commercial or industrial
enterprize has no direct need for parks in contrast to police, fire and public
works needs, but indirectly its workers may choose to relocate to a city whoose
park system is adequate and well maintained. Therefore, the attractiveness of a
city is dependent upon its ability to acquire the necessary park funds from ~
its residents.
-4-
~
Third, there is a need for a growing city to have a competitive edge in the~
attraction of new development and therefore a lower percentage contribution of
cash or land dedication for commercial/industrial development may be in order.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is recommended that the complex density based system for cash dedication
for residential properties be dropped and instead be replaced by a simple
flat fee basis as follows:
Single Family - $ 400/unit
Duplex - $ 300/unit
Multi-Family - $ 200/unit
2. The land dedication formula should remain as a desity based system as it
seems to have functioned adequately.
~
3. The cash dedication for commercial/industrial landuse should be changed to
a simple percentage fee based upon 2 to 5 percent of the undeveloped fair
market value.
~
.
.
.
.Cl.n
-5-
TABLE I
PARK
LAND DEDICATION
Vadnais Heights 9 - 20% of site, density based*
RESIDENTIAL
White Bear Lake 10 % of the total site.
Shoreview 10 % of the total site.
Little Canada 10 % of the total site.
Roseville
White Bear Twp.
Arden Hills
Oakdale
Coon Rapids
Plymouth
Fridley
Mahtomedi
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
10 % of the total site
5 % of the total site
10 % of the total site
10 % of the total site
10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site
10 - 15 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site
10 - 15 % of site, density based. o - 15 % of the total site
5 - 17 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site
5 - 18 % of site, density based. 3 - 5 % of the total site
0 - 25 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site
10 % of the site
7 % of the total site.
3 % of the total site
7 % of the total site
~
Vadnais Heights
White Bear Twp.
Arden Hills
DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE*
0-2
2 - 4
4 - 6
6 - 8
8 - 10
10+
units/acre
"
"
"
"
"
0 - 3.5 units/acre
3.5 - 4.5 "
4.5 - 6.0 "
6.0 - 7.0 "
7.0 - 8.0 "
8.0 + "
0 - 2 units/acre
2 - 3 "
3 - 4 "
4 + "
LAND DEDICATION (%l
9 %
11 %
13 %
15 %
17 %
17+ - 20 %
10 %
11 %
12 %
13 %
14 %
15 %
10 %
11 %
12 %
12 - 15 %
-6-
TABLE I (cont'd)
.
Oakdale 0 1 units/acre 5 %
1.1 - 3 " 10 %
3.1 - 4 " 11 %
4.1 - 5 " 12 %
5.1 - 6 " 13 %
6.1 - 7 II 14 %
7.1 - 8 " 15 %
8.1 - 9 " 16 %
9.1 - 10 II 17 %
10.1 + " 17+ %
Coon Rapids o - 1 units/acre 5 %
2 - 3 II 10 %
4 - 5 " 12 %
6 - 7 II 13 %
8 - 12 " 14 %
13 - 16 " 18 %
16+ II 18+ %
Plymouth 0 - 2 units/acre 10 %
3 - 4 " 11 %
5 - 6 " 14 %
7 - 8 " 15.5 %
9 - 10 " 17.5 %
11 - 12 " 20 %
.
.
.
...
.
.
-7-
TABLE II
PARK - CASH DEDICATION
~
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE
Vadnais Heights
(Development sites
of 0 - 5 acres)
o - 3 units/acre
3 - 6 "
6 - 8 "
DENSITY UNITS/~CRE
(Development sites 0 - 2 units/acre
of 5 or more acres) 2 - 4 "
46"
6 - 8 "
8 - 10 "
10 + n
* undeveloped land value without utilities.
CASH DEDICATION
$ 200/unit
$ 250/unit
$ 300/unit
% OF LAND VALUE
9 % *
11 %
13 %
15 %
17 %
17 - 20 %
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
$ 200 per 4,000 S.F. of building or 5 % of value of appraised undeveloped site
White Bear Lake
Single Family
Duplex
Apartments, townhouses, condos.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
$ 1,500 per acre, excluding streets and roads.
$ 375/unit
$ 750
$ 250/unit + $75/bed
added above the first bedrrn
Shoreview
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE
o - 2 units/acre
2.1-3 "
3.1 - 4 n
4.1 - 5 "
% OF LAND VALUE
4 % *
5 %
6 %
7 %
5.1 + .. 10 %
* undeveloped land value with utilities included on or near the site.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
10 % of the fair market value of the land.
White Bear Twp.
Single Family
Multi Family
OR
$ 175
$ 175/dwelling unit
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE % OF
o - 3.5 units/acre
3.5 - 4.5 "
4.5-6.0 "
6.1-7.0 "
7.1 8.0 ..
8.1 + n
* undeveloped land value with utilities not included.
LAND VALUE
10 % *
11 %
12 %
13 %
14 %
15 %
-8-
Table II (cont'd)
.
"
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
10 % of the fair market value of the land.
Little Canada
Single Family
Multi Family
$ 300/unit
$ 100/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
5 % of the fair market value of the undeveloped land.
Roseville
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of the undeveloped fair market value of 10 % of gross site
area.
Arden Hills
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of the undeveloped land value using the same percentage as
land dedication formula.
Oakdale
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE CASH DEDICATION .
0 - 1 units/acre $ 275/unit
1.1 - 3 " $ 275/unit
3.1 - 4 .. $ 250/unit
4.1 - 5 " $ 250/unit
5.1 - 6 " $ 250/unit
6.1 - 7 .. $ 220/unit
7.1 - 8 .. $ 220/unit
8.1 - 9 .. $ 220/unit
9.1 - 10 .. $ 220/unit
10.1 + .. $ 220/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent value of the 10 % land dedication required.
Coon Rapids
Single Family
Two Family
Townhouses
Mobile Homes
Multi
$ 384/unit
$ 326/unit
$ 286/unit
$ 291/unit
$ 238/unit
COMMERCIAL
3 % of the fair market value with a maximum of $1152 (3x Single Family)
INDUSTRIAL
5' % of the fair market value with a maximum of $1152 (3x Single Family)
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
10 % of the undeveloped fair market value or $ 200/1ot whichever is greater.
.
Mahtomedi
.
'"
.
.
-9-
TABLE II(cont'd)
Eagan
Single Family or duplex
Townhouse
Apartments & condominiums
$ 440/unit
$ 365/unit
$ 275/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of $ O.04/S.F. of development less roadways.
Woodbury
Single Family
Duplex
Multi Family
$ 400/unit
$ 3.00/unit
$ 200/unit
CONMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of $ 1,200/acre - industrial, $ ~,500/acre _ commercial,
$ 1,800/acre office.
Eden Prairie
Single Family
All other
$ 420/unit
$ 320/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of $ 2,300/acre.
Lakeville
Single Family
Duplex
Apartments/Townhouse/Condominium
$ 375/unit
$ 750
$ 250/unit + $ 75
above the first bedroom.
Note: Information on the cities of Mahtornedi, Eagen, WOOdbury, Eden Prairie, and
Lakeville was acquired from a White Bear Township memorandum of September 15,
1987 from Jan Regan to the Town Board/Park Board.
-10-
TABLE III
.
'-
PROBABLE PARK DEDICATION SUMMARY
EXAMPLE No. 1 - Single Family Residential
This example consists of a single family residential development in the City of
Vadnais Heights. Site construction was begun in 1986 and consists of 81 homes
on 42.84 acres (density: 1.89 units/acre). The appraised undeveloped land value
is $ 8,700/acre for a total value of $ 372,708. The following is a summary
table listing each city's probable park - land or cash dedication based upon the
information within tables I and II which would be required if the development
took place within their corporate boundaries.
au CASH DEDICATION .LAND DEDICATION
Arden Hills $ 37,271 4.28 acres.
Mahtomedi $ 37,271 4.28 ..
Roseville $ 37,271 4.28 ..
White Bear Twp. $ 37,271 4.28 "
Eagen $ 35,360
Eden Prairie $ 34,020
Vadnais Heights $ 33,544 (actual amount paid) 3.86 ....
Woodbury $ 32,400
Coon Rapids $ 31,104 4.28 .. .
Lakeville $ 30,375
White Bear Lake $ 30,375 4.28 ..
Little Canada $ 24,300 4.28 ..
Oakdale $ 22,275 4.28 ..
Shoreview $ 14,908 4.28
. Value of the dedicated land: 4.28 acres x $ 8,700 $ 37,236
** Value of the dedicated land: 3.86 acres x $ 8,700 = $ 33,582
-
.
.
'-
.
.
-11-
TABLE III (cont'd)
EXAMPLE No.2 - Multi Family Residential
This example consists of an apartment complex of 113 dwelling units upon 7.25
acres (density: 15.6 units/acre). The complex is in the City of Vadnais Heights
and has begun construction in late 1987. The park dedication is an estimate
based upon an appraised undeveloped land value of $12,000/acre or a total land
value of $87,000.
c.n
CASH DEDICATION
LAND DEDICATION
Eden Prairie
Lakeville
White Bear Lake
Eagan
Coon Rapids
Oakdale
Woodbury
Mahtomedi
White Bear Twp.
Vadnais Heights
Arden Hills
Little Canada
Roseville
Shoreview
$ 36,160
$ 35,000
$ 35,000
$ 31,075
$ 26,894
$ 24,860
$ 22,600
$ 22,600
$ 19,775
$ 17,400
$ 13,040
$ 11,300
$ 8,700
$ 8,700
0.72
acres
1.30
1. 81
"
"
0.50
1. 09
1. 45
1. 09
0.72
0.72
0.72
...-
-12-
EXAMPLE No. 3 - Commercial/Industrial
TABLE III (cont'd)
'-
This example consists of a light manufacturing building of 24,644 S.F upon 1.9
acres. The complex is in the City of Vadnais Heights and was constructed in
late 1986. The park dedication is an estimate based upon an undeveloped land
value of $ 65,340/acre or a total land value of $ 124,146.
O.IX
Arden Hills
Mahtomedi
Oakdale
Roseville
Shoreview
White Bear Twp.
Little Canada
Coon Rapids
Eden Prairie
Eagen
White Bear Lake
Woodbury
Vadnais Heights
'"
CASH DEDICATION
$ 18,295 (probable maximum)
$ 12,415
$ 12,415
$ 12,415
$ 12,415
$ 12,415
$ 6,207
$ 6,207
$ 4,370
$ 3,000
$ 2,850
$ 2,280
$ 1,200 (actual amount)
LAND
DEDICATION
0.28 acres
0.19 "
0.19 "
0.19 "
0.19 It
0.19 "
0.19
0.09
"
0.09
"
0.19
"
.
.
.
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
~~GULAR MEETING
. ...1NUARY 26, 1988
/. Q \
Chairman Lynch called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Carol Watson, Curt Robinson, Mike Lynch, Jim
Mady, Larry Schroers and Ed Hasek
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mady moved, Hasek seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated December 8, 1988.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
INTERVIEW COMMISSION APPLICANTS.
Sietsema: Your options for the commission applications is to direct
staff to readvertise for more applications or to appoint the ones that
have applied. It's up to you.
Watson moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend reappointment of Jim Mady and Larry Schroers to the Park and
Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and motion carried.
.1
PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE FEES.
Sietsema: I don't know if you want to go over this in detail.
Basically what I did is I looked at the study that was done by Schilling
Environment Consultants and took a good hard look at what other cities
are doing. We seem to be right in the running with what other cities
are doing. What I've recommended is that the single family and duplex
remain the same. That we consolidate all of the multi-family instead of
having the different ones for each kind of unit and what I did is
basically I added them all up and divided by however many there are.
So I took an average of all those which seemed to be an appropriate
figure also. Then I've recommended an increase of 10% for the commercial
office and industrial. The reason that the 10% increase was recommended
for the commercial/industrial was because the single family units will
be filling an increase in dedication fees with the addition of the trail
fee. Although that's a different fee and they are not really one in the
same, I did not think the timing was right to increase the park fee and
add a new fee as well. For the commercial/industrial isn't really
effected by the trail fee, or is very minimumly so I've recommended an
increase in the industrial.
Boyt: I think we should double the industrial. I that at 1,000 homes,
$140.00 per acre, we're assuming that the maximum number of people we
..0Uld have is 7.5 per acre. These people would then be treated the same
.f they had 7.5 per acre as a single family unit. I think it would be
ore comparable to Eden prairie in our commercial/industrial. The
people who work in these facilities generate the same amount of need for
additional parks and recreational spaces. I think we're going to have
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 2
.
r-
'- J
more than 7 people per acre In the industrial facilities.
Lynch: You really think they do generate the same amount Sue?
Boyt: Yes, like in Eden Prairie. Anyone who works in Eden prairie is
eligible to belong to the Community Center. To use that facility.
We're going to be having more facilities and you're going to be eligible
to use those if they work in Chanhassen.
Lynch: I can't imagine, for instance, that they're going in programs in
Eden prairie if they live in Bloomington.
Boyt: A lot of people who live in Chanhassen, have their kids in Eden
Prairie.
Lynch: I can understand that because we're on the undeveloped fringe
but it's a little hard. Maybe people from Victoria but it's a pretty
...on their folks to bring their kids all the way. We used to have that
a little bit, even back in the old days because they just liked our
programs.
Watson: What are demographics of the people who worked at United
Mailing? That last article in the paper told alot about where these .
r ~ople came from. There were quite a few from Carver. Most of them
~~ere within the County but there quite a few of the people were from
west of here.
Lynch: When I flew for Northwest, I played on their ballteam and the
ballteam I played on was a classy thing in Bloomington but I was living
in Hopkins and we took no other advantage of any park system except just
that basketball league.
Boyt: That's not where I see families who live next to a community that
has nice facilities.
Lynch: We're not going to attract Eden prairie people this way.
Boyt: We do.
baseball teams.
here.
We do attract Eden Prairie. The kids play on our
They play on our soccer teams. They're corning over
Lynch: Why?
Boyt: We're developing a different sort of athletic program with all
our coaches are required to be certified now and we're putting the
emphasize of really being and giving your time rather than the league so
we evaluate our whole program and it's made a big difference. People
are coming in.
r
~.ynch: To my knowledge, when I was coaching, never had, ever, an Eden
Prairie kid. Like I said, we'd have some come from Victoria but never
Chaska.
.
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 3
.J
Boyt: We still have Victoria kids. We have Minnetonka kids. Chaska
kids and Eden Prairie kids. Some of the people coming from Eden prairie
are coming because we have smaller programs. They like the smaller
programs.
Lynch: Now are these people then that you know, work here or are they
just showing up?
Boyt: Some of the work here.
Lynch: What if they don't work here?
Boyt: They can play in our programs. They can participate.
Sietsema: It's the adult leagues mostly that have the stipulation that
you should live or work in Chanhassen. For the adult men's softball, if
there's a team from Chaska that wants to get into the league, the only
way they can get into the league is if there's an opening. If the
league has not filled with Chanhassen teams. If it's filled, they're
last priority but because the youth programs are run by the Association,
the City doesn't have any stipulation on who can play on those because
we don't actually administer the programs. Their policy has been that
anybody who wants to play, all they have to do is register and become a
. ember of CAA.
Lynch: This is getting kind off the subject but I'm interested. What
happens when the City takes a program over?
Sietsema: At that point, I think what we would do, it would have d lot
to do with the numbers. If we're hurting for kids to make a good round
robin league so they can play, there's more than two teams, if we're
hurting for kids to be in the program, then we would invite other kids
in. It would basically run the same way as the adults, as I would see
it. The programs are all open to anybody who wants to play in them but
Chanhassen residents live and work first.
Lynch: There's no legal liability reason that the City wouldn't want
any?
Sietsema: No, not that I'm aware of. That's never been an issue that
I've ever heard of.
Mady: I was curious when I read this, why commercial properties should
be assessed the trail fee.
Sietsema: They would be for their building permit. It's $138.00 for
their building permit. Their building permit is just one where single
family"development has maybe 100. So a developer taking out one
~~uilding permit for an industrial that has to pay $138.0" where a
..-reveloper with a single family has to pay $138,000.00.
