1988 01 20 Agenda
.
.
.
(0.
AGENDA 0-~
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY ]I~.~, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 690 COULTER DRIVE
1.
Call to order.
2.
Approval of Minutes - December 8, 1987.
3 .
Interview Commission Applicants.
4.
Park Dedication Ordinance Fees.
5.
J A
Review Preliminary Plat - Lake Susan Place. ___ ~ j;:" /e~:.
6.
Review Preliminary Plat - Schwaba-Winchell.
7.
8.
9.
Update and Meeting Schedule for Referendum.
Update on Zamboni.
Review 1988 Meeting Schedule.
r 8a p'
Ie u--~d 0... k
CITY OF
CHAHHASSEN
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
coordinat~
DATE:
January 8, 1988
SUBJ: Commission Applications
Advertisements for applications attracted no new applications for
the Park and Recreation Con~ission. Jim Mady and Larry Schroers
are both interested in continuing to serve on the Commission. It
is the l'ecommendation of this office to reappoint them to the
vacant positions.
3
.
.
.
.
CITY OF
CBAHBASSEH
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 '""~
MEMORANDUM
"'
i
TO: Park and Recreation Commission' ,
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation coordinato~
December 28, 1987
DATE:
SUBJ:
Next Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
.
At our last meeting it was decided that we would move our meeting
days in 1988 to the first and third Mondays of the month. As
there are conflicts with this.new schedule, we will stick,with "
the old schedule until the Commission has had the opportunity to.'
review the options. The next meeting will be held on TuesdaYr~'=~
January 12th at 7:30 p.m.
Please bring your schedules so that alternatives can be reviewed.
Current Schedule
2nd and 4th Mondays
1st and 3rd Wednesdays
3rd Thursday
City Council
Planning Commission
BRA
.
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 22, 1988 ~
DATE:
SUBJ:
January Meeting
The Park and Recreation Commission will be meeting on Tuesday,
January 26th. Please bring your packets dated January 12th, as
that will be our agenda.
So that we are able to catch up, please keep your Tuesday evenings .
free for the next 2 - 3 week timeframe. I have tentatively sche-
duled a meeting on February 2, 1988, to discuss in detail the
Comprehensive Plan and five year Capital Improvement Program. The
9th will be our regular February meeting date and we should be
able to cover any items that have been delayed due to weather by
that time.
Please call me at 937-1900 if you are unable to attend the January
26th meeting.
.
.
Lf
CITY OF
CHAHHASSEH
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 5531'7
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation coordinator~
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.
$1500/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
multiple 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
29S/unit
1,140/acre
J.)
f
,
RI&l
..Jl ....
Schilling Environmental Consultants
.
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
--",...~~ ~ '~-,""' ..-'
. Little Canada
Oakdale
.
Eagan
Lakevi1le
Mahtomedi
Roseville
Shoreview
White Bear Lake
Vadnais Heights
Woodbury
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.
.
.
.
~
-2-
Those cities which do not show a land dedication fODmula, 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 I 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 local
government park dedication fees by using specific development examples. 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
example, the land when finished with utilities and streets has sold for $ 55 -
75,000 per acre (less the residence) and $ 150 - 300,000 with the home!
,
.0
-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 all
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.
. .
-s-
TABLE I
PARI( LAND DEDICATION .
.c.t:n RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Vadnais Heights 9 - 20% of site, density based* 10 % of the total site
White Bear Lake 10 % of the total site. 5 % of the total site
Shoreview 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site
Little Canada 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site
Roseville 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site
White Bear Twp. 10 - 15 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site
Arden Hills 10 - 15 % of site, density based. o - 15 % of the total site
Oakdale 5 - 17 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site
Coon Rapids 5 - 18 % of site, density based. 3 - 5 % of the total site
Plymouth 0 - 25 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site
Fridley 10 % of the site 3 % of the total site
Mahtomedi 7 % of the total site. 7 % of the total site .
.c.t:n
DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE*
LAND DEDICATION (%1
9 %
11 %
13 %
15 %
17 %
17+ - 20 %
10 %
11 %
12 %
13 %
14 %
15 %
10 %
11 %
12 %
12 - 15 %
Vadnais Heights
White Bear Twp.
Arden Hills
0 - 2 units/acre
2 - 4 "
4 - 6 "
6 - 8 "
8 - 10 "
10+ "
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 + "
.
