PRC 1990 01 09
,....
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
)JANUARY 9, 1990
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Jim Mady, Jan Lash, Dawne Erhart, Curt Robinson
and Ed Hasek
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Schroers
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Boyt: I nominate Jim Mady for Chair.
Robinson: I second it.
Mady: Do I hear more?
Hasek: I'd like to nominate Sue Boyt for Chair.
Boyt: Oh, I don't want to be chair.
~
Hasek: Sure?
Boyt: Yeah.
Lash: Well I'd like to nominate Larry Schroers for Chair.
Boyt: Did you ask Larry?
Lash: No I didn't...
Sietsema: I asked Larry if he would be interested if he was nODiinated and
he said he would if nobody else wanted it.
Hasek: We can solve that real easily...
Boyt moved, Robinson seconded to elect Jim Mady as Chairman of the Park and
Recreation COD~ission. All voted in favor except Lash who opposed and Mady
who abstained and the motion carried.
Boyt: I'd like to nominate Ed Hasek.
Mady: Second. Other n~minations.
Lash: I'd like to nominate Curt Robinson. I have a question though about
)this now. We have members who's terms are expiring.
,....
Mady: That doesn't matter.
\
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 2
--'
)
Lash: It seems like we're kind of putting the cart before the horse.
Boyt: We have to do it now. If an officer is...
Robinson: I'd nominate Larry Schroers.
Hasek: I think the way we ought to do it is vote for those who want it,
even if you piay vote twice and if there's a tie, then we'll break it.
Sietserr.a: I'rr. confused. Sue rr.ade a motion to nominate
HofflTian: Ed and Curt.
Sietsema: Ed, okay. And Curt seconded that?
Mady:
I did.
Hasek: And Curt moved for Larry and I seconded that so we've got two
people. What we're going to do is just vote for both and in the event of a
tie, we'll do it by single vote.
Sietsema: I think you need to vote on Sue's motion first because it was
made first.
..."",
Boyt moved, Mady seconded to elect Ed Hasek as Vice Chairman for the Park
and Recreation Corr~ission. Boyt, Mady and Hasek voted in favor. Erhart,
Lash and Robinson voted in opposition. The vote was tied 3 to 3.
Robinson moved, Hasek seconded to elect Larry Schroers as Vice Chairman for
the Park and Recreation Corr.mission. All voted in favor except Sue Boyt who
opposed and the motion carried.
Mady: The only other thing, did Larry indicate...
sietserr.a: No.
Mady: The last thing that I know of...meetings. In the past we've gone
with the rotating chair. That is part of our organization. Is there any
lTiotions on that?
Hasek: I'd like to make a motion to continue to rotate the chair.
Boyt: Second.
,
Mady: Any further discussion?
~Lash: I would be in favor of just letting the same chair... I think it
)looks a little more professional when someone's willing to take
responsibility. I think everybody's got a good feel for everything...
.."
"... Park and Rec Conm-.ission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 3
Hasek ITloved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation ComIT,ission continue
to rotate the Chair for meetings. All voted in favor except Erhart and
Lash and the motion carried.
Sietsema: The only other thing then is setting your meeting date days. In
the past it's been~the second and fourth Tuesday.
Mady: What are Council dates this year?
Sietsema: The second and fourth Mondays.
Mady: And that didn't cause us any problems this year did it?
Sietsenia: No. They get your Minutes before you do so.
Mady: Okay. Any preference on the COl'lmission. We need a niotion to set
the meeting dates.
Robinson moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
continue to meet on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
"...
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hasek nioved, Boyt seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Park and Recreation Con~ission meetings dated November 28, 1989 and
December 12, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH PARK.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Dave Blanski
Robert Eickhalt
Kevin Finger
Arlene L. Finger
Craig Halverson
Wendy pemrick
Hallie Bershow
Eldon Berkland
Karen Hasse
Paul Zakariasen
Jamie Heilicher
Fred & Judy Anirhein
935~ Great Plains Blvd.
939~ Kiowa Trail
9151 Great Plains Blvd.
92~1 Great Plains Blvd.
9283 Kiowa Trail
9251 Kiowa Trail
9271 Kiowa Trail
9261 Kiowa Trail
63~ West 96th Street
6~~ West 94th Street
928~ Kiowa Trail
935~ Kiowa Trail
"...
) SietseITla:
New Year.
Koeg 1 er to
The closing for the Bandimere property happened just before the
We now own the property. Previous to that we had directed Mark
prepare a concept plan including SOiTie of the facilities that we
Park and Rec CorrJliission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 4
)
had brainstormed that we would like to see it in the initial stages. We
asked him to put that down on paper so we could invite the people in the
area in to see where the boundaries are and how it would fit and what the
topography looks like. Mark is here to go through the two plans that he's
prepar.ed and then I would think that we would open it up.
Mark Koegler.: When the corrJliission met back in August, we looked very
conceptually at a nurr.ber of options. We talked about facili ties to do
within the park and some kind of an overall layout scheme. It was at that
time that it was decided, the list that's on the screen over there. Two
Little League fields. Two Babe Ruth fields. Two soccer fields. Two
tennis courts. Parking for 300 or so vehicles. Room for concession and
practice areas and other open space associated with some of the ball
diamonds and then a picnic area with the desired facilities to be located
in this park. I want to come back to and talk about parking a little bit
but I'll skip that until we've gone through a brief presentation of the
amenities. What we have done since then, the most important ingr.edient is
we have obtained contour inforrr.ation which was unavailable so everything we
looked at up through the August time frame was very conceptual. Taking
though the direction frorrl the COIlimission we got at that tiIlie and in looking
at an alternative, we derived Option A, which I'll run through quickly.
For a point of reference on that particular exhibit, north is to the right
so maybe I should turn that as people are used to looking at it. North is
at the top. Is that in focus or is that as good as it gets? That's as
igood as it gets. TH 101 then is on the left side of that particular
exhibi t cOIliing kind of frorr. the bottom or the south and winding on up along
the west side. Alternative A is basically the scheme that was talked about
back in August. We had laid that out and done some ver.y preliIliinar.y
grading work. Just enough to assess the impact that that particular scherrle
has on the pipeline that runs through the property. That's the dashed line
you can see starting up at the top and drawing at an angle down on through.
Option A has parking for about 300 plus vehicles. There are two soccer
fields as a part of that scheme. Their dimension is 225 x 360 so they're
on the larger end of the acceptable range of soccer. fields. As I
indicated, the layout is virtually identical to the one we talked about
back in August. The actual field elevations of the softball and Babe Ruth
facilities vary over a range of approximately 20 to 24 feet in difference
in elevation so you end up with a stepped effect if you will between some
of the ball diamonds and allow some slopes for seating and casual Observing
of garrles and so forth. This particular scheIlie identifies a picnic area
that's down at the extreme south end. The tennis courts are located on the
west in conjunction with the parking that is along the west side of the
facility. The scheme the way it's laid out presents a could of problems.
One of them ~ think is rather significant. The first is that regardless of
the grading scheme, we can make some adjustment but this particular layout
is likely to end up with excess Iliaterials so we rrlay be facing or trying to
find a home for a certa~n quantity of dirt. In preliminary estimates, they
turn out to be about 15,000 yards of material but I'm sure that can be
brought down as some of the elevations change but there will be some
,surplus out of this particular scheme. The more acute problem that I
;referenced is the impact that this has on the pipeline itself. The Babe
Ruth field that's on the bottom on that drawing on the south side, a corner
of that is on about 8 feet of fill. When you get up to the northern Babe
....",
---'
....."
~ Park and Rec Corr~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 5
Ruth field which is kind of in the n,iddle of the park, we needed a 6 foot
fence situation to achieve a layout similar to what is shown here.
Obviously that sets up a roller coaster kind of effect that would involve a
...location and the significance of that or ramifications of that are
unknown right now. We have tried to get some prelinlinary work from
William's all along and basically they defer any final corr~ent until it's
submitted to their engineering people in Oklahoma. It is a major change to
the pipeline. I don't want to underscore that any less than is necessary
but it is important to note that. Option B has been assembled to remain
essentially sympathetic in the same kind of overall layout that you had
talked about before with parking on the west side and facilities for
seating as you head easterly through the park. Option B breaks up the
wheel kind of configuration that we had with the ball diamonds and locates
them, given some of the dimensional characteristics of some of the fields.
For example, the Little League's being at 180, we're able to tuck one of
those in if you will at kind of that southwest corner allowing some of the
larger fields to exist then onto the east. This whole scheme has been laid
out to attempt to minimize the amount of encroachment on the pipeline and
it does that. In fact there is virtnally no encroachrr.ent at all in the
pipeline itself. There is a minor amount of filling that projects into the
easement which again we'd have to be reviewed by the William's but seems to
be consistent with some of the things that they have verbally told us in
the field. This particular scheme has ballfield elevations that vary 13,
~ 14 feet total so again we have a certain amount of stair steps for
topography if you will. It has a larger picnic area than the site on
Option A because the field is basically tucked further back to the lake
side. Further away from the Kiowa area. The soccer fields that
correspondingly fit into this particular plan are two 10 x 330 so they're
slightly smaller than those that are shown in Option A. However, again
they're still well within the normal confines of a soccer field sizing.
There is a slight arr.ount of excess rr.aterial on this one but it's not
significant and in all likelihood it will be utilized in some of the
berming and so forth that you'd want to do on the north side because there
are a couple of residences that are rather close to the park on the north
side. I think there has to be some syt',pathy shown there as to how that's
treated. I referenced in my opening comments about the parking. To date
we have talked about parking accorr,rr.odating abollt 300 cars. I guess one of
the things I would suggest that the Commission do this evening is to
address that and see if you think that's an appropriate number. I would
suggest to you that perhaps a smaller number would in fact serve the needs
of this park possibly in more 200 to 250 car range. The parking lot can
always be designed so it has some overflow capacity that wOllld be a grass
field area. At least initially and in the long term, 10 years or 20 years
if you need it, it can be expanded. Initially I guess a recorrur,endation
would be that the parking we're looking at right now is probably oversized
and unnecessary to do... Again, that lends some additional open space...
probably to the park itself. So in surr~,ary, both of these options I think
are sympathetic to the concept that you looked at in August. We have a
benefit now of having contollrs so we know what will fit on the property and
of the two, clearly the second derivation, Option B has very little to no
impact at all on the pipeline. It certainly presumably could be
~ constrllcted after approval by Williarr,s. I would entertain any questions,
Mr. Chairman, that the Corr~dssion rr,ight have.
Park and Rec Con~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 6
...,.,
i
J
Robinson: It says that the approximate location of the pipeline. Is that
pretty good Mark? Right next to the ballfield? Do you feel confident
that the Plan Alternate B, there is room to get those fields in and not
bother the pipeline? Is that right?
Mark Koegler: Yes. We always label things like that approximate. There
is a plus minus there but it's pretty minimal. That is ~irtually the
location of the pipe. It was located and surveyed and William's
participated in that. That's the same time incidentally that they checked
the depth of the pipe which I think is at the maximum of 42 inches and
generally it's about 36 inches undergrade.
Robinson: Also, you talked about relocation of the pipeline. Is it
necessary to relocate it or dig it deeper?
Mark Koegler: I guess that term would encompass any variety of approaches.
Whether it would be a rerouting or simply a changing of the elevation. We
have some concern with Alternate A that there is enough horizontal distance
to literallY make the transition that needs to be made with the cut and
fill situation that Alternate A presents.
Lash: What's this darker black line?
i Mark Koegler: We had talked previously about SOllie kind of a conceptual
trail that would connect some of the neighborhood areas and so forth so
that's just been shown as a concept that there would be some kind of
movellient from the Kiowa area on into the park and from the parking area on
to the facilities and so forth.
.....,;I
Erhart: Are there going to be any natural barriers between the homeowners
and the ballfields there?
Mark Koegler: In terms of the site, you all have obviously walked it.
There's rolling topography there. There's land that's been tilled over the
years with the exception kind of kind of the west and southern sides where
some of the tree cover exists. There will be some tree removal as a result
of the ball diamond construction along the west side. It is fairly
lIiinin.al. We attell.pted to hold those grades up the slope as n.uch as you
can. As far as the distance to Kiowa or to the neighbors to the north, the
only thing that can be accomplished there is plantings and screenings.
There literally is nothing there right now. Some berming on the north side
is a definite possibility. In fact it's shown on this plan, there's 4 to 6
foot bern.s along the north side. The area of Kiowa becollies one of
distance. The closest diamond is about 250 or so feet away from the
property line there. They are approximately the same elevation. If you
look at the Kiowa homes ,in the piiddle, there's probably about the highest
elevation. It drops a little bit to either side. That lIiiddle point is
about the sallie elevation the ball dian.ond will be at. The outfield of that
-,Babe Ruth field there on the south end. So again, we're at about the same
elevation. It would simply be a factor of distance and planting plans and
possible berming along there but the distance is so great that berming
would probably...
......"
,..... Park and Rec COIlmiission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 7
)
Mady: Any other questions?
Hasek: Yeah. I've got a couple. What size ball diamonds were you talking
about for the Babe Ruth fields?
Mark Koegler: The Babe Ruth are shown, depending on who's standards you
use, they range froIli 180 to 200. Right now we've shown 200 on there erring
on the conservative side because it's easy to pull the boundaries back 20
feet if you in fact want around the east. The Little League, I'm sorry.