Mady: Shouldn't we be basing that, that $138.00 is kind of based on the
fact that per unit usually means it's going to benefit from the trail
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 4
(
.
system, they should be paying a proportion of the trail and it's based
on how many units of development it's created.
Sietsema: In dealing with the residential, it's really geared toward
density but it wasn't applied that way to the commercial/industrial.
Now you may want to re-evaluate that. The thing is, the trail fee is
des igned so that the tra i Is are developed 'Ni thin the development. Along
the streets within the development that abut the development, it's to
make sure that if a developer comes in and has three streets that go
through, we've got a trail on those streets and they contribute toward
the whole trail system whereas, there probably won't be as many trails
or the trails will already be in place in the industrial park.
Mady: I'm just thinking of situations. McGlynn's Bakery bought the
corner right across from paisley Palace. They're going, at some point
in time, build a large bakery. They'll pay $138.00 for trails. Our
trail plan had trails running on both TH 5 and CR 117. That $138.00
isn't going to buy us much more than about 10 feet of trail realisticly.
We can't charge them a million dollars for it either.
Sietsema: Perhaps you want to increase the trail fee to on an acre.
Mady: One-third of the cost.
(,ietsema: Equal to one-third of the park dedication fee.
.
Mady: That's where I'm looking at. During the day, we see a lot of
people, especially in the nicer weather. Now you don't see it so much
but during the day there are people coming out from work who are
running, jogging during the noon hour. They probably using the trails
more so than the residents are.
Lynch: When you take an area such as the Washington Avenue, Eden
prairie Drive, bike and drive where I am. There must be a little lake
behind the biking headquarters, there's a trail all the way around that
now and a new segment north of that, for everyone of those business
complexes that's in there to have paid $138.00...
Sietsema: Perhaps that's a better way to handle it. That would bring
the fee to about $350.00 per acre for the industrial then.
Mady: Eden prairie the business complexes to build their trails when
they put them in. There's a building like this going up on TH 169 and
they put trails in there.
Boyt: DataCorp. You always see people on the DataCorp trail and
there's nothing up there. They just want to get out and walk.
~ady: That's where I would li ke to see it go. Somethi ng more in line .
( ith what we're requiring the residential developers, should be required
--of the business developers also.
Hasek: You're simply addressing now the trail fee? The $138.00?
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 5
.
Sietsema: Yes.
Hasek: When I first went through this, I walked out of the office and
talked to just about everybody there and the Court says there has to be
an equity. If you really want to get down to it, if somebody wanted to
come in and fight this thing. The Court says there has to be an equity
between what is required or used by the person you're exacting from and
what is exacting from that person. It all gets to, I think the bottom
line is to people. Who uses it and who doesn't use it. The one thing I
noticed in what we've got going here, single family $415.00 per unit and
duplexes is still $415.00 and that's actually two families.
Sietsema: Per unit.
Hasek: Okay, that's per. I think the duplexes is a little bit high
then where I think when we get down to some of these other things,
they're just a tad low. The bottom question I have is, how much use do
we actually get out of commercial and industrial users and there's
nothing in here that really tells us anything about how many people that
work in those places, what percentage of those people actually use the
system. I don't know if there's a study out there that's ever been
done, that may suggest things like that but that's what I'd be
interested in seeing.
.
Sietsema: I can tell you that the people that we have in the City,
almost everybody in the industrial park has at least one team on the
industrial league and some of those play on more than one league. The
Press has two teams. DataServ, next year, when they're in operation,
will have six teams. Kiowa Corporation has a team. Instant Webb has
at least a team. United Mailing has a team. They almost all, all the
big ones anyway, have a team and I think it would be a reasonable thing
to say that once we get the trails in and around Lake Susan Park, that
that will be used by those people quite a bit.
.
Hasek: The other thing that I wanted to say, was that if you look at a
single family user, it's 3 people per household, whatever, a single
family house has open space and they do recreate in the open space that
they have. They've got spots for the kids to go out in the backyard,
throw a ball, hit softballs and shoot golf balls in the front yard.
When you get into an apartment complex, the demand on the park system,
is higher per user because they don't have that open space available and
a lot of times the places to recreate aren't there. It gets even more
intense when you get into commercial uses because there's nothing there
so they have just a direct demand on the system. I guess what I'm
thinking is that there must be someway of looking at this and saying,
single family area should have to contribute less than the industrial
per user, even though the industrial may not have as many people using
it directly. If you've got a single family house, chances are that mom
and dad when they're going to take the kids to somplace, there will be a
fairly heavy use per user, for single fami~y where when you get to the
commercial/industrial uses, maybe the use lsn't as heavy but there's
more of a demand for the use by those users on the system. Do you
(
',--
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 6
r
'-
.
understand what I'm saying? It's confusing to look at but it seems like
the single family here is almost being penalized for being a single
family when they've got their own open space to begin with and it should
be the industrial user that gets hit the heaviest. If you look at it
that way, it can be defended, if it were ever to be challenged. When
you start talking about, I know I just got done with a project in
Champlin that paid $45,000.00 for a 19 acre multi-use piece of ground.
They paid $5.000.00 for their park dedication fee. They also have to
put in a concrete sidewalk on two sides of the project. That was in
addition to the fee. Incredible what they ask for out there. Nobody's
challenged it yet but it should be challenged out there. I think it's
way out of focus. They simply say, commercial uses are going to have a
higher demand and we're going to charge them more than single family.
It just goes up the scale. It's nuts and it's wrong. I think if we can
find a way to make it tied to the user, it should be defendable, if
anybody should challenge it and it certainly would be easier to exact
more for commercial and industrial projects who do have the big teams
like they're talking about and do put up fairly heavy use on the big
buck parts of the system.
..'
..
.....
Sietsema: I hear what you're saying and what I would contend is that
it's hard, you can not measure how much each person is going to use. If
you're going to go by how much each person is going to use it, you've
got to wait until they move in and measure it. Some single family .
person may be out at Lake Ann Park every week and the other ~ay never go
out there. What you do is you have it available to everyoody. You're
offering these programs and they're available to everybody. Whether
they use them or not, they're responsible for helping to foot the bill
for it. That includes the industrial. They may not have their kids in
the programs and they may not play on the softball league but it's
available to them. Some of them do.
Watson: As we add facilities, and they may use nothing now but we may
offer something later on that they will be using.
Sietsema: I think it's going to be impossible, and it'd be impossible
for any Court to prove, how much single family is going to use the park
system compared to industrial because each industry varies and each
neighborhood varies. The people that live in Minnewashta use a lot
different parks services than the people who live in Carver Beach simply
because of what's available but that's to be considered also.
Everything in the City is available to everybody who lives or works here
and as long as we keep it open to everybody who lives or works...
Hasek: If that's the case, if you really firmly believe that, then you
can tie it directly to bodies. It should be able to be tied directly to
bodies.
Sietsema:
It should be directly to density.
Hasek: No, bodies. Bodies, not density because if you look at for
exa~ple, a single family there's a statistic. There are 3.4 people on
the average per family. If you're getting a 3.4 average family within
.
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 7
.
the City. If you get down to industrial uses and you can in fact, there
are numbers that will tell you how many for a certain type of use,
certain type of industrial or commercial use, how many people typically
that generates for business and you could tie it directly to bodies.
Sietsema: How complicated do you want to make this? I think that a
flat fee...
Hasek: If it comes down to bodies, then it's by the use and it's almost
by the acre at that point. You can tie it to units where you've got a
residential or you can tie it to acreage where you're got commercial and
industrial uses.
Boyt: I worked with the figure 2.5.
Sietsema: The City's is 2.8.
Boyt: And assume that the $415.@0 per single family unit was for 2.5
people and that we multiple that times 3, we get 7.5 people per acre in
a commercial because you multiple $415.00 times 3 and you get what we're
charg i ng for commerc i a1. So we're assumi ng that there are 7.5 people
per acre in the commercial/industrial buildings in Chanhassen, if we're
going per person. That's real low. We could double that and look at 15
",Deople per acre...
~asek: Look at a McDonalds. A McDonalds is roughly an acre site. How
many people do they employ? How many people are eligible in that?
There's almost a double indemnity. Assuming that those people are
outside the city and you're almost double charging, if those people all
come from within the city which in the case of a McDonalds or something
like that, they probably would.
Sietsema: That is probably one reason why some of the cities that were
in here charged by the square foot of the building. Some charged 4
cents per square foot of building space and that could maybe be tied in
more readily to how many people per square feet of building normally an
industrial normally employs and I don't know what those figures are
either.
Hasek: I guess my feeling is, they have to be adjusted but I don't know
that simply throwing out a bunch of stuff at us and asking us to make a
decision on it is the right way to go. I don't know if this is even the
right study. All it does is tells us what other people have done. It
doesn't tell us whether they're right or wrong or not so that's left up
to us to decide. I know I called Mark and talked to him a little bit
about it and he was, as much as I was by the time we got done talking
about it what it really should be. If somebody in the business can't
figure it out, how in the world if this commission supposed to try and
understand what's fair and equitable. I don't know. I guess what I'd
.ike to do it take a little bit of time to see if I can't find a study
hat somehow ties it to square foot and make some real logical sense out
of it. I don't want to exact a ton of money for the amount of people. I
guess I'd like it to be absolutely fair. I'd like it to be on the high
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 8
r
"-
end but I'd like it to be fair. It wouldn't hurt me R bit to try for
$1,000.00 for single family unit if it was equitable all the way across
the system and the park board had more money than anybody in the world.
That would be great with me but I think it should be equitable and I
don't know that I can make a decision as to an equitable way of doing
it.
.
Sietsema: So what do you want to do?
Hasek: I think if we had to vote right now, I'd just have to abstain
because I don't know that I could make a rational decision. You talked
about discussIon and the possibility of a motion, that would have to be
my decision.
Sietsema: So if you were to make a motion to table, what would you
want? What would you direct staff or what you want to table it until?
Hasek: I would like to direct staff and maybe particularly Mark, or
yourself and Mark, just get a few people out there trying to see if
there is a decent way of doing it. I guess I almost expected Mark to be
here tonight just as kind of a second opinion on things. Maybe it's not
that big of issue. I guess this is such a big deal to me is because I
have to go through it day by day and you go through these different
_cities and look at their park fees and so forth, and sometimes you .
f ~ratch your head and wonder where in the world they're coming from and
~ny they're doing what they're doing.
Boyt: I think one of the buildings in town, one of the printing places
that is huge, only has like 7 people working in it. It wouldn't be fair
for an acreage.
Hasek: I can see at the same point, if you really think about it,
you've got a McDonalds that's right on the city limits between Eden
prairie and the big population is just across the land to draw people
from Eden prairie to employ and you have a McDonalds... not even within
the city, that would be actually 30 or 40 people per acre for that
commercial use where another one might only have 2 or 3. Maybe it's done
by employee.
Sietsema: There's not a lot of information on this. There really isn't
because I did call, I called almost all of these and more cities, to see
what their formula was, how they go about it. Some of them have a flat
fee. Some of them you have to take the raw land value times what the
development costs could possibly be or the average development cost this
year in the construction bulletin, or whatever. There are some really
far out formulas and we used to have one. We've been trying to clean
that up so it is a little bit cleaner and I think what we have is pretty
consistent. I don't think that we would have a hard time in Court right
now.
{
_~sek: I'm not saying that it's not consistent
it's necessarily equitable. I don't know that
paying for the the system is what I'm saying.
but I don't know that
the right people are
I don't know that it's
.
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 9
~eceS~arilY wrong but I don't know
you don't know and I don't know.
that it's right and why change it if
Watson: Basically what you want is what other cities are doing.
Whether it's right or wrong.
Hasek: The right way to do it is the equitable way to do it. That's
what the Courts will say.
Watson: ...what's equitable and we could possibly spend an awful lot of
time thereby spend a lot of money because it's going to cost somebody
time to figure out whether all these cities figured it out wrong and
there's a more accurate way of doing it. Basically we are doing it, if
we want to take the time to figure this thing out, we could do that over
the next few months but to hold this up to try and figure out something
that nobody else has figured out either.
Hasek: I don't know that anybody else has necessarily really tried.
Watson: I can't believe that nobody has tried. I think there is only
so much time and that's because time is money given to figuring this
out. If we really thought that this was so wrong but I don't think that
we're that wrong.
r
e1sek: As long as we're in line with everybody else. I'm just wondering
s the right people are paying. I would like to see industrial and
commercial pay their fair share I guess is the bottom line but I don't
want to pull a number out of the hat and say this is fair and then have
all of those people in the commercial and industrial uses come through
this city and say, boy is this a ridiculous number. Where did you guys
come up with this?
Sietsema: ...it was to give 10% of the development or money equal to
the raw land value and that's where this all originated. Th3t's what
the current numbers are based on. That goes back to 1984 when the last
time this was changed. That was the old formula. It had to do with a
lot of other things and development costs as well. So if it's safe to
say that since 1984 land values have increased, then it would be safe to
say that we could increase our fees by that ~uch.
* A taping malfunction occurred at this point in the meeting.
Hasek: ...The reason why Eagan was approached, obviously was because
there was some inequity in the system and that's why it was challeneged.
Boyt: I think we need to find out how many people per square foot. In
other words, how many people are in our facilities in Chanhassen. We
don't have that many industrial facilities. We could get an average
number per acre per square foot.
(
esek: I would almost think that we could sit down
anner, between the Planner and maybe Lori and the
and some of those and just get some opinions. Mark
and talk with the
City Administrator
and his past
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 10
r
"-
experience. Met Council might have some generalized numbers for
industrial uses and commercial uses. How many people are very typical.
If we can tie it to something that someone has put together that at
least looks half way decent and reasonable, it would be very easy to do.
It's so stragith forward. Take commercial. You've got x number of
acres is this many dollars. Plain and simple. It's not tied to value
of the land, which flucuates, or anything like that. Simply if we could
raise it based on cost of living or something like that. Or inflation
rate or something.
.
Lynch: I notice we are the lowest on the list as far as the dollars are
concerned. Even if we raise the 10% that Lori suggests, we'd still be
the lowest.
Hasek: That indicates to me that the single family, the people that
have the most open space, are the ones that are carrying the burden and
I don't think that's fair.
Lynch: Ed, are they carrying a burden or is the commercial property not
paying enough?
Hasek: Either way. Like I said, I'd like to see the single family and
residential go up but I'd like to be darn sure that the rest of the land
uses are carrying their fair share. I think doubling commercial and .
( 'dustrial, as was suggested by Sue, might not be out of line but I
~~n't know for sure.
Lynch: One thing we have to be certajn of, and again, these numbers are
based on this 10% of the value of the property, current raw land. We
want to be darn sure that we don't exceed that in one of these
categories because when we do, that's where we base our flexibility on
in the past. So if we still think in some manner, then we become
undefensable. Then we're going to have a problem.
Boyt: So, we need to find out how much an acre of land is selling for?
It's more than $40,000.00 isn't it, in Chanhassen?
Sietsema: It depends on where.
Hasek: That's great. This City would be plum full if...
Boyt: 10% would be $415.00 for $40,000.00 per acre.
Sietsema: That's raw land value is what you have to go by. Before any
improvements.
Hasek: Still, they're selling for $12.00-$15.00 per square foot along
TH 12 and obviously that's a different situation.
(....dy: We're talking about the southern area and putting in a new park .
~wn there and talking to Al Klingelhutz, he says $3,000.00 to $3,500.00
an acre is low.
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 11
411tasek: That's
sell for?
raw land.
What would an acre across the street over here
Mady: A lot.
Hasek: See, 10% of that is going to be considerably higher and I don't
know that necessarily the location of the building, based on land
values, is the way to go. I really don't. I think that's unfair. I
can't believe, in Minnetonka where they have land values of $12.00 a
foot up here that they're paying for a commercial site.
Sietsema: The reason you have to do that though is because you can only
demand park dedication for the area that the developer is creating the
need for. The reason they go by the raw land value is because it's a
different value in the rural area than it is for single family than it
is for industrial. You see what I mean?
Hasek: Let's take that to a step under a logical conclusion, let's go
into central Minneapolis where there is no opportunity to do anything
more. If somebody comes in and wants to do something there, they give
park dedication based on their location there which is probably $25.00 a
foot in the IDS Tower. $50.00 or $150.00 or whatever it was for a foot
for that land.
