Loading...
PRC 1992 04 14 ~CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION , SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 14, 1992 Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Fred Berg, Jim Andrews, Dave Koubsky, and Jan Lash MEMBERS ABSENT: Randy Erickson and Wendy Pemrick STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor SITE PLAN REVIEW. PRELIMINARY PLAT. STONE CREEK. HANS HAGEN HOMES. Hoffman: First off I'd like to introduce formally, Hans Hagen of Hans Hagen Homes...also want to speak on behalf of Stone Creek. Park Commission initially reviewed this item on March 24th. The report presented the Commission included in your packet this time around as well to let you reaquaint yourselves with Stone Creek. The issues identified at that time would be land d~dication in lieu of park fees but we weren't quite happy with the configuration or the layout of the piece of property which was proposed. We also talked about the necessity of right-of-way on the east side of Galpin Blvd. and the north side of Lyman Blvd. for future construction of bituminous trail link identified in our City's ~comprehensive trail plan. And then we talked about the full payment of trail dedication fees. $167.00 per unit for this development. A series of subsequent meetings with Mr. Hagen and other representatives of this project came up with two alternate proposals. A couple of them which I think are, or both of them were essentially meet the requirements which the Park and Recreation Commission and staff had identified in the areas of park development and park need. However, alternate plan A as you show on there, as shown on the first sheet is one which I believe makes a little better sense for the Commission and the city as a whole in the area of Stone Creek in serving the adjacent communities as well. Initially we communicated this information back to Hans. ...have identified an alternate park site proposal. Just to show the general area, south of the first park...park acquisition. They brought it out into the center of the subdivision. Made it a little more visible and acceptable. The tree line is located right about here so it contains most of the property with trees on it... This site is a little bit larger... What we came back with was about a 5.4 acre site labeled there as park and shown on this large plan down in this area. what that would require then would be a cul-de-sac road...area and then remains an outlot which would be developed at some point in the future...potentially for the land owners to the ~rth. It serves essentially the same needs as this site would. It's somewhat smaller. This is labeled as 5.4 acres. What the Commission and City can require for park dedication. It does contain some flat area on the western edge and then it also contains the street drainageway, a portion of a wooded wetland in the northern most region. It has generally some similar characteristics to the other site but it's basically the major difference, it's not near as large. It's about 3.2 acres smaller than site A. The ~applicant had a desire to, it's my belief to make use of this odd shape piece of property as a portion of this initial development. He stayed away from having to go with an outlot and having to put a cul-de-sac road down Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 14, 1992 - Page 2 ..."", in there which when...private sewage lift pumps... What Mr. Hagen proposed ,was to eliminate Lot 13 or 12 and 13 as labeled in the first diagram on what would really be the entrance into that park area. It opens up Alternate A park site. It provides quite a bit more visibility. Provides quite a bit more street frontage. Considerable more street frontage and that allows for a larger variety of uses for the park, namely it allows for a nice sliding hill. So those ,were the two proposals. This one, 8.6 acres versus the 5.4. As the Commission was discussing; as I talked with Chairman Schroers earlier, this,plan does not address the trail connection along the northern property border connecting over to Timberwood and then the eastern portion of this subdivision as 'it was shown on your initial plans. We went back to the March 24th packet you'll see the trail connection i ncludedi n tha,t. It is not i ncluded in the recommendation for this evening. I would like the Commission to go ahead and discuss that issue and resolve this evening whether or not you feel a trail connection would be necessary at that location. In my opinion it's certainly not essential but it would be nice to increase traffic flow pattern opportunity for both the residents in Timberwood and the residents in the eastern half of this subdivision and other residents who would be traveling to and from the park coming from other subdivisions in the area. . Schroers: Okay, thanks Todd. Maybe you could answer just a couple of questions before we discuss this here. Is there adequate flat space there for the active use area that we're speaking of? Hoffman: You can see in this plan or the play that he laid