The Babe Ruth is 310. All the fields have been identified as having all of
the associated areas that are necessary for dugouts, batter cages, practice
areas, the whole bit. They will sit on the property.
Hasek: You mentioned concessions. Where would you anticipate that to go
in Plan B?
Mark Koegler: Most likely at kind of the hub there if you will of the 3
ball diamonds.
Hasek: That's a pretty small space in there.
Mark Koegler: Well there's about 100 feet of distance between there.
JIll'" We've got some 3: 1 slope transi tions in SOllie of these areas but there could
be a bench created there to get a small concession stand in. Again,
depending on what size you're looking at. I think there are alternate
locations adjacent to the parking lot a little further to the north also.
Hasek: Where the trails Ilieet there.
Mark Koegler: Right. Where that comes in.
Hasek: How many parking stalls do you have shown in Plan B?
Mark Koegler: Plan B, if I renlember right, is 330 on it right now.
Hasek: Okay. How many are in that north bay adjacent to that resident on
the north side there?
Mark Koegler: I could get you a number. I'd have to scale something off.
I think a quick guess would be sonlewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 60.
Hasek: So if we dropped that bay as a future area for parking and I'iaybe
created it and surface it so that it would accon~odate grass parking for
overflow. At least we could get some parking...
Mark Koegler: That woul~ be our suggestion. That that probably at least
initially and probably for quite some time to come does not need to be hard
surfaced. In talking to Todd, we're worry about some of the prograIl~ing.
,With the youth programs down here, we just simply don't envision a great
Ideal of overflow parking at any time. It would be there if needed but it
.,..... doesn't appear to be needed.
Park and Rec Co~~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 8
......,
/
Hasek: Okay. You don't show a trail connection down to Kiowa.
reason for that?
Is there a
Mark Koegler: There is on the plat map where that trail abuts, there is a
right-of-way section shown there on the plat. Now I don't know, we haven't
checked out to see the fact that it's dedicated right-of-way. There's
driveway coming...through there and some of the residents are aware of the
status of that land.
Hasek: ...the old Bandimere Park though.
Mark Koegler: That could be created. Sure. On the map there's a little
square that you can see in the old park and that's the play structure
that's there. right now.
Hasek: Is it possible that there might be an area that could be graded out
for a winter rink in that area or I don't know, maybe the residents don't
really care because they've got the lake.
Mark Koegler: There's a couple possibilities there. One of the things I
skipped over. We've just taken a very, very preliminary look at drainage
and you can pinpoint a little bit more what you want to do. That is a
ponding area that's shown down there below those soccer fields on the
extreme east side and it's quite likely that that could be worked into a
, skating configuration. It is a retention pond. It would be very gently
sloped.
......,
Erhart: What would happen to that neighborhood park there? Is that
included in that soccer deal here?
Mark Koegler: Part of it would be, yeah. Part of that would be leveled
and filled. You'd have kind of a terraced effect where you'd have a 10
foot elevation or so difference between the soccer and coming down into the
existing neighborhood park. There is still land there to serve as a
neighborhood facility for some open space. You can put a half court
basketball in there if you wanted to. You certainly could retain the play
area that's there and have skating and so forth so we tried to retain that
for strictly a neighborhood function if you will and it is separated
somewhat topographyically and just in the distance. But there's a fine
line there. We don't want to make it too convenient because we don't want
to have anybody parking on Kiowa and being able to walk into the park.
Robinson: Do you know the likelihood of TH 101 routing in that area?
Mark Koegler: Yeah.
Robinson: It will be?
Hasek: It will be unchanged.
Mark Koegler: We have laid some geometry in there on the curve so that if
it is ever improved, it won't itr,pinge on the ball diatr,onds there. You can
get the 40 mph curve in there. If by chance somebody ever in the course of
....""
,...,
Park and Rec Corr~ission Meeting
January 9, 19~0 - Page 9
time wants to do that. It won't disturb the park. You'll have to argue
about the trees and everything at that time but it won't inipact the park.
Hasek: Just one last comment Mark before we move on. Soniething that you
kind of missed or I kind of missed when I looked at these things. Is it
possible that when you bring these things to us in the future they can
really pop out where the trees are so we know what's happening with those?
Mark Koegler: Sure.
Hasek: I can see theni on here when I look real close but' they just
don't. . .
Mark Koegler: They're on a computer generated survey kind of mode which is
admittedly kind of hard to read.
Mady: Okay. I'd like to open it up now for public discussion. If you
would, when you're making your comments, please conie up to the microphone.
State your name and address for the record and give your conmient and we'll
hopefully be able to answer any questions you may have.
Carol Dunsmore: I'ni Carol Dunsniore. I live at 730 West 96th Street. We
are south of the park area. First of all I'd like to ask what residents
were notified. Like how many number of feet did you send out the notice
, to?
.,.....
Sietsema: I think it's 500 feet or abutting. Everybody that was abutting
it and I believe 500 feet was the measurement.
Carol Dunsmore: Okay. I'd like to request that any future discussion
about this topic, that West 96th Street does get included. We have 18
homes on that street and the majority of the residents that I talked were
very interested in this and were surprised that they did not get a notice
about this. So I'd like to make sure that West 96th is notified next time.
I have worked a petition and I'll read it to you. We the undersigned
request the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Corrmiission to designate a horse
trail/cross country ski trail around the perimeter of Bandimere Park.
Whatever it's going to be called. I've temporarily called it Bandimere
Park. I have 38 signatures so far. I'm going to continue to work this
petition. I don't know if the Con-.rrtission would want my petition now or at
what point in time.
Mady: I'll let you know where I stand... ask the question. As long as we
know that that's an interest, t don't see any reason why you need to give
that to us right now. If you're continuing to work on it, that's fine.
Carol Dunsmore: I'd lik~ to hear your discussion on that topic. Even
Mark's too with, he's knows the topography better than I do.
\ Mady: Any other discussion? Questions. Corr~ents.
J
J1I'"
Jande Heilicher: Hi. My narr.e is Jarrtie Heil icher. I'm at 9280 Kiowa Trail
which is the northwest edge of that park area. The main question I've got
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 10
-'
;'
is, are there are going to be any segregation between the residential
property and the park itself as to fencing and so forth? The way I'm
looking at it here, my property basically I have right now about 200 feet
on the current park and with the addition of the new park, will add about
150 feet onto my property. The way the ball diamond or the soccer field is,
niY property's within probably 30 to 40 fee't there ndnimUlli froni where people
are going to be on a regular basis during the soccer season. I'm just
curious if there's going to be any way to protect my property from people
walking through it. There's a sharp corner up there and part of the park
is right there where the pond is and then all the way down along the
southern edge of the park here there is a good size space but there's still
access for the general public to be walking through residential property.
But I'm just wondering if there's0 going to be any fencing and so forth
around the park.
Carol Dunsniore: Me again. First of all, where is the entrance to the park
going to be for cars to access the park? Also, there's two houses on the
west side of TH 101. I believe it's across from the Finger's. Two new
house,s. They would be just south of the nursery and they are very
interested in this too and surprised that they did not get a notice of the
meeting and they would like to be included from now on too.
Sietsema: The Finger'S?
Carol Dunsniore: No. They're across TH 101 from Finger'S. There's two
houses on the west side of TH 101.
-'
Kevin Finger: My name is Kevin Finger and the Finger'S were notified. My
address is 9151 Great Plains Blvd.. I also own the property at 9201 which
is about 600 feet along the northern boundary of the park. My first point
that I want to make is very unselfish and that is, I don't think any park
should be developed here or anything at all done until a bike path connects
it because you 111eIlibers or whoever approves this park in the end will be
responsible for the kids getting hit by cars. I run from my house and
unless it's really nice and I can absolutely know that I can run on the
shoulder without sinking in mud, I don't run because it's dangerous.
I mean especially when they've got trucks hauling dirt. My God, those guys
go 60 mph on TH 101 and it's terrible. If you don't have a bike path
connecting this, don't put this park in. If you don't have the money, too
bad because the City of Chanhassen's going to get sued otherwise. My next
point has already been raised, conmiunication. Last year when it was first
brought up, I said when you were looking to buy the property, in fact yon
had already signed it, signed the purchase document...
(There was a tape change at this point in the Kevin Finger's discussion.)
...This park does not i~pact my property like a normal neighborhood park.
This is major. It impacts my property in a major way. I'm glad to hear
there are SOItle berIlis planned. I'd like to know exactly how are they going
to go all along the northern edge or exactly to what extent that the berms
are going to be put in. I would like to see berms put in and fencing
because I'Ili on the northern edge. In the sunm,ertiItle, winds blow froIt, the
south. I'm going to get all the garbage otherwise. If there's fences up,
...."tI
1""'" Park and Rec ComIl,ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 11
it will stop the paper. Another question I had, again when this was all
put together, it was talked about that there was going to be a lot of
grading that was need to be done and we were talking about having people
being trained in and the ArlliY Corps of Eng ineers or something, doing the
grading because they thought it would save money. I don't want any
trainees. I don't know who's going to do it but they better be top rate
people because I don't want anybody touching that dirt around that pipeline
within 2,000 feet of my house if they don't know what they're doing. If
that changes, how does that change the cost structure. Another thing is, I
don't want to see a horse path around that park. It takes away froIli the
privacy as is. I don't want to see people riding horses or skiing by my
house on a regular basis. I bought that property in the Iliiddle of a corn
field and soy bean field because I thought that's what it was going to be
for a long time. Wrong. I'd like to keep it as best as I can. On the
petitions, I'd like to see how many immediate property owners signed the
petition. I guess that's all I've got to say. Thanks.
Don Sitter: My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. but in
effect I'm the last kind of house on the end of Kiowa Trail there. I have
just a few questions. Who's the park targeted for and what is the useage
that you expect it to have? Who is the park mainly for? What leagues will
be playing and how often?
"....
Boyt: This is a children's park. It's aimed at meeting the needs of the
"children play soccer, Little League in Chanhassen.
Don Sitter: Okay, so it's just additional fields for the... Okay. I have
just a couple of concerns about drainage and I'm no ecological engineer
here but I assume these fields are going to have the normal ag line and
traffic and whatever else I assume the slope is running towards Lake Riley
there and I'm wondering if considerations have been made to make sure that
we're not getting additional flow into the lake. I think there's kind of a
wetlands area there that helps trap some of that and I just want to make
sure that that doesn't get disturbed so there's no impact on the lake
itself. I heard mention that the ac~ess to Kiowa Trail was going to be
either minimized or diIldnished. I would like to also state IllY agreeIl,ent
with that. To keep the traffic away from Kiowa Trail would be very helpful
to the surrounding neighbors. The other question, I think about a year ago
there was considerations for buying a piece of the lake property to attach
to this. Has that been tabled forever and ever, amen or is that still a
consideration?
Mady: Nothing's forever but we're not planning on buying it.
Don Sitter: Okay. I would like to voice a very loud opinion if I can that
you do not purchase the lake property and try and make this a lake access
park just for the impact and what it would do for Lake Riley. I guess
that's why I like to see that you're di.scouraging traffic onto Kiowa Trail
because that will help discourage the people from walking across. One of
my concerns is that there are 2 or 3 Iliajor old lots right across from that
) little finger and it's going to be real inviting to just kind of use that
~ as a parking, and there's no homes there right now. There's no control and
it'd be real easy to just kind of think that's part of the park. You've
Park and Rec COIl,mission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 12
...""
got to discourage that as best we can. The last COIl~ient I'd like to make
is bike trails. Is there any chance we can, I don't know how but connect
np to Eden Prairie's bike trail system. Is there plans for that at all so
if we get into here, we can somehow connect up?
Boyt: It's real important that people who are in favor of bike trails, let
the Mayor know because 3 of us worked our tails off trying to get a bike
trail system passed. The other half of the people up here do not want
theIr,. The Mavor doesn't want theIr,. Two other council Ir,embers don't want
theIli. They think you all don't want them. So if you want them, you have
to let them know.
Mady: To answer your question though, our trail plan does work so it
connects with Eden Prairie. If we ever get it passed, it would connect to
Eden Prairie.
Boyt:
Even with Chaska.
Mady:
It's designed to do that.
Lash:
there.
101.
I don't think that was a real accurate description of the feelings
I think you've got...support them on a major corridor such as TH
Robinson: I take exception to that too. I'll speak for myself as to what
IliY opinions are. .J
Mady: Can we get back to the topic here?
Don Sitter: I'd like to see bike trails and I'd like to see them connected
to Eden Prairie. Whatever trail system exist so we can all recreate
together. I gness my last question, I'm not quite sure how often you see
this park being used. Is this going to be an every night, every field
active all the time? will there be lights for evening activities?
Mady: There's a good chance in the future but I don't look for it in the
next 5 to 10 years.
Don Sitter: Okay. Thank you.
Dave Blanski: My name is Dave Blanski. I live at 9350 Great Plains Blvd..
I bel ieve it was Mr. and Mrs. Dunsmore that stopped by IliY house tonight at
7:00 and I was in the bathtub to tell my wife there was a meeting here. I
was disappointed I wasn't notified being an adjacent property owner, just
across the street. I think Mr. Finger's made a very good point. According
to that plan, it appears to me that your access is onto TH 101 in that
northern most parking lot. Is that correct? . Isn't there a problem with
sight lines there with the curves? I come up there at least once a day
from directly across the street and it's bare. When you start dUIr,ping 300
cars on there, you need turn lanes or something in there. Have you thought
that through?
Mady: That's one of the questions I have for Mark later.