~
. etsema: The whole premise is that it's a park dedication. The only
eason you wouldn't take park land dedication is because you already
have park in that area or it's undesirable land. You don't want it in
that specific area so then you will take the fees equal to the land
value in lieu of taking the land. So it's equal. You're either taking
the value of the land or you're taking the land. They both have the
same value. If you're going to put a park in downtown Minneapolis, it's
going to cost the City, if they were going to go out and buy it, it
would cost the City $25.00 a square foot jf they put it in that
neighborhood and that's why it's based on the land value because you
can't charge, I can't charge Instant Webb for a park I want to put out
in Minnewashta. That's not the way it's supposed to work. They're not
responsible for the park needs in the Minnewashta area. They're
responsible for the park needs that they are creating because of their
development. And that's not related to community park needs, it's for
neighborhood park needs.
Hasek: Then what do you do? Ho~ is that exactly figure out? Is that
somehow tied back to the contractor who purchased the land?
Sietsema: It's the raw land value before any improvements are made so
whatever the developer bought the land for, before he many any
improvements, that would be the land value. Not what he can sell it for
but what he bought it for.
-..nch: I guess what I'd like to see, if there's some other system we
n used, fine. I wonder we are right now. How these reduce so if you
ake the high and low, lot size and land value in the City and say, this
is the average lot. This is 10% of that now. What about the commercial
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 12
.
r
"-
and office and the industrially zoned stuff over here?
going for an acre?
Nhat's that
Hasek: What happens in the case of a Gagne who bought the land 20 years
ago. That's the purchased price of the land.
Sietsema: It would be the fair market value of that if you were to buy
it currently. The assessor. It's current land value and that's what
it's tied to the land value.
Hasek: It's the current market rate? Is that what they use?
Sietsema: Whatever the assessor would assess it today in it's raw
state. As it sits before the developer does anything to it.
Hasek: Which only by law has to be 90% of what it's really worth.
You're only required to assess it to 90% of it's market value. The 10%
right's there that we're getting.
Sietsema: You wouldn't necessarily use the County Assessor. A
developer could bring his assessor in and if the City doesn't agree with
that assessed value, we could have it assessed ourselves.
Bobinson: Doesn't that say it's like $12,0'00.00 an acre? If $415.0'0 .
~ j that's about a third of an acre, typical lot.
~
Sietsema: Usually 3 units per acre is what you can go.
Robinson: So $415.00, that would be $1,245.00 so that's close to what
the industrial. Then if you're going to base it on the market value of
the land, if that then is 10%, $1,245.00 would be $450.0'0. Is that, I
don't know any idea, is that quite a bit for an acre of land
undeveloped?
Hasek: That's free. Like I said, if it was based on that, we could buy
land like that, this city would be full of industrial.
Lynch: There's a range Curt. If you go down by the farming area, down
there where we we're looking for a park, yes, you could buy for just
about a $100.00 an acre but you try to buy one of the lots by my place
and you're talking...
Hasek: There's a lot in my neighborhood, a single family lot, a third
of an acre selling for $25,000.00. It just sold. The utilities are in.
The services are there.
Robinson: but we're talking an average development.
Lynch: You almost have to look at what's developing because there's .
{ re of the expensive lots being developed here. They're expensive
~cause they have municipal services and so forth closer to town than
these larger lots and of course, what do we have for zoning down south
of the MUSA? 5 acres?
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 13
-
.
Sietsema: You can't be less than 2 1/2 and it can only be 1 unit per 10
acres. It's 1 unit per 10 acres and the lot size can not be less than
2 1/2 acres.
Lynch: Okay, so let's use a for instance with AI's property down there
at $3,500.00 an acre. There you're looking at about $9,000.00 for a
lot, it's a 2 1/2 acre lot minimum. So $9,000.00 for a lot and let's
say you buy an average over by Meadow Green Park, in that area, you buy
one those less expensive homes on a very small lot and maybe you pay
$12,000.00 to $15,000.00 so not too far off there but once you get
south, most of those places are 5 acres at $3,500.00 an acre. But
again, since it's a single dwelling they're only getting a unit charge.
Now you start talking this industrial land, anything that's industrially
zoned, whether it's got improvements on it or not, you're talking
megabucks.
Robinson: But if you're relating it, like Lori said, you can dedicate
land or cash equivalent, then it's got to be back to so much an acre.
With the average single family dwelling is a third of an acre, then the
commercial just about has to be three times the single family.
Lynch: Commercial land is worth more anyway.
edY:
Hasek: I'll tell
Absolutely a gold
sell it and build
That's where we're kind of hitting the hard spots.
you what, the Legion is sitting on a gold mine there.
mine. If they don't move that thing pretty soon and
a new spot.
Robinson:
It doesn't have to be then related to the single family.
Lynch: This is all related, very vaguely, to the general land values in
the area.
Sietsema: The Courts say that we can require 10%. They have
historically said that 10% is a reasonable taking and that's what it all
boils down to is what the Court's determine is a reasonable taking.
Historically, 10% has been a reasonable taking so if you take 10% of the
raw land or you take 10% of the money equivalent to that, that's what
your park dedication fees should be.
Hasek: Then really you're saying, by your understanding of the past
cases, that it should be tied to the land values rather than to bodies.
Sietsema: How it goes with density is that you can justify that 10% or
how that varies is that our standard is 1 acre per 75 people. So if
you're a. single family development, it's generating 1,000 people, you've
got to have 1 acre for every 75 of those 1,000 people.
.ek: But you don't have to do it that way. If you do it, you can tie
. directly to the density in single family or in any residential. You
can ~e it directly to the density because that's really what it's
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 14
C
selling for.
zoning really
got like R-12
multiple.
.
Commercial is commercial and then everything else, it's
is what it is. The zoning in this city is what, you've
and R-3 or something. That must be for single family
sietsema: There's R-8, R-l2, they're behind you.
Hasek: But still this land value, that's what it's being sold as and if
somebody wants to build a single family residential area in a
commercially zoned district and pay the price for the land...
Sietsema: If the Planning Commission lets them.
Lynch: Where everybody else is a quarter and a half because he wants
more land and 10% of the value of his operation was $415.00 but he says
hey, I've only got one household there guys. So again, I don't think
you're looking for uniform fairness, you're looking for defenseability.
The guy comes in and says this is BS, I'm not paying it.
Hasek: But at the same time, what makes it defensible is the fact that
it's equitable. So if you shoot for equitable, it's going to be
defensible.
I:yvnch:
f
I don't think you're ever going to get equitable In all caSAS.
.
.~sek: There's always the oddball, no question about it and someoody's
ox is going to be gored but that's part of the system I guess. I don It
know. I have a motion and I don't know if anybody wants to second it.
I guess I'd like the opportunity to look at it and one way or the other
I will and whether we do something tonight or not, I guess doesn't
matter.
Sietsema: Let me just read the motion back. Ed has moved to direct
staff to work with Mark and himself to research this further and to
table this item until the next meeting.
Lynch: Question Lori, is there anything that would make this some more
immediate of a problem? Is there anything happening that would make
this an immediate problem?
Sietsema: No. The ordinance says that the Park and Recreation
Commission will review this at their first meeting of every year and
submit a recommendation to City Council. If you need more time to look
at it, I don't think that's unreasonable.
Watson: And the current ordinance stays in effect until it's changed.
Sietsema: Right, exactly.
( y: I guess I don't have any problems.
~ost sounds like the industrial should
times the residential plus some.
What I've been hearing is, it
be at least a minimum of 3
.
Park and Recreation Commission
January 26, 1988 - Page 15
r
eetsema: I think what you want to do is you want to figure out a
policy so it's clear in everybody's mind that we're going to say that
it's equal to this and therefore it breaks down to this and everybody
knows. It's not some obscure number that it looks like staff just
picked it out of the sky.
Hasek: Can I just read through real quickly what Champlin has done and
I'm not suggesting that this is the right one. It just happens to be a
very high one and I don't know that it's ever been challenged. Every
thing is based on kind of the value of land out there. Single family is
assessed this year, and each year they go to the assessor and say okay,
what's single family land basically selling for in the city. $12,000.00
per acre and 10% of that is $1,200.00 per acre of dedication so that
works out to about the $400.00. Multiple family, $20,000.00 per acre,
$2,000.00 per acre of dedication fee. Office and commercial, $45,000.00
per acre, which is about...
Robinson: $45,000.00 per acre?
Mady: That's where land is hot.
Hasek: That's what land is selling for, raw land. 10% of that would be
$4,500.00 and all streets are considered as single family so in other
~~rds, if you've got an industrial or PUD for example, and you've got a
~- lch of uses in there, the street is also charged on a single family
is. PUD's or multiples are whatever the land value is times 15% ...
and values would be given every year by the assessor so if you look at
those types of things, that's where we were looking at before. We've
got a very open, loose commercial development putting in and it's
costing us a fortune to do it but if you consider the fact that we have
in town, is this going to be on-line next year? We are offering those
services and suggesting that all these poeple have the right to use all
those services in th~ city, then yes, I think if the use is there.
Lynch: I'd still be interested to see how the fees that we charge now
reduce back or can be tracked to our original intent. Do these really
reflect 10% of the average value of the average residential single home
and commercial properties? You're looking in other ways or many ways
and I'd just be interested to really see if the way we're doing it now
seems right.
Hasek moved, Robinson seconded to direct staff to work with Mark and Ed
Hasek to research the park dedication ordinance fees further and to
table this item until the next meeting. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
,-
I
REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT - LAKE SUSAN PLACE.
.tsema:
That item has been deleted.
The application was withdrawn.
-
CITY OF
~HANHASSEN
3-
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: February la, 1988
SUBJ: Park Dedication Fees
At the January Park and Recreation Commission meeting, this item
was tabled and staff was directed to research further our basis
for charging a fee.
~
The Park Dedication Ordinance was written so that parkland would
be available to meet the needs of the areas being developed. A
developer is not required to dedicate more than the need he is
creating with the development.
.
The State allows municipalities to require a "reasonable" dedica-
tion of land for neighborhood park purposes. In lieu of
parkland, the City may accept the equivalent in cash. The City
has adopted 1 acre per 75 people in residential areas and 10% of
the land in industrial areas as a "reasonable" standard. This
standard was established in 1978 in the COlnprehensive Plan and
has proven to be a sound requirement.
As dedication fees are collected at the time building permits are
issued, it is necessary to have a park dedication fee that is
uniform. The amount of the fee is determined by the City's
average raw land value. The last survey done by the County esti-
mated the average raw land value to be approximately $10,500. To
illustrate how this translates, I have shown 3 examples:
1. 100-acre single-family urban development:
100 acres x 2.5 units/acre = 250 units
250 units x 3 persons/unit = 750 people
750 ~ 75/acre = 10 acres of parkland required
If cash is to be required in lieu of land:
,.
10 acres x $10,600/acre = $106,000
$106,000 . 250 units = $424 per unit
.
.
.
.
Park and Recreation Commission
February 10, 1988
Page 2
2. 100-acre single-family rural development:
100 acres x 1 unit/lO acres = 10 units
10 units x 3 people/unit = 30 people
30 ~ 75/acre = .40 acres of parkland required
If cash is to be required in lieu of land:
.40 acres x $10,500/acre = $4,200
$4,200 ~ 10 units = $420 per unit
3. 100-acre industrial site:
100 acres x 10% requirement = 10 acres of parkland required
If cash is to be required in lieu of land:
4 .
10 acres x $10,500/acre = $105,000
$105,000 ~ 100 acres = $1,050 per acre
100-acre mUlti-family (R-12):
100 acres x 12 units per acre = 1,200 units
1,200 units x 2 per unit = 2,400 people
2,400 ~ 75/acre = 32 acres of parkland required
If cash is to oe required in lieu of land:
32 acres x $lO,500/acre = $336,000
$336,000 ~ 1,200 units = $280 per unit
These examples illustrate that our current fee schedule is right
on target. By including the park acreage standard of one acre
per 75 people and basing the cash requirement on raw land values,
the City Attorney is confident that we are meeting the intent of
the state statute. For future reference, these standards have
been included in the park dedication ordinance, attached.
,/
.,.~ Chapter 14 .
'- ing. Or the planning commission, planning agency,
divisions, the council may adopt additional regula-
or city council may initiate a rezoning. Rezoning is tions. Cities must file copies of subdivision regula-
a legislative act and needs only some rational basis tions with the county register of deeds or registrar
relating tOfublic health, safety, morals, or general of titles.
welfare. 3
Because of the legal difficulties in making spe-
Subdivision Control cial assessments, cities should require subdividers
to install all improvements before the council ap-
Subdivision control is an effective means of im- proves the plat. 38
plementing the city plan. It can promote an ade- Review or Proposed Subdivisions
quate street and city utility system, desirable
population distribution, and necessary open spaces An important part of any subdivision ordinance
for light, air, health, and recreation. To be effec-
tive, a city must control new building developments is the procedure for reviewing proposed subdivi-
at the time it subdivides or plats the land. sions. These procedures should include the follow-
ing steps.
City councils have statutory authority to approve
subdivision plats. 33 The law states that the coun- 1. Pre-application meeting. City officials
cil must approve all plats before recording them in should meet with the subdivider to discuss
the office of the register of deeds. Before approv- applicable regulations, giving the sub-
ing the subdivision, the council may employ divider positive guidance and enough
qualified people to check and verify the plat to freedom to help build the community.
determine its suitability from the standpoint of Preliminary plat. Following the pre-
community planning. The city may require the sub- 2.
divider to pay the cost of checking the plat. application meeting, the subdivider should
prepare a preliminary map or plat of the .
.,.~ The second authorization is part of the planning proposed subdivision. The map should in-
act. 34 After a city has adopted a plan and platting clude the location and approximate dimen-
regulations, all proposed plats in the city must go sions of the lots, easements, streets, public
to the council, which, after a public hearing, may utilities, and other public lands on, and ad-
deny approval if the plat does not conform to the jacent to, the tract. This preliminary plat
city plan or to subdivision regulations. 35 The should go to the planning commission,
council may refer the proposed plat to the planning together with all specific iniormation
commission for recommendations. about the proposal. Before making a deci-
sion, the commission should solicit com-
The planning statute sets platting regulations ments and recommendations from other
which the council may adopt. 36 They include interested groups and individuals and hold
rules concerning street improvements and the in- a public hearing on the matter. The COun-
stallation of water, sewer, utility services, and cil should review the commission's findings
storm water. drainage and holding areas. The re- and actions. The council should follow the
quirements may dedicate a given percentage of time restrictions in the statute.
land in residential subdivisions to public use for 3. Final plat. The planning commission
parks, playgrounds, trails, and open space. They
may also require a subdivider to contribute an should review the final proposed plat to
equivalent amount in cash, based on the fair determine it~ ~onformance with the ap-
market value of the undeveloped land. Payments pro~ed pr~hmlnary pla~. Following a
the city receives under such regulations must go public hearIng, the counCil should review
into a special fund to acquire land for parks. the entire project, including plans and
playgrounds, public open space, and storm water specifications. The city may require a con-
holding areas or ponds, development of existing tract with the subdivider to assure com-
areas, and debt retirement for land the city pliance wi~h all necessary arrangements.
previously acquired for such public purposes. 37 The co~ncll shoul~ ac~ept the final plat by
Because the statutes do not cover everything reS?lutlOn and fale It with the county
register of deeds or registrar of titles. The .
I' needed to insure harmonious development of sub- city must file resolutions approving plats
Handbook for Minnesota Cities Page 229
.
ORDINANCE NO.
[~
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
CONCERNING PARK LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of Chanhassen ordains as follows:
Section 1.
following sections:
The Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting the
14-33, 14-34, 14-35, 14-36, 14-37, and 18-77B.
The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding'the
. Section 2.
following sections:
Section 18-78. Park Land Dedication Requirements.
(A) As a prerequisite to sUbdivision approval, subdividers shall
dedicate land for parks, playgrounds~ public open spaces and trails
and/or shall make a cash contribution to the City's Park Fund as
provided by this Section.