out, th€;lre's ~ some sketche~ made on there for the tennis court and the play structure. There's certainly adequate land for, appr6ximately 4 acres would be flat or developable. Developable land. As it's shown here, they've sketched in a tennis court down in this location. The play area needed to be up closer to the road where you can grade out a plateau. This provides some unique opportunities for a two tiered play structure where you have it on two levels with some connections with slides. That type of thingj, or you could pull it down into the flat. Essentially this half of the park is 50%, from here south...preserve the mature trees and... We're not going to put a baseball field... Schroers: Okay, thanks. Do any of the commissioners have any concerns regarding the useability of the park and the amenities that we could offer here? I think maybe we should talk about that first as a separate issue and then go onto discussing that trail easement. Lash: How much, between the two different sites, how much useable acreage is there? Is that comparable? Hoffman: It's fairly comparable. Alternate Plan B also is located on a site which includes a fairly steep hill. It's not quite as, the grade isn't quite as severe as this site. However then Site A levels out and provides some real good opportunity for some flatter ground activities. Where Site B tends to slope down and hits the woodland edge. You can look at the aerial. You'll see on Site B the agricultural field which encompasses a portion of that site. Slopes down and then hits the treed portion of the property or hits the woods and...at that point. ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~April 14, 1992 - Page 3 Andrews: What do we have on the southern most edge of that Plan A. What kind of width east and west are we looking at there? Hoffman: The...is like 200-300...street frontage. About 325 feet. Andrews: So as far as a field where kids could play ball, there's probably adequate room for kids up to I would think 15-16 years old before you could hit a ball far enough to. Hoffman: Hit it into the woods or creek. Schroers: How far away is the closest ballpark? How far do most kids have to go from there if they actually did want to get on a regular ballfield? Hoffman: That would be either at Lake Ann, Lake Susan or Sunset Ridge. Lash: Sunset Ridge is probably the closest. How far would that be? 1/2 mile? Koubsky: I suppose. The problem is, what is, Audubon's fairly busy. Lash: Yeah, but if they're so big that that field is going to be too little for them to play ball, they could probably cross Audubon. , ~Hoffman: Or by that age they're most likely involved in some type of activity... Andrews: I certainly feel with a development this size, there ought to be a ballfield. Now it doesn't have to be official or league but I guess I envision a diamond or three bases and a home plate if nothing els~. And it sounds like we've got the room there to accommodate a suitable field for kids of up to probably about 7th-8th grade. Hoffman: I'm not sure what the needs are for additional, tennis courts in the southern region of Chanhassen. There's a place in every park ,that we have. Tennis courts and a ballfield and this site would be making that, would be utilizing this area here. I can't say to it's maximum because I don't believe the two would fit there. Schroers: There's tennis courts at Lake Ann and there's tennis courts at Lake Susan. Lash: Are they on line for Sunset Ridge? Hoffman: Chanhassen Hills at least. Schroers: Okay, do we need that many tennis courts? Maybe we could eliminate the tennis courts in this place and utilize that area for open field play which could have a baseball field. Lash: We may be putting the cart before the horse here a little bit. Once ~it comes development time, I think we'd do a neighborhood survey and find out where the priorities are. Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 14, 1992 - Page 4 ..."",I Andrews: We've got to have enough flat or the right grade for a ballfield. You need a fairly large piece for that. I think we could make it go here if we had to do it. Lash: We could have one or the other. Is that what you're saying? Hoffman: Correct. Koubsky: I guess my original thought is, we first questioned this site because of it's inability to supply the open land we were looking for for this kind of a neighborhood and we've got 141 houses in here and we've got 80 houses or so going to the southeast of here. So the Commission originally was looking for an area that was more open. 220 houses, 2 kids a house. We have possibly400kids~ or at least 200 kids in this neighborhood. Originally we had requested a second park site be considered to supply the open area. I'm not voicing an opinion one way or the other on this second alternative here but we've been given a couple extra lots which are steeply graded. It facilitates sliding hills real well or a tiered totlot structure but the original intent was to have some sort of an open playing field or open area for recreation. I know the Planning