....,.,
I"""
,.....
,.....
Park and Rec Corr~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 13
Dave Blanski: Okay. Then along with that, certainly the point about some
sort of walking path. Is there any sort of study that's been done. How
many kids do you expect to come on their bikes or will they be brought by
their parents?
Boyt: They're not going to be cOlliing on their bikes. It's not safe.
Dave Blanski: How are you going to stop the kid when his dad's at work or
his mother doesn't have a car? They're going to get to that ball game.
That coach is going to be...so you've got to think about this.
Boyt: We have...
Dave Blanski: But you just told nie they're not going to come on bikes.
That makes me sound like they're...
Boyt: I can't imagine people letting their kids out there on bikes.
Dave Blanski: I built there for the peace and quiet. I lived near a park
in Blaine for 20 years. I was 1 mile from the park and from, I usually
work construction so I didn't get home until late but certainly from supper
time until dark every night, all sun~er, it was very loud at my house. So
if you're telling people that are only 250 or 300 feet away that they're
not very close, that's really a misconception because they're going to hear
that park everyday, all SUIr,mer and it's defini tely going to have impact.
The point about the fence is very well taken. They have put chain link
around that entire park because the trash was blowing literally miles. I
guess I'm just reiterating other folks conmients but they're important.
It's already done too far. I personally felt that it was unfortunate that
the City Council would purchase a choice of prime property that could have
aided the tax base when what you're doing there, soccer fields and ball
fields are perfect on low ground that is normally flat to start with and
the other advantage of the low ground is that the noise doesn't carry.
You're up on a hill there. It's going to carry for miles. Those are my
only COIrUlients.
Mady: Does anyone else wish to speak? Okay, Mark are there any specific
questions you'd like to address before we COIrUlient?
Mark Koegler: There are a few and there are SOIrle of them that I presume
the Commission would want to address because they're more policy related.
I noted some items that were brought up. Sight distance. I'll focus on
that first. TH 101 is not a desireable roadway. We're al~ aware of that.
This is the best location that we've got along TH 101. It will afford
Iliinimal sight distance. It meets MnDot criteria. We would like to see it
ITiOre, get a mOJ:e detailed grading inforniation. We'll look to the south
particularly to make sure that if we have to do some gradings and cutting
of slopes in there to enhance that sight distance, it can be done. It is
targeted the best location we've got given the property. The who will use
the park question I think was addressed by the COIr~ission's previous
discussions. I think we had identified an age breakdown of like 7 to 18
year olds. It was identified as the youth park for the City of Chanhassen
Park and Rec Con~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 14
......"
)
Segregating youth activities from adult activities that would occur at Lake
Ann. Regarding berms on the north. We had shown bernls along the north and
certainly we'd be very willing to work with the adjacent property owners
and to do some sections for them if need be to show them how that would
work and get their input on the size of the berms and planting materials
and so forth because I think that is a very legitimate concern because both
of those homes are close to the property line and we're looking at being
relatively close to the property line. The entrance was touched on as far
as sight distance. It is kind of bisecting that northerly leg of the
parking, if you will. It's a 1i ttle bit skinnier on the exhibit there.
Fencing was the issue that was brought up. It's kind of policy issue. I
think you came across that recently in some of the other parks and I think
that's appropriate for the commission to address that and not me.
Regarding the horse trail, that is a difficult issue. It has been raised
in the past that there was interest that wanted to have western trails
through the city. The City's trail plan does speak to accon~odating that
on some of the trail segments that are further to the west of here. So
they're kind of lineal segments along Bluff Creek and some of those are.
This park, in my opinion right now, is too tight to accon~odate equestrian
trails. The City Council in their approval action for this park also
identified that in the future this park niay be expanded, roughly doubled in
size to the north as it sits here. It was specifically stated in the
Comprehensive Plan, it would show some kind of expansion of this park in
the future. If that's done, it niight be adequate to have enough room to
get around but certainly along the northern part of the property, unless
you're willing to pull out of some of the facilities, I don't think there's
room to accon~odate a trail in that area. It certainly would be too tight
to the property to the north and too tight to the soccer fields involved
there that exist along there. Along the east side it gets a little easier
to accon~odate but again, where do you go with it. If you had the property
to the north, niaybe a looped segment could be graded. Could be part of
another trail. I think that's something we can sti 11 look at but I 'ni not
overly optimistic of how a loop can be acconmiodated in the first phase of
development.
...-i
Hasek: Just a quick question. Were you talking about a loop around the
park or an al ignment along TH HH?
Carol Dunsmore: I'd take anything but my first choice was around the
perimeter.
Hasek: Around the entire perimeter?
Carol Dunsmore: Right. Can someone point where the access is off of TH
l0l? I can't tell from the drawing.
Mark Koegler: Sure. It's right here.
Dave Blanski: ...cut that hill down before you get to it?
) Mark Koegler: That location may shift 20 or 30 feet one way or another.
That's the general location. We don't have a lot of room to play there.
We worked with the State on TH 101 before and the State always is
--"
,....., Park and Rec COlliI\iission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 15
/
synipathetic and it creates problellis with the driveway that you have also.
There's problems there too so we can't get too close to your driveway. It's
threading the needle.
Dave Blanski: Well it doesn't matter how close you get to the driveway?
Mark Koegler: Yes it does. MnDot...
Dave Blanski: ...over that hill at 45 mph. I had a guy COllie up the other
day as I pulled out of the driveway and he come up right behind llie and
followed me all the way to Chanhassen about that far behind me. He was mad
because I pulled out i~ front of him.
Mark Koegler: At the next meeting that you review this topic, we may give
you some specific information on sight distances. Exactly what they are...
Mady: Can you speak to the drainage? Slope?
Mark Koegler: Yeah. The gentleman certainly is correct. It's a rolling
site that ultimate drains toward Lake Riley. That will not be changed.
The Watershed District will be involved in the review of the drainage plan
that it ultimately is created. We will have to have a ponding that will
retain the water and control the outflow into Lake Riley so it doesn't
,..... exceed what it is at the present time. Those concerns, I guess the only
assurance I can give hilli at this point is that they will be addressed.
We're not at that stage yet in terms of level of detail. We have looked at
just in terlliS of the position of the ball diamonds at creating swales that
come through for example kind of along that trail area to accoIl~iodate the
water so it gets down to where that ponding area but it hasn't been
calculated beyond that in terms of specifics.
Mady: Anyone have any questions?
Hasek: Well let's just go through some of the things that were talked
about. We kind of mentioned fencing I guess. Obviously fencing to protect
neighbors is important. There's two options. We could build a fence or
they cOllld bui ld a fence. There's nothing to preclude anybody froIl. putting
a fence on their own property to protect it. It's a matter I think of
whether we want to enclose the park in a fence and exactly to what degree
that is done. Rather than fencing I think I'd like to see plant materials
and SOllie rows of things incorporated in berms and keep the fencing to a
miniIl,um if it's at all possible. Bike paths. I agree. We've got a bad
problelli out there wi th bike paths. We have the sallie problelli on TH 101 that
we've got on Minnewashta Parkway as far as I'm concerned. Very narrow
aligMient. Very soft shoulders and no place for anybody but an automobile
on that road so I think that that has to be looked at. I don't think it
necessarily has to precl,ude developIlient of the park and I'd hate to see the
park slow down simple because of lack of attention to bike trails and
paths. It's sOlliething that maybe we'll get...dead center now and be able
Ito show, start getting what we need out there. Sight lines on TH 101. I
;think MnDot has standards and MnDot's in charge of that road and they're
,....., not going to allow us to do anything out there that's not legal by their
standards so I think that will pretty much take care of itself. I agree
Park and Rec Con~ission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page l6
/
that it's a youth park. It should be kept a youth park. I think the horse
trail, my idea of horse trails I guess is not to mix the, especially...on a
site like this because children and horses and snowmobiles all on one sniall
park site. We've kept from doing it at Lake Ann and I think there are
other places that you can put snowmobiles and trails rather than in
con~.unity sized parks. Those are my con~ents.
Lash: I wrote down a lot of the comments that the residents n.ade. They
brought up a lo~ of good points and I certainly think that we should
consider all of these when we're looking... I think it helps us do a
better job in trying to work with the property owners. I guess I would be
kind of leaning towards the fence in at least the areas where we have
abutting property owners... I'd want to look at that. Possibly sonie areas
can be bermed and landscaped and...that's necessary. I guess I agree with
I don't remember which resident said this. I didn't get his name but the
deal with the grading by the pipeline. I know it was brought up at one of
the meetings and we all seemed kind of surprised by it and I guess
personally I have some concerns about it. I think maybe we rushed into it
a little bit and I think that's too bad but it's done. I think we have to
try and do the best that we can with the pipeline and work around it and
still trying to make it the quality that we want it to be. I'd certainly
like to ask the residents to continue giving us input and hope that
everyone who wishes to be notified of these meetings, IT".ake sure they let
Lori know so you can be notified.
Mady: On the fencing issue, it's one of those things that we're going to
have to take a look at. Serious look. We're fortunate in this park in
that it's probably only half the boundary of the park that...since we do
have TH l~l virtually, at least 4~% of it. I'd caution the residents on,
if we put fencing in, I don't know that we're going to be putting gates in
everybody's yards so they have easy access to the park. That's something
that's going to have to be thought through. The bike path issue. I worked
pretty hard on this on the trail plan. For the 4 plus years I've been on
the con~ission. We need bike paths real badly. A few months ago, maybe it
was just last month, I asked the Con~iission to again seriously look at the
bike trail issue and nientioned TH l~l, both north and south in the
Chanhassen areas as well as Minnewashta parkway as three roads that need
theni desparately. We're not getting a lot of support at this point in time
from the Council and it has to corne from the grass roots level. Pipeline.
It's there. It's a fact of life. It appears that Plan B will allow us to
put up parking area...as minimally as possible. Pipelines run throughout
the country. There are houses built directly adjacent to, roads built over
them, parks running across theni. William's doesn't have the best track
record in the world but there's not a whole lot we can do with it. This
goes...con~ents the site that was selected. The con~ission and the council
looked at somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 sites in southern
Chanhassen. We were restricted bv the referend~i as to where we could look
and Chanhassen blessed, sometimes. blessed with rolling countrysides,
especially in this part of town. Flat ground in this amount of space
doesn't reallv exist that we could find. At least not that could be
utilized. This may not be the most ideal park in the world but it was a
heck of a lot better than the other 4 or 5 sites we looked at. I guess I
don't know how to respond to your question as to why the neighbors weren't
......"
"""""
"""""
,...., Park and Rec Conmlission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 17
notified as.. .early fall. I 'ni trying to remember back then. I guess all I
can remeniber is we did direct staff after Council approved pursuing the
park, to start going wi th plans to this park. We, through the conmllmi ty
meetings, have dealt with the referendum and the discussions with Council
and the discussions with the cOIliIliission had a fairly good idea of what we
were looking for in a youth park. What things we needed in a youth park.
It's good that you're here tonight. It's the only way we can make
decisions that will work. I guess I don't know what else to say about that
issue. The berming, we can up up as many berms in as required and Mark has
done a good job in the past. Lake Ann is an ideal situation where the
hills are laid out so people can get good sight lines yet they met
residents... We'll just have to address those as the site plans, the
landscaping plans come in front of us. The question about the Corps of
Engineers doing the grading. This is the Corps of Engineers Reserve. I
guess in no way did I ever expect these to be trainees. They do this work
all the time. There is a two year waiting period to get on their list of
projects that they'll do so we're not hir ing some big niachine school with
rookies conling out there. We're looking at saving the City a sizeable
an,ount of money. We're talking about n,oving a lot of dirt and this is an
idea that was brought up at the City Council prob~bly 2 years ago. I can
reniember it being discussed...
Sietsema: If I could just interject. There's no guarantees that we would
~ be put on their list either.
Mady: The last thing I've got on my list is parking space. Mark's showing
300 in the design. I did a quick listing for myself. If you took our 4
baseball diamonds, 2 teams per field. That's roughly 20 players and maybe
a few more per field. So you're looking at maybe 100 people there. One
car per individual. Maybe a little more. Soccer...probably not more than
50 spaces. Tennis maybe 10. The rest of the park maybe 10. That's about
150 so we can cut back from paving 300 spaces. Now I wouldn't like to see
us paving niore than maybe 150, 200 at the most. Finally, I don't know if
anybody else has talked about it. Maybe it's just a foregone conclusion
but my personal preference is Plan B because it impacts the houses on Kiowa
Trail the least. In the future it's my feeling that as the City grows and
we certainly won't be able to put more and more and more parks because land
is very expensive. It may be necessary to light these fields and I don't
foresee that in the next 10 years but it's something you have to review
coniIlients on it right now. By keeping the fields as far away from the
residences that are there, we can minimize maybe a splash of light into the
yards. I did have one question for Mark on the field layouts. It deals
with the Little League fields in the curve of TH 101 Mark. I think I was
trying to figure out where the sun's going to hit the batter's eye in that
park. Although I know we're not...we should try to be aware of that.
Those were my COIl~ents.
Erhart: I also favor Plan B. I like the idea of cutting down on the
parking spaces and opening up'more open areas. I'd like to see staff work
,with the neighbors. Putting in natural barriers or fencing would be called
for around the perimeter to protect the neighbors property. A bike trail
~ is a very good issue here. I support it 100%. I understand that we do
have a safety probleni out there and in the future we are going to be
Park and Rec Corr~ission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 18
...""