-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 " 14 %
7.1 - 8 " 15 %
8.1 - 9 " 16 %
9.1 - 10 " 17 %
10.1 + " 17+ %
Coon Rapids o - 1 units/acre 5 %
2 - 3 " 10 %
4 - 5 " 12 %
6 - 7 " 13 %
8 - 12 " 14 %
13 - 16 " 18 %
16+ " 18+ %
Plymouth o - 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
.
en
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE
CASH DEDICATION
Vadnais Heights
(Development sites
of 0 - 5 acres)
o - 3 units/acre
3 - 6 "
6 - 8 "
$ 200/unit
$ 250/unit
$ 300/unit
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE
(Development sites 0 - 2 units/acre
of 5 or more acres) 2 - 4 "
4 - 6 "
6 - 8 "
8 - 10 "
10 + "
* undeveloped land value without utilities.
% 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.
$ 375/unit
$ 750
$ 250/unit + $75/bed
added above the first bedrm
.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
$ 1,500 per acre, excluding streets and roads.
Shoreview
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE
o - 2 units/acre
2.1 - 3 n
3.1 - 4 "
4.1 - 5 n
5.1 + n
* undeveloped land value with utilities included on or near
% OF
LAND VALUE
4 % *
5 %
6 %
7 %
10 %
the site.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
10 % of the fair market value of the land.
White Bear Twp.
Single Family
Multi Family
$ 175
$ 175/dwelling unit
OR
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE
o - 3.5 units/acre
3.5 - 4.5 "
4.5 - 6.0 "
6.1-7.0 "
7.1 8.0 "
8.1 + "
* undeveloped land value with utilities
% OF LAND VALUE
10 % *
11 %
12 %
13 %
14 %
15 %
.
not included.
-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/ INDUS'l'lUAL
5 % of the fair market value of the undeveloped land.
Roseville
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of the undeveloped fair market v~lue 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 n $ 275/unit
3.1 - 4 n $ 250/unit
4.1 - 5 " $ 250/unit
5.1 - 6 " $ 250/unit
6.1 - 7 n $ 220/unit
7.1 - 8 " $ 220/unit
8.1 - 9 n $ 220/unit
9.1 - 10 " $ 220/unit
10.1 + n $ 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)
Mahtomedi
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
10 % of the undeveloped fair market value or $ 200/lot whichever is greater.
-9-
TABLE I I (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/INDOSTRIAL
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 Mahtomedi, 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.
.c.:n 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.
~
Eden Prairie
Lakeville
White Bear Lake
Eagan
Coon Rapids
Oakdale
Woodbury
Mahtomedi
White Bear Twp.
Vadnais Heights
Arden Hills
Little Canada
Roseville
Shoreview
CASH DEDICATION
LAND DEDICATION
$ 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-
TABLE III (cont'd)
~ EXAMPLE No. 3 - Commercial/Industrial
~
~
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.
en
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
0.19
0.19
0.09
0.09
n
0.19
"
5
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
PRC DATE: 1-12-88
C.C. DATE:
CASE NO: 87-3 PUD
.
Prepared by: Sietsema:v
.....
Z
<(
u
:J
C-
o..
<(
~
~
W
....
-
C/)
STAFF
r"l 'AM De \ e kJ
~-rc-
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Preliminary Plat of 9 Quad Homes and 2 Twin
Homes on 9.5 Acres
LOCATION:
Located east of Chanhassen Hills on TH 101,
1000 feet north of Lyman Boulevard
APPLICANT:
Enterprise Properties
6700 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 200
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
PRESENT ZONING: As part of the Chanhassen Hills PUD, the site is
designated as multiple family, zoned PUD-R.
ACREAGE:
9.5 acres
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
N- RSF; Residential Single Family
S- A-2; Agricultural Estate
E- RSF; Residential Single Family
w- PUD-R; Planned Unit Develp. - Residential
EXISTING PARKS: The PUD includes a 7.8 acre park which is separate
from this proposal by TH 101.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan states that the area
east of TH 101 is park deficient and active
recreational facilities will be needed.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: The trail plan identifies trail
alignment on through streets within
developments and along TH 101.
.
.
.
Lake Susan Place
January 12, 1988
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The area proposed for development was originally part of the
Chanhassen Hills PUD and intended to have six single family units
north of Lake Susan Drive and multiple family on the remaining.
This proposal would replace the six single family with 2 twin
home lots and develop 9 quads on the remaining. The proposal
includes the extension of Lake Susan Drive, as it crosses TH 101,
and a cul-de-sac to serve the quad homes.