(B)
Land to be dedicated shall be reasonably suitable for its intended
use and shall be at a location convenient to the people to be
served. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed park
and recreation areas shall include size, shape, topography,
geology, hydrology, tree cover, access, and location.
.
(C) The Park and Recreation Committee shall recommend to the City
Council the land dedication and cash contribution requirements for
proposed sUbdivisions.
(D) Changes in density.of plats shall be reviewed by the Park and
Recreation Committee for reconsideration of park dedication and
cash contribution requirements.
(E) When a proposed park, playground, recreational area, school site or
other public ground has been indicated in the City's official map
or comprehensive plan and is located in whole or in part within a
proposed plat, it shall be designated as such on the plat and shall
be dedicated to the appropriate governmental unit. If the
subdivider elects not to dedicate an area in excess of the land
required hereunder for such proposed public site, the City may
consider acquiring the site through purchase or condemnation.
(F) Land area conveyed or dedicated to the city shall not be used in
calcUlating density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and
shall be in addition to dJid not in lieu of open space requirements
for planned unit developments.
.
,47!1ktf)AfJJT -.tf:?p
(G) Where private open space for park and recreation purposes is
provided in a proposed subdivision, such areas may be Used for
r credit, at the discretion of the City Council, against the
requirement of dedication for park and recreation purposes,
provided the City Council finds it is in the public interest to do
so.
(H) The City, upon consideration of the particular type of development,
may require larger or lesser parcels of land to be dedicated if the
City determines that present or future residents would require
greater or lesser land for park and playground purposes.
(I) In residential plats one acre of land shall be conveyed to the City
as an outlot by warranty deed for every seventY-five (75) people
the platted land could house based upon the following population
calculations:
Single-family detached
dwelling lots
3.0 persons
Two-family dwelling lots
6.0 persons
Apartments, townhouses, condo-
miniums and other dwelling units
1.0 person per bedroom
(J)
r
In plats other than residential plats, a cash donation equal to ten
percent (10%) of the fair market value of the undeveloped property.
shall be paid.
(K) In lieu of a park land donation, the City may require an equivalent
cash donation based upon average undeveloped land value in the
City. The cash dedication requirement shall be established annually
by the City Council.
(L) In lieu of a trail land donation, the City may require the
following cash donations for the multi-purpose pedestrian trail
system:
For each lot or dwelling unit
B
$ 13$.00
. .
(M) The City may elect to receive a combination of cash, land, and
development of the land for park Use. The fair market value of the
land the City wants and the value of the development of the land
shall be calculated. That amount shall be subtracted from the cash
contribution required by subsection K above. The remainder shall be
the cash contribution requirement.
eN) -Fair,market value" shall be determined as of the time of filing
the f~nal plat in accordance with the following:
(1) The City and the developer may agree as to the fair market
value, or
,
.
-2-
J
.
(2) The fair market value may be based upon a current appraisal
submitted to the City by the subdivider at the subdivider's
expense.
(3) If the city disputes such appraisal the City may, at the
subdivider's expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a
qualified real estate appraiser, which appraisal shall be
conclusive evidence of the fair market value of the land.
(0) Planned developments with mixed land uses shall make cash and/or
land contributions in accordance with this Section based upon the
percentage of land devoted to the various uses.
(P) Park and trail cash contributions are to be calculated at the time
building permits are issued and shall be paid when the permit is
issued by the person requesting the permit.
(Q) The cash contributions for parks and trails shall be deposited in
either the City's Park and Recreation Development Fund or Multi-
purpose Pedestrian Trail Fund and shall be used only for park
acquisition or development and trail acquisition or development.
(R) If a subdivider is unwilling or unable to make a commitment to the
City as to the type of building that will be constructed on lots in
the proposed plat, then the land and cash contribution requirement
will be a reasonable amount as determined by the City Council.
.
(S) Wetlands, ponding areas, and drainage ways accepted by the City
shall not be considered in the park land and/or cash contribution
to the City.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately
. upon its passage and publication.
ADOPTED by the city Council of Chanhassen this
, 1988. .
daYJf
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
.
-3-
(
/.2..
---l-J
r
\....
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 22, 1988
.
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Larry Schroers, Jim Mady, Mike Lynch, and
Curt Robinson
MEMBERS ARRIVED LATE:
Ed Hasek and Carol Watson
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
Boyt moved, Mady seconded to move the Lake Ann Park Parking Fee Schedule
to the end of the agenda per Ed Hasek's request. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
PARK DEDICATION FEES.
~
'-.
Sietsema: This item was tabled after the January meeting. If you recall,
the Park and Recreation Commission asked staff to research further what
exactly we base our fee on instead of picking a number out of the air or
simply being comparable to other cities. What I've done is kind of .
outlined how we corne to what our fee is based on what our park dedicati
ordinance outlines. If you read through this, it shows that it's based
on the average raw land value of the undeveloped land which, if you
average out all the different areas, it comes to $10,500.00 per acre.
I've shown three different illustrations of what would be required of a
developer with a 100 acre site. The examples illustrate that our current
fee is pretty close to right on target. We could raise it somewhat but I
think it is comparable to what other people are charging and if we do it
in this manner, it's staying within the inient of the State Statute. If
you wanted to raise the fee, it would be $425.00 for a single family
residential from the $415.00 and $1,050.00 for the industrial and it's
currently $1,035.00. That would be up to you.
Lynch: Lori, I've been hearing that $10,500.00 for a long time. The
$10,500.00 average land value. Wasn't that compiled...
Sietsema: Where I got it was the County Assessor and I called him up and
this is based on the 1987 survey of what he did. It's an average of the
all the different land values. It takes into account what the rural land
value is in the industrial and the urban residential and averages that
out and that's how it carne to that number.
Lynch: It just seems to me I've been hearing that number for 10 years.
Doesn't it seem odd that land values would stay that for 10 years.
Mady: That's my big concern. A question on how old that number is.
.
Sietsema: He said that he did the survey in 1987.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 2
.
,
Lynch: Look at it this way, if what we have now matches the $10,000.00
or whatever. In other words, we take the $424.00 and work it backwards,
does that justidy the $10,500.00?
Sietsema: You lost me.
Lynch: Start out with the fee that we have and the percent of x that it
equals. Run a standard algebraic equation on it and see what x equals.
What kind of percent of the land value now are we charging versus anybody
else around the surrounding communities? Not so much dollar value. In
other words, fine it's a $424.00 charge. What percent of the land value
is that?
Sietsema: Every city does it different and nobody really knows how they
come about it but I did include, I think the last time...
Lynch: I looked into it myself about 6 or 8 years when we were trying to
figure out then what we had done and it wasn't at all clear then and I
found out that it isn't very clear in any city. It's just sort of well,
we've always done it that way or we started doing it that way and it
seems to work so we still do it that. We raise it when we feel we can
get away with raising it. In other words, $424.00 is based on how many
lots per acre?
.
,
Sietsema: 2 1/2. It should all be spelled out in the bottom of that
memo. 100 acre site, 2 1/2 units per acre. 250 units times 3 people per
unit and our standard is 1 acre for 75 people. That would make a
requirement of 10 acres of parkland. If we chose to take the cash in
lieu of the parkland, it comes out to 10 acres times $10,600.00 equals
$106,000.00 divided by the 250 units is $424.00 per unit. What we want
to do is be able to standardize this so that we don't have something
different for each different subdivision or each different development.
Boyt: That's what the courts have said...
Sietsema: I know that the courts have upheld that.
Lynch: Are we getting back to that 10% again? The magic number?
Sietsema: But the courts won't uphold it if it's just a straight 10%.
It has to be based on density so in our industrial, because there isn't
any density, that should hold up but in the residential, in the court
cases that we have reviewed, just because it's 10% for the sake of being
any kind of percentage, is not a good reason. It has to be based on
density which gets back to your 1 acre per 75 people and it happens to
work out in our equation to be 10%. If we want to increase it, then we
should go 1 acre per 50 people or something like that and change our
density rather than...
~ Boyt: Who would set the density? Could we set that?
Sietsema: You set that with the update of the Park and Rec Section.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 3
(
.
Mady: When you talked to the assessor, this $10,500.00, was his estimate
of the land in Chanhassen itself? That's not including like Waconia?
Sietsema: No, that was Chanhassen.
Mady: I'm a little concerned, if the number is including, because the
bulk of development is happening in the sewered area. That land is worth
a heck of a lot more than the land that's being developed outside the
sewered area.
Sietsema: But he said that the land in the sewered area was appraised at
like $7,500.00 per acre and he indicated that the developer couldn't
purchase land for more than that and still make a profit.
Lynch: That sounds awful low.
Sietsema: It sounded low to me too but I didn't know what else to do
except call an appraiser.
Lynch: Do you know what some of the lots have sold for in my immediate
neighborhood?
r
~
Sietsema: But that's developed. That's got utilities on it. That t.
includes roads and utilities so you can't count that. It's got to be
raw land value without any improvements.
Lynch: What I'm saying is that the $7,500.00 sounds low because this
acreage is going for 6 or 7 times $7,500.00 which >certainly doesn't equal
$7,500.00 an acre plus assessments which is way over the top of that.
That's why I think the $7,500.00 sounds so low.
Sietsema: I thought that it did too but I called him twice and asked him
to check his figures and that's what he came up with. I don't know who
else to base it on other than the County Assessor.
Lynch: Well, in the sewered area, I was under the same misunderstanding
perhaps that Jim had. I thought the land in the sewered area in was more
valuable than that in the rural area.
Sietsema: The rural area was going for like $3,500.00 an acre.
Lynch: Then how do he come up with a $10,500.00 average?
Sietsema: Our industrial is worth anywhere from $15,000.00 to $30,000.00
an acre.
Lynch: And there's that much of it?
{
Sietsema:
I just took the figures and averaged them.
.
Lynch: A per acre average?
Robinson:
It's not a weighted average?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 4
.
Sietsema: It would go down because there's a lot more area in the rural
area than there is in the urban.
Schroers: Did the Assessor give you the figures for the tax base for
that property that assessed?
Sietsema: I asked him the fair market value. The raw land value. I
asked him for the fair market value and that's what he told me.
Boyt: That's supposed to be real close to the assessed value. I think
we should call a realtor.
Public: I have just done some research because I was looking to purchase
at $5,600.00 an acre. Lake Susan Hills is $6,700.00 an acre
and...$6,500.00 an acre.
Sietsema: And what was Eckankar going to go for?
Public: We're not going to talk about that.
Sietsema: That's considerably higher.
Public: Eckankar is selling his property for around $12,000.00 an acre.
4It Robinson: Is that commercial?
Public: There is some commercial zoning in there. There's 173 acres of
property and about 40 acres of that is commercial.
Sietsema: The zoning map is right behind you. Part of that is
residential and some of it's business campus.
Public: So that increases the value.
Sietsema: That gets into the neighborhood of the industrial.
Boyt: It's also the assessor's we use. I think what we can look at
though is the density. When we think about our neighborhood there are 50
families and if we looked at a 1 acre survey.
Mady: I wondering if the 75 people per acre number, the density number,
is enough.
Sietsema: It's not set in stone yet. It hasn't gone to Council for
approval and if you're going to change that standard, it should be done
now before it does get sent onto Met Council.
Mady: That changes all of our numbers.
.
Sietsema:
that.
I would recommend that we have justification for changing
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 5
r
\.
.
Mady: I almost think that this year go with what we've got then let's
start taking a good hard look at the number.
Sietsema: The Comp Plan won't be updated for another 5 years so whatever
you put in that Comp Plan, you're stuck with for the next 5 years. What
I'm saying is, our policy is not to accept anything less than 5 acres so
you have 5 acres of land for 375 people and given the mixed population
and park users and non-park users.
Boyt: We've seen that what we have in parkland is way over what we
require we are barely meeting the needs for citizens in Chanhassen so
I think shows us right there that are numbers are off for our population
and density.
Schroers: What were those figures you quoted before Lori on the single
family? You just said something about $424.00 or $425.00.
Sietsema: What we currently charge is $415.00 for single family. If we
went strictly by what I've outlined in here, we could justify an increase
to $425.00 from $415.00. And from $1,035.00 in the industrial to
$1,050.00.
Schroers:
That doesn't seem like a lot of money.
.
r
Sietsema: I don't think anybody would really balk at that slight
increase. But if you make slight increases year by year as you evaluate
what that assessed value of land is and change it little by little rather
than every 5 years and change it by $100.00, it's a lot less noticeable.
'-
Schroers: Is that why you're proposing? Is that what you'd like to do?
Sietsema: I didn't really make a recommendation because $10.00 isn't
that big a deal. If you felt like it needed to be increased minimally,
that would be reasonable but otherwise, if you don't think that it's
enough money, then instead of raising the fee just at the end, we have to
look at the density. That's where I'm corning from.
Boyt: I think we need to look at density and hold off on this until we
decided on the density question.
Mady: We have a real problem with density. I'm thinking too that we've
got the parkland and how it's being utilized, we're short. We really
truly are.
Sietsema: But remember, another thing to consider is this is not the
community park development. This fund is for neighborhood park
acquisition and development. So if you look at our neighborhood parks
. " '" ,
are we servlng our eXlstlng communltles wlth what we have? I would say
at City Center Park, no we're not but at Minnewashta Heights, yes we are.
And at Meadow Green Park, I would think we're right at.
~
Mady:
park.
I really think we're deficient and seriously deficient in any
Chaparral might be clos~ as it's exists right now but with the new
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 6
.
stuff corning on board this year, that park's full. The density really
something maybe we should be looking at.
Sietsema: So what's your next step? Do you want to direct staff and see
how many people are using the existing parks or are in the service areas
of existing parks? If you table this, I would like some direction on how
to proceed.
Boyt: I think we should look at all the parks that we use now and have
some sort of information on that.
Sietsema: So you want to table this and find out how many people are in
the service areas in each park now?
Mady: Yes.
Schroers: Then we also have to look at those plats for proposed
developments. Take that into consideration. We'll have to look at the
plats for the proposed developments and consider that also.
Boyt: Like Lake Susan.
Sietsema: That one is directly related to 1 per 75.
~ Mady: We won't be changing anything.
Sietsema: We can't.
Boyt: No, but we need to look at it.
Sietsema: No, but if we change the fee, they'll be charged more because
they're at 50% so right now 50% is $207.50. If we change it to $500.00
for single family, it will be $250.00.
Boyt: Isn't that only a small portion? The important thing is serving
Chanhassen.
Robinson: When we tabled this before simply because I think we wanted
more money and told Lori to go do this. She comes back and it looks the
same. It sounds to me like we're saying, by god we're going to justify
this for money. Go look at density and if that doens't work out, we'll
have you go look at something else until we've got $500.00-$600.00 it
sounds like.
Boyt: I don't think it's to get more money and I've seen the figures
saying Chanhassen needs this many acres of parkland to serve this number
of people and we're way beyond that and we don't have room for our kids
to play baseball. That our numbers are wrong. We need to deal with
that.
.
Mady: Ed was the one who pretty much wanted us to table it at that time
and he was looking at how many people in his firm, he wanted that
information.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 7
r
\.
.
Sietsema: I did work with him when I was putting this all together and
he was comfortable with it.
Lynch: One thing we have to keep in mind is that some of the old burden
neighborhood facilities that exist now, the upper Carver playground
facility and the old Chan Estates, these went in during the 50's. People
with one acre plus, they were pieces of property that happened to be
there and were given to us or a developer put a park in there to sell
houses and those are some of the low park facilities.
Boyt: We know how many acres we have.
Mady: One thing we find though, if we find out how many people we have
in the service area, and the number of acres of parkland we have, then we
have a pretty good feel for how each park is being utilized, we'll have a
good idea of what our density should be. If it's too high or too low.
Then we can proceed for future park development. Is it possible to get
that information for our next meeting?
Sietsema: Yes.
Lynch: My memory is not good enough to recall why we picked the number
that we did.
r
~
Sietsema: Because that's what Lakeville did.
.
Lynch:
I couldn't remember if it was Lakeville or Metro Council.
