1986 11 04 Agenda
.
.
.
AGENDA
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1986, 7:00 p.m.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
1. Call to order
2. Approve minutes of October 7, 1986.
~LLL
~
4. Review Park Dedication Fee Formula For Rural Development.
3. Review Rough Draft of the Park and Recreation Needs Survey.
5. Review 1987 Capital Improvement Program Budget Request.
6. Herman Field Update.
7. Update on City Council Action on Park Related Items.
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes
October 7,1986
.
A regular meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission was
called to order by Acting Chairman, Wallace McKay, at 7:45 p.m.
Members present were Wallace McKay, Sue Boyt, Charlie Robbins,
and Jim Mady. Members absent were Mike Lynch, Curt Robinson, and
Mike Rosenwald. Lori Sietsema was also present.
MINUTES
Upon reviewal, Robbins moved to accept the minutes of September
2, 1986 as presented. Mady seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
PROPOSAL FOR CHANHASSEN COMMUNITY CENTER
Brad Johnson, Chanhassen Downtown Development Associates
(CHADDA), was present to discuss the Chanhassen Community Center
proposal. Johnson said that they had included the details of the
proposal and the center in the Commission packets. He said that
basically he was present to go over those details and to get the
input of the Park and Recreation Commission on this issue as they
would have a feeling for the community's recreational needs.
Johnson said that this type of project does cost money and the
taxpayers would, in all likelihood, end up paying for it. He
said that we have to perceive over time whether the community
feels there is a real need for this or not.
.
Johnson explained that CHADDA was asked by the City to develop a
plan for downtown and go through the process of implementing it.
He said that currently they are in the implementation process.
The primary purpose of the downtown concept was brought about
because of the lack of community and there is no commercial base
in the community. Therefore, the residents have to go outside of
the City to shop and dollars spent do not stay within this com-
munity. He said that the tax base in Chanhassen has suffered
somewhat due to the lack of any downtown area. He went on to
explain the existing plan.
Johnson said that it was felt that a community center would draw
people from other areas of the City to the retail area. The
existing ice arena and the bowling center initiated this idea.
The key element was to try to create a community central to the
City that will last a long time and create development around it.
Rich Thomasgard, CHADDA, was present to discuss the details of
the center. He began by describing the proposed facilities in
the center. Half of the structure exists where the main ice
arena would be, the other half would be added on, bringing the .
total to 28,000 square feet. This arena would be used for youth
hockey, high school hockey, adult hockey leagues, open and figure
~
.
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes
October 7, 1986
Page 3
McKay said that we should not forget that people will drive 10
miles east before they will drive one mile west. He said that it
would be a mistake not to cultivate the area to the west.
Sietsema said that no action was required by the Commission, but
that it would be helpful for the City Council to hear any com-
ments or personal feelings that the Commission may have on this
item. She said that the Council will have to have a fairly
strong feeling that this is a community need before asking anyone
to serve on a committee that may require 100 volunteer hours.
Boyt said that the Commission does not really know how the com-
munity feels and that a survey should be done to determine such.
Robbins said that he personally endorsed this proposal and was
aware of all of the work ahead before it will become a reality.
Boyt said that she personally endorsed the proposal as well and
felt that it was needed in Chanhassen.
Mady said he was in support of the proposal as well.
No motion was made.
. Lotus Lake Boat Access Operational Procedures
Sietsema said that the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed
and tabled action on this item at the August 5th meeting. Upon
reviewal, the Commission felt that a number of points needed
further research before a recommendation could be forwarded to
the City Council.
Sietsema said she researched the following points and received
the following information:
1. The legality of restricting car/trailer parking on the
streets adjacent to the boat access and park.
Roger Knutson, City Attorney, has stated that the City
Council has the authority to impose parking restriction in
this area.
2 .
The legality of requiring access users to park in the pro-
vided parking lot or limiting the number of boats entering
the lake.
.
Mr. Knutson states that this would violate the grant
agreement the City has entered into with DEED upon receiving
LAWCON funds for the development of the boat access. Cindy
Wheeler, DEED, states that this requirement would be con-
sidered discriminatory which would violate state law.
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes
October 7, 1986 .
Page 5
Mady said that although the agencies came out very strong against
the restrictions, their reasons did not address the environmental
issues that the Commission had expressed concern about. Sietsema said
that the Commission did not voice those concerns until the
September meeting. She said that the letter to Mr. Elverum was
sent following the August meeting with those minutes.