)
talking about prioritizing and modification of the trail plan here. I will
be pushing for bike trails along major corridors. I'd also like to
encourage the neighborhood park be given back to the people along Kiowa
Trail. Mark said he's getting, where it is right now...
Boyt: Do you mean separate from the way it is now?
Erhart: No. The way it is now. I very much support that.
Robinson: I'm not going to repeat all of the concerns that have been
heard. Everyone of them is very legitimate and I think you've got to look
into all those. There are really SOllIe good concerns. I prefer at this
stage Alternate A. I realize that it causes some concern with the pipeline.
I think we've got to do some checking. This is forever. If it takes a
little extra effort or money or whatever to do it the right way, I think we
should do that. I like the hub concept of the 4 fields in Plan A. The
tennis court location is where we talked about it next to the parking lot.
Soccer fields are larger and I think this is what we talked about...except
the pipeline is a problem.
Boyt: I liked A better too. Does it costs llioney to submit A to
Williarr,'s?
Sietserr,a: No.
Boyt: If the pipeline is rerouted, who pays for that?
-'
Mady: Good question.
Boyt: Well, I think we need more inforlliation on it. I'd like to see us
submit Plan A first with some of the parking taken out and if it's out of
our range financially for the pipelines. If William's says no way, then
we'll look at B. I think fencing is something that we're going to need to
look at, especially for that trash probleni. Now Hallie, we had talked
about half court basketball. Is that something that some of the neighbors
would like because now would be the time. If you guys would like something
like that in your neighborhood park area.
(Hallie Bershow's answer was not recorded due to a tape change.)
Boyt: If there's something like that that you'd like to see in that little
piece of neighborhood park, now's the time to ask for it.
Hallie Bershow: I asked for the tennis court.
Boyt: Oh, that's right. That's it.
Mady: I had one last thing. We don't have an area for a play structure
somewhere. We're going to be bringing in kids into this park. They're
obviously going to be bringing in their families and usually you have some
of them playing Little League. A good rr,ajority of those people are going
to have kids...It's something I don't see in the plan.
-'
,Ii"'" Park and Rec COI1uhission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 19
Boyt: There's an existing play structure.
Mady: That's an awfully small one.
Lash: I thought we talked earlier about having one.
here but that was my understanding.
It's not shown on
Mady: It's not shown...
Lash: I think that's the spot that people wanted it.
Mady: Is there any other COI1~ents on the co~~ission? I'd like to ask,
after yon heard our cOI1aI1,ents, is there any further COIliIl.ents froIlI the
audience. Keep it short but are there any?
Resident: Is there a time frame on this?
SietseIlla: We're at a very preliIliinary level at this point in time. We're
not looking to develop probably for a 4 to 5 year time frame so the time
line is real loose at this point in time.
Resident: Yon don't expect to start work for 5 years?
,.... Sietse~la: Well, like the best case scenario would be I think a 3 to 4
years and it's more likely that it would happen in a 4 to 5 year time
frame. Depending on budget.
Mady: How much do we need?
Sietsema: $200,000.00. Staff has a couple of COIlIIllents before you close it
off. I would just want to make sure that these are the facilities that
when we talked about it earlier and in the past it was just, we were in a
brainstorming session of what our ideals were. What we'd like to see done
in the park. To put them on paper anq bring the neighborhood in and get
their reaction and their ideas. Todd brought up a very good point tonight
before the meeting. We don't have right now, or what we have right now for
girl's softball is very tight. We Illay want to consider taking one of the
Babe Ruth fields out since we have a Babe Ruth field at Lake Susan Park
going in and Iliaking that a girl's softball facility for girl's youth
softball which would be the junior high age.
Hoffman: 9 to 19.
Sietsema: 9 to 19 aged girls. That may be something we would want to
consider. Again, now is the tiI1le to move the pieces around and to explore
all the possibilities. We're not anywhere close to taking this to Council.
Mark and I will be working on all the concerns that have been brought up
and bringing it back to you again. probably again after that, before
anything is, a final reco~aIIlendation before a master plan is put together to
send to City Council. So I want us to be sure that we've looked at all
aspects of the youth, since this is going to be our youth complex and leave
,.... no stone unturned. It's a very good point to bring up that the
neighborhood uses, the neighborhood needs should be addressed at this point
Park and Rec COIlllliission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 20
--'
in time too since we are incorporating that park in the overall plan and
showing it being encroached upon. Now with these soccer fields going in,
it's very likely that we would take that existing soccer field that isn't
an appropriate size, taking that out of there so we could free that flat
open area in the lower portion up for other things if things are needed for
that neighborhood. I don't think that it would be a probleIl. to put ice
skating in there or a half court basketball or volleyball or something like
that in that area if those are the types of facilities that the
neighborhood in that area wants.
Hasek: The City Council, or actually the Planning Commission right now is
going through the process of updating their Comprehensive Plan. Part of
what they're looking at is where residential, cOIl~ercial, industrial and so
forth are going to expand in the City. And maybe it might be a good idea
frOIl. us to take a look at that plan and get an idea from Planning
Commission, city staff as to what they project the need illipact is going to
be in this area before we take it much farther.
Sietsema: It's on our next agenda.
Mady: Lori I've got a question. Your COIlallient on girl's softball is very
valid. We usually forget about it. Currently they're playing in our
neighborhood parks which is not a 'good situation. We're creating a Babe
Ruth field at Lake Susan cOIl~unity park. The current baseball field at
Lake Ann. I just really can't remember, what are we talking about...
".",
sietsel'ia: Softball. Adult softball. When this park opens, we'll have 6
adult softball fields at Lake Ann has been the plan.
Mady: I just couldn't reIl.elT.ber. I think we need 2 Babe Ruth fields in
town. I believe we need, if we're going to put girls softball here, I
think we need two fields and that might be a way of freeing up a little
more space in this park. Making down size the fields a little and it just
loosens up the park. It's sOIl.ething. It's hard for llie to really
brainstorm right now. I can see...a couple weeks to think on something and
let it settle out.
Hasek: I don't think we have to make a decision.
Mady: No. But it would facilitate Mark doing his design...
Hasek: It seems to me like if you've got Babe Ruth fields in there and you
want to downsize to real softball is pretty simple to do.
Boyt: I'd like to throw out another suggestion. We have a picnic area
designated. Maybe make it just than just a little picnic area. Something
where the teams can gather for their team picnics. Maybe some, I hate to
say covered shelter after what happened at Lake Ann.
Sietsema: Go ahead. Say it.
Boyt: And more play equipment. I think we need Il.uch lliore play equipment.
There will be lots and lots of kids here so Mark, I'd like to talk about
...."
,...... Park and Rec Comndssion Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 21
picnic area near water.
Mady: Water in the park would be nice.
Resident: ...that play area. I think there's a tendency in those play
areas to make them for kids that are too young and not enough for that sort
of intermediate group. And so after they're 3 or 4 years old, they don't
want to be there anymore but you get a lot of kids who are 6 ard 7 coming
along and they have nothing to do. Not enough. It's easier for a little
kid who can play up a little bit but the older kids don't tend to play
down. They can go down a 4 foot slide so many times.
Boyt: We've been kind of looking at different kinds of playground
equipment pieces that fit different needs of different ages.
Resident: I mean it's nice to have sonie but like the little play lot
that's on Kiowa Trail is really for a very young child and it'd be nice to
expand it to something that could acconmlodate a di fferent age group.
Sietsema: That play structure at that site was designed as a first phase
of as many more as we want to add actually but it is definitely add onable.
To add the next phases as a higher level age group to use.
;!"'" Mady: I would caution the corr,mission though. When we're looking at play
structure, if we add a play structure to Bandimere neighborhood park, that
we do as a neighborhood, that we still have a major play structure in the
community park that is separate from Bandimere. Othe~wise you're going to
encourage people to go down into the neighborhood park and that's not
really what we want to do. We want to try to keep impact up on top. Keep
the neighborhood park fairly loose.
Boyt: We want this park...are we going to have all the water and wiring
coming into the park or are we going to need more...electricity?
Sietsenia: That's totally up to you.
Boyt: Okay, I think we need that in the first phase. The first time we go
in with this park, put it in.
Mady: It's always more fun to try and put it in later.
Erhart: Lori, while the neighborhood is represented here, I guess I'd like
to get sonie comrrlents from theni about their idea of opening up the soccer
field and keeping that a little bit more open to the things they might want
put in there and if people are interested in that and want to keep it a
soccer field? I know I had some phone calls on that.
Mady: You're talking about the neighborhood park.
Resident: As a wife of a soccer coach, they're a very small, small field.
It's really an inadequate field. I think we'd love a tennis court down
~ there but otherwise I don't think there's any strong corr~itment to that
soccer field.
Park and Rec Con~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 22
""""""
!
Resident: That area has very, essentially no parking. The obvious parking
problem with the nun,ber of people in that field, obviously causes that
problem.
Mady: You're talking about the existing field?
Resident: Yes.
Sietsema: The existing field that is there was put in as a temporary field
to solve sonie in~ediate needs that we had with the younger aged soccer
players. It was, I don't believe in anybody's mind that it was nieant to be
there as a pern,anent facility. Just to take care of what we needed right
now.
Resident: It works well just as a playing area. It's a nice playing area
now when it doesn't have drawn in soccer lines...so it works well.
Mady: It's nice for a neighborhood park to remain fairly open so when the
kids want to play, get a small baseball game or soccer, touch football,
they don't have to worry about fences and benches and those kinds of
things. Okay, is there any further con.llients you wanted to make?
Lash: I seem to recall when we went through this the first time, we did
\ kick around the idea of basketball and even hockey rinks.
--"
Mark Koegler: My notes show you did discuss hockey. I note a question
mark behind it which I presume meant that it wasn't resolved.
Boyt: We are in desparate need of more hockey rinks in Chanhassen. We
only have two?
Hoffman: Two outdoor hockey rinks that we currently have are adequately
serving the needs. There is unscheduled time at the outdoor facilities.
They tend to prefer indoor ice time.
Lash: So you don't think there's a need?
Hoffman: Currently.
Lash: Well, I don't think it's soniething we should rule out. Say in 5
years, the City will have...
Dave Blanski: Could I just respond to the man with the mustache.
I apologize I don't know your name. You con~ented that sight lines were not
a problem because the State was saying it's okay. I'd like to respond to
that. I think you have a lot more...bureaucracy than I have. I've been
building roads for 32 years and they make a lot of mistakes. And please,
take some consideration to some right hand passing lanes and right turn
lanes so people can get in and out of there safely. They approved my
_) driveway exit and I would challenge you to leave it. Come on over and
visit me. Pullout of there a couple times. See if you feel comfortable
with what they've approved.
....."
,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 23
Hasek: Is that the one that's just over the top of the hill?
Dave Blanski: Yeah.
Hasek: Yeah, I parked there.
Dave Blanski: And you're going to be down the hill, right from there? So
you're going to have the cars cond ng over the hill. You're going to have
those people corning out of there with little kids. Wonien drivers that
perhaps don't drive a lot, some of them. It's a bad deal.
Lash: Is that something that we have, can do anything about or engineering
or is that totally out of our?
Hasek: Sure. We can request that the State regrade that road and pay for
it if we'd like to.
Lash: No. I'm talking about some right turn in and left turn lanes.
Things like that. Just something.
Mady: Gary looked at the entrance/exit problem prior to purchasing the
land didn't he? I remember when we walked the site with the Council we
~ were talking about that.
Hasek: That was the first thing I brought up was sight lines...
Sietsenla: Yeah, and the plan would go to eng ineering for review and
through Mark's engineering department as well to make sure that those
concerns were taken into consideration.
Mady: Yeah, our number one concern i~ usually safety. Unless there's any
other COItlllients, I'd like to thank the residents for coniing in. We will
no'tify you if you sign the sheet on the table there. I suggest strongly
that you sign that with your name and address so that you can be notified.
We'll take Carol's comments as to notifying as many people as possible and
staff will try to renieItlber that.
Sietsema: I will update the list.
Mady: It's helpful to have staff input. We've got a number of people here
tonight. That's really helpful. We really appreciate it.
Hasek: I think part of what's happening is we have a responsibility to
notify within a certain distance by law and that's what we do. If you live
beyond that and you don't get a notification and you want to get notified,
please let us know but we're only going to continue to notify the 500 feet
unless you let us know that you want to be notified. I live on the other
side of Lake Minnewashta and this park has soniething to do with nie as well.
I guess I don't expect to be notified over there because I'ni not exactly in
the neighborhood but it's a con~unity park so everybody in town is impacted
~ by it. You as neighbors have to decide what the limits of that impact on
Park and Rec Con~ission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 24
....."
your directly is and that's why it's important that you sign up and let us
know if you want to be notified.
Lash: Can we push a little bit at the paper to get our agendas published?
Do they...
Mady: We have to pay for that don't we?
sietsema: Yeah.
Lash: Oh we have to pay for that?
Mady: Yes.
Sietsema: The price of an ad.
Lash: I guess I certainly would be in favor of that. I think there's
always, well not always but occasionally there's an item on our agenda that
interests people.
Resident: In. talking tonight, sonieone asked the question about lights. At
the last nieeting we were at, you said adanlantly that there would not be
lights and today it was a much more, well you know if we have the money
we'd put theni in.
Mady: I don't know who did but I would never have said there won't be ....."
lights there. Never's a long time.
Resident: That was the COnaIlient.
Lash: I recall that.