Commission has their feelings and I don't really know the feelings of the Council on this but I guess I just wanted to make that clear. That was our original intent and I don't see where things here have changed all that much or even in the second Plan Bwhere it really facilitated our original concerns. I attended the Planning Commission meeting. Both Jim and I. The contours for Park B weren't really laid out and I expressed a concern ....,;' that this come back to the Commission so we could look at the contour and look at that proposal more closely. Hoffman: Your comments are absolutely on line Dave. If we go ahead and flip and take a 109k at AlternativeB, in order to make this site better and turn to a flat grade, you're going to have to eliminate Lots 1, 2 and. 3. Take this and jut it over and gather some more of that flat up or down if you will that is currently in agricultural use and eliminate taking some of the wooded property. Schroers: Do you have any particular thoughts Fred on this? Berg: Not right now. Schroers: From my point of view, I like the look of A. I think that it looks to me like we could maybe have the best of both worlds there because we can have some active use, some natural area up on the north side in the creek area and I think that we have enough space there for open play and active use depending on how we lay it out. If we're looking at serving the needs.of 200 kids, I'm wondering, I have to believe that the kids get a lot better use out of an open play field type area than they do a tennis court and I think, my opinion is that we could ~robably sacrifice the tennis court in this area and have a larger open space and it would do the job. I think it would make a nice park because it would have both active and passive use areas and it looks pretty accessible. And it's larger in size. We get more bang for the buck. -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~April 14, 1992 - Page 5 Koubsky: Being new, has the Commission talked or thought or discussed changing neighborhoods? r mean as this neighborhood grows older, there may be more of a need for tennis courts for example than there would be when it's young. Is that an issue that's been discussed in the past? Is that something that might~ Schroers: We've discussed it but what we've found, especially in these new developments, are basically younger family oriented people and when they show up at the meeting, their concern is for their children. We want a playground now because if we have to wait for 3 years, our kids are going to be too big to use it. That's the kind of thing that we've been confronted with in the past and hopefully we've learned a few things from the way things were dealt with in the past. I think that if a neighborhood got to that point where it matured, if no one was using that open space, it wouldn't be hard to throw a tennis court in there if we wanted to. Lash: We have, I think Minnewashta is an example. That little, I can't remember what it's called. The little park over by Lake Minnewashta. And it has a skating pond and kind of a small totlot area. It aged and we had talked i few years ago about how the skating rink never got used anymore and the playground equipment was basically i~nored. Nobody used it and we didn't update it. It just sat there. Now all of a sudden last year a woman came in and she said, hey that playground equipment is crummy. We don't want our kids to go. There's been a turn over. We want to get this ~fixed up. So there was sort of that lull there as the neighborhood aged but then I think people move on and then newer families in with children again and then it just starts the whole cycle over. But I agree with Larry that well, personally I think this is just the best of both worlds like you said Larry. ! ,mean it's a rare opportunity that we get a passive area and enough space that we can do some active. Schroers: It seems like a nice blend. It sort of favors more the idea of a park that way rather than you know, it's either going to look like a ballfield or a woods but when you combine amenities, then you get the park effect and I think that that's nice. Lash: Right. And it's nice that you can come into the active area first but yet if you're into the passive, you can go through the active area and get to the passive and maybe walk through the woods and not the other way around where you'd have to go through all the woods first to get there. But the thing that I hope that we've learned is not to jump the gun here and start trying to figure what we're going to put on there because it may turn out that everybody who moves in there has no children. We have no idea who's going to move in there right now. And maybe they'll want tennis courts and we can do that. Maybe they don't want tennis courts and we can do that. All we have to know up front is that we're not going to be able to do both. Berg: Or that we could either if we wanted to. Lash: Right. And I think the thing is, once the neighborhood $tarts . ~filling and we know we're to the point of developing it, is to find out from the neighborhood what they want. What they want the most. They'll give us the direction to go with it. Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 14, 1992 - Page 6 -" Schroers: That's a good plan. I think the other thing there is you can always start with an open use area and make something out of it. But if you go in right away and plug in a tennis court, you hate to go back and tear that out. You won't want to do that. Lash: Adults can drive to Lake Ann or they can drive to Lake Susan. Kids can't go that far to get to an open field or to get to a playground place. I guess my only, I think it looks good. The only thing I wish is that it was on the other side 017 the development just because' it would make it more accessibl& to other neighborhoods. People who'd want to get in and I know that there was some talk from the residents df Timberwood. Did they share anything that we should know? Hoffman: At the Planning Commission? Not to my knowledge. Andrews: The biggest complaint, their statement was the f~ar of traffic on the road connections. That was the cOnstant conversation of the meeting. There really wasn't much talk about the overall. I think the overall consensus of the people who live there was they would prefer to have more of the natural area to be honest but their main concerns were the traffic. Koubsky: Traffic and lot sizes. Schroers: We've dealt with that in the past too and that's always an issue when you start talking about it, people tend to over react. Neighborhood parks are not going to generate that much traffic. People will ...", occasionally be going, driving back and forth to the park but most of the use will come from pedestrian or bicycle access. Kids going back and forth ,to the park. And the increase in automobile traffic probably wouldn't be enough that you could measure it. Koubsky: The traffic pattern Larry was for the thru on Timberwood Drive. They didn't necessarily want Timberwood Drive to go into Timberwood development. They wanted Timberwood Drive on the northern side to be a cul-de-sac and their traffic concerns were residents leaving the neighborhood and going out TH 5 on Timberwood. The questions about traffic pattern weren't related to the park. Schroers: I see. Soon Plan A-then, Timberwood does continue on through? Koubsky: ...to continue that Timberwood Drive through Timberwood development and back out to CR 17. Hoffman: That's essentially a given that that road will go through. Schroers: I would think that it would be confusing if Timberwood Drive did not go into Timberwood development. People wouldn't know where they were. Koubsky:Well there were issues about naming the road too. Lash: I'm confused. This doesn't really have anything to do with this but I look at this, the original plan that we had and it's like both of these streets go out to CR 18. ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~April 14, 1992 - Page 7 Andrews: That's been changed. Lash: And then on this other one they're both cul-de-sacs. Is it they'll both be cul-de-sacs? Andrews: The northern most street there will change from a thru to a cul-de-sac. The southern entry was left unchanged. I wanted to make a comment and a question here. I think this is a good compromise. I like this. Do we have any input or I guess my question would be, would there be parking provided at this park for people that would drive a car there? And if so, would we be looking at like a 6 car or 8 car nose in or something that we could, is that something we need to discuss now or is that handled by Planning and the city and we don't enter into that? Hoffman: Something you should discuss at this point. Andrews: I guess I feel that it's not fair to the city not to provide some sort of parking, limited although it might be. I think 4 to 6 nose in spots will be plenty fOT a park like this. And would have little impact on the park itself. I think the space at the top of the hill does provide enough space for kids to u.se the ballfield and I agree that we would defer on the choice of a developed ballfield over a tennis court. Then we solve more of what was needed and what was required. Certainly adults have the capability to get in their car and drive to a tennis court. Kids do not .~have the capability to drive and get to a ballfield. So I feel strongly that an open field should be graded so it would be suitable for baIlor soccer or football or whatever it might be. I also think that it's important that we do ask for a trail easement on that northern edge connecting the park to the other Timberwood development. I think that's really important. Would it be okay if we tried a motion here? Lash: I want to add to the trail. On our original plan you have the trail that sort of went right through the middle. Hoffman: Of the park? Koubsky: That's between Forest and Timberwood. Lash: Yeah. It didn't go through the middle of the park. It went through the middle of the development. Connected. Koubsky: Oh, down by that other pond. Lash: And I would like to see that we try