Loading...
1986 10 07 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 2 skating. The other ice arena, which currently exists, would be upgraded to seat about 100 people and could be used in the off- season for other activities and events. The community center building would be about 30,000 square feet and would include a gym, swimming pool, 4-6 raquetball courts, weight room, exercise room, locker space, community rooms and meeting rooms. The far- mers market is 66,000 square feet and could be used for parking in the off season. Thomasgard said that parking was going to be needed in this area to accommodate the center facilities and the retail. He said that it was estimated that about 315 spaces would be needed to serve the community center facilities at peak usage times. Most of the parking would be surface parking. He said that the parking ramp would be used to accommodate the Dinner Theatre patrons and should not be included in this proposal. Thomasgard proceeded to go through the costs as outlined in the commission packets. The main ice arena total cost would come to approximately $1,000,000, the small arena approximately $213,000, the community center approximately $1,100,000, the farmers market approximately $145,000, and the surface parking approximately $325,000. This would bring the total cost to $2,700,000. Thomasgard explained that what was being proposed for financing was general obligation bonds. The City has debt capacity of $2,700,000 based on the City's assessed valuation and the current outstanding general obligation debt. This capacity is estimated to increase by $200,000 per year for the next few years. It is also a possibility that one or more of the facili- ties could be financed without using the general obligation debt. It would be financed using the City's bonding powers and relying on the facility being self-supporting. The large arena would be a candidate for this. Johnson estimated that it would cost approximately $100-200 per household in additional taxes. This would depend on the type of home. Mady said that one of the concerns that he had was the location. He said that you cannot really get back there except to drive. He said that being able to get there on foot or by bike would be important. Johnson said that this is an opportunity to enhance the retail area where there is existing structures that can be converted into community facilities. Boyt said that this was something that she would support. She said that she has heard a number of parents who are unhappy about driving their children to other communities for programs. She said that it would be nice to have a variety of programs offered in Chanhassen. . ~ . 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 requlrlng 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 4 Gretchen Blank, DEED, states that state law does not allow the restriction of lake access to the non-riparian boat owners. 3. The legality of placing a horsepower restriction on the lake with the exception of boats with a city permit allowing larger motors. Mr. Knutson states that horsepower restrictions placed on the lake and exceptions to such, must be applicable to all lake users and are subject to DNR approval. Kim Elverum, DNR Boat and Water Coordinator, states that a restriction with permit exceptions would not be acceptable for the following reasons: - There is no evidence to show that the existing water sur- face restrictions on Lotus Lake, via a 1983 City ordinance, to be insufficient. - The restriction as described would be defacto discrimina- tion against non-riparian lake users. - Requiring a permit to use the lake may be in violation of M.S. ~361.3, Subd. 13, which says "No political sub- divisions of this state shall require licensing of watercraft covered by sections 361.01 to 361.28." - Public accesses have not proven to create boating safety problems on the lake. Gretchen Blank has pointed out that if there is a defendable reason to limit the lake to 25 horsepower, it would be dif- ficult to justify allowing higher horsepower by special per- mit. Jack Melby stated that there is an access on Lake Minnewashta that does not allow large boats/motors to be launched. He asked if this was legal. Sietsema said that Lake Minnewashta is not a restricted lake and that there is an access on the lake for the larger boats to gain access to the lake. She said that the access in question only allows smaller boats because of the small size of the access road, the launch and the shallow water. Melby stated that this must be something new since the Lotus Lake Boat Access issue began. Sietsema said that it was not new and that she had found correspondence from Russ Larson to the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association dated 1978 that said that the DNR would not allow restrictions placed on the access that would not apply to the lake homeowners. She said that the only difference was that in March of 1986 it became a 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 6 - To set park hours from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m., con- sistent with other parks. - To keep any lake restrictions equal for all Lotus Lake users. - To employ a park attendant to enforce park rules and regu- late the parking lot. - To restrict car/trailer parking along the streets adjacent to the park. - To apply park rules that would be consistent with other City parks as outlined in the City Park Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Robbins and carried unanimously. Fence Request for Meadow Green Park Sietsema said that the Commission had reviewed Lydia Porter's request for a fence in Meadow Green Park in August. She said that the Commission had tabled action on the item to gather input from the neighborhood associations. The Chaparral Homeowner's Association responded by saying they were not in favor of a fence at Meadow Green Park. Mrs. Porter was present and said that this was a very real problem for her and her neighbors. She said that park users were parking along the street and in her driveway and walking across her lawn to get to the park. She said that often they are loud and abusive, leave trash and have little respect for her property or the park property. She said that they have put up signs stating that it is private property and it has not deterred them. Boyt asked if it would work to move the backstop to the other corner. Mady said that the two fields share the outfield and to move one field would create a hazard. Mr. Porter said that the backstop was visible from Pontiac Circle and a physical barrier would deter park users from using these yards as an access. He said that he had talked to Public Safety Director, Jim Castleberry, who said he would answer calls but would prefer a permanent solution to the problem. Robbins asked what type of fence Mr. Porter would deem appropriate. Mr. Porter suggested a 3 foot high chain link fence that would run 150 feet from the north corner of the property. He said that this would still give homeowners in the area access to the park by walking around the fence, but would stop the people from walking through from the street area. - - . . . ~ 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 8 background of the original Comprehensive Plan stating that he was involved in the preparation of the original plan as he was the City Planner from 1978 through 1981. The Comprehensive Plan was prepared as required by the Metropolitan Council, taking about three years to compile. He said that City has been required to make certain modifications to the plan as the City recently entered into an agreement with the Metropolitan Waste Condition and the Metropolitan Council regarding the Lake Ann sewer issue. This agreement mandates that