Hoffman: One thing to consider is the time lag we have between some of
the new parks and some of the new development that is corning in. That
will serve more people in some of those service areas that are a little
over crowded now and once those facilities are available, it will spread
out some of the people that are using certain overrun and rundown
facilities. Some of those things are in the works.
Boyt: We're getting a lot of people into the City Center Park area that
use the park.
Mady moved, Lynch seconded to table the park dedication fees item until
the next meeting pending information from staff concerning densities of
existing park areas. All voted in favor except Robinson who Opposed and
motion carried.
Hoffman:
to you?
What type of specific answers or numbers can we come back with
We don't want to just come back with generalizations.
I
Boyt: That service area I has 10 acres of park and 75,000 people in it.
Hoffman: And what type of organized programs takes place in those parks.
at this time?
-
Lynch: We're addressing neighborhood parks.
.
.
.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 22, 1988 - Page 8
Mady: There aren't any organized things going on.
Sietsema: We have playground programs and tennis programs.
Hoffman: Chaparral is really booked Monday through Friday with girl's
softball and we can't book anymore people down there.
Mady: Is that considered more of a community thing or neighborhood?
Hoffman: Meadow Green is neighborhood.
Boyt: It's a neighborhood park but it serves a community need which
there's a question as to whether it should.
DISCUSSION OF REFERENDUM RESULTS.
Sietsema: I just wanted to bring to your attention that they have
scheduled a meeting for April 4th and I still don't know what time of day
that will be. It may be a work session over dinner. It may be later but
it's tentatively set for April 4th and I would recommend that anybody who
has some input or message they would like the Council to hear regarding
the referendum, to either let me know that or put it in writing so I can
forward that to them or attend the meeting.
Lynch: Will some sort of a schedule of tentative action be available at
that meeting or will it be discussed at that meeting as far as when each
of the items...
Sietsema:
I think they are planning to discuss the schedules.
Boyt: Just Jim and I looked at another piece of property.
Sietsema:
I haven't had a chance to go out and look at it closely.
Boyt: It's available and it's cheap.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - WOODCREST ADDITION.
Sietsema: This proposal is located just north of the Triple Crown
Estates Subdivision on the south side of Woodhill Road about a 1/4 mile
east of Nez Perce. The proposal lies within the service area of the
Carver Beach, Meadow Green Park and Chanhassen Pond Park. As it's
currently being served by those parks, addi~ional parkland is not being
called for and the trail plan does not call for trails in this area. It
is my recommendation to accept the park and trail dedication fees in lieu
of parkland and trail construction.
Schroers: I think staff has looked into this and I don't see a problem
with that at all.
,
'-
'-
CITY 0 F
CHANBASSEN
-'
.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park and Recreation Commission
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinatqr
4
DA'rE:
April 7, 1988
SUBJ:
Park Acreage Standard
The Park and Recreation Commission tabled action on the park
dedication fee schedule to review our current park acreage stan-
dard of one acre per 75 people. Attached please find a list of
each existing park, its acreage, the number of people in its ser-
vice area, and the calculated number of people per acre.
r
,
At first glance it would appear that a few of our parks are
serving more people then our standard allows. However, each of
these incidences show a park that shares a service area with
another park. For instance, some residents within Minnewashta
Heights developmentare served by Cathcart Park and Minnewashta
Heights Park. This reduces some of the pressure on Cathcart
Park. It is staff's belief that the standard of one acre per 75
people is a fair and proven standard. It is therefore, the
recommendation of this office to adopt the existing park acreage
standard and to establish the 1988 Park Dedication fees as
follows:
Single family
Duplex
Multiple family
Industrial
$425 per unit
$425 per unit
$280 per unit
$1050 per acre
As shown in the illustration in my memo dated February 10, 1988,
(attached) this is a justifiable increase.
.
.
Acres Service Area People Per Acre
. Bandimere Heights Park 3 132 44
Carver Beach Playground 3 544 181
Carver Beach Park 8 381 48
Cathcart Park 2 163 81
City Center Park 3 489 163
(School property not included)
Curry Farm 6 260 43
Greenwood Shores Park 4 289 72
Herman Field 13 139 10
Meadow Green Park 18 714 40
North Lotus Lake Park 18 416 23
Rice Marsh Lake Park 30 266 9
Minnewashta Heights Park 2 150 75
Parks with Multiple Service Areas
Carver Beach Playground
Total 544
288 served by Meadow Green Park
190 served by Carver Beach Park
116 served by Greenwood Shores Park
87 served by Curry Farm
.
Number not served by any other park - 89
Carver Beach Park
Total 381
193 served by Meadow Green Park
190 served by Carver Beach Playground
57 served by North Lotus Lake Park*
Number not served by any other park - 131
Cathcart Park
Total 163
70 served by Minnewashta Heights Park
Number not served by any other park - 93
City Center Park
Total 489
105 served by Meadow Green Park
Number not served by any other park - 384
Curry Farm
. Total 260
87 served by Carver Beach Playground
15 served by Greenwood Shores Park
.
Number not served by any other park - 158
Greenwood Shores Park
~
Total 289
255 served by Meadow Green Park .
116 served by Carver Beach Playground
15 served by Curry Farm
Number not served by any other park - 12
Meadow Green Park
Total 714
288 served by Carver Beach Playground
255 served by Greenwood Shores Park
193 served by Carver Beach Park
105 served by City Center Park
Number not served by any other park - 77
North Lotus Lake Park
Total 416
51 served by Carver Beach Park*
Number not served by any other park - 359
Minnewashta Heights Park
Total 150
70 served by Cathcart Park
~
Number not served by any other park - 80
.
*
Denotes physical boundary barrier in park service area.
not take roadway barriers into consideration.)
(Does
,
.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 19
.
do their project to get their master gardener certificate. So that's
what it amounts to. They have to do a public project and they have to
keep it for a year. It has to look neat.
Schroers: Weren't you talking about something for your Brownies but
after they initially put them in, then will they come back and maintain
them and take care of them?
Boyt: Hennepin did the daffodils or the crocuses along the creek.
Thousands of them. They come up, crocuses come up, they bloom, and they
wither. It was just beautiful last year. They planted it in amongst the
grass.
Schroers: I'm just asking because I don't know a lot about it except
that the few flower beds that we have around where I work take a lot of
care.
Sietsema: Sue, do you have to go out and water those or anything?
Boyt: The tulips that my Brownies put in last year, we put them next to
a sign. They're going to come up year after year and you don't have to
worry about them. That's just it. You don't water them.
.
Mady: It would be nice if every park sign in the City had a small bed or
tulips or irises or something perennial that comes up early in the spring
because those usually don't need a lot of water and maintenance or
anything. They just come up. They're there. They're there for about
two weeks and then they're gone.
Hasek: You can do those things in the grass area and they're usually
gone before the grass cutting season even starts.
Schroers: And they're not like bulbs that have to be dug up in the fall?
Boyt: No, you just leave them in year after year. You don't get as many
flower blossoms in the following years but you still get some. I talked
to Dale about it last year before about seeing what we should plant.
PARK DEDICATION FEES.
.
Sietsema: I came up with some numbers for service areas for the park
dedication and that's what this map up here is. It shows each park and
the black circle around each one of these parks represents the service
area for each park. As you can see, we've got some overlapping,
especially in here and here, so it's difficult to measure how many people
are actually be served by that park when they may be served by as many as
three parks. Then when you count the service area for this park along
here, you can not really count the people on this side of the lake
because of the barrier so we didn't count those numbers but if you just
take how many people are within each different service area, you can see
that we are over the I acre per 75 people.In Carver Beach playground,
City Center Park and Cathcart park, All three of those have shared
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 20
(
.
service areas so that decreases really that number because if you
consider Cathcart Park and Minnewashta Park, all these people are being
served by two parks. I don't know how you want to determine that.
Hasek: I think the way that has to be done is that really has to be
closer looked at based on barriers. It's kind of like a fire response
study. It's not a matter of drawing a circle and saying this is the area
we serve because they have a time deal that figures out exactly what that
is and looks at how far they can get and that kind of stuff. I really
think that's what happens here. You have a projected population that you
want to serve by each of those parks and just knowing that there's an
industrial area within part of that, does that extend the role upon
another park? Is there time involved in their distance a little bit?
Some judgment has to be made on some of that. For example Cathcart Park,
the service area for Cathcart Park is probably all up in Shorewood.
Sietsema: It's very questionable if any of these people over here are
being served. That they're going to cross TH 7 to get over to Cathcart.
Hasek: The only reason that that park gets used is for like playground
stuff like the ball fields and soccer and hockey.
Sietsema: Organized play.
~ Hasek: Then the parents are taking the kids across because TH 7, nObod~
~ in their right mind let's their kids cross that highway. That little one
in Minnewashta there, nobody goes skating there except for those people.
They're the only ones that use it. If you want to do something more
recreational, you go across the street to the one that's in Shorewood. I
also think that maybe if there are any that abut our community, like that
one in Shorewood, just north of TH 7 right across from Minnewashta Shores
there, if there are any other in another city that actually serve a part
of our area, we" should know about those too. In other words, maybe what
appears to be a hole in here really isn't. Cathcart serves Shorewood.
It's owned Shorewood. No, it's ownedby us but it's maintained by
Shorewood.
~ I.'
Sietsema: It's not owned by us, it's owned by Shorewood.
Hasek: It is owned by Shorewood and maintained by Shorewood and it's in
our city limits.
Sietsema: Located within our city but owned by Shorewood.
Hasek: These are just the city parks.
~
Sietsema: Right. This is just neighborhood parks. It didn't inlcude
Lake Ann or Lake Susan so basically you can see here that our populated
area is being served. Except for these few holes that we've got in the
Eckankar property and Saddlebrook property is now being filled in, .
there's not a whole lot more development that's going to go on there.
It's pretty much filled. We do have a hole right here in Pleasant Hills
and that's already filled but we don't know what area in there that's
I
.
.
.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 21
going to become available for us. We do have a few small outlots within
Pheasant Hills that may be conducive for a totlot, small totlot or
something but nothing that if you could just put an ice rink on one of
the ponds.
Hasek: This is all brand new in here too isn't it? How corne we don't
have a park in there?
Sietsema: The final plat was done before I was here so they're just
doing the last phases so by the time I got here it was too late to make a
request.
Hasek: Maybe what we should think about then, if we're serious about it,
there are still empty lots in there. Maybe we should think about buying
a lot.
Boyt: You said to maintain the ice...
Sietsema: There's an outlot that has a holding pond.
Mady: Can we get back on the subject. It sounds like we're talking
about the next item on the list.
Sietsema: I'll start over. At the last meeting I was directed to find
out how many people are being served by each park. How many people are
within the service area of each park. So we went to each park and drew
the service area around each one and that's what this represents. Each
one of these, here's a park and the circle represents the service area.
As you can see in a more populated area, we've got people served by more
than one park. I think the most within the service area is three parks
at the same time. The only hole that I really see is up here in the
Pheasant Hill area and again, we have two or three outlots that were
dedicated to the City that would be big enough for perhaps a totlot.
It's just that there is usually a holding pond on those outlots and so it
would be up to the Commission to decide if they think totlots or
something should be located that close to a body of water like that. I
don't know what the liability or what those implications are. On one of
those outlots where there's a holding pond, we do maintain it as an ice
rink in the winter time so we are serving them to that extent.
Otherwise, where our development is coming in, Saddlebrook is here so
they're covered. Chanhassen Hills is here and they've dedicated a park
within that, it's just not developed yet. Lake Susan Hills West is over
here and they've got three different park sites here so they're covered.
When we asked for parkland, we figured it to the 1 per 75. So the people
per acre is over the standard on Carver Beach Playground, Cathcart Park
and City Center Park, but again, some of the people in those service
areas are served by another park as well so it's difficult to figure out
whe~e we really are deficient. I don't think that our parks, where they
are right now, are overused except for when we start talking about the
league sports. I don't think that we need to alter our standard so we
require less parkland. I don't think that should happen at all but as
far as neighborhood use I think we're doing pretty good. I still firmly
believe that we're going to have to beef up our community park because
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 22
(
.
right now, as Todd can testify, the youth programs are absolutely filled
up every single space we have in every neighborhood park throughout the
City so we're at capacity right now as far as our community use.
Therefore, my recommendation is to raise the fee as shown. Did I include
in your packets the old memo?
Mady: Yes. This one?
Sietsema: That has the outlining?
Mady: Yes, with the calculations on it.
Sietsema: Based on that memo and the calculations that that will
justify, I'm recommending that we raise it to that level and then
concentrate on beefing up our community park as we are doing with the
Lake Ann expansion that's planned and the southern area.
Hasek: What were the old numbers?
(
Sietsema: The old numbers were $415.00 per unit for single family,
$415.00 per unit for duplex and the multiple was varied. I just
consolidated them and took an average. The industrial was $1,035.00 per
acre so the biggest increase was $15.00.
Hasek: The only concern I have, I guess when we did this before and I .
think I talked to you about on the telephone a couple of times, is that
there was justifiable means for doing that. As long as that's down and
we can defend it, that's all I really care about.
Sietsema: I think that our City Attorney would be very happy with the
way we've got this and he would have no problem taking it into court.
'---'.'7'"." ---...
Mady: I'd personally like to see you
is anyway we can justify going higher
capricious. Since that doesn't stand
to have to go with what's defensible.
go higher but I don't think there
without just being arbitrary and
up in court very well, we're going
This is what it is.
A motion was made at this point with the following discussion.
-
Lynch: When these first came into being, they seemed to represent a much
larger percentage of the value of the land than they do now because I've
been on the board long enough and was here through the years of 20%
interest rates and the 15% and 20% and 25% per year increase in the land
value and we did not take but 3% to 5% increases on this fee in that era.
Not remember what those fees were in those days, it's obvious that the
percent we have now versus what the land is, was not what it was in those
days. It was felt that it was a controversial thing to do when they were
established and they got beyond that so I don't think that this is enough
probably. The $15.00 is not too much. I also think it's not enough. I
think it could be more. .
Haesk: I felt exactly the same way. I think when this first came out,
what concerned me was I guess I didn't want to, I spend my day working
~
.
.
.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 23
for the developer and this is kind of on the other side of the fence for
me but what can you do but when I looked at it I wanted it be fair from
both sides. I see so many cities that we go into that are way out of
line with the way that they calculate and the way that they figure it.
They simply say, that's the way it is so that's the way it is. You know
if you want your project you're going to pay the piper unless you've got
so much money and you're such a big developer that you want to contest
it. That's why when I talked to Lori the first time, I wanted to make
sure that there was a way to calculate it and it had some rationale
behind it and what she's basing it on is land values.
Lynch: Let's say for instance that a developer wanted to put in 25 units
and we were to raise this $50.00. On a 25 unit development, it's
$2,500.00 and that's not going to deter a builder. The builders are used
to the fact now that they have to pay these things. I'm sure if they
were all sitting in a room and we said would you like us to raise these
$50.00 fees, they'd say no but I think we could raise them $50.00 apiece
and I'll bet you we wouldn't have two people in the next year say, hey
you raised that $50.00. I don't think they'd ever see it.
Sietsema: Probably not but do we want to do what you can get away with
or do we want to do what we can justify? That's the bottom line.
Lynch: You can justify what you can get away with. That's a
justification in itself. I'm serious. I think we're bending too far to
the side of conservatism here.
Sietsema: I don't care one way or the other. My personal feeling, I
don't think it makes that much di.fference but our fees are not out of
line with what other communities are doing. We're right in the
mainstream of what we're doing and then you take into consideration that
we have added a trail dedication fee so the park and trail dedication fee
is now up over $600.00. If you take that all into consideration, we're
doing pretty good but again, Roger has no problem holding this up in
Court and taking this to Court if anybody should contest it. He's
comfortable with it. I'm comfortable with it.
Lynch: Where does Roger reach a problem though?
Sietsema: He reaches a problem when it is not based on land values. It's
got to all come back to density and land value. In dollars, I don't
know. He doesn't care how much it is either.
Lynch: Is approaching the limit $500.00? Is it approaching $600.00?
When I go out and design and sell industrial systems, I decide what that
customer can pay maximum for that system and my price is below that.
Very close below that.