to pursue that also. And I would certainly want the developer to make that clear to people buying those lots that that is. Hoffman: I'd recommend that you go ahead and include that in your motion and then we'll negotiate with Hans Hagen Homes to have those developed as a part of the improvements which are prepared for this subdivision. ~chroers: I think we're about ready to make a motion but I think before we jo that, maybe we should extend the courtesy to Mr. Hagen to give us his input on this matter as well. Park and Rec commission Meeting April 14, 1992 - Page 8 --" Hans Hagen: Thank you. I think your comments are all well taken. I started on the Park Commission 25 years ago or maybe more than that so I've sat where you are and appreciate the things you're going through. I think ~our comments are well taken. I believe that this is a unique opportunity. We've got almost 9 acres of property. That is an absolutely gorgeous site and I think your comments were absolutely right on that not setting it right this year or the next 5 years, you're looking at 100 or 150 years. During that period of time as the Chairman said, there's always change. So I believe this is the best location for the park. No question about it. It's not a great big play area but it's certainly satisfactory for children up to probably 15~16 years old. You do have a school that's going north of this, or at least pl~nned...very active park facility... The comments I might have with regards to the park. We do have 225 feet of frontage on that road and that name's being changed. We don't have a new name for it but the two cul-de-sac road. It might be appropriate to leave that as on street parking. That will take care of any cars versus toe in. What you do is lose the on street parking and you gain the toe in but yo~'re also having an effect on grade and alternative uses. So this might be appropriate before the park is developed just to say well, it's going to be used for a park. A passive park and should you put some active development in there...attract a lot of people. Maybe it's better to leave on street parking parallel and then when you decide to put it in, you aren't confronted with the problem of having done toe in parking and constrain any sort of facility there. I'm not sure I understant the comment with regard to the trail. I've got an original. What we've done to accomplish this is we've dropped this road down below the ditch. The pond area here was developed in terms of acre feet. So you can dig it out a little deeper, make it a little bit smaller, and that's what we have done to accommodate opening this up. So what we've done is changed the alignment of the street to bring them down a little bit deeper and we're able to take some out of the pond until that's satisfactory storm water storage. We do intend to, if this was the trail you were dealing with, we think that's good because you've got such a long street and that should be put in as reasonably as we have dedicated that as either an outlot. Probably as an outlot I would guess from a platting point of view and so that it will be there and we will identify it as trails...on either side. And then they would come out and go up this road...park system. So we think that's appropriate and we would intend to keep that so. ...,I Schroers: I don't believe, is that the trail that you were talking about? What we were talking about was a connecting trail from the bend going across over here to Timberwood Drive is it? Yes that right there. Koubsky: That in addition...able to address Jan's concern. Lash: Both of them. schroers: Both of them. Hans Hagen: Okay. I think that would be good because otherwise it's quite a long way and kids are going to have to find a way to find their way through anyway. The only alternative to this, and I don't know if it's appropriate, but when you look at these two neighborhoods connecting..."", together and ultimately this will be another neighborhood because they're Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,... Apr il 14, 1992 - Page 9 developing the property north of the park here. Is it possible you maybe want to look at an alternative connection... You can take a trail and you can connect it up to Timberwood Drive, up through this subdivision. Those are really large lots so if you cut back through and get down to passive park and pull them down and put a little bridge across the trees here, you could really get a very interesting passive trail system. And I think that in the subdivisions that we're developing, particularly the larger ones that run a couple hundred acres, the most important issue we've got is trails and people don't like to walk on streets all the time. So if you can make some of it trees, some of it very interesting trail system~ We're delighted to do this. We put this in on our original submission. We'd be glad to do it if you'd like but it may be worth considering trying to pull something through and connecting this park...where you've now you've got, you're kind of using that passive, northern part