Resident: You said absolutely. There won't be lights in there because
that impacts. I mean that shines on the lake. We were one of the few
people on our rQad who voted against the street lights just because it
destroys the beauty. You're out in the country. You want to look up at
the stars and you can't look up at the stars anyniore. You have all those
lights on. It affects more than just the park.
Hasek: I think the lights would be a function of demand. If we ran out of
facilities. Right now we're punching a lot of things into the neighborhood
parks. We've got overflow activities happening in neighborhood parks and
we're trying to draw that out. That's why these con~unity parks are being
developed. To take that activity out of neighborhoods and put it into
these larger con~unity parks. If the demand dictated that we needed lights
to push the use of those into the evening hours to expand the use of them,
that would be the time that they would occur. I don't think we'd put the
park in, put the lights in and have them sitting there unused for 4 or 5,
6, 7, l~ years. Whatever the case is. Tha demand is going to dictate when
,the lights will want to go in as they did out at Lake Ann.
Resident: If this is a youth park, why do you have to have anything going
on after 9: 3~ at night in the SUniniertinie. You don't.
...-I
,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 25
/
Hasek: 9:30 at night is too dark to play ball in.
Resident: 9: 00.
Hasek: I play softball. 8:00...
Resident: I play softball until 9:00 on a church league in the summer.
Into August.
Hasek: And it gets difficult. The light level is very difficult.
Resident: Yeah, but we play til then.
why do they need to light the fields.
I'ITI saying,
They don't.
if this is a youth park
Hasek: They don't until the deIliand is there sir. That's what I'IT, trying
to tell you.
Resident: But I've dealt with this city enough. If you put something in
and you say at the outset the idea is this is designed not to have lights,
it has some bearing down the road. If you put in the Minutes that hey, we
know there's going to be lights very soon, then somebody's going to point
to this 5 years from now and say, see. You guys were at that meeting and
~ they said that there would be lights so there you go.
Hasek: I think what I've done is indicated to you at least my feeling
about when the lights will go in.
Resident: That you're in favor of lights.
Hasek: Absolutely. When the delTland dictates it.
Resident: What about the people. That demand dictates? What about the
people that live around the park that you bought without any notice to the
public before you signed the purchase ~greement?
Hasek: I don't understand the question I guess.
Resident: You bought the land. You signed the purchase agreement.
you had a publ ic hear ing in regards to the purchase agreen,ent. It
the neighbors immediately around there and you didn't talk to us
beforehand.
Then
impacted
Hasek: Yeah we did.
Resident: No you didn't.
,
Hasek: Not about the purchase of that particular piece of property but we
did talk to the entire cOIl~unity about purchasing the piece of property and
it was left to us to decide which one to buy. This is the one that was
determined was the best to sllit the community.
,.....
Resident: I don't think that was an exact terminology.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 26
....".,
)
Mady: In any event, that's a moot point. Thank you for coming in tonight.
We will be discussing it again in the future and please sign the
registration sheet so we can notify you in the future.
Resident: Are there copies of Alternative A and B here available?
Sietsema: Yes. Back on that table.
Hasek: Just as a matter of record... there was son..e choice made by some of
the cOlr.rraission rrlenlbers as to which plan they liked better. I guess for the
last issue that was brought up, I originally and still think that Alternate
B is a better choice. It moves the ballfields away from the residents. A
bigger buffer. I know that it tends to jan. facilities into one corner of
the site as was indicated early on...expand this park. I think this
wi 11 . . .
Erhart: Can we be, could we use some direction Lori as to what plan we
should submit?
Mady: Yeah, the COlr.n.ent was made by the con.mission as to requesting that
Plan A be put in front of the William's.
Sietsema: Yeah. If that's what you want to put in a motion for direction
to do that. Unless you want things to be revised further before you submit
it.
--'
Lash: ...are they about having specific? Would they just be looking at
the impact on the pipeline itself? They don't care about all the rest of
the area?
Sietsema: Right.
Lash: I guess I certainly would see that we'd have nothing to lose by
submitting it and seeing what their reaction is. Seeing what costs are and
then we'd be a lot more informed to make a decision...costs nothing to do
that.
Sietsema: Right.
Lash: I just think we'd have n.ore information to work with and rrlake a n..ore
intelligent decision.
Mady:
Sue, do you want to n..ake the n.otion since...
Boyt: I move that staff submit plan A to William's Pipeline and come back
to us with the informatLon.
Lash: Second.
.<'
,..,.-I
~ Park and Rec Con~ission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 27
Boyt moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Conffilission direct
staff to submit Alternative A to William's Pipeline for review and report
back to the Con~ission with the findings. All voted in favor except Hasek
and the motion carried.
Hasek: For the reason that I think that it's not necessary for the design
of the park to impact on that pipeline and it seems like just a little bit
more waste of time.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - SHIVELY.
Michael and Kathy Schultz - 5224 Irving Avenue So., Minneapolis
"'"
SietseIlla: This is a proposal to subdivide 3.9 acres into 1 lot of 1 1/2
acres and an outlot of 2.42 acres. This subdivision comes verv timelv for
the City in our quest to make a connection between West 65th Street a~d
Minnetonka Intermediate School. The plan calls for a trail making that
connection and past efforts have just haven't panned out. We have made the
connection from Murray Hill Road to the Minnetonka Intermediate School
which is this property here through the water tower property. West 65th
Street is here. This property that's being subdivided would be located
"right here. The Wolf's property here, they have agreed to sell the City a
linear piece of property along the southern boundary of the Pleasant Hills
subdivision. However, that linear strip varies from 4.15 feet to 8.15
feet. It's not wide enough for the full width of a trail that we would
need. We would need at least 2~ feet. Therefore, in this subdivision we
are, the staff is recoIl~ending that we acquire a 2~ foot dedication for
trail purposes and that in return for that dedication that we would pay the
fair market value for the 20 foot which would be roughly .20 acres.
Hasek: I don't understand. You're asking for the dedication of the land
and then we're going to buy it?
Sietsema: Well we'd have to comepensate and since there's a building on
the site, there would be no trail dedication fees that would be due with
this development.
Hasek: Okay. So you're purchasing?
sietsema: We would actually be purchasin<;1 the trail width from then..
Hasek: The whole site from the one site or where the house is?
~
Sietsema: We would purohase from whoever owns the property. Shively's.
So what staff is proposing is that, it's a unique situation. In a large
subdivision we would require a trail dedication and we would either credit
~,them on their trail dedication fees or we would outright require it and not
give them any credit if it was a very large subdivision. However, this is
such a small piece and there's already a building site on there so there's
really no trail dedication fees due nnless they build on the outlot, which
Park and Rec Corr~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 28
....",
they've indicated they're not planning to do. Therefore, what we really
need to do is outright purchase the property from them at the fair market
value.
Hasek: Okay. So there is no dedication. We're just asking to purchase an
easeIlient?
Sietsema: Right.
Lash: I just have to clarify this. So to subdivide 3.9 acres, but the
building's already there?
Sietsema: Right.
Lash: So why are they...
Sietsema: For financing purposes they're dividing the property.
Lash: Oh, okay. And then one other question I just had. Down at the very
bottom of the rr,ap where it shows that little street and it just says
street. Beyond it says west. Is that Crestview? If I looked at the big
map, would that be Crestview?
SietseIlia: Yeah.
(There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.)
....",
Hasek: And you're buying Lot 1, Block 1 of that subdivision?
Michael Schultz: Yes.
Hasek: And this is what they're trying to do.
Mady: You're buying the entire lot?
Michael Schultz: Yes. We're subdividing... Essentially when we bought
the property, this was kind of an unknown. We didn't hear about it until
recently. I don't know how strongly the corr,mission feels about it. ~
Personally one of our concerns is that the area in question is heavily
wooded. It's kind of in a wooded area of trees and our desire would be
that it not go through and one of the concerns is that not only for the
privacy involved in the lot and between the neighborhoods but also that a
path of that nature would possibly would be a gathering ground for high
school, junior high school students. In that with the heavily wooded area,
that it might turn into kind of a congregating area and possibly may not be
good for either our two young kids and possibly not for the junior high
school kids either. I qon't know how kids get to school now.
SietseIlia: Could I answer that? They're going through that. That's how
,theY're getting there. It's just not'a legal trail alignrr,ent and what the
,purpose of sticking with our trail plan and pursuing that is to make a
legal trail aligMient so that the kids aren't actually trespassing. Right
now that's how they're getting there.
~.
~ Park and Rec Corr~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 29
Michael Schultz: Just from a practical matter and not exercise my domain
of property and say kids can't cross there, I'm just concerned that with a
path there, that there's going to be a traffic route and...possibly other
kids overflowing from the school and the junior high and just hanging out
there because there's lots of places to hide in the woods and do whatever
kids want to do in an area where they won't be seen. There are lots of
young kids in the area...that's a concern of ours. I don't know what the
other alternatives are. I suppose this has been something that kids have
been doing and getting there some other way or maybe through this path but
obviously the kids are getting there somewhere. I'm just real concerned
that it's going to be...and change the characteristic of the land, the lot
and the neighborhood. I'm a little uncertain why the other neighbors
didn't come tonight. Maybe they're...
Mady: Son.e of the neighbors are the ones tpat actually requested we do
this.
Kathy Schultz: But it's on our land?
Michael Schultz: I think Jean basically had taken the stand that, Jean
Shivley, was that she did not... It does make a difference on the purchase
of the property because that... That's our concern and I think we would not
~ favor that.
Hasek: When is your purchase agreement to be signed?
Michael Schultz: Well it's conditioned on trying to get the approval.
Hasek: When's the closing?
Michael Schultz: It would be sometin.e in mid-February and I think this
issue is to be heard on Tuesday on the...
Sietsema: It's Wednesday going to Planning.
Hasek: Next Wednesday?
Sietsema: Right.
Michael Schultz: That's all.
Hasek: Who's going to present the subdivision to the Planning Conm.ission?
Michael Schultz:
...Hanson is the agent.
Hasek: Did anybody ask him to come tonight?
Michael Schultz: He was coming on Wednesday. He really doesn't have any
,manifest to be here...
~ Kathy Schultz: I'n. Kathy Schultz. I have a question. Why do you need the
extra land on either side of the blacktop and h0w wide is the blacktop?
Park and Rec COIlimission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 30
....."
)
sietsema: If it were blacktopped, which isn't necessarily a given,
depending on traffic levels, but basically the reason we take at least at a
mlnlmum of 20 feet is so that we can work with the topography and the
natural amenities. We don't want to be taking down large trees. We don't
want to be cutting down big hills. We want to do it with as minimal impact
as possible to what's there so if we only have, typically a trail like this
would be 6 to 8 feet wide so if we only have 8 feet, that's where it's got
to go and if that happens to be the 8 feet where all the big trees are, we
don't want to have to take the big trees down so if we have 20 feet to work
with, we can move it over here or over here and find the path of least
resistence.
Kathy Schultz: What are some other alternatives to this? Are there any
alternatives?
Sietsema: The alternatives are really not very many.
Mady: We did look at going between lot lines through the Pheasant Hills
and that failed.
Sietsema: Well it literally went within 3 feet of a home. To go between
lots 5 and 6 of this development right in here. That was looked at but
like I said, it goes right by a home. One of the other things,
alternatives that was looked at was to go up this way and through here and
those people weren't in favor of it either and they're not subdividing so ....."
we'd have to go through conden-.nation to get that property froITI theIT,.
Kathy Schultz: And how does it work with us then I mean as far as
condemnation? If we were drawing up a plat for subdividing, even though
we're not subdividing?
Sietsema: The subdivision, if the City goes with what staff is
recon~ending, would then be approved conditioned upon the acquisition of
the trail. Of property for trailway so the City would require that you
sell that to us.
Kathy Schultz: They can require that we...that we sell it?
Sietsema: Yes.
Hasek: It's part of a subdivision. If the property were, if you were
simply buying the house and weren't SUbdividing the property, it would sit
there. We would have to wait until somebody else came in and subdivided
the property and at that time it would...
Kathy Schultz: Okay. So it doesn't actually have to be subdivided. I
mean we're just doing this for financial.
Hasek: If you didn't subdivide the property, you wouldn't be here. It
would just be...
-'
,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 31
Mady: We have the opportunity now, that's why we're looking at it. If you
were just simply buying the property without sUbdividing, you would have
the opportunity. The people that live on West 65th would have to wait.
Sietsema: If you were not subdividing, we would either have to purchase it
from you as a willing seller or we would have to go through condemnation.
As a subdivision, the City has, because it's on our Comprehensive Plan, the
City has the rights to require conditions of approval of the subdivision
and this would then become one of those conditions.
Kathy Schultz: Okay, we understand that then. I guess it's just, I'd like
to make a plea not to do it too because, and that makes a difference about
buying the property. We're coming from the City and we really want SOllIe
privacy and for me and for my husband and our children, we feel that it
would be a great intrusion. I don't want to have to...children hanging
out, the junior high school kids hanging out in our backyard basically.
Especially along that line because there isn't a lot of land between us and
this path that you're talking about putting up. It's the shallowest part
of our property as far as division between us and the other neighbors. I
guess I'd just like to put my plea in not to do it because it really does
affect the integrity of the land and our feelings for the land...and I 'III
hoping that it does but depending on this outcome I think does make a
difference for us whether it works out for us.
,....
Hasek: Can you point out for us on maybe that map, because it's the
largest one, where the Wolf residence is?
Sietsema: The Wolf property is right here.