Sietsema: Based on what our land, the County Assessor has said what our
land values are, this is what his limit is. He hasn't picked out a
number out and said I can't hold anything. I don't know what you want me
to say Mike.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 24
(
.
Lynch: I'll tell you what I'm asking for. The County Assessor has come
up with figures. Let's take a rough number. Let's say he says $425.00
is reasonable. Everything has a plus and minus. What's plus?
Sietsema: This is plus. I took it all high.
Lynch: I know but I mean, where do you reach the point where this is no
longer "reasonable". I don't think, what I'm asking, you don't know
that. I don't know that. The County Assessor doesn't know. Nobody
sitting at this table knows it so if we've got, it only costs a nickle to
ask. If we've got to establish a new number, we don't establish it, the
Council establishes it. So instead of making it $425.00, let's make it
$450.00. If they say no, we say okay, make it $425.00 then.
Hasek: I think you're missing the point.
Boyt: Instead of that way, we could say, because we have to change the
number or the cost per acre or the number of 75.
Hasek: What you have to do is you have to go back to the County Assessor
and get him to say that the value of the land is not worth $15,000.00 an
acre, it's worth $20,000.00 an acre which would justify coming down to a
$450.00 instead of $425.00. What the City Attorney is saying is he
approves of the process that we've gone through using the numbers that w.
r have which makes it defendable for him. Now he doesn't care where that
~ bottom number comes out as long as the process is correct and that's all
I asked Lori to do. I wouldn't have cared if this came out where
everybody paid, and I feel exactly the same way you do, I think that the
developer is going to charge the person. You're going to see it. It
goes into a 30 year mortgage. Who cares? That's exactly the way I felt.
The problem is that when you pick a number that this is based on, then at
that point you are being arbitrary and capricious. Reasonableness
doesn't even come into it because they'll hit you on arbitrary and
capricious before you ever get to reasonableness.
Lynch: During the year of 1988 and I was talking to a realtor the other
day, the land prices are supposed to start going up. You're in the
business. Now he was talking 5% to 12% depending on where you live and
what kind of property you had. Why can't we say, I don't think it's
sneaky to say, we set this, this is good for all year. By the end of
'88, your property, we're not going to make that 10% anymore or whatever
percent that is. We're going to be less than that so we're going to
shoot for a midrange.
Hasek: That might be something that we could do. See I think that that
would work.
Boy~: That's legitimate?
/
Sietsema: Sure.
.
Hasek: Adjust it for inflation.
.
.
.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 25
Sietsema: So who's word do we take that it's going to increase a certain
percent? Do I go back to Scott Winters and say how much do you
anticipate the land values to increase in 1988? He's the one I got-the
figures from in the first place. He's the one who does the actual
survey. The Assessor.
Hasek: Maybe what you could do is either ask him or ask the Attorney if
it would be alright to take the word of like, there must be a State
Realtor Association of some sort that would have sort of the land
projected inflation rates on land that is a valid number. Maybe there's
even a State agency that does that type of plan. Makes a projection
based on state taxes or something like that.
Mady: The State does it just from property tax.
Hasek: Yes but Lori, this has got to be frustrating for you. I feel the
way he does. I was hoping that there was some way that this number could
corne up higher and be justifiable. Really, because it disappears anyway
but as far as I'm concerned, it has to be justifiable.
Sietsema: To be perfectly honest with you, the numbers that I got from
Scott, I'm pushing to the absolute limit for $425.00.
Boyt: Those are good numbers but if the land prices are going to go up
25% in 1988, then we can't project...
Lynch: When was this evaluation taken?
Sietsema: In 1987.
Lynch: When in 1987?
Sietsema: January of 1987.
Lynch: Alright, so we're talking January, 1987. We're a year behind
already.
Mady: I have a feeling that what we're looking at is, the realtor is
going to say in the neighborhood of 10% and that's where we're going to
end up. We're just going to bump each fee 10%. I think what we're
trying to do is justify raising the fee. I think the inflation, that's
what our job is really is to voice all this out and see where we can get
to so we can make a recommendation that the City can stand behind in
Court.
Sietsema: I feel like saying, pick a number and I'll go back and justify
it. I'll rearrange it to justify it.
Mady: That's kind of how we started this whole process.
Sietsema: Then you want me to say it's $425.00, that's what the fee
should have been for 1987. Based on the 1988 projected land values, that
should be increased by such and such percent?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 26
,,-
.
'-
Hasek: Yes, if that can be done. If you can find a source for that.
Lynch: I'd even like you to look at it on an 18 month basis. Say we'd
like to look at median 1988 values. That would be halfway through the
year so January, 1987 to June-July, 1988 at whatever rate of increases
that you can find to do with it. I really felt badly back in the days of
the heavy duty inflation because those few years ate into our park equity
money a great deal and we lost money and we weren't able to raise the
rates. The philosophy at that time was that we wanted to wait. We
wanted Chanhassen to develop and it was necessary to keep these rates low
for the developer. I disagreed with it at that time, I guess I still do
but that's why we lost those increases.
Mady: I'm going to move to the vote on the motion.
Hasek: The motion is to accept it as suggested by staff and we've got
some discussion that goes along with that. The suggestion would be that
we simply let the motion fail and make a new motion.
Hasek moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation COffi.rnission
recommend to adopt the existing park acreage standard and to establish
the 1988 Park Dedication fees as follows: .
r
Single family
Duplex
Multiple Family
Industrial
$425.00 per unit
$425.00 per unit
$28(3.00 per unit
$1,050.00 per acre
'-
Hasek voted in favor, all the rest voted in opposition to the motion and
the motion failed.
Sietsema:
I need a motion to direct staff.
Hasek moved, Schroers seconded to direct staff to take one last look at
the numbers that they've proposed in light of inflation over the next 12
to 18 months and see if they can't justify a slightly greater increase in
the park dedication fees. All voted in favor and motion carried.
REVIEW REQUEST TO PURCHASE PARK PROPERTY IN THE NORTH SECTION OF THE
CITY.
Sietsema: This item comes from homeowners in the Lake Lucy Highlands
area. This is Lake Luch Highlands here, this is Lake Lucy Road. It goes
right along here so they're on the north and south side. They feel that.
they are in a park deficient area and they are requesting that parkland
be acquired in that area. The closest park to them is...
~
(A tape break occured at this point in staff's presentation.)
.'
.
.
-;1
-
-oJ
CITY OF
CHAHHASSEH
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordintor
DATE: Park Dedication Fees
This item was not acted on at the last meeting and staff was
directed to check the projected increase in land values for the
next 12-16 months. I have contacted a number of people that I felt
would have an unbiased projection; however, no one made such pro-
jections and directed to me to the County Assessor, Scott Winter.
Mr. Winter foresees no increase in undeveloped land values. A par-
cel of undeveloped land that is subdivided and then sold off in
lots would have an increased value, however, our projections must
be based on undeveloped land values, which, again, are not expected
to increase.
Based on this information, staff maintains the recommendation of an
increase as follows:
1987 Rate
Recommended Rate
Single Family
Duplex
Multiple family
Industrial
415/unit
4l5/unit
See below
l035/acre
425/unit
425/unit
295/unit
l050/acre
1987 Multiple Family Rate
Efficiency
1 bedroom
2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms
4 bedrooms
110/unit
200/unit
330/unit
405/unit
425/unit
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 14
.
r
.....
I don't want to see too many signs out there obviously but I think there
are a few that are needed and I think from a safety standpoint should be
looked at by staff.
Mady: One other comment I've got, one thing in this accessibility
discussion that we haven't addressed and I think needs to be addressed is
to make the park handicap accessible. I believe they should, no matter
where we have our parking for anything, the number one closest spot
should be the handicap spot. I don't think anymore than one but I think
we should have one handicap spot set aside and if you don't have proper
tags for it... I think it's time to make a motion on this.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded to direct staff to have Mark Koegler review the
parking design for Greenwood Shores to address the safety situation to
investigate whether or not parking can be put at the top of the hill to
be safe. Further, the situation concerning safety signs along the street
be reviewed by the Public Safety Commission. Mark Koegler to come back
within a month with a new parking layout so there will be time to go
forward with the plan before the beach season. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
'"
PARK DEDICATION FEES.
Sietsema: I contacted a number of people to ask them the question of .
what the projections for land values in the next 18 months were going to
be and no one I knew did anything formally. Al Klingelhutz, well I think
that where they're going to change uses, it's going to go up and in the
southern area it's going to go down and you're industrial's going to stay
about the same. He said maybe you want to call the County Assessor who I
called first and he projects that they won't change and has nothing
formal as a formal projection either. Therefore, my recommendation stays
the same as it was last week. To increase it based on the numbers that I
gave you two or three meetings ago which would bring the single family
rate to $425.00 from $415.00 per unit. Duplex to $425.00. Multi-family
to $295.00 and industrial to $1,050.00 per acre.
r
Hasek: I would like to see them higher but I can't see the justification
for doing it...
Mady: Basically my comments are, I don't like what I see in total but we
have no other way of defending it so we've got to go with what's legal.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation commission
recommend to increase the Park Dedication Fees for 1988 as follows:
Single Family
Duplex
Multiple Family
Industrial
$425.00/unit
$425.00/unit
$295.00/unit
$1,050.00/acre
.
~
Trail dedication fee set at one-third of the park dedication fee.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
.
.
.
8"0-
C ITV 0 F
CRAHRASSEH
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park and Recreation Commission
-;1/
FROM:
Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor
DATE: January 19, 1989
SUBJ: Ballfield Scheduling
With the demand for ballfield space in the City of Chanhassen
increasing annually, the time has corne to adopt a policy
addressing ballfield reservations. Last season all the fields
available in Chanhassen were used throughout most of the summer.
Some groups were not able to reserve the field or fields they
preferred at the times they preferred. When a situation of
conflicting field usage arose, staff made a decision of what
arrangement would be most equitable to both parties. This year
requests for field space already exceeds availability. Gary
Meister, who coordinates the Girls Softball program, requested
both fields at Meadow Green Park from April 15 through August 15,
Monday through Friday from 3:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The increased
need is due to the fact that last year 4 teams participated com-
pared to an anticipated 5 or 6 this year. Granting this
request; however, would ignore a request by Westside Baptist
Church for Field #1 or #2 on Monday nights from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m.
It would also eliminate practices for adult softball teams which
were held last season on Field #2 nearly every weeknight. Last
year a request for a field at Lake Ann Park on Tuesdays for
Little League resulted in a shift in game nights for the
Industrial and Women's Softball Leagues to accommodate this
request. This allowed the smaller Women's League and Little League
to play on the same evening. This year the Little League would
like that evening and another if it were available. This would
mean the nine team Women's League could not expand and another
-dult softball league would need to be decreased. Brad Johnson,
representing the Babe Ruth Baseball program also inquired as to
why Field #1 at Lake Ann Park, which was constructed for baeball
and softball both, is not available on weeknights for baseball.
Allowing this request would result in severe limitation of one or
more adult leagues. As this situation can only increase in the
foreseeable future, a written policy addressing this issue could
alleviate some of these conflicts.
P-rk and Recreation Commission
January 19, 1989
Page 2
An unwritten policy now exists which allows returning groups or
organizations to use the same fields they did in previous years
if they request them. In the event that more than one group
requests the same field, a decision is made which is deemed fair
to both groups.
What I would like from the Commission is a recommendation as to
what criteria such a policy should use and how it should be
stated.
.
.
.
8'-,.-
.
CITY 0 F
eHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park and Recreation Commission
tI
FROM:
Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor
DATE: January 19, 1989
SUBJ: Adult Softball Player Eligibility Requirements
.
This issue goes hand-in-hand with the problem of not having
enough ballfields available for all groups interested in using
them. The argument goes "Why do we provide fields for teams
wholly or partially comprised of non-residents, while at the same
time turning some people who live or work in Chanhassen away?"
Last year 56 adult softball teams participated in five separate
leagues in Chanhassen. Eligibility requirements for last year
were as follows:
- Persons living or working in the City of Chanhassen are
eligible to participate on a team.
- Non-residents who played on a Chanhassen team last year may
participate on the same team.
- Non-resident teams may participate if the league does not
~ill with Chanhassen and returning teams.
- The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Department reserves the
-;ght NOT to allow non-residents to participate in its
program.
.
In leagues that had a greater number of teams apply for a posi-
tion than were available, the teams with the highest percentage
of players living or working in Chanhassen or living in one of
the school districts were accepted first. This occurred in the
Men's Open League when 21 teams showed an interest in one of only
14 positions available. Of the players on the teams accepted,
57% lived or worked in Chanhassen, 26% lived in either School
District 112 or 276, and 17% were outside players. The three
other leagues that fall under these eligibility requirements,
Women's Open, Men's 35 and Over, and Co-Rec are similarly repre-
sented.
Park and Recreation Commission
January 19, 1989
Page 2
My request of the Commission is for you to make a statement of
your position on the issue of player eligiblity. Specifically,
what you would recommend the policy be for the 1989 season.
Note: Information on what other communities in the metropolitan
area are requiring for player eligibility is attached. Items 3e
and 3f deal specifically with this issue.
.
.
.
l:
i
~ :
r
(~
,"
.
METRO SOFTBALL SURVEY SUMMARY
Thank you for your quick response. Wi thin two weeks, 31 of 33 surveys were
returned. I'm going to make some general observations based on the data I
compiled, then you can draw your own conclusions. I'm enclosing a summary of
responses, plus the complete data file of each survey submitted. Keep in mind
that I didn't hire a consulting firm and pay them thousands of dollars to come
up with this survey, so some things may have been done in an amateur manner,
but hopefully, you can find information that will help you in organizing your
own leagues.
Observations
1. The metro area is still primarily USSSA sanctioned. Minneapolis, St.
Paul and Bloomington appear to be the only holdouts. Nineteen percent of
those responding register both USSSA and ASA.
2. There is a great range in price per game ($10-$29). You'll need to refer
to your data file to see why some cities are higher. Number of balls
provided, league awards, playoffs, scorekeepers, and lights are all
factors we tried to track. One big factor we couldn't track is quality
of facilities. Another is the administrative charges, which vary
greatly, especially between leagues run by softball associations, park
boards and park and recreation departments.
.
3. Most leagues playing one game/week playa 10-11 game regular season plus
playoffs. Any leagues playing 18 or more games are playing either twice
a week or double headers.
4. It looks like most leagues are now providing at least one new ball per
game.
5. While Worth is making inroads in the softball market, Dudley continues to
dominate with 58% of the leagues surveyed using Dudley 11" and 12" balls.
Debeer is the overwhelming choice in 14'1 and 16" balls. ~
6. About 25% of the cities surveyed require that all players live or work in
that sports community. Another 25% register teams by priority systems
(e.g., first 100% live or work teams, then 75% live or work teams, then
50% live or work teams, etc.). Thirty-three percent of respondents allow
anywhere from two to seven outsiders per team. The remainder either had
no residency requirements or didn't answer the question.
7. The average outsider fee is $12.14 per player. This includes 23% of the
cities surveyed that don't charge an outsider fee. If you exclude those
cities, the average outsider fee is $16.19 per player.
8. A third of you charge eligibility/conduct deposits.
9. Half of those who responded provide lights for 20% or more of their
games.
.
10. Of cities surveyed, only 16% have no league playoffs. Eight-four percent
of those who have playoffs use a double elimination format.
.....;;......~. . ~_j 1. Seventy-seven percent of the leagues offer more than one way to gain an
MRPA state or regional berth.
Nav 8 1988
CITY Of CHANHASSEN
,
(
('
I'
METRO SOFTBALL SURVEY RESULTS
Re2istration
.
1. Number of teams
l1Q Hopkins-Minnetonka
~ Brooklyn Center
ill Roseville
lZ2 Eden Prairie
~ St. Louis Park
ill Plymouth
ill Eagan
140 Maplewood
~ White Bear Lake
ill Burnsville
127 Edina
121 Richfield
ill Blaine
jjQ Apple Valley
ill New Hope
J2 Fridley
~ Brooklyn Park
JJ Crystal
~ Maple Grove
~ Shakopee
-1l Shoreview
-1.] Moundsview
~ New Brighton
~ North St. Paul
...2.J Robbinsdale
-1f! Chanhassen
48 Columbia Heights
~ St. Anthony
-1..Q Champlin
-..U Lakeville
J Osseo
2. Affiliation
-2L USSSA
ASA ....L Both
Neither
This response was expected, since we surveyed the metro area only, and the .
greatest ASA support is in outstate Minnesota.