Boyt said that she felt the agencies viewed the restriction as a
way for the lake homeowners to protect their lake from non-
riparian lake users. She said that the Commission is not con-
cerned with keeping people off of the lake, but are concerned with
keeping up the quality of the lake.
Mady said that the lake system is not deep enough to handle a
high number of large boats speeding around the lake. He said
that he did not feel that the DNR and DEED understood the fragi-
lity of the lake. Sietsema said that these agencies are aware of
of the lake features, but are unable to restrict some and not
others.
Melby asked about speed limits on the lake, safety should be a
factor. Sietsema said that there are speed limits on Lotus Lake.
She said that there is a "slow no wake" limit along the shores
and 40 mph limit in the middle. Melby said that it was not .
enforced.
McKay said that perhaps the ordinance should be changed to limit
the horsepower on the lake. Melby said that that may be tough to
get through, but a speed limit should definitely be considered.
Mady moved to ask the homeowners associations on Lotus Lake to
make recommendations to the Park and Recreation Commission con-
cerning the speed limit/horse power for Lotus Lake that would be
equally applicable to all Lotus Lake users. Boyt seconded the
motion which carried unanimously.
Sietsema said that motor restrictions would be a different issue
than operational procedures. She suggested that the Commission
make a recommendation regarding the operational procedures so as
not to confuse the two issues.
Mady moved to recommend that the City comply with the standards
set by DEED as they are the adminstrators of the grants which we
received for the development of the access, as follows:
- To keep the access open until the parking area is filled,
at which time the access would be closed to prevent parking
problems.
- To keep 12 car/trailer parking spaces free for access
users.
.
.
.
.
~
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes
October 7, 1986
Page 7
McKay said that a short length of fence would only move the
problem further down the street. Mr. Porter said that the
backstop is not visible from anyhwere else along the street.
Mady said that a 3 foot fence would not be high enough and that
this would probably be moving the problem because people already
know that the backstop is there. He said that he was not in
favor of fencing off parks to restrict access. He said that he
felt there were other alternatives to solving the problem than
putting up a fence. He suggested writing letters to softball
teams to inform them that this is not a park access and no
parking signs along the street.
Robbins said that a fence would not solve the problem. He said
that people will just keep walking around it.
Boyt asked if the Porter's could put up their own fence. Mrs.
Porter said that the homeowners association would not allow it.
Sietsema said that she had been unaware of the problem until the
softball season was over. She said that she would be able to
inform the softball players at the beginning of the season that
this is not a park access and using it as such would not be
tolerated. She said that in the past, educating the players at
the beginning of the season has worked very well. She said that
she schedules softball practices on those fields. If a problem
is reported she will be able to check who was scheduled and take
care of it immediately the following day. She suggested that
this perhaps would take care of the brunt of the problem.
Robbins moved to table the item until the next meeting, pending
further information. The motion died for lack of a second.
Sietsema suggested recommending denial and having staff educate
the softball players. She said if the problem persists next
spring once the park is busy, the Porter's could bring back their
request at that time.
Mady moved to recommend the request for a fence in Meadow Green
Park be denied, and to direct staff to inform the softball
players that this is not a park entrance and using it as such
will not be tolerated. Boyt seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
Mrs. Porter felt that this was reasonable and stated that if the
problem continued next year she would indeed be back.
Orientation to the Comprehensive Plan Updating Process
Mark Koegler was present to discuss the Comprehensive Plan
Recreation Section updating process. He began by giving a brief
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes
October 7, 1986
Page 9
.
Koegler said that the plan recommendations will corne out of all
of this, focusing on the changes mentioned and how the city
wishes to meet those changes. Ultimately the Commission will
take more of a nuts and bolts look at the funding that will be
available and prioritize the improvements that need to be made,
which will be translated into the Capital Improvement Program.
There are specific issues that input is needed from the
Commission, in addition to the general framework of the plan
itself. Policies and goals have probably changed since the ori-
ginal plan was done. One of these issues is the trail issue.
The previous plan treated trails rather lightly. The Commission
has received a trail request from the West Minnewashta area which
has brought this issue to the forefront. It was determined that
taking a detailed look at trail needs in the community would be a
logical item to be included in the Comprehensive Plan update.