of the park as a function of being able to get residents to cooperate to dedicate other trails through the balance of it and I understand that's not always easy but it could make it very interesting. Thank you very much. Any other questions for me? Koubsky: How, with that road now, the unnamed double cul-de-sac road, how wide is that? Han~ Hagen: That's a 50 foot right-of-way and a 32 foot street back to back. "...., Koubsky: And what's required for on street parking? Is that plenty big to facil i tate? Hoffman: It's a whole residential street so if you see on street parking in your neighborhood, it would look about the same. Hans Hagen: And these are 90 foot lots which is large by typical suburban standards. These are the largest lots we've built so that should provide a substantial amount of parking. Schroers: What you were suggesting that we started out with on street parallel type p~rking but then and when we get into the point where we are designing the park, we would still have the option of putting toe in parking provided that it fit into our plans. So we can have it either way. Hans Hagen: Right. Understand that it isn't a big deal for us one way or the other but I think because you've got 225 feet here, that!s room for 10 cars easily and if you're talking about 8 toe in parking...and it doesn't affect the neighbors... Schroers: And we wouldn't be parking right in front of someone else's house right there. Hans Hagen: here to here parallel. "..... Schroers: Right in front of the park? No. I think this measurement if I'm correct is 225 feet from and you need 20 foot per space, you'd have room for 10 Park and R~c commission Meeting April 14, 1992 - Page 10 --' Hans Hagen: Right in front of the park, that's correct. So you wouldn't have to park on anybody else's lot. Hoffman: It'd_be across from somebody's home. We c.n simply design a ghost parking lot and put it on the plan and allow for it in our grading operations similar to what we'r~ doing at Pheasant Hills. Not develop it at this time and then in the future if it's desired, construct it. 5chro~rs: Yeah, I like having the option. Berg: It's surmountable curb I assume here. Is all your curb is surmountable curb? Hoffman: I believe you have the option. Hans Hagen: We put in surmo~ntable so you wouldn't have to tear out curb either if you decided to put in parking spaces. Lash: Are we talking about some area would need a certain amount of fill? Hoffman: Yes. Lash: Is that someth~ngthat a~ you're doing the developing, you could. Hans Hagen: Todd... He earned his keep by wanting the fill so we're going to do the grading. We'll balance the grading. It's got to work but we ~' indicated we'd grade that area along with the mass grading of the rest of the development. And I think you're putting up the silt fence and... Hoffman: 'Correct. As we get to that point, it's one of the conditions of approval for grading. One additional one which,we need to add, whichever commissioners makes the motion, would be to include the construction of a trail segment and we would negotiate away a portion of our trail dollars for ~hat construction. And work through that. Those cost calculations with the applicant. Mr. Hagen is correct that the trail connection to the north would be nice but there's plenty of barriers there. We have not allowed for it in Timberwood to the north. There may be an option to get release from this site and go to the north at som~ point in the future but I ce~tainly don't believe we're going to be able to acquire a side lot trail easement through one of those lots to the north ~here located in Timberwood. Lash: But even if we just were able to get it to the north in the area that's undeveloped~ and could get it to go west on Galpin. On Galpin to Timberwood and then they could come around and make a full circle. That would make a nice. Hoffman: That would be nice. Hans Hagen: I would think the residents of Timberwood would like to use t~is park. It would seem to me that from their standpoint to be able to t~ke a trail back through...neighborhood rise up and say let's get this done. I don't know. It doesn't make a difference to me. ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting "....April 14, 1992 - Page 11 Hoffman: It's always the'battle of, it makes good sense for the whole but, if we have to take it through one person's yard and that's the one that counts the most. Schroers: Well, I think we've reach a point where hopefully we're ready to make a motion on this. Before we do that, I'd like to thank Mr. Hagen for his consideration and generosity on this matter. I believe we can make a very nice park out of this site. Does someone have their facts in order and would like to make a m6Eion on this? Lash: I'd like to make a motion that we send a recommendation to City Council that we accept the 8.6 acres of Alternate Plan A in lieu of park fees. ' That we, do we want to say to require full dedication fees? Hoffman: Require the development of the trail. Lash: Okay, yeah. The development of the two trails as shown on