Hasek: Yes, but where's the residence? Where's the house?
Kathy Schultz: Yeah, it's right there.
Mady: One COItllTlent I want to make, the gentleItlan of the previous thing said
it, Mr. Finger said it, he moved to Chanhassen and he was looking for open
spaces and there were cornfields behind him. I moved to Chanhassen 6 to 9
years ago and there was only maybe 6,~~~-7,~~~ people here. Now one
councillllember said last night l2,~~~ people. We'll be at l6,~~~ very
shortly. ...ultimately we can have 35,~~~ people. It's not going to be the
rural area that it is right now. It's definitely isn't the rural area it
was when I moved here and so the wonderful dreams...they're just not
reality in this city.
Kathy Schultz: I understand what you're saying. However, we didn't come
out here and move next to a cornfield expecting the cornfield not to be
developed. We realize that Chanhassen is going to grow and we're all for
it. We really are. It'$ just that that is not a very big part of the
cOItlmunity that to us it's huge. I think you have to take a relevancy of
what you're talking about. I didn't agree with Mr., I agree with what Mr.
Finger said and I understand that but that's not what we came out looking
for. I fully expect things to be developed. I just don't want them
,.... developed in my yard.
Park and Rec COII'~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 32
...."
)
Boyt: I don't think we have to put the trail through your yard. I think
this is a, there was a screw up in our history of when the easements were
not taken when they should have been and I think the school district should
arrange to get these children to school without cutting through Shiveley's
yard.
Michael Schultz: It's kind of a screwy trail. I don't know what the
Kelly's feel about it but it really is kind of a circuitous drop and then
where do you go once you get'into the school yard? It's kind of out in the
back of the field. I don't know. It seems like the school's been there a
long time.
Mady: It probably is the way the kids go.
Lash: I wonder, how many kids does this... Is it 6?
Boyt: Does the school offer thel1'i an al ternati ve? Are they bussed from
this area too? What are the other alternatives?
Lash: If it's just servicing people who live on 65th Street, and I don't
know how far that goes down but say it's 10 houses or something and you're
talking just middle school aged kids, you're talking 3 or 4 kids.
Mady: I'm looking at this as not just a school but a park. It's a public
piece of property.
....,,;II
Hasek: I agree. I think the screw up came in the past and the intent is
there and the unfortunate thing is once again we're pushed to the wall. We
make a decision tonight that's got to go on next Wednesday rather than
having tiIT,e to look at some alternatives. .. .too often. I would like very
much to be able to connect that piece of property across. I know that
there's open property to the south but I don't know whether we have an
opportunity to cross that anymore. I know there's a residence between the
school and the pond right now. Is there an opportunity to cross that open
area right down through here? Is there still something left in here?
Sietsema: The lI'iission or the goal is to get the kids that are living on
West 65th street over to MIS.
Hasek: Do they bus? That was a very good question?
Sietsema: Yeah, I believe that they do bus now but one of the things is
that it is their neighborhood park.
Michael Schlutz: It is except this trail is really just servicing the...
Addition in Pheasant Hill and the people in pheasant Hill are...it's
opti'mal for thos folks, ,I think it really is.'. .basically 10 households.
And sure, if they have an opportunity to use the backyard and dedicate a
trail in the area...it's really a minority. It's fine as long as it's not
\on their property I think...
Kathy Schultz: I think you had a good point about the fact that if you
make ita...trail, you're Itlaking a...it's going to become ride their bikes.
....""
,.....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 33
)
And I think it could really create a major traffic problem for us and
people who intend to use it.
Mady: What do you consider a major traffic pattern?
Kathy Schultz: I just think people will tend to come fron. other places or
people who conie to the park from other areas will come through there and
wander through there and hang out in there. They'll consider it part of the
park. Maybe kids will come in there...and smoke their dope or do whatever
else they do...and I really don't want... I'm not trying to sound hostile
but that's what's going to happen...and you have to look at that.
Hasek: I want you to go down...to the Pond Park trail. It runs between
houses. I don't know of any problems we've experienced in the 6 years or
whatever it's been in there.
Kathy Schultz:
.. . attached to?
Boyt: It's also very, very...
Michael Schultz: ...densely wooded area. I just think it's benefitting
Pheasant Hill and I don't know how much it's benefitting the surrounding
con-Illiunity. I think it's great for Pheasant Hill. If I was living there, I
~ would be pumping for this. I guess it's Moline Addition.
Lash: ...how many people are actually going to beneift from it?
Sietsema: It's this l~ to 12 homes.
Lash: How many kids use the Middle School?
Sietsen-,a: I don't have a number of how many kids live on that block but
it's l~ to 12 homes.
Hasek: I would tend to believe that there are a lot more kids that use
that besides those l~ to 12 homes. That's not, I don't think that's really
the point. I think the point is, it's like Susan said. Our opportunity
was lost before. This is the chance that we've got. We've got some
support from Kelly's. We potentially have go sonie support from the Wolf's
but there is an alternative. My kids could walk to school. It could be 5
to 6 miles for my daughter to do that but if I wanted to. She's got
bussing service but because these kids live close doesn't necessarily mean
that they have to, I guess in my opinion, be offered the opportunity to
walk simply because it's always been there. I'm torn. I really am. It's
probably the first tin-Ie. I usually ani one side of the fence or the other.
This one hurts a little bit. I'd like to see the path go through to serve
those kids but I don't ~ecessarily think that it does anything for our
trail systeni. I think it's an opportunity to provide a link for a very
lin-ai ted number of homes. If the point is to link the school to the
con~unity, then I think that opportunity to gain the little bit of land
that's still available to the south. We're still looking at putting parks
in. We're still looking at putting a park in for that whole way up there
which is park deficient. That area of the city is, in the Comprehensive
,.....
Park and Rec Co~~ission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 34
--'
I
/
Plan that's going to be coming out, it's shown as all, that's where the
residential is going to develop. That's where the City is going to push
for residential developllient so I think that that's going to be conting down
the road in the next few years~ We'll live without this trail connection
for a while I guess is my opinion...
Michael Schultz: ...we don't care if kids go through there. It's just if
it becomes a trail, it's going to be used as a trail.
Lash: Well I can't compare you guys to Mr. Finger... You guys are not,
you're buying where it's developed all around you. You weren't expecting
something to happen right by you so I guess I have some compassion for
tha t . . .
Hasek: I think down the road here you're going to subdivide that property
as taxes continue to rise.
Mady: You do have real nice property and it's unfortunate that the people
from West 65th Street are using it. They came in front of us, I don't
remember, was it 2 years ago or 1 year ago. Requesting that we get them
...to the school. Just because we only have one individual it probably
sounds like we're just going to forget about the people we heard previously
...of Chanhassen. I don't know what the alternatives are but when we
looked at this 3 years or 2 years ago, whatever it was, we could not get to
'Pheasant Hills. From the south, we do not have a...person at that point.
This was the only alternative we had. So what we're doing here is we're ~
writing this off. We're just telling those people on West 65th Street,
sorry. You're not going to have a legal way of getting in there.
Robinson:
. . .Iliove that?
Mady: Well Curt we looked at it a year ago. We didn't have a willing
seller to the south. We didn't have a willing seller to the north. This
was the only place we could go.
Robinson: Right but we haven't made a decision on that yet.
Mady: I'm just taking coniments. Those are nlY cOIllIlients.
Hasek: There appears to be a gap between the properties there. What is
that all about?
Sietsema: That's the 4 to 8 feet that's owned by the Wolf's.
Mady: Plus the 2~ feet from theni. So you have a 24 to 28 foot trail of 4
to 8 feet right in here right?
,
Hasek: Well we still have the option of taking all the trees...
Mady: Any further con~ents? Motion?
Robinson: I'll n,ake a niotion. That we reconm'iend to accept park and trail
dedication feet in lieu of the parkland and trail construction and require
-'"
,...., Park and Rec CORIIldssion Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 35
the dedication of a 20 foot wide trail segment along the north property
line. Also, that we cOIlipensate the landowner for this dedication at fair
market value.
Lash: So you're going along with staff recoIl~endation?
Robinson: Yes. In total, yes.
Mady: Second.
Robinson moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation COIlffiiission
recoIlffiiend to accept park and trail dedication feet in lieu of the parkland
and trail construction and require the dedication of a 20 foot wide trail
segment along the north property line. Also, that we compensate the
landowner for this dedication at fair market value. All voted in favor
except Boyt and Lash who opposed and Hasek abstained. The motion failed
with a vote of 2 to 3.
SietseI',a: Really what you need to do.
Lash: Just ask for a fee instead or sOIliething? Or what? That there be no
~ condition applied to the subdivision?
Sietsema: It would then becoIlie a standard recomR.endation in case they ever
put a home on the outlot so you'd recomITiend approval in that park and trail
fees be accepted in lieu of land.
Hasek: So what you're saying is what you'd be doing is setting a precedent
for the development of the other piece of property so they can't come in
and say...
Sietsema: Not if they build a home there. Only if they subdivide.
Hasek: This applies, if they subdivide, this applies to the whole
subdivision and this is the two lots of the subdivision.
SietseIlia: If they subdivide again, further subdivide this piece or if they
subdivide the outlot or whatever, it would CORle before you again. But if
they decided just simply build a hOITie on the outlot, I don't know that it
would come back.
Hasek: Yeah. Because then it would have to become a lot of record and it
would have to come back to us. It's just an outlot now. We can't build on
an outlot. You'd have to make it a lot of record in order to build on it.
,
Don Ashworth: Mr. Chair:man, I've been listening to your conversation. I
think there's SOllie points that haven't come out and that is that there's a
,gate at the end of this property. It's been there for I don't know for how
long. It's acted as an access through that area. I think if we don't get
~ this as a trail, we're assuredly saying that gate will close and I'm sure
that the children that have been using that for a long time will no longer
Park and Rec Corr~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 36
-""'"
be able to. The trail as we required it through Ostrom seemed to be a
logical thing to do. It's still on file down at the County. I think if it
would have come in past the city...we would have seen the trail going
through there. Albeit 15 or 20 feet to the north of where it's proposed
right now. I think we're losing an opportunity to provide access from 65th
street, that whole area, to the school.
Hasek: Do we have access, we do have access obviously through the water
tower property?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Hasek: Do we have access off of Melody Hill? Doesn't that... That's
where the soccer fields are set up?
Don Ashworth: I believe there's a cut in the fence there.
Mady: Who cut it?
SietseIlla: I'm not sure to the north. There's a cut in the feJ;\ce on the
water tower property and I believe that the people that are coming off of
Melody Hill Road COllie down Murray Hill and go through the water tower
property to get into the school. There used to be something that was open
north of that. However, that lot sold and they closed it up. It was a
private fence and they closed it up so all the people that are on the north
end of Murry Hill and off of Melody, I believe are going through the water
tower property right now.
....."
Hasek: There is a...that belongs to Wolf's?
Sietsema: Wolf's.
Hasek: Okay. Does the path go only in that 4 to 8 feet?
Sietsema: Well, a typical path.
Hasek: It kind of wanders allover the place?
Sietsema: Right. The current existing path, it meanders.
Hasek: Have we ever had any negative comIllent from the Shively's on that
traffic going thx:ollgh thex:e? Have they evex: complained?
Sietsema: I've nevex: received a complaint.
Hasek: I wonder if Public Safety has evex: received a complaint.
Don Ashworth: I know of none.
,Hasek: Was the gate put in there with the knowledge, I have to assume that
,the fence belongs to the school.
Sietsema: Yes.
......,I
,..., Park and Rec Cornmission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 37
Hasek: The gate was put in with the knowledge of the Shively's?
Sietsel'l,a: Yes.
Hasek: They've allowed the path for how many years? How long's the school
been there?
Don Ashworth: Well I think Shively is a relatively new owner. I don't
think they're had it for what?
Sietsema: The gate in the fence has been there for years.
Don Ashworth: I was going to say since 1978. Somewhere in there.
Mady: We do have the situation in the Chan Pond Park where a meandering
trail that wasn't official but all the neighbors used it, existed and a
party bought the lot and has been making nUl'l,erous cOIt.plaints to the
neighbors and the City about people who trespass against their property so
it happens.
Kathy Schultz: We don't have a problen, with people, if they want to
continue using the trails, they can use it. It's just fine. We're not
,..., going to say anything.. .people trespassing. It's just a matter of if you
make...uncomfortable in making it. They're taking 21 feet and making it an
established pathway system.
Hasek: See you're still accepting the liability by saying you don't mind.
You accept the liability at that point.
Mady: You may sell the house in 5 years or 3 years like Shively did right
now and then they put up a new fence or what have you and we don't have an
opportunity.
Kathy Schultz: See, you're asking for 2~ more feet.
Hasek: I'd like to make a motion. I'd don't know if it's going to go
anyplace or not but I'd like to make it anyway. I'd like to make a motion
that we go with staff's recoIt,mendation and reduce the purchased property to
l~ feet and work within a 14 1/2 to 18 foot right-of-way total as opposed
to a 24 to 28 foot.
Mady: I'll second that one.
Erhart: So you're cutting it down to what?
Hasek: l~ feet as opp~sed to 2~ feet.
(There was a tape change during the voting of the motion.)
Hasek fI,oved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation ComIt.ission
I""'" recoItll''liend recol'l,mend to accept park and trail dedication feet in lieu of the
parkland and trail construction and require the dedication of a l~ foot
Park and Rec Con~ission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 38
""""
wide trail segment along the north property line. Also, that we compensate
the landowner for this dedication at fair market value. Hasek and Mady
voted in favor and the rest voted in opposition and the Itlotion failed with
a vote of 2 to 4.