Koegler said there are a number of factors to be considered when
looking at trails and where they should go. Schools, neighborhoods,
populations are all factors to be considered. Also, what level
of use will the facilities get. The cost aspect is an important
factor to consider as well. Not only the initial construction
costs, but the long term maintainance costs as well. How can .
these things potentially be funded and what are the appropriate
levels in terms of funding to keep the system running once it is
in place. Where trails are to be located can be a big issue.
Should they go along the property lines in the rear of the lots
or should they be be in the front adjacent to the right of way.
Once these decisions are made comes the implementation. What
priorities would you place on certain trail segments, how will
you corne up with that list of priorities and what criteria will
you review. And finally putting the top priority items into the
Capital Improvement Program.
Koegler said that, as mentioned earlier, a survey would be an
excellent means by which to gain insight from the community. He
said that there are a number of ways to process a survey and
suggested an intern from the College of St. Thomas in the MBA
department.
He said he was open to any questions, comments or input and said
that tonight he simply wanted to set the stage for the process.
Boyt said that there was to be a certain amount of commercial
development in the City and asked if the City could request that
a certain amount of these developments be set aside for green
space. She also said that because Chanhassen is developing so
rapidly, she would be in favor of asking for park space even if
it were only small parcels. She said that if we do not ask for
it now we will not get it.
.
~
.
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes
October 7, 1986
Page 11
Sietsema said that if an off-street trail was being sought along
Kerber, it would seem logical to put it on the east side of
Kerber along the School and City property. She said that
pedestrians coming through the trails in Chan Vista will come
right through the School property and it would not seem right to
cross the street above the School property.
Mady moved to recommend that the City request an off-street bike
trail, shown as a Class 1 Bike Trail in the Recreation Section of
the Comprehensive Plan, along the north side West 78th Street.
The Commission feels this to be an important link to the Lake Ann
Bike Trail. Mady recommended in his motion that this trail ease-
ment should be in addition to the required green space in the
development and that no reduction in park dedication fees be
allowed. The motion was seconded by Robbins and carried unani-
mously.
Lake Park Estates Site Plan Review
.
Sietsema said that the proposed development was located on the
southwest side of Lake Riley. The proposal involves the sub-
division of 134 acres into 42 single family lots with the average
lot size 2, acres. She said that the development included a 1.1
acre beachlot, a 2 acre private park and is located outside the
Urban Service Area. For these reasons Sietsema recommended that
park dedication fees be accepted in lieu of park land.
Boyt said that she did not feel that the private park area shown
would meet the park needs in this area. Mady said that park
needs would be minimized due to the large lot sizes. Boyt said
that there will be developments like this and we should acquire
parkland now before there is no land to acquire. McKay said that
he did not like to promote private parks as they tend to create
hard feelings when people outside the area want to use them.
McKay asked if there was any public access on Lake Riley.
Sietsema said that the City of Chanhassen does not, but there is
a public access in Eden Prairie.
.
Boyt said that she would like to ask for 10 acres of park land.
Sietsema said that this development would have the potential to
have a population of about 140 people. She said that 10 acres
for 140 people seemed like a lot to ask. Sietsema pointed out
that the Comprehensive Plan has set a park standard for neigh-
borhood parks of 5 acres per 1000 people.
Boyt countered that this would not be a park just for this develop-
ment, but would serve neighboring developments as well.
Boyt moved to recommend that the City request a minimum of 10% of
the developable land for public park purposes in lieu of park
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes
October 7, 1986 .
Page 13
Robbins moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by
boyt and carried unanimously.
Prepared by Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
.
.
Chanhassen Park and Recreation Survey
3
This questionnaire was developed by the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission to survey the needs and wants
of Chanhassen residents in regard to park facilities and recreation programs.
~ PLEASE COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND MAIL OR DROP IT OFF AT CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Considering the park activities that the members of 1/4 mile (3 blocks) ____ 1 mile (12 blocks
your household most often participate in, at what point ____ 1/2 mile (6 blocks) Over 1 mile
would a neiqhborhood park be beyond walking distance? 3/4 mile (9 blocks)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. At what point would you consider a community park
beyond accessibility?
2 miles
5 miles
8 miles
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Please check the following
____ Open Skating Rink
____ Lighted Ballfields
____ Hockey Rink
facilities that would be unnecessary or excessive
____ Multi-Purpose Bldg. Restrooms
____ Backstop ____ Play Equipment
____ Open Air Shelter Tennis Court
in a neiqhborhood park.