As part of the final approval, the Chanhassen Hills PUD dedicated
to the City a 7.8 acre parcel for park purposes. The developer
received a 50% reduction in park dedication fees for this dedica-
tion.
The Comp Trail Plan calls for off-street trails along the major
streets of developments. Additionally, the plan calls for trails
along TH 101.
RECOMMENDATION
As the development has previously met their park requirements
when the PUD was approved, it is not recommended that additional
land be acquired. It could be suggested, however, that the
developer provide play area for young children in the area of the
quad homes. As the yard area is common ground, a homeowners
association could provide the upkeep on such a facility.
It is the recommendation of this office to require the construc-
tion of an off-street trail along Lake Susan Drive, and a 20 foot
trail easement along existing TH 101, and along the new TH 101
alignment. A 50% reduction in trail dedication fees should be
given for the constructed trails. As no additional parkland is
being recommended, the 50% fee established when the PUD was
approved, should remain.
::\
,
1---
<-
(
lOP 01.
.----
-------
-~ ---
SUSAN
RSF
RB
(I)
0:'
LrJ
~.
~
RSF :.-
c:i
- >-
PUD-RaJ
~
~/U;!> ~
RSF.
.
.
1-
.J
C
III:
~
'~a.J
Cf-FLO
~~
LrJ
0:
C)
nJ~
Be'
R. 18
r_
'V
A2
A21
I
I '_
Q
/]) i :j~I:
I" \1
II' "1
I:: :::
I~-!q~
/111 ,tit I : ,
I II ,I I' ,
1"""'\: I
II I" , '
III ,I I :
II 1II'r
II ~II"
III II :1:
-Ht- Ii!
; I : : I: I t ',I
'I: I I, II'
I II 1/1111
:1: I Ii 1\'
I ,I "I I
II" 1/ I
1"lml
hl1 '
'I 1/ '
:,\:!Wil
~,',-~'/l" 'i
" -:.:::.-J I .'
- I
II
II
II
II
'I
,-/;,ji
\ i / \ \ I
I " ,
I " I
, II,
I 1\ I
I \':
, (\ I' ,
1 ",1 I
I 1"\ \
I III'
1 1\\\
I \ \\ \
I 1\ ,)
,I rl I ~
, 1,1
':1\ .,/\ I
I Ii \ ' )
I II, / I'
I III 1 -{"
I \:: / Q"~ \'
I II' IOU'"
I 1\' "'
\ I 1\ ,?u'V ~
I ',:', I: I " / ....''-'-'" " i
; r\:: U : II: \ ..'" 1 ".;~~'" I \
I 'I' <!> "'.... I
" I I' 'I : I I...." I
I I I' I I ~c, / }'
I I i\ : 'I!": \, ' 1/ /
I ','I' :111:~ll': I: (11/--------- / ,,'b"'./
/ :',: II, l I \ /
I, 1'\': I " \' l' / /
/ I' I! 1,1 j-' I \ \ // /
_Ii !i{'!h\>,>~ \ --' '// / \
I, I' , Ie' 'f.., , " , . . \.
/:I!!iit Ii'! "'1-:<=--""" \ // ' \ \
!lhl,r\~3\ " I" '\ \ \,:/ "/ /...--~'.'---- \/j
/:'~?I '\~~~!l~ ~>~___j ) ) \ \, \., ,I ~~"j'~/"~;:::~~<-'+ : I'
. II?/ I ~..'.! ',j'. i ",1'---/ " / : ' - i ;9>'. /~~\ ' " \
J!/ II \1,ll,',\:',\:\ -l-~,~~~~~:/,' / "~'/(~'1 \\ \,-<p-) )"11\ I
~ ,I, ( --------'/------") , , ' I
I ~ i"I\I\ \ '- ------ o"~~ /' --------.,--- --- ',......t-- II
;..,.;. I ~o~------/------- _-- '-qOO_
'\ l. \ ,/ -------- --- ~
I \_~.'~ ,!_~ ,__ __-J_-- _-----------------~-----.,02 - -,
- ----- .~.. ..-....
,\
\
'"
/"
I
I
I
"
/
I
I ,
\ I
\ 1
\._/
....
.... '.
'---....
-......
......
~-
-.......
----------
,
\.
'-"\
\
\
I
,
,
,
/
l
I
(
,
)
I
,
"
\.
\
I
:\ l',
':~ \",
II
"
IL
I .
,
I
I
I
I
\
\
,
,
,
\
..
c:
..
I
I
I
I
'~f.
I
\
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
(
/
/
I
\
I
I
I
,
I
,
\
\
\
..I
\
,
\
\.