the plan. And what about the trail fees then? Hoffman: And reduce trail fees accordingly. Lash: Okay. And to go along with all of the other recommendations. Stipulations listed by staff. ~Hoffman: Correct. Which include the park property boundary be surveyed and marked in conjunction with surveying activity in the adjoining development phases. The applicant shall grub, clear and grade the park site according to grading plans provided by the city. The city shall finish grading and seeding the park site. Erosion control shall be installed by the applicant as specified in the grading plan at a cost to the city of $1.75 per lineal foot. Maintenance and removal of the erosion control materials will be the responsibility of the city. Lash: And also the right-of-way is through Galpin and Lyman. Hoffman: Correct. Schroers: Okay. Do we have a second for that motion? Andrews: I'll second it. Lash moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept 8.6 acres of parkland as shown in Alternate plan A in lieu of payment of park fees and the construction of two internal 8 foot bituminous trail segments and reduce the trail fees accordingly for Stone Creek subdivision with the following conditions: 1. The park property boundary be surveyed and marked in conjunction with the surveying activity in adjoining developmental phases. ,...., 2 . The applicant shall grub, clear and grade the park site per grading plans and specifications prepared by the city and provided to the applicant. The city shall finish grade and seed the park site. Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 14, 1992 - Page 12 ......", 3. Erosion control shall be installed by the applicant as specified in the grading plan at a cost to the city of $1.75 per lineal foot. Maintenance and removal of the erosion, control materials will be the responsibility of the city. 4. The applicant shall provide sufficient right-of-way as specified by the City Engineer to accommodate the future construction of a bituminous trail along the north side of Lyman Boulevard and the east side of . Galpin Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION SCHEDULE FOR ATTENDANCE AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Park Commissioners. This is simply a list of dates when you will be eligible for attendance to the City Council meeting. First one being April 27th. Jim Andrews. Jim, I can tell you right now I don't foresee, well I take that back. You may have the survey on the schedule but in any event I'll call. I'll call you the week prior of the Council meeting to let you know what's going on as far as Park and Recreational items. If there's going to be something of interest. Where it's going to show up in the agenda. If it's going to be consent. If I think it could be a potential discussion item. And then such as this evening when reviewing Stone Creek, once it gets on to City Council and a ~. City Council member has a question on park action that evening, having a commissioner present to discuss what took place at this meeting is very helpful. It makes the process more expedient. It clarifies it. Simply provides good representation of the Park Commission. Fred, you're off the hook for May 4th. That meeting has been cancelled. Other than that then we'll Just continue with this agenda in 1993. Picking up in the order which is presented here. Andrews: I'd like to make one correction in my work phone number. It's 473-1241. Hoffman: Holy coW'. Is that an old one or an erroneous one"? Andrews: That's over a year old. Lash: I can give you my work number too. 368-3101. Hoffman: Thank you. Lash: We really don't have to pay much attention to this. You'll call us if you need us, right? Hoffman: Correct. Schroers: And there's obviously no action required on this issue so we can move right along to item 3. ..." Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~April 14, 1992 - Page 13 COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Lash: I just have one that I was going to, I mentioned this to Jerry. I called last week but didn't connect with him because I guess he was sick. Next year for the coloring contest, I think that needs to be changed just a little where they would have their names on the back. The name on the back and their phone number or something on the back and then directions as to what they're supposed to do with it. And then maybe just on the front have their grade level. Because then when the judges are looking, they don't see who it is. They're not bias if it's someone they know. Not that any of us are. Hoffman: Have we done that in the past? Lash: I don't remember but anyway, this was extremely complicated and a lot of kids started bringing them back to school and nobody knew what we were supposed to do with them. It just so happens I was there. If I wouldn't have been there, I don't know if they would have known what to do. Hoffman: They end up not getting in the coloring contest and that makes parents unhappy. Schroers: Any other commission presentations? ~ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION. Hoffman: Items included in the Admin section are the letter to Joan. I've not heard back from her. Have either of you Larry or Dave? Koubsky: No. Hoffman: Okay. Andrews: Todd, I'd like to ask if you could advise me on that one that's due. At least put me on her list to be contacted. Hoffman: Hennepin County Rail Authority. That's an interesting side note on the southern railroad corridors. Hennepin Parks currently will not present a firm position. They're waffling on what their action mayor may not be. One potential conflict is that Hennepin County Parks obviously operates in Hennepin County. They do operate parks in other counties as well and then this line bisects the Carver/Hennepin County line at the Charihassen border. Larry, you can address that as well. I don't think it's going to stop them from developing. I mean they develop parks in other counties. They certainly, Hennepin Parks has the desire to develop this trail to link some of their parks in the southern and then eventually the northern Hennepin County area with Murphy Hanarand and Cleary Lake Park which they operate in cooperation with Scott County. So they have the desire to see that regional trail connection. 5chroers: Trail connections are a priority item with Hennepin Parks. ~Although I cannot formally speak for Hennepin Parks but I know that there are a number of large projects going on in Hennepin Parks which may somewhat prohibit the undertaking of brand new projects. So I don't know Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 14, 1992- Page 14 -.-I' for sure what their position would be but I do know that there's a lot of work going into what is called the North Hennepin Trail Corridor which is going to link a number of the parks into the city parks. And it will come from the Minneapolis chain of lakes through Theodore Wirth, out through Golden Valley and Plymouth to French Park and then up through from French to Fish Lake Park -and up to Elm Creek and over Coon Rapids dam. Many portions of that trail have been acquired. Some sections still need to be. Som~ parts of it are developed. Some parts are not developed and they would really like to get going on that. So I know the superintendent attended some special meetings regarding trails just recently. They are very focused on that issue but where they want to go out here, we don't. know. Hoffman: No. The City probably will be involved in some type of negotiations with the Department of Transportation. The underpass which g6es over, or the road goes under the tracks down there at TH 101. They're going to be knocking that down and expanding that and presumably why would MnDot,want to put the bridge back up over the top when there's no railroad tracks left over it. Then it becomes either the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority's job, the city's job or potentially if Hannepin Parks has a stake in it at that point, their job to see that MnDot constructs that brldge back over th~ top of it,and then it becomes an issue of who's going to pay for that reconstruction. It's out there in the future. The tree sale ad was ran consecutively in the Villager. The response has been minimal to date. I'm somewhat surprised. Questions I have heard is that people are unsure what these trees are going to look like. They're not sure if they're going to show up half brown and dead but I think once the...gets off the ground, orders will increase. ...,.,. Andrews: I think maybe we should have a tree board meeting as long as we've cooperated on this pTogram. Lash: Does anyone else think that's a dumb name? Tree Board? Andrews: That's the nation. Hoffman: The official name of the Tree City USA. It could be the Shade Tree Commission. Foresty Board. Lash: Tree Board, it sounds like the other useage of the word board. Like a board comes from a tree you know instead of a board of people. I Just think it sounds dumb. Hoffman: Katie Walker Day coming up is for your information at the University of Minnesota. Letter to John Rabe from Jerry. It shows our interest in keeping our costs down at the beach. And then a note. Additionally, we have our summer season program specialist full time position for 4 months on staff. Her name is Dawn Lennon. She will be present at the upcoming Commission meeting to become acquainted with the Park Commissioners. Schroers: Those of us who are going to be in attendance. Hoffman: That's right. ....." Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,.... Apr il 14, 1992 - Page 15 Sch,oe,s: I may have to ask Commissioner And,ews to chair the meeting of what, is that the 27th? No, 28th. Hoffman: 28th, correct. One issue which will be brought back to the Commission for sure that evening is Cathcart Park. That continues to boil. That issue. The park's up in the air and who's going to grab it up. The' church,' Minnewashta Church across the road shows a sincere interest... Berg moved, Koubsky seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoff~an Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim II"'" -.) J!I"