____ Open, Grassy Field
____ Lighted Court/Rink
____ Improved Ballfield
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4a. Is there a city park located close enough to your home that your household would identify it as your
"neighborhood park"? ____ yes no
b. If yes, identify the park by name or location.
c. What changes could be made to this park to
better serve the needs of your household?
5a.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~
Would your'household use trails in Chanhassen?
If so, which means of travel? Number your top
Walk ____ Jog
Horseback Roller Skate
--yes -flo
three choices in order of how often you
____ Bicycle CC-Ski
Snowmobile Other
do each activity.
b. Where would trails for most of the above activities be best located?
____ Adjacent to streets ____ Within the boulevard along streets _____ Along lot lines, not streets
d. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes for a city-wide trail system? _____ yes
If so, how much per year? ____ $50-100 _____$100-150 $150-200 $200-250
no
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over $250
6. How often would your household use each of the following
facilities if they were located in Chanhassen?
Please rank accordingly:
1 = never
2 = 1-5 times a year
3 = once a month
" = once a week
5 = daily
~
.
Adult Softball Fields
Youth Baseball Fields
Adult Baseball Fields
Tennis Courts
rootball Fields
Soccer Fields
Open Ice Skatinq Rink
Outdoor Hockey Rink
Indoor Ice Rink
Playqround Equipment
Indoor Volleyball
Sand Court Volleyball
Nature Study
Slidinq Hill
Grassy, Open Space
Picnic Area
Swimminq Beach
Pedestrian Trails
Snowmobile Trails
Cross Ctry Ski Trail
GYmnasium
1 2 3 4 51
I
I
,
I
II H-H
CITY 0 F
CHANHASSEN
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
DATE: October 28, 1986
SUBJ: Recommended 1987 Capital Improvement Program
At the September meeting, the Commission prepared a Capital
Improvement Program and recommended its adoption in the 1987
budget. The City Council has not reviewed this recommendation as
of yet as I wanted to bring it back to you for reconsideration.
The CIP that was recommended includes $25,000 for trail develop- .
mente Staff feels that this request may be premature as we do
not know how much the total for trail development will be. The
trail plan is currently underway and cost estimates have not been
looked at yet. Once the plan has been completed, the Commission
will have to look at how it should be financed (i.e. bond issue,
CIP, etc.)
It is the recomme~dation of this office to delete the $25,000
trail development request until a cost estimate for the entire
project is available.
.
.
.
['.
L
'Park and Recreation Commission Minutes
September 2, 1986
Page 5
South Lotus Lake
Park Sign
Gate House
Light
Fishing Dock (w/railings>
300.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,300.00
Carver Beach
Tire Swing Replacement
Bollard and Chain to Obstruct old Access
500.00
250.00
Bandimere Heights
Soccer Field Construction (in-house)
Totlot Equipment
200.00
3,000.00
Chanhassen Estates Park
Upgrade Shelter
500.00
Chanhassen Pond Park
Master Park Plan Development
Park Development
1,000.00
2,000.00
Meadow Green Park
Totlot Equipment (Big Swings)
Tennis Courts
750.00
20,000.00
Herman Field
Park Development
5,000.00
Miscellaneous
Tables/Benches (20)
Trail Development
7,000.00
25,000.00
$108,000.00
The Commission wished to note that park development has slacked in
recent years. Due to housing starts and the increased interest
(park development requests), the Commission feels that these pro-
jects need to be addressed.
The motion was seconded by Boyt and carried unanimously.
.CITY OF
CHANHASSEH
.~ ~
.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
October 30, 1986
Mr. Thomas Klingelhutz
8551 Tigua
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Torn:
The City Council met on Monday evening and awarded the Lake Ann
Park ballfield lighting project bid to Collin's Electric. The
bid contract is set up so that construction may begin this fall
or, should weather become a factor, next spring. Realizing the
importance of getting work started, the contractor has indicated
that they plan to get as much of the project completed this fall .
as possible.
The City is currently getting an estimate on running electric
from ballfield #1 to the Legion shelter building. If at all
possible, we would like the Legion to coordinate the construction
of the shelter with the installation of lights. Getting the
footings poured and the conduit for the electrical in this fall
will help to alleviate some of the damage that will occur from
heavy trucks next spring.
If it is at all possible, I would like to meet with you. I will
call you early next week to see what your schedule looks like.
Sincerely,
LL
Don Ashworth
City Manager
LS:DA:k
.
.