\.
\.
,
,
,
,
\. '
\. C
",2
,
"
,
"
~ ~,>
, ..
0::-'
A ~ a:
-,// t- UJ
~.
... IIJ
>U
< w
;t a
:%: a
:2~
:%:~
aU
WW
",a:
o on
~
o ....
a: U
~ c:
... ....
o~
.... a
z ....
W 0
~ a
z z
S! ~
D~
" ...
\
(0
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
PRC DATE: 1-12-88
C.C. DATE:
.
Prepared by: Sietsema:k
CASE NO: 88-1 SUB
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Subdivision of 2.5 acres into 5 single family lots
J-
Z
<(
u
:J
0-
n..
<(
LOCATION:
Located on Minnewashta Parkway, approximately!
mile north of TH 5
APPLICANT:
Schwaba - Winchell
3603 Red Cedar Point
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE:
2.5 acres
N- RSF; residential single family
S- RSF; residential single family
E- RSF; residential single family
W- RSF; residential single family
There are no parks in this area.
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
~
~
W
t-
-
C/)
EXISTING PARKS:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan shows this as a park
deficient area. The Land Use Plan identifies
the property around Lake St. Joe as potential
park land.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: The trail plan identifies Minnewashta
Parkway as a priority trail section.
.
.
.
Schwaba - Winchell Subdivision
January 12, 1988
Page 2
BACKGROUND
This proposal lies along Minnewashta Parkway where a trail has
been requested by the existing residents in the area. As it is
yet to be determined which side of Minnewashta Parkway the trail
will be located, and it is likely that it will change sides,
easements on either side should be obtained when possible. As
this is a small subdivision, park land requirements would not be
practical.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the recommendation of this office to request a 20' easement
along Minnewashta Parkway, make no land dedication requirements,
and to request 100% payment of park and trail fees.
6~00
:1 C:.
\. C:.', 6600
6700
8800
6900
7000
7100
7200
7300
R
"7400
7500
7600
7700 -
7800-
7900
'-
'.
LAKE
MINNEWASHT/.
RD
1(1 NG
~D
~...~.;.~ ;'............:....._.
I
I
,
~:
..__., I
. .
A2
.
..:..:r.~'~."';>
flOOO-_' -'---
I
,;.-;O....,.~ _'.
~.,..,I'W\
,
..,1.. ~ I'
::E:IERAL ~107ES
I
.
1) All distances shmm arc CY.>lct
2) Areas:
LOTI
LOT 2
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 5
Actual
15,011 SQ. FT.
16,809 SQ. FT.
22,982 SQ. FT.
Z5,435 SQ. FT.
15,031 SQ. FT.
TOTAL.S 95,268 SQ. FT.
/
,
.'
$c....hwo-6~ - Wi V\'-~e \ \ /
/
/
/.
/
.
,,/ '):\
,:_-~~
- -~ - ..,..,
\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
\ \ \ I
\
\ \ \ ' \
\ \ I
\ ~ .1
~ \ \\
\ \ 'I , \
\ \ I \
I \
\ \ I
I
\..
"
I .
1\
"
"-
.~
!\i
'"
......
.. - ~ - .
......
I
I I
,
I ZIt. 44-
IS89Dt:J/:38"W-"
\ (--
,-.. . ._~_ -. !".2 -.-'
...
--.
+- - ---::-" --~
" ~....t:
........
......
.......
\
I "
...... I "
'-_/
- '"
,~(.,
"
......
"
iV I ,....,~ ~l.r/C,
-
\ ,1 I
, I -1 t/.'7 e
"
...
~-~\/,'...'Ii,'-:'~ I
.,-
'..~
,.., / .
- ,~I~
. .
- .4 '-e';"
~;/4'~.-'''''''' ....,,..~.
.." I
...
CITY OF
CHAHHASSEH
1
.
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: January 8, 1988
SUBJ: Referendum Meeting Schedule
As was discussed at our last meeting, the City Council has acted
to approve a referendum in February. The question to the voters
will include fire station expansion, Community Center, and trail
and park development.
The Community Center Task Force has contacted each of the .
Community organizations to appear on their January or February
meeting agendas. The Task Force is asking fire fighters and Park
and Recreation Commissioners to attend these meetings to give
short presentations on what is being proposed in the area of
parks and trails.
Attached please find a calendar with these meeting dates. I have
* the ones that are key meetings, i.e. drawing the most people.
Please let me know which meetings you are able to attend, as I
believe it would be desirable to have at least one commissioner
at each.