Don Ashworth: There may be a third option in that, and I guess I didn't
think of it until the question was posed, the trail's been there for a
number of years. You may just want to direct the City Attorney to respond
to the question as to whether or not the City already owns it. We've had
llseage for more than an 8 year period of time, there's a strong possibil i ty
that he will come back saying that you legally own that through useage.
Lash: Okay. I have a question for you people. You say that you don't
have a problem with the kids using the path but you have a problem with it
being a supposedly designated path. That will be paved and that it looks
like it's a real official type thing so is there a problem with us getting
it but just not paving it and leaving it so that it would then guarantee
the useage by residents to use it but it would not be a paved trail?
Michael Schultz: Why not just buy the Wolf path? You've got 4 feet there.
Mady: I don't think the trail is entirely on the Wolf property. The
existing trail does not stay on the Wolf property.
Lash: So then we really would not have to take any property. I mean the
kids would just walk around the trees like they're doing now if it was not
a defined paved.
.....,I
Sietsema: Well I don't have where the existing trail is. It may be a
portion on the Ostrom development. Maybe a portion of it on theirs and a
portion of it on the Wolf property. All three and that would go along
with... Did anyone second Jan's to move for approval?
Lash: I don't think so.
Erhart: I want to hear more about Sue's proposal.
Boyt: Conservation easement? Where you maintain ownership of the property
but it can be, I don't know. We have conservation easements in other
areas. They just maintain the trail. But you would ownership of the
property.
Kathy Schultz: And you maintain the trail? The natural trail through
there?
Erhart: It's there right now.
Boyt: Although I think our conservation easements right now are nothing.
Don Ashworth: I don't think you allow anything in a conservation easement.
Boyt: Except for timber walls and...
-*"
~ Park and Rec Corr~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 39
Lash: But there wouldn't be any?
Mady: But they somehow end up there.
Hasek: Don, could they grant the City a cross access easenient or something
across that property?
Don Ashworth: The easement that Lori is really talking about is just an
easement for trail purposes. If we wanted to come back in there with sewer
or water, we'd have to get an easement. That easenient is only good for
trail purposes. I don't know how to resolve your potential dilerr~a. I'm
hearing the con~ission say that it wouldn't be a bad idea to reserve that
for sometime in the future but you really don't want to build a trail
across there that's permanent. That's kind of up to this group. If you
make assurances to yourself and to these people that you're not proposing
to build up a trail.
"""'"
Hasek: I'll tell you what part of the property is. The issue comes to us
as a trail and yet none of the information related to the trails is on the
plan. We end up with a line drawing that's got some topography on it. We
don't know where the trees are. We don't know where the trail is and if
the issue is really a trail easement, it seen.s to me like that that ought
to show up on here. If I was bringing this before the Planning Corr~iission
someplace as a proponent, I'd have pertinent inforn,ation on it. Otherwise
it seems as though you're avoiding the issue. Maybe what we should do is
say we want to see this come back. We want to see the trail, the existing
trail alignrr,ent is and where the trees are so we can Iliake a rational
decision on it. Bring it back to us.
Kathy Schultz: ...we haven't had any information. We got a phone call
today saying that this is going on tonight and a week ago we got told, this
has been going on since last August. Trying to get into this place. A
week or 10 days ago we got called, we got a phone call telling us about
this easement so we haven't really received any information. We'd like to
see just what...
Hasek: The point is, it's up to the property owner to put the trail. What
I'm saying is, the information that is the issue tonight doesn't appear on
the drawing and it's the property owner's obligation to address the issue.
That's what I'm saying. If I were to bring this, if I were to propose a
subdivision for you, which I don't know if this guy's a realtor or who he
is, I would put the trail on here. At least to let people know what's
going on and I would have surveyed the trees along that line to show how
maybe that trail doesn't have to take up 20 feet. It only has to take a
few feet. I'd like to see a little bit more information...
Michael Schultz: He didn't propose the trail.
Hasek: No. But we're asking for it.
~. Michael Schultz: Okay. So you're saying...
Park and Rec Con~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 40
....."
Hasek: It's just another piece of information that may have helped you and
it may have helped us and it's not here and it's real difficult. I mean
we're asking the question, where are the trees. Where are the fences?
Where's all the other stuff and it's just not shown. I'd like to see it.
Lash: I 'n. going to keep feeding on your ideas. We'll be here unti 1 we
come up with something that hopefully we can get done with it tonight even
if it has to go to Planning. I 'n. not as faffiil iar wi th thi s as you as far
as a conservation easement. Is that sOffiething we could get and the kids
can walk through there and they just continue the path that they're on now
or even if it turned out that they were a little bit on Wolf's and a little
bit on all these other people's, have it be on their property but not a
defined trail. Not a paved trail. They just walk through the way they're
defining.
Hasek: That seems like
want them to go through
responsibility for it.
this piece of property
didn't want those kids
responsibility and you
we're sidestepping the issue. I mean as a City we
there, we should do something. Take the
If we allow that to happen and something happens on
and these owners are going to come back and say, we
going through there in the first place. It's your
were the ones that told them that they could.
Lash: But they would be ffiaking the agreen.ent with us, and I guess it would
be a condition in that it's okay for them to go through.
Don Ashworth: A conservation easen.ent can be defined alpiost anyway you .....",
want to. Around Chan Pond we put in there what could happen and what
couldn't happen. What would be allowed and what would not be allowed. So
I think the answer to your question is yes.
Hasek: Would that protect the City?
Don Ashworth: I guess I look at it, who knows what the future n.ay bring.
I mean 10-20 years from now you may very well want to have paved trails
through there. I can't believe that we're going to put a paved trail
through there at this point in time because, although...school and you get
back over on the other side of the property and the trail just ends. We
need that more south flowing connector. That 150 feet to get up to the
other trail on 65th Street so until we resolve that, there's no way you can
pave it. Again, SOffie form of policy decision, you could say we're not even
going to consider paving it for 10 years is not, that may sound nice but
it's sin.ply not legal. You can't bind a future cOffilt.ission.
Hasek: How about if we leave it to be up to the Council to decide what
kind of an easen.ent it is. Just give them the direction that we'd like to
maintain the circulation. Let then, decide what kind of an easen.ent. That
would give it at least some time to go through Council, to legal counsel to
take a look at it. Maybe he has some recoff~endations.
Don Ashworth: Or approve it subject to working out a trail easement that's
acceptable to the Park Con.naission and they provide at the next ffieeting a
survey information... Or we could ask the City Attorney to draft
something.
.....",
IfI"", Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 41
Michael Schultz: I'm not familiar. I've been through these, I don't see a
distinct trail through there. Maybe since I've seen the property late fall
and winter, it wasn't real clear to me wheJ~e the trail was and where it
wasn't.
Boyt: It should be clear in the winter if they're using it.
Michael Schultz: Yeah. I didn't see it.
Boyt: We have a trail that goes out of our yard into a park and I was out
on it today, and there's been a lot of people on it, and not from ~,y
family. It's real clear where it is even with the snow.
Michael Schultz: Yeah, I didn't see any distinct trails. I'm sure it's
used because it's convenient but I didn't know how frequently. I didn't
know how big an issue it was.
Robinson: Well the negative people should try to come up with sorliething
positive here?
Boyt: It sounds like SOllie of us want something where they Iliaintain
ownership of the property and they get the use of the trail.
IfI"",
Hasek: You see I don't think it's the ultimate solution. I don't think a
paved trail is necessary. I think that eventually there's going to be
something else, at least I would like to see something else.
Boyt: I don't see a paved trail as necessary at all.
Lash: Okay. So is it something that we sent to the Attorney? We're ready
to send this to SOIlieone else. And I1iaybe he'll say, yeah the Ci ty does have
ownership or no or you could do this easement and then... He could help us
wi th something that's sounds intell igent. But that would take too It,uch
time if you want it to go to Planning right?
Sietsema: Right. And if they're closing, I'm sure they're anxious to see
this get through the process. I was wondering if we could elaborate a
little bit more on checking with the Attorney about the ownership of it
through use.
Don Ashworth: The only hesitancy I have there is it's pretty obvious that
you've had streets and what not that have been used for a period of time.
For something like a trail, it can become more difficult. Again, the
question can be posed back to hill, but if it does seeIt, like we're cOIt,ing
back to our initial...
Lash: If we did it that way, we wouldn't have to pay anything so
ultiIt,ately.. .
.Mady: Just an easement.
,...
Park and Rec COlT,mission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 42
...."I
,
,
)
Hasek: How about if we do this? How about if we accept park and trail
dedication fees in lieu of the parkland, and this is in the form of a
motion. And trail construction and require the dedication of a 10 foot
easement for the purposes of cross access from 65th street, generally from
65th Street across the north part of the property to the school property
for purposes of cross access for, I don't even know how to finish it.
Mady: For pedestrians?
Hasek: Yeah. For pedestrians and send it to legal counsel for opinion as
to how best to facilitate that easement.
Michael Schultz: Would the Wolf parcel be 8 feet of that, some portion of
that 10 feet?
Kathy Schultz: Or are you talking 10 in addition?
Hasek: 10 in addition. We're talking about your property. 10 feet off of
yours.
Kathy Schultz: with that you're saying that you might cut trees down.
Lash: No.
'Hasek: What we want to do is leave the path in place. That's what I'd
like to do. Leave the path in place. Leave the use the way that it is
right now.
...."I
Sietsema: And it's entirely likely that there's not much of that trail on
your property. I mean that's definitely a possibility. When I saw the
trail and was on it myself, it was very unclear who's property I was on at
that point in time.
Lash: If it's just a natural path the kids are taking you know.
Erhart: We just want to keep it natural.
Boyt: Second.
Mady: So the motion is to request a 10 foot easement from the Shively
property. The north portion of the Shively property and that we send this
on to the City Attorney for his determination as to how to word the
easement to allow for a nature trail.
Hasek: For a cross access.
Mady: For a pedestrian ,type of nature trail. unimproved.
.. Hasek moved, Bovt seconded that the Park and Recreation COlTw.ission
'reconmiend to ac~ept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and
trail construction and to require the dedication of a 10 foot easement for
the purposes of pedestrian cross access across the north part of the
~
II""'" Park and Rec COIliIl,i ssion Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 43
,.....
~
Shively property to the school property and to refer the issue to the City
Attorney for an opinion as to how best to facilitate that easement. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF COLLECTION OF PARK DEDICATION FEES.
Sietsema:
Recreation
dedication
Don and he
that way.
is here to
As you n-Iay recall, at SOllie point last year the Park and
con-~ission discussed the possibility of collecting park
fees at the time of final plat approval. I discussed this with
has some concerns about it and some reservations about doing it
I also talked to or got the opinion of the City Attorney. Don
discuss it further.
Don Ashworth: I saw the request and I recognize that you did it, I think
the primary issue probably is one of trying to get more dollars up front as
a number of these new developments are occuring, we have those dollars.
The probleIl, wi th that is really one of, most of the developIl,ents, take Near
Mountain, whatever. Trapper's Pass. You probably have at least 10
different additions in there. He really did not come in and put in the
full 300 lots. They did 20 at a time. Under State law, even if you're
collecting as a part of the platting process, it's only at the time of the
final plat so even though he's got authority to, he has approval for the
300, when he brings in that group of 20 or 30, that's when you could look
to the collection of those dollars. Other cOIliIl,unities that I've been in,
we have done that in collecting at the time of final plat. That typically
puts that responsibility over into the planning departIl,ent part of the
final plat documents or actually the collection of this check associated
wi th developIl,ent. For ease of adIl,instration, that probably would be the
best way to do it. Just turn the thing back over and you have Paul or Jo
Ann collect that fee as a part of again that platting process. I'm sure
that in the next 1, 2, 3 years that as building permits came in, Lori would
be looking at those and seeing whether or not this was Trapper's Pass 4th,
5th, 6th or 7th as they didn't pay and then 8, 9, 10 had paid at the time
of final plat so they wouldn't be charged. But at some point in time you
would just switch back over and you really wouldn't be looking at the...
permit at all. It'd be just at the time of the final plat. I think we
lose a lot of money. When you have it at time of final plat, take the CPT
property. If it was platted, which I don't think that it was, occurred
prior to the ordinance requiring con-~ercial/industrial charges against, or
the park charge against con-iIl,ercial/industrial properties. That means that
any existing con-~ercial piece, and there are some exceptions. Burdick has
platted all of his down in here. The question becomes one of, are we going
to get that park charge. There was nothing in the minutes stating that the
CPT property, which is now DataServ, would be required to pay a park
charge. If we collect that though as a part of the building permit, then
every permit that comes .in, new or old, has to take and pay a park charge.
There's son-Ie exceptions. Lori goes back and she does check records but
it's a reverse process. It's a question of whether or not you have a
credit coming to you versus one of you, the City must prove that you're
obligated to pay. That's a big difference. What's going to happen is
pieces like the CPT/DataServ, which if I remember correctly was $65,000.00.
You're talking about a large amount of Illoney. The san-Ie way with literally
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 44
-'
)
all of them. Lyman, Redmond's, CPT, The Press. More recent, two new ones
behind the Press. That was a requirerr,ent to comply. We have no legal
Irleans. If somebody would push us on those right now, they'd challenge us
on those, we probably would lose but as it stands, as it's just collected
as a part of the building permit and everybody is required to do it. We've
never had anybody COPie in and say, we're going to challenge your right to
do this. But I think once we switch it over and make it a part of the
platting process and you get down the road a ways where every new plat is
paid in this way...