3. ~
a. Price/2ame (rounded to the nearest dollar)
-1- $10; -1- $12; -1- $13; -1- $15; -1- $16; -1- $18; -1- $19;
-1- $20; -2- $21; -1- $22; -1- $23; ~ $24; -1- $25; -1- $26;
-1- $27; -1- $29
.;
Some communities listed 2 or more kinds of leagues with different
prices.
b. Number of 2ames
....L 10; ~ 11; -1- 12; ....L 13; -11- 14; ~ 15; -1- 18; -1- 20;
-1- 22; -1- 24; -1- 28
c. Number of softballs suoolied bv lea2ue oer 2ame
-1- 0; -11- 1; -1- 2; -1- no response
I think there was some misunderstanding of the question, "Number of
balls supplied/game." I intended it to mean, "How many balls does the
league supply/game?" Some communities may have included balls
supplied by the teams. .-
(
(
.
5. Awardini of state/re2ional berths
--2 League champion only
--1 1st & 2nd in league
--1 1st-4th in league
--1 1st & 2nd in playoff
~ Top 3 or more playoff finishers
~ League champ & top playoff finishers
(lor 2 teams)
--1 Playoff champion only
6. Awards
-2l Team trophy to league and/or playoff champ
~ Team award and set of shirts to league or playoff champ
~ Team trophy and individual trophies to league or playoff champ
--1 Individual plaques to playoff champs
--1 Team plaque and $50 gift certificate to league champ
-lJ Team trophy to league runner up
~ Team trophy to league 3rd place
~ Team trophy to playoff runner up
~ Team trophy to playoff 3rd place
--1 Team trophy to playoff consolation champ
7. Umpire salaries: --1 $13.50; ~ $14.00; --1 $14.25; ~ $14.50;
-lJ $15.00; --1 $15.50; --2 $16.00; --1 $16.25;
~ $16.50
.
Some communities were paying this amount to an association which means
the umpires were actually getting less than the amount listed.
8. Scorekeeoers
24 No scorekeepers; --1 $4.00/game; --1 $4.50/game
~ $5.00/game; --1 $5.25/game
9. Schedulini
a. Earliest startin2 time
--1 5:30; ~ 5:45; -12 6:00; --1 6:10; ~ 6:15; --1 6:30
b. Latest startin2 time
~ 7:15;
~ 8:30;
~ 9:45;
--1 7:20;
--1 8:45;
--1 10:00
~ 7:30;
~ 9:00;
--1 7:45;
--1 9:15;
--1 8:00;
--2 9:30;
--1 8: 15;
--1 9:40;
c. Game time limit (in minutes)
~ 60; -1Q 65; -1l 70; ~ 75; --1 Start of next game;
--1 no limit; --1 no response
d. Park curfew
.
-1Q 10:00; --1 10:15; --1 10:30; -1l 11:00; --1 12:00
--1 no curfew; ~ no response
e. Maximum number of 2ames/field/ni2ht: ~ 2; --1 3; -1b 4
(
(
..
10 & 11 Inninis. balls/strike count and courtesy foul
---1 7 innings 3/2 with courtesy foul
-.2 7 innings 4/3 with courtesy foul
---1 7 innings 4/3 without courtesy foul
---1 8 innings 3/2 with courtesy foul
-.2 8 innings 3/2 without courtesy foul
12. Rainout makeups
--3
J
-.2
On regular league nights
(late games)
Fridays
Weekend
--3
---2
--3
July 4th week
After season (week nights)
No response
.
.-
.
.
.
Nu$~3S d31,V"V I
SiH~IN ~1 '~3d-d \'i
~33i'1 v Allie-I'I .
SON3:"33tl-i'I \ ,..
SAValCU~j ~..
Sd03~V~ HiUt,j Vd I
4""
<
..0 ~ j,t,., -< <
...
ln~~~~ma~O~l~V~ ~!: ~ ~ ~ ~ ::: ~ ~
~ M C""'o ...:r r"l r"I
3WV~ a3d
S~NI N~<1
013lJ d3d
1H~1 N a3d
S3WV~ ~O~IX~..
113,anJ
~aVd
S3lilN Hl N 1
3~V~ d3d
11Wll 3wll
., .... ...
,... ,... ,... ,... ,... CI:l
...
-
:i
,,;
J J rl ,J I J
@ 8 < ~\- ~ I
... ~ i ~... ~ < I ii ~I " 1
~ ~
Q <,....'
5 ~
~ u c
~::'~t:~t:.~~
'" ... ;; '" .; ... '" ;;
".
""'
< ... ...
Ci
~
...
u c.;
~ ~ 0 :::' ~ :::'
r"I -4 t"'I ...,
u u u
~~~
... ... '"
u
I.,,; ....
- ~
:: .c: ~
~ .,
.......,......a '" a...",.... a",..
... 0 '" '" 0 0
..;t ..:t '4 ..:r ..;r ~ N 04' M r"l ..:t I"""t N N "1 ...:r
o 00
o 00
.:;
00 0 lJ"\
000-
___ ==02
00
00
0-
~ ~ ~ ~
....
:.< '"
o ...
Z
3~1l 3WV~ 2: ~ ~ ~
1S31Vl " 0 '" ~ '"
o ~~, )...~ : 0
3WV~ a3J ,c:: ~., NO _ ~
vd 3dl"I,"1 ;;:, ::;;; ..;.:,- - _
3n~\'3'1='1
DOOUIla3J Lf1~-~
~~O.~~'ld -d or.
Sialh5 'aNI =S ~
.S3IHJOai 'ONI=I ~
AHJOdl ..V31-11
SodVIW
"OAlllJ=d\l.
30~V31=1 v. '(
SHld3S '~3d ~'iS I ~ ;; ;;:
,0 ~NIOdVt\V I
N05113S1TidS-SS
3S~30 ,0 OSWOJ=J
'l110U S..1I31 llV=1I
'lVOU S~V31 3..0S-S
~I 13 1~S-3S
~113 lS0=30
S"OAvld 30~\t31
SlH~ 11
a30Nn 03Allld ~;; ~ N ;; ~ 0:::: ~ ~
S3~~ ,0;.. _ _ .
il50d30 DOONOJ s:: g ~ ~ 8 ~
-AiIlISI~Il3 .. ;; " ~ ... ~
3~1l 3~V~
1S3110113
3WII~ a3d Alld
a3d33~3aOJS
aHll1d a3d 33,
0301 S100
'S3d ,0
.. AS ~3d
031101111 S
,
dnSaO=S
Hld
HlO
'!ll AS
S1111S
,
5r;V31=~
d3015100
Q..J!,""ON
o ,,91-VI
or,=1I uti 0 c.
00=0 "II 0 0
03l1ddOS
1,OS 113r~
o d39WON
S3"V:J ,0
d39WON
l,nwINlw
(slm
IId1S1~3d
30!l1l31
HiOS=S
.0 "SV=II
lVIlU~V
5111131
,0
d3SWON
NOll
IIsssn
NOI
lJ"\ 0 0 ""' 0
'4 M M ...:r 1""'\
Q),...O\CI';lCl',)
~ ~ 8 ~
.;; ;.<; ;
'" 0 lJ"\ V"I
_ 0 ...:r -
'" ..0 '" ..0
o
~"'l< <<<< <
~~~~:z~zz~z
'" :Q
J,~~~
E:::;~~l:
v:: Ul
...
~ t
~
,..
'0 ~
~ ~i
Ul .:..... .... -
~:; ~~~~
~ ~ +
~ljJ
"'1" ...
~ ~ ! ~
or.
~s~~~~
'"
en
; E 5 ~
<0
Z
'" '" .. '"
OM NO
~ ~ ~
~ ~
;.!. ~ :J: 3:
< t::l &:::a Q
M-.7-4~~NN-4r-..r.,
N ...
'" ...
?~?~
----~==--
o C 0
o c c
o '.1 C 0
_ '-:iG
? ? ~
N 0, ...
000 0
"" 0 0 0
0...0 0
o 0
o 0
o ;.:
o 0 c
C? ~ 0
- - 0
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~~~
o.n 0 o.I"'lo.l"'l 0 o.f'I
>&;j >&;j " ..Q ..Q ,... ..Q
~ o.I"'lO 0
'3 .Q"" ..c
Z
'" '"
...0&>
'" '"
0&> 0&>
0'"
'" -
o 0 0 o.I"'l
"" M O..:r
,.... ,.... (7\ 0\
:::ggg~~~~
O\GQOO\O\Q)""""
~ g ~ g
'" ... ...
11"'..."'\ 0
..
"'..
CD "',.... '"
~ g
'" '"
o '"
0-
'" 0&>
000 Oo.f'l 0 lI"'l.n
oooo-o-..:r
IIQ "g "g "g IIQ ."g IIQ '"
g g ~ ~
'" 0 0
- '" -
"''''
... -
'" '"
- ...
'" '"
~ '"
0&> '" 0&>
"" ..c..&. >D
<'"
Z'"
< < <
zz:z:z
~<<t<'"
..,... z ;or. z ...
g ~ g ~ g g -8 ~ ~
_::!"'o.f'I"'.o~_
..,.r, ...
< < -< -<
zzzz
< <
Z :.<
< < c( ..:J
;::. z z CIIiIt'
o 0 00
o 0 '" 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
00
'" '"
'" 0 ~
.Q .c ..c
o c c
00 0
l"""I loP '" '"
... ... ...
! ~ ~
"-
-
~ +J t: ~
... ~ r" r- ~
Ul ..J.!. ....
~;:r;:;;r'"
... N C'" :i
~ ~ :: :
~ ~ ~ i~r-"
p..r-;c:;~~~E
:i ~;.:: Ul ~ ~..J
:31"'- :; :i _
:: ::
<< <:
~ i
r. ":
:: :
0,
...
;;: ~
~ ..J
v.
~
or. ....
- ....
...
p..':'E~~~~
.. ~ o.Cl :.... ~
~ ~ ..0
;:;.. ;:;
,..
1: r ~ (.;
l:;;:~~~~::
..a o.Cl M t-o N
~r::~~5
:3::i ~ ~
~ N
~ 5
:;;
1 ; ~
....
'0
'";' ce r-4
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ...
::;
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ;; .... ~
... ::;
....
~ :;;
.... ;:;
t
v.
;;: ."
~ ~ ~ u
Z
u ~ ~
o
'"
~u:l~w
w
o
L,.; w.:. V". w.:
~v....:~Q
;..". Q
C
v:
'"
c ".
~ u w
~ ..0 A
~ ~
"'0
o 0
g
~~~~ ~
N
00
.r.o C.
-
0'::;' 0 or,
t""\'" ro",
~ ~ '"
'"
.... 0
zoo
~ ~ ;;
0\.1.1 \.1.1 \.1.1
~O~B~
.... .. z ;z. z
\.1.1 \.1.1 Iot.l I,o.l
"'- ? ;t:. ;z
000 0
~ :z. z ~
LW ~ ;...l
;t:. ;.'. :z.
o 0 0
Z Z Z
o w.: \.1.1
o ;7. Z
_ C C
th ~ ~
O:.a..l j.,.;
~~ ~
V't;.!. :z.
~ ~ ~ g
~~, ;c; ~
o 0
o :(;~ 0
".~
o ~
~ 2 ~
...... ...
on ::: :: :
o 0 c
;o::;::;~::;;
o~
o <-
Z'"
..,... t-t 00
o 0 N ,.e -4 .... N I~
o ...
o 0
o :>
o :>
'"
o
~ :I: Q ~ ~ :I-
o 0 0
~ ~
QQQ~ Q
Q :I: CiC
-- .~
is
<
o
QQ~QQ~Q
~QC.QQQ
:so
Ci
o :s
o :s
___0--
0- -
_O_--N----N-O
::~
~
'"
_ 0 0 0
f.::
~p
'"
N '"
~~~;;
o
~o;:!;~~-~-::
N
o
o 0
...
i==~:r::::;:!;i-::~
'"
NO
~
~ l'4
'"
'" '"
N 0'\ 0 N
o
'" 0 ~ .,....
0&> '" '"
'"
ON
<"I
<"10
~
::> ::>
::> ;:>
..::>
~ ~ ~ ~
... ...
No&>
- -
AiD
~
= g
.... or.
:.;l ;z
o ;;;:
~ ...
..J C
... =
'"
...
~ ~
::>
~ l
t;; .
~ e
~ ~ f
u<.:J
...<
"''''
<"I
ON
...
N ~
~~;:;~~."'~.CCIl"lM
"'ooo.n~;~~~'"
~~~~~ ~ ~
C1\ t; ~ ~ ~
~ ~oo 0
~ ~ II"l
'" '"
N <"I
N ..,
'"
o NO
'" ...
N .. N
...
N
:;).~~:;)~CQP~.,:;):;.
..~::..,;';":;:J
~::>
::>
::;.. ~ :oJ
N ..
... =
~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~
... _ N
~~~~ClC::=~
E ~
'"
:3
?:: :::
'" .., ;;
a ~ ~ ~
'"
...
'" ~
~5~~"'U
~~::f/)~g~
~~ ~~~!2
~i-Z"",...JC
~~:5~~~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ u:l:'!:
~ ~ <
~ c,..:
;.l. u lor.
'"
....
....
... ....
; ~ t
< or.:,:
.... 0 u
;;; ~
c
;2 E
... ...
g ~
'"
....
..J
'" -<
;.. ....
~ ~
~ ~
< u
~
~tJ;=
~ E ~
g ~ 5
~ ~ ~
II
!
I
I
-~-I-I
\
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
.
City (
League Direct
(
~"
METRO SOFTBALL SURVEY
(use 198'l info)
.
Re2istration
s:: .,....
O"tl ..-t
..-l:>..-t
~..-lLr\
CO!:QLr\
Q)
I-'.s:::
tJ~Z
Q) :l;E
.s:::~o
tJ i:! ~
tIl "tl >-..s:::
;::l S::..-l ~
!:Q co ~ :l
o
~~Oi:!
tJI-'O>'
..-lco..-t..-l
~~C""l~
1. Number of adult softball teams
Divisions you offer:_____Men's Open_Men's Church_____Men's Industrial
35 & Over_____Women's Open_Women's Church_Women's Ind
-Co-Rec 1l/12"_Co-Rec 14"_Co-Rec 16"
2. Teams register with: USSSA
ASA
Both Neither
fiu
..
o
~
3.a)Entry fees: $ Number of games/team
in playoff)
b) $ Number of games/team
in playoff)
c)Number of balls supplied/game
d)Kind of balls used (manufacturer) 11"
16"
(include minimum possible
(include minimum possible
s::
I-'
:l
~
Q)
I-'
QJ
tIl
ca
QJ
..-l
~
12"
14"
e)Do you have residency requirements?
If yes, explain
f)What is cost per non-resident? $
g)Do you charge an eligibility/conduct deposit?
much?
If yes, how
.
h)What percentage of your games are played under the lights?
~
Plavoffs
4. Do you have league playoffs?
If yes, describe format
5. How do you award state/region playoff berths?
6. What kind of league awards do you present and to which places?
Umtlires
7. Umpires salary: $
/game
".
B. Do you
game?
Schedulim.t
supply official scorekeepers?
$
If yes, what is pay per
9.a)What is earliest game starting time?
c)What is your game time limit?
e)What is maximum number of games on a
b)Latest starting time?____
d)What is your park curfew?
field per night?
.-
10. How many innings do you play?
(check one)_4 balls/3 strikes_____3 balls/2 strikes Other
11. Do you allow a courtesy. foul?
12. When do you schedule rainouts?
.
CITY OF
eHANHASSEN
c.l
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park and Recreation Commission
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator;
'h
l.,~./
DATE:
January 20, 1989
SUBJ:
1989 Totlot Equipment Purchases
.