Also, the Task Force is working on a number of campaigns to get
information to residents. One of these is for each of the Task
Force members to write a letter to the editor supporting the
project. One letter each week will be submitted to the area
papers. If the PRC is interested in this type of exposure,
please write your letters and get them to me as soon as possible.
I will make sure at least one letter per week is submitted.
.
.
JAN U~ARtY' 1~9
.
.
NEW YEAR'S DAY
,UNDA Y
IvH~
\10~o..n ILESOAY
c.d--e ~ . LAX\ G v-J Y"\. '.
Wf: 0:-1 bOA Y
THURSDA Y
A-p-t
UJ jJ\. O~ tr>6.Wj
1
2
FULL MOON
4 5 6 7 a 9
M"~ ~'i
~~~.
LAST QUARTER
) 11 12 1:3 14 IS 16
MARTIN LUTHER "~JG JR LEE"S BIRTHDA Y Ro\-'u..\'""L{ In..M.
BIRTHDAY OBSERVED
~Il\ K.
NEw MOON
y 18 19 20 21 22 23
t.ltt(.i<:,e'-1 V\(:\.Y\,\ b~ "
R0\?' Y\t:. \-\ ~G.C."
F'~sr OIlA~TF~ J \ M McJ..d 'i /29
. :1 2S 26 27 28 30
, ,
---
rHUKSOAY
V-I \-c... S c...h .
'1? ,,"^.
FULL MOON (\.\ \ N\eM.b~\~
1 :2 3 4 5 6
LINCOL.N'S 8/ltTHlMV
8 11 12 13
LENTINE'S DA 'f W"SHING TON"S 81tfTHDA 'f ASH WEONESOA Y
OBSERVED
I- 15 IS 19 20
WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY
TRADITIONAL
. FIRST OUARTER
;1 22 23 24- 25 26 27
:8 29
kEfE..R EN b tA tV\
,v1TCfS
Jll.\'\. 25 - 1-.30,.,vI-
H oc.\<;e.'-f ~~ c.i 0.. +;0\,,\ - Cno.", B~"
.30.0. LCo
Feb. \
Feb. \
- Noo ~ -
c,n~V\ (!'h(\Mb~V"
f)i f'\ n e yo Iht.o. +r-~
- 1 :00 f> N\. -
Fi re Dept..
M"~
-v.~~
- Mal n F'IY"e ~Th.-\io'<)
- 5:00 p.M. -
eht\.V\ Le6'l6Y\
M~~'j
leai 0\1'\ ~
f(.,b. .3 - '1: 00 ~ . - ~ Ro t-vtj
ftb.1-}
. ).4-
11:.b. lO
Ftb, 1\
Rb. 11
Fa.b. 2~
C. h~ V'\ ~O~ \
- ~:oo p.N\.
- l:S-e n i o('~
'5lM..
(!. ho. V\ f \. Q.{\A. f<. k '{': Co\..
- 1'. ~ p.N'\ -
U\UM. of Teda."
~
.
C!..h~V\ ~w \
- 1-B:cop.N\ -
&\\ iV\. T~\~ ~houJ - ~owo-eV\. Q..k.er..V\n~\ ~o
~
- 1: ex::> ~.M - () eV\fZ,vo..t :tV'\fc> M ~ -
LJ Q\i~ t4~i
~\ ,."
~......... ......('
. - l:CO p.M. Q.t.vu.rc& :r~fo M-Hj.-
(J ~~ ~J
-l<EFERENhlAM- ~
W\ 1-~ W o:::.t. CV't". )-.\-. <r~
~...k \Cv'c.-
Q.h6.n. E'"\-e,,^. ~~e-kr;c....
--e-
q
.
CITY 0 F
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
~/tL-
January 5, 1988 ~,r /
DATE:
SUBJ:
1988 Meeting Schedule
As was mentioned at the last meeting, the City Council will be
changing their meeting schedule from the 1st and 3rd Mondays to
the 2nd and 4th Mondays. That leaves the commission meeting on
the same week, which from an administrative standpoint is unde-
sirable.
.
It was suggested that we change our meeting dates to the 1st and
3rd Monday or Tuesday, but there are conflicts with commission
members. Other days that conflict are 1st and 3rd Wednesdays,
Planning Commission; and 3rd Thursdays, HRA. This limits our
choices and therefore I would recommend that we keep our schedule
as it is; second asnd fourth Tuesdays of each month.
.
.