certain sections of the Plan be changed. Although the Recreation Section is not one of those, the City decided to look at the whole thing. He said that the purpose of meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission this evening is to give an orientation of the park element, the process we will be following and getting input from the Commission as to the direction we should be taking. He said that the original plan was completed in 1980 and does not include the changes and variations that have taken place in parks since. Boyt asked why the original plan was not followed, why the Commission did not ask for what was in the plan and if they did, why did the City Council not act on it. Koegler said that the Recreation Section of the plan was completed by the Park and Recreation Commission, not by the Councilor Planning Commission. He said that a plan such as this becomes the charge of the people in the implementing position, such as the Park and Recreation Commission and ultimately the City Council. He said that a large amount of the plan has been followed, but not entirely. He pointed out that he has never seen a City that ever has been able to follow their plan completely. Koegler said that the updated plan should reflect changes in the socio-economic section, specifically the population projections in the 1980 plan have been downgraded in the update. The Metropolitan Council has dropped its population estimates for this City. However, City does not agree with their projections and is taking a two posture approach in the Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council policies do allow for changes in their own projections. What this means is that we will have two sets of population numbers. Koegler suggested that we focus on each park parcel with a brief reference map that will discuss the facilities in each park today. In the last five years there have been many changes, including lake access. This type of updating is a very simple process. He indicated that we would be taking a look at development and where population changes have taken place in the last five years, and what the growth impacts have been, section by section. . Park and Recreation Commission Minutes October 7, 1986 Page 9 . Koegler said that the plan recommendations will come 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 come 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 10 Koegler said that a developer wants to know up front what will be expected of him in his development. Typically they will refer to the city's Comprehensive Plan to see if they have interest in park land in the area. This puts the pressure on the Commission to get a plan in place that you feel will meet the needs. As a responsible community, it is fair to the developer to let him know up front what the park expectations are. The plan also gives us a legal edge should it corne down to that. Boyt said that it has been a policy not to ask for park land in rural areas, and due to the changes taking place in Chanhassen, she would not want to continue such a policy. Koegler said that this would indeed need to be addressed by the updated plan due to the agreement with Metropolitan Council that developments outside the Urban Service Area will have a 21 minimum lot size. Boyt said that the people in Eagan did a survey of park needs and found that people want small parks near their homes. She said that she feels a survey of this type would help to identify what should go in this plan. . McKay said that he would like to see more attention given to cri- teria and "rules of the road". He was concerned about con- sistency in park development. He said he did not like to deal with the developments individually, but would like to treat them all equal. He said he would like to see the criteria by which we determine where the trails should be as well as types of trails. Alao, he would like to know what other governmental units are doing. For example, when the highway department upgrades a road, do they do anything about bike trails? Koegler said that it is appropriate to define the different levels of service for different parks. West Village Heights Site Plan Review Sietsema said that this request was to rezone the area north of West 78th Street, west of Kerber Drive and east of Powers Blvd. She said that it was being brought to the Park and Recreation Commission for their review regarding park land. Sietsema said that City Center Park was located across the street to the west and that Chanhassen Pond Park was to the northwest. Therefore, it was not a park deficient area. Mady moved to recommend that an off-street trail easement along West 78th Street to serve as a continuation of the Lake Ann Bike Trail. The motion died for lack of a second. . Boyt said as well. trail was trails on that she would like to see the trail along Kerber Drive Sietsema said that Kerber had been widened so that the along the street. Boyt said that she did not like the street and wanted something else. 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 2t 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 12 fees, as this is a park deficient area. The Commission requested that the amended plan be brought back before them before going to City Council. The motion was seconded by Robbins and carried unanimously. Councilman Geving's Address to the Commission Councilman Geving attended the Park and Recreation Commission meeting to address the Commission on their work for the City. Geving said that he wanted to commend the Commission on the manner in which they carried out the Chanhassen Vista plan review. He said that the Commission reviewed this item in detail and the City carne out in good shape because of it. He said that this is important because the the Commission is an extension of the City Council and the Council leans on the Commission. He said the Council reads the Commission minutes and listens to their recommendations. Geving said that when the Council reviews development proposals they work to get the most for the City of Chanhassen. He said they did that in the Chanhassen Vista development as they traded off very little and got a lot. ~ Geving stated that he is a dedicated conservationist and is the Commission's best supporter. He said that he hoped that the Commission was the Council's best supporters as well, because in the past 11 years he has been active in the City, we have added over 150 acres of park land to this City. What is happening to the City of Chanhassen is that property is being eaten by lot splits and developments. He said that we have to be constantly on guard that the City gets its piece of these for trails, parks and open space. Our opportunities of making a large park acquisition of 20, 40 or 60 acres, is not going to happen any more. The largest land owner in Chanhassen, outside of developers, is independent farmers with 40 or 80 acres. 100 acres these days is a big piece of land. Geving said he was asking the Commission's assistance as Park and Recreation people to work with the Council because the Council is going to work with the Commission. He asked that the Commission not get frustrated and not to feel that they were not being listened to, because the Council reads the minutes and tries to follow them. ~ As to the trail plan, Geving said that it was not his idea. In conclusion, Geving said that the Council wants to work with the Commission and we are all in this as a team. He would like to see more park/open space acquired in the City of Chanhassen because it will not be there in years to corne. He encouraged the Commission to conti.nue with the work on the trail plan and asked them to seek out people in the community to work on the plan. . 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 . .