The 1989 Capital Improvement Program includes $6,000 for new
tot lot equipment at Lake Ann Park to replace the existing, out-
dated equipment. It also includes $10,000 for new totlot equip-
ment at South Lotus Lake Park. Staff would like Commission
direction to order the equipment now so that it is here when our
summer help arrives. Additionally, staff needs to know what type
of equipment is desirable. Would you like to see what has tra-
ditionally gone into the parks, such as Meadow Green and North
Lotus, or should we look at something new?
Also, there is $5,000 worth of new equipment that was purchased
last year for Greenwood Shores Park. Upon Council direction it
was not placed there as no off-street parking is available.
This equipment was not placed elsewhere. The Commission should
decide if the equipment should go elsewhere, or appeal to the
Council to allow it to go to Greenwood Shores Park regardless of
parking. As Greenwood Shores Park is heavily used, staff feels
that it would be an enjoyed amenity to the park.
.
CITY OF
CHAHHASSEH
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Co~~ission
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation
Coordinator ~
DATE:
January 20, 1989
SUBJ: 1989 CIP
Attached please find the 1989 Capital Improvement Program. The
Commission has stated in the past that they would like to see a
schedule from the maintenance department as to when these items
will be completed. Park Maintenance Superintendant, Dale Gregory
has asked that the Commission prioritize the list and he will
schedule his workers accordingly.
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
1989 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Lake Ann Park
Water & Electrical to Shelter
Totlot Replacement
North Lotus Lake Park
Tennis Windscreen
South Lotus Lake Park
General Improvements
Ballfield Construction
Totlot Equipment
Tennis Courts (2)
Carver Beach Playground
Off-street Parking
Park Identification Sign
Carver Beach (Along Lotus Trail)
General Improvements
Bandimere Heights Park
Half-Court Basketball Court
Off-street Parking
Minnewashta Heights Park
Park Shelter
Chanhassen Pond Park
Wood Duck Houses
City Center Park
Play Surface
Warming House Improvements
Totlot Equipment
Bluff Creek Park
Interpretive Signage
Access Road
Chanhassen Tree Farm
Restocking
Miscellaneous
Grills, Tables, Benches, etc.
$ 10,000
6,000
500
10,000
15,000
10,000
25,000
3,000
350
3,000
2,000
1,500
20,000
400
1,500
2,500
40,000
1,000
10,000
3,000
5,000
$159,750
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
A. Memo from Jim Chaffee re: Carver Beach Road.
B. Letter to PCA re: Lakes Lucy and Susan Access.
C. Memo from Scott Harr re: Indoor Ice Arena.
D. Memo from Scott Harr re: Indoor Ice Arena.
E. Memo from Ron Julkowski re: Indoor Ice Arena.
F. Conversation Report re: Hidden Valley Trail Easement.
G. Conversation Report re: Boat Mooring at Carver Beach Park.
H. Letter to Mary Decatur.
I. Letter from John Schorgl re: Basketball Hoop at North Lotus
Park.
J. Response to John Shorgl.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF
CHAHHASSEH
Mil".! S.",..,.i,,~~r'"
R/o~
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM.
TO:
Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation coordinator,L-
January 11, 1989 ~
DATE:
SUBJ:
Carver Beach Road
.
At the December meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission,
they reviewed plans and specifications for the sidewalk along
Carver Beach Road. During the public discussion, much concern
was expressed regarding the excessive speeds along Carver Beach
Road between Powers Blvd. and Nez Perce Drive. The Park and
Recreation Commission at that time recommended that the Public
Safety Commission review this item at their own meeting.
The Park and Recreation Commission will be discussing this issue
again in February. It is anticipated that the same questions and
concerns will be voiced and the Commission at last night's
meeting again recommended that this item be reviewed with the
residents at a Public Safety Commission meeting. It would be
helpful if either you or Scott could attend the February meeting
to respond to the public safety questions as well. Attached for
your information are the minutes of the December Park and
Recreation Commission meeting.
)....J~l-
Up {id.JL / EJ. ()
~
r~
lui~ ~.
h~ ~/tJ (/~q)..
u ~~
~ ~.J tAJ~ ~ .
~~~ I vd;:b:; u.J Li:A tJlU./L
j;o~ ~
ftu-
p~
ctLUi
~
1~ uJ-U..-!-
~1
~
.
{j/l.f-/
/u
'5
LC:' (Ct.,1
--' f./
CITY OF
CHAHHASSEH
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
January 13, 1989
Mr. Jim Anderson
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Program Development Section
Division of Water Quality
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
Re: Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Clean Up Project
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This letter is to update you on the progress the City of
Chanhassen is making in obtaining access on Lake Susan and Lake
Lucy.
The City submitted a LAWCON/State Grant Application for access on
a park site on Lake Susan in July of 1988. We were notified in
November that the application received preliminary approval for
the $220,000 project by the Department of Trade and Economic
Development. Recently a resolution was passed authorizing the ;
submittal of a final application. Additionally, the City Council
acted to approve the revised site plan for the access site. The
deadline for the final application is January 20, 1989. It is
anticipated that final approval will be given by March, 1989 and
construction will begin in the spring.
The Park and Recreation Commission held a public hearing in June
of 1988 to inform the residents in the Lake Lucy area that the
City Council had made a commitment to the Lake Riley Chain of
Lakes Clean Up Project. It was explained that by resolving to
commit to the project, the City made a commitment to obtain
access on Lake Lucy. The meeting involved getting the residents'
ideas on where access could be obtained. Since that time, staff
has met with DNR officials, reviewed all areas of the lake and
researched lakeshore characteristics.
.
.
There are a number of items that required research, i.e obtaining
access by channeling between Lakes Ann and Lucy, putting access
at small neighborhood park known as Greenwood Shores, accep- .
tability of an outlot in the Lake Lucy Highlands neighborhood,
Mr. Jim Anderson
January 13, 1989
. Page 2
etc. Most recently we have been looking at a piece of property
owned by the Minnesota Heritage Foundation. The problem that is
most redominant on any of these sites is the marshy-like
lakeshore which would require dredging 400 to 600 feet.
A consultant has been hired to determine if prospective sites
could support an access given soils and water tables.
It is anticipated that alternatives can be listed with pertinent
facts listed for each by February 1, 1989 for a public hearing
discussion to be scheduled. It is further anticipated that a
site will be selected by April, 1989 with LAWCON application sub-
mitted in May.
I feel that we have made progress in both areas and believe we
will be able to proceed as suggested. Please feel free to con-
tact me if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
.
i~;0 Suvf-~
Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
LS: ktm
cc: Bob Obermeyer, Watershed District
Conrad Fiskness, Watershed District
.
C ITV 0 F
CHANHASSEN
.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
TO: JIM CHAFFEE, Public Safety Director fl
FIOI: = IIARR, Asst. Public Safety D~
DATE: January 17, 1989
SUBJ: Indoor Ice Arena Code Violations
Per your re:JUest based on Councilperson Dimler I s call regarding the
sagging roof at the ice arena, I have reinspected the property. First,
the seemingly sagging roof is rrerely the deisgn of this particular building,
and presents no hazard.
.
I am very troubled, however, at the lack of response to IT!Y earlier att:.all'ts
to have several violations brought intocc:rrpliance. None of them present
terribly difficult problems to be overcome, but each presents a code violation
which reflects the danger potential, as well as a liability potential.
My present intention is to close the arena to further use until the followj.ng
items are brought into carpliance, am inspected by our Building Department:
1. All glass must be guarded on all sides, particularly in the
overhead viewing roans. Broken glass must be rem:::>ved.
2. All floor obstacles must be safely covered, including the piping
and hole in the overview rcx:m at the NE comer of the building.
3. All electrical service must be inspected (this can be arranged through
the Chanhassen Building Inspection Department, although they do not
conduct the actual inspection).
4. The stairways leading to the overview roans must canply with
building codes, including requirerrents on width of the stairs,
and height of handrails.
5. Fire extin:.Iuishers must be provided to the satisfaction of Fire
Inspector Mark Littfin.
6. A final inspection must be made through the Chanhassen Building
Inspection Depa.rt:ment.
cc: Don Ashworth
Lori Sietsana
Todd Hoffman
Bldq. Dept.
.
I'( (';"V
CITY OF
CBAHBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
January 19, 1989
Mr. Marvin Hayes
Chaska/Chanhassen Hockey Association
1071 Chaparral Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Marv:
I am writing to thank and commend both you and the Hockey
Association for your prompt, courteous, and well done work at the
ice arena. I fully realize that no one likes to hear about code
violations, but I am sure you agree that the situation involves
the safety of the children in our community, action has to be
taken.
.
I could not have been more satisfied with the response from you and
the members of your association. Within 24 hours, you successfully
accomplished what I have been trying to have remedied for more than
one year. As a result, the ice arena is again operating.
Apparently there is confusion as to exactly who is responsible to
maintain the building. I am recommending to Todd Hoffman that this
issue be dealt with at a Park and Recr~ation Commission meeting. In
addition, I am also recommending that before any arrangements ar~
made for the building to be utilized as an ice arena next season,
a thorough building inspection be conducted by our City Building
Inspection Department. Having discussed this with you, I appreciate
your recognizing this as a concern for our young hockey players,
rather than an inconvenience being placed upon you by the City.
Please feel free to continue to call upon us for any assistance we
can provide. Again, thank you for your help!
S~lY ,
U:~
Assistant Public Safety Director
.
cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Dept.
Toff Hoffman, Park and Rec Dept.
Ron Julkowski, Building Official
Clayton Johnson, Bloomberg Company
Brad Johnson, Lotus Realty
C ITV 0 F
CHAHHASSEH
e
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Harr, Asst. Public Safety Director
FROM:
Ron Julkowski, Building Official
"
~.
I' ..t,
~
DATE: January 19, 1989
SUBJ: Electrical Inspection At Chanhassen Indoor Ice Rink
An inspection was made on January 18, 1989, with Curt Hagfors,
State Electrical Inspector. The following items are to be
completed:
1. all overhead lighting fixtures are to be fastened from the e
roof system, not from the electric conduit.
2. All space heaters are to be provljed with disconnect
switches.
3. All electrical boxes are to be protected with approved
covers.
Mr. Hagfors stated that a permit has not been obtained and that
it would be our decision whether or not a permit is to be issued.
e--
f{ 103
.
CONVERSA TeON REPORT
TELEPHONE/PERSONAL
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
.
110 COULTER D"IVE ..." BOX 117
CMAHtNSEN, WINN(SOTAW17
BY:
DATE:
TIME:
PROJECT NO:
L,,:
J/II'C/,~
.3 '. c>o A.M.JP~.
ProjectrH \Jd-lv\ V (,A-\(~ 1" v;" \ Title:
Call To/From: ,) /~,'1 LeL;s Telephone: ~7) S? 63,6
Organization(
Address:
.
Purpose:
I. Q--b~UAr '" -Lei ~. ~ tii6 V'\.bt ~
o ~ () "'. V"UI; "~o. -+v-w\ \ ,e.b--"- ...~~ aA/ Iu..- .:t.~
lk v-l()~ Ju'~ ' ~. ~,e. H-I~
Discussion: fa...... V\U t ~\\; ~ "-\ "'L~ \ ~ ~s. '-/-{..J. r'e....
,JaW. k vu c.uvJ-s . *' ~ '
L . ~ L& ~ ..(}tJ.-- ~
w
~ ~ jJ
@ 7. c~ 12M'\. ~vJ, 1k..- uJ;.u. ~JI.- ~
^-,-,~""""",..J Ai iLw&J, ~ ~.J (M~3) ~ ,to
/u-u"'--'-. ()~ "-<- U:.- ~WLJ. .""-4 + ~ ~
-hJ j-<AA ~L L.u.-u,w', T~ e.b~ {J L.....J".i.-o . 7-k-
Follow-Upl Aetion: v.:UL ~ -4 Ih~ ~ ~
;fo 1aL. ~ "( -r~. 7.k" ~!
(tj ~/~'7 )
C-bJVV ~
~r ~ WdNv~-
~.
~
~ 9~ &Mvu- ~ (JY'-- 111"1 J &'9 P, IJLt-> N-W'
~ ~~ n1J1~ /Uo.
7-k ' 7/1'- - u (fJ'U!fW1Ht " ;},
cUesrv6 F ~ "j ~ (JlW L4ft',f:i:;,.>
. ~.Vu ~r .~(v he-- AM .,<,.,,~~:,:.
frI ;tAl ~ . c.- ~. 1~'fvl;~?:
-h vJtJulI.- .~ If ,u-. vJ~ ~~'fti~ ';':
-f*;\.-
(L ~ p ~ ~M()/W' )......
~ ~ tJvJ. .At f/Jwd'"
f-.Ju- -p ~'-' IvJ- tJ.- ~ tAl /
LU~~ ~ Pd~) .
~ ~ {l.Cvrv ,:UV VJ jvJJ #-'-' .,
e~ ~~ ~~.
.tJ b J ~ ~ v.JCUl ~ '
. ~ (V1oJ~r ~ ./JnL ~ ad
)' . jY U-J~ ~ 4JL
~L~~~w~'~
~ ,4 ~ ~ !J-vl--0. .
e.
If 1c6"c&-
.
CONVERSATDON REPORT.
TELEPHONE/PERSONAL
C (TY 0 F
CHANHASSEN
.
1'10 COUL TEA ORNE. ".0 IIOX ,..,
~N. .....NlSOTAWI1
BY:
DATE:
TIME:
PROJECT NO:
~~
t/,q/r;CJ
/ 03 : () () A.M./~
Project ( Title:
Call To/~om-:) (Y7rt..h-JA 1J.u..o:iivv Telephone: ( ) 474- 9aqq
Organization: ~ i-tJ..Jvt,s. UJu... .::5)w/l.L ~J~/U
Address: (P(?{fS-I-IoMJhtJJ... (lLI!UJV
.
Purpose: ~ ~ LMo..::/- rr-rvoa .
tJj/ ~ (WwVIJ~. . ~ ttLOt ~~
()nJ. j:;/u~. i~
Discussion:
""~IJ~
fJ~/~. ~
./YY1-l>tJ
.~
~ vUCul
PR 6 /YYl1' t) tt-l<u
lj.Ju ~ 1.L thJ,J~
Follow-Upl Action:
.iJ Lou! ~ 'Vu ,L.,e. p~ ~ M-U~ _
~/Ud.Lh/<J
u.JiLL Iv- ~ - ~ u
~~
~
'. ...~
~
"01:
'(
Ju-
PIeC-
/- ...
~>,~
--
, ~"
,.
.
~
','::_'-'!J
1(,9/--
..
.~ . "'i~*-i
'1. .' .
~~.~.;. c'
-.t., , ~'~~y;
'i' _,1 .
tf-r1.-
.-", ',,-......'- ..;.-..'.....
. '_ ~"-1.
:.'" ""-" ..J!:,....
'~''''. .:".
.'r \t':
. .
1~" \'\
.
,:
.".
'..
,~~.t.
.
CITY 0 F
CHAHHASSEH
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
January 19, 1989
Ms. Mary Decatur
6645 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Ms. Decatur:
.
Thank you for your phone call regarding boat moorings at Carver
Beach. As we discussed, the Park and Recreation Commission is
tentatively shceduled to address park improvements for that park
on February 14. I anticipate that this discussion will be an
information gathering session, with the residents in the area
letting the Commission know what type of development is desirable.
As this is a park on the lake, all of the residents on Lotus Lake
will be notified prior to the meeting. You are invited to attend
the meeting so as to let your feelings on the mooring issue be
known.
Again, thank you for your call. If you have additional
questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Lo~ &..vf~
Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
LS:k
.
C ITV 0 F
CHANHASSEN
e
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
January 17, 1989
Mr. John Schorgl
6533 Gray Fox Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Schorgl:
Thank you for your letter requesting a basketball hoop at North
Lotus Lake Park. As we discussed on the phone last week, I will
schedule this item for Park and Recreation Commission review on
February 14th. I will send you a copy of the staff report and the
agenda prior to the meeting.
Again, thank you for your interest in the Chanhassen Park System. e
Sincerely,
I-o~ Srti/-~
Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
LS:v
P.S. As to the name of your basketball team, personally I am
somewhat partial to the TimberFoxes!
e-