January 12,1988
To: Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commissioners
Fr: Councilman Bill Boyt
Re: T Bar K trail easement
During last night's City Council meeting the decision was made to
turndown your trail recommendation. As the only Council member that
supported your recommendation, I would like to share my impressions
about why we failed to win approval and what we can learn from the
experience. In the longrun this reversal may work in our favor.
Reasons your recommendation was not supported:
1. Lori recommended an alternative she worked out with Tim
Erhart, planning commission member, after your last meeting. See
attachment.
2. The majority of the Council felt that because the T Bar K
trail easement was not originally on our trail map and only included .
on the final plat for the property, it was asking too much of the
property owner.
3. The majority of the Council felt that having two trails on
one piece of property was an excessive burden for that property owner.
Though each of these points has merit, I am disappointed that the
citizens of Chanhassen have lost an opportunity to walk around a uniquely
beautiful marsh. I am also disappointed that your unanimous recommendation
was not supported by anyone else on the Councilor staff.
I think there are three things we can learn from this experience:
1. We need to walk the proposed trails, to confirm that they
are appropriately located and gain the credibility that comes from
first hand knowledge.
2. We need to acquire trail easements, as soon as pOSSible,
certainly before the property is proposed for development. This
will avoid surprizes for the developer, property owner and trail planners.
.
.
~k
1P~. CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
'-/.
- ---oq
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900-" I
~"I'-" ~. V_,pe-
MEMORANDUM
;,: -: t~
'. =-:~r.t,., .
TO:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
';~:o_.J I "../2i'
C-l!? 5-,.,:'-;'
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
to .S~: ;~~. .......----.--
DATE:
January 5, 1988
I /11_/.f~.. _
SUBJ: Reconsideration of a Trail Easement, T Bar K Estates
Background
At their last meeting, the City Council tabled action on a
request to reconsider the trail alignment through the T Bar K
Estates subdivision. Staff was directed to review the item and
bring back all options available.
.
T Bar K Estates is located on the southwest corner of Lyman Blvd.
and TH 101. The trail easements required at the time of final
plat approval included a 20 ft. trail easement along Lyman Blvd.
and a 12 ft. nature trail easement along the 886 contour line.
The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies an off-street trail along
Lyman Bvld. that will eventually make an east/west connection
from the Lake Riley area to CR 17, which will lead to the Chaska
trail system as well as the school campus. The nature trail
easement, as identified on the Trail Plan, is a section of a
walkway system that works with the terrain and the natural ameni-
ties that we have in the southern part of the City. This 12'
easement runs across the three lots of the subdivision.
Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation
The Park and Recreation Commission discussed this item at great
length at their last meeting. Although they were not requested
to make comment, they felt their reasons for recommending denial
were worth emphasizing. Attached please f1nd the minutes of that
meeting. Below I have summarized their points.
1. The nature trail running through these lots is a section of a
larger trail network that will provide a scenic trail, con-
necting TH 101 and Powers Blvd.
.
I
Don Ashworth
January 5, 1988
Page 3
Alternative #3
The request could be approved with no alternate course. This
would leave us with a trail segment on the plan that ends in the
back yard of Lot #1 of T Bar K Estates.
Recommendation
It is staff's recommendation to choose Alternative #1: approve
the request and to amend the trail plan so as to show a nature
trail that meanders around the wetland area. This action would
require that easements be procured at the time improvements are
made on the parcels to the west and the south of T Bar K Estates.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report Dated November 17, 1987
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes of December 8, 1987
Comprehensive Trail Plan
Illustration of Alternative #1
Illustration of Alternative #2
.
.
.
J
i
.
.
.
[c.
~..
~! -
-,4_.. r
..~-
.
f
.
I '
;
l
.
,
-.
/
r
1
<y
{:/.. . ~.~ n
; ~ \
f 1[;\ +
Ii I" t
!.i irS 1-
., 1 t-
I.
;\ '\ +...'"
L'
~: ~
r
t
~.
I
/l ...:+
'r~
~^
+ ~
4-'
-r ~.J"
t ~"
L
I
J
!
}
r:
l. '.
--
e:::...
. ,
,
)
._. -.-...
1<& f\ <;2.. V-
~LJ t-\~ ~
O\,fR-\
\iR
!
.,.",.)<J( ,I(~'
;.
r
'f-. 7- 1'" jC.1r I'"
1- t
;.. f- -" '^ {f-
1- rJPc~
.<1-
---;:1-
1- .,.
,
~
t!
M L ~ f'" N ~ T\ V 6 ~ 1
(i
,.