Hasek: Are you saying that they would challenge the park fee itself?
Don Ashworth: No. They would challenge your ability to collect the park
fee against, let's see. On Jim Burdick's property, that's a more recent
plat. You take any buildings in the downtown area. A lot of that property
has been there for many, many, many, many years. You don't have any
records that show what we've required at the time of platting.
sietsenia: Arfloco's a good example right now. AA,OCO just carrIe in and
they're tearing down their old building and putting up a new one. Do I put
a park charge on there? They didn't replat.
Don Ashworth:
theIr,. Right.
I'm sure the answer is yes. You have a park charge against
Al though we may have some qllestion, we continuously...
Hasek: Is it in the building permit charge?
..."
Don Ashworth: It's one of the lines in the building permit charge.
Sietsenia: Surcharge.
Don Ashworth: That's the standard tinie of collection. Anyone who comes in
knows that they have to pay those accordingly.
Robinson: Don, do you think these four that do, Chaska, Champlin,
Burnsville and Bloomington, do you think they've done it on platting since
day one then because that's what you're saying, the switch over period
would be difficult.
Don Ashworth: Lori keeps track of them right now and so even if somebody
comes into the Business Park, she looks at the map and sees that they have
75% credit coming off that area versus where Roserrlount had 0.
sietsema: I think the answer is yes. Did you ask if Plymouth has always
charged right up front?
Robinson: Yeah.
SietseIl,a: Yeah.
/Robinson: And he's saying what's difficult here is the switch over and
looking back.
...""
~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 45
Boyt: ...collecting from people that we might not have a legal basis to
collect from and it's easier to do it the way we do it now because it's on
the form.
Don Ashworth: We have lots next to you that have to be 2 years old. We
collect a park charge if they...across the street.
Lash: Because there's not going to be new construction?
sietsell.a: Yes.
Lash: In Inver Grove Heights and Plymouth, it says commercial building
perrrai ts and housing plat. Would that eliminate sorrle of these problems or
not? The examples you were giving, rr.ost the ones I heard were for
businesses.
Hasek: The question then is, the point is that we're trying to build the
parks for the people. If the corr~unity develops with the people, we're not
getting the money up front so what's the point. If it develops industrial
office and we collect it frOlli corr~ercia/industrial/office as indicated up
front, we could build the parks but if it goes the other direction. If it
turns out to be that everybody comes out to live out here and not to work
out here and there is no demand for the office and corrlIliercial, then we're
~ collecting it the sallie as always and it's a rrloot point.
Lash: Okay. I just have to say this to see if I have this clearly in my
mind because maybe I'm on the wrong track. I thought the point was, when a
neighborhood would go in, development would go in, right now what's
happening are the houses are kind of dribbling in and sorrletinies it takes 5
to 10 years for the development to be finished and we never get, the money
dr ibbles in so we never end up with a 1 UlliP surrl and the people who are in
the development for 5 years have had to live without a park. So if the
platting was done for the neighborhood, we could get for all the lots in
that particular neighborhood, we could collect the money up front and then
put the park in so that as people dribbled into the neighborhood they would
have a park.
Hasek: Yes. You're correct. I read that backwards.
Don Ashworth: That was my original goal but what I'm saying is, even
collecting it at the time of platting is not going to solve that goal
because truly when a plat, let's use again Near Mountain. The only tirrle
you collect money is at the time of the final plat and they're up to again,
I don't know 14th or 15th Addition back into the woods area. This is what,
3 to 5 years later? So even if we're collecting at the time of final plat,
you would have collected the final plat for 60 lots in 1985, 60 lots in 86.
You see what I'm saying~ So whether you're cOllecting, as I see it,
whether you're collecting on a permit basis or on platting basis, I xeally
don't think that you're getting that much more money in that much quicker.
The other side of the coin, I think you're losing money because where you
have older lots that maybe didn't have formally in writing a requirement
~ that they should pay so therefore there's nobody out there getting money
from them. The only way we can get money frolli those is if we collect it at
Park and Rec ComIliission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 46
......"
)
the time of the building permit.
Sietsema: And the other point of that is, typically the way I've witnessed
it is that they do develop phase by phase and they configure the phases of
what they figure they can do in a year's time. So we get that much money
in that year's time anyway. Whether we collect it at the beginning of the
building season or .as they take them out and they take out 3 a week. By
the end of the season, we have all that money in that same year.
Hasek: As opposed to having it at the beginning of the season for
something.
Boyt: And we've seen that it's not enough for what we've been trying to
do. We see that it's not working out or we're not getting the funds to do
the park building that the realtors are selling to the people.
Mady: One thing we can do that we did talk about a little bit maybe is
changing the City's ordinance so that upon subdivision, final approval of
the subdivision, that they have...we require them to dedicate parkland or
trails or what have you. That it gets done in the first phase and not when
they feel like getting to it. Maybe that will cover at least a part of
what we're trying to accoIliplish.
Sietsema: I think that's only, it's not realistic to think that like in
Chan Hills for example. That where the park is actually located is in the
phase 3. When they started their way up on the other end, they have not
done any grading in that area so for them to put that road in in the first
phase and get down there and do the grading for that area and it's out in
the middle of a cornfield, isn't realistic to ask a developer to do. Go
out of the area that he's actually working in. Part of the reason that we
are able to ask them to do the grading and do that work in the park is
because they're there in that location with their equipment anyway.
--"
Hasek: We've got a probl.eIl.. We've got a probleni that we've got all kinds
of people, it's never the people that are happy that come in here which is
most of the people in town are happy with the way things are happening.
We've turned out to be a reactive con~ission or reactive council in this
city and we only react to the people that show up here which are the ones
that are complaining about something going wrong. That's what we're trying
to do. We're trying to get somehow resolve the issue. Give us a solution.
Tell us something...
SietseIlia: Here's another question to. throw out to you. Do you want to
develop parks before the people are there to tell you what they want in
then.?
Boyt: That's what we w~nt to do. We know approximately what we're goin9.
to put in and we want to get them started. That's what we've talked about.
,Hasek: I don't think there's anything wrong with putting a park in before
people live there because it's no different than moving into a con~unity
wi th ex isting parks. I n,ean you don't cOIliplain because, you know I wish I
wouldn't have moved into this con~unity because it doesn't have facilities.
~
"" Park and Rec Conur,ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 47
I want the park that's next door to me. If the trail was in your front
yard and you knew then, you wouldn't be complaining about the trail being
there. You'd probably ~njoy it. You'd know it's there. You'd like it.
If it's not there and we try to put it in after you move in, that's when
the problems start. If the facility was there. If the play structure was
there. If the ballpark was there. You'd use it and you'd be happy with it
I think.
Lash: I think more people would like that than to move in thinking it's
going to be there in a year and not getting it there for l~ years.
Hasek: Well the point is, it's not going to be there in a year and it
probably only be there when they first move in but at least it's going to
be closer to the day of moving in because we're playing a game of catch up
and we're always going to do that until some n-Iagnanimous donor con,es in
with multi or thousands of dollars for us to finish our park system up
before people move into town.
Robinson: Changing this isn't going to make us well. It will probably
help a small amount but then we've got the loss to consider of the
downtown.
Lash: Is it going to be just a temporary boost? That we'll all of a
""" sudden maybe get this little glut and then we'll nm dry for a long tin,e?
- Is that a possibility of happening?
Hasek: I think it's going to be less of a game of catch up is what it's
going to do. That's how I see this. I don't think it's going to all of a
sudden make it possible for us to develop parks before or while people are
moving into a neighborhood.
Robinson: No, I don't either.
Hasek: What it's going to do is maybe move it up a little...
Mady: ...If you want to put a street in the City of Lakeville, you put a
sidewalk in with it. That's the way it is. ...discussing give or take.
That's just a condition of putting in a subdivision in that city. I'd like
to see us move in that direction in this city. I think we could do the
same thing with the parks. If you want to put in a subdivision, maybe the
condition is on the size of the subdivision. But if you're going to have a
subdivision that can handle 50 families, by God you'd better plan on doing
something for that subdivision in year 1 and not in year 10 after we've got
49 of them in here asking us how come we haven't done anything.
Boyt: Yeah. This was our way of going about getting that done. It sounds
like Don doesn't think this is the best way to do it. It won't balance
out.
""
,Hasek: It's an adn,instrati ve problen-, and I fully see what he's saying. I
,mean there's a good chance that we could lose son-Ie revenue and the loss of
the revenue might set us back every bit that we think we're going to move
forward. I can see that happening. Maybe what we need to do is, I'll sit
Park and Rec COIl~ission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 48
--'
down and talk with John Shardlow, one of the consulting planners in
Burnsville, and find out what's going on there. How that's worked. If it
was a benefit. If they started at the beginning. If it helped them catch
up, what problepis they've had with it. Maybe that's what we need to do is
to go through here in just a little bit more detail and figure out if it
can or if it can't work. It would seem to me, Illaybe I misread the
Attorney's letter, but he didn't seem to think that there was going to be
quite the problem but maybe it's loss of, it wasn't loss of revenue that he
wa s . . .
Sietsema: He was strictly looking at whether it was a legal thing to do
and how it wonld work. And it is. It's done. But in most instances, I'm
pretty sure that when they enacted the ordinance to require park dedication
fees, they started with collecting theIlI up front at the tiIl,e of final plat
approval and they don't have this change over.
Mady: Can I suggest that maybe what we do is table this item for 6 weeks
and Ed can do SOPie checking and the rest of us can do SOllie thinking because
we kind of know what we're trying to get at. We've...discussion and maybe
come back in 6 weeks and see if we've gotten any place further with it.
Lash: Also one of the things that, I'll just stick this in too, that we
talked about was trying to get the developers to contribute more towards
the developpient too. Did that sort of just die or what happened to that?
Mady: Well our problem is, there is a l~% lipiitation. That's the law.
...",I
SietseIlia: To contr ibute Illore land?
Lash: No. To actually have to develop, put it in.
Boyt: Develop the ballfields.
SietseIl,a: We require them now to do, in IlIOSt cases, to do the grading.
Lash:
wanted
to do.
put in.
No. We were talking about providing with specs as far as what we
in the park and giving it to them and saying this is what you've got
Give them the plans and specs and say this is the park they have to
Erhart: ...require them. Is that what you're saying?
Boyt: If we required them to do that, we'd be getting less land.
Erhart: Ana we really need land.
sietsema: The State la~ states that we have to be reasonable.
Boyt: We can't be greedy?
Hasek: What is reasonable? I just talked to a gentleman over in
Deephaven. He subdivided a piece of property on Lake Minnetonka and he had
roughly 6 acres of land. Divided it into 3 parcels and his park dedication
...."
"'"'
Park and Rec Con~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 49
/
fee turned out to be about $60,000.00. The point is, not the land. It's
the user. Now where in the world are those 3 units going to get $60,000.00
worth of benefit out of the park system in the City? Is that reasonable?
It's legal by what you say. 10% of the value of the land.
Sietsenia: And that will conie back to, we base ours on density. When it
gets, when the land value gets over $12,500.00, then we go to density and
that's where that all comes in.
Boyt moved, Robinson seconded to table action for 6 weeks on collection of
park dedication fees to collect additional information. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Michael Schultz: I wouldn't be able to go to sleep without asking this
question. The first thing that bothers me, what would be the liability if
this easenient is proved, this conservation easement for us in terms of the
children walking...
Mady: Legal liability?
Michael Schultz: Yes.
,..
Boyt: On a normal trail, we've talked a lot about the liability on a
sidewalk. There's almost none until he's a huge glaring hole in the ground
that you've dug to try and grab children.
Michael Schultz: You'd have to prove gross negligence on the City.
Sietsenia: You want to know what your liability is. Anybody can sue
anybody. It's actually your property so if sonieone gets hurt on your
property, they can sue you and they'll probably sue the City but the courts
are leaning towards, unless there's something gross negligence, they're
leaning in favor of the landowner because more and more you have to take
the responsibility of your own risk of traveling. But there are no
guarantees.
Michael Schultz: I'm a personal injury attorney. I don't do real estate
though but the question I have is, whether an easement grants any sort of
safeguard? It sounds like it doesn't.
Sietsema: It just makes the City liable too. Because it is a public
thoroughfare or it is a public easement, then the City also has some
liabilities.
Michael Schultz: If that's the case, if the easement is granted, is that
something that's compensated?
Kathy Schultz: To us? I mean you're the owners then? I mean if we're the
owners but you have an easement on it.
j11I"
Sietsema: Right.
Park and Rec COIllIliission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 50
....",;'
Kathy Schultz: And there's no compensation for us for giving you an
easement?
Sietsema: No, that's not entirely true. There would be compensation. I
don't know what that would be.
Hasek: Would there?
Sietsema: Yes.
Hasek: Would there be for a conservation easement? Is there compensation
for those typically? I mean there are certain types of easements because
of, like drainage and so forth, would take easements up to a certain time.
The question is, we don't now what kind of easeIlient it's going to be.
There are certain kinds where you don't have to compensate.
Robinson: I don't think we can answer that. We're not qualified.
SietseIlla: Why don't I refer your questions to the City Attorney and I can
get back to you.
Mady: Call Roger Knutson, he's the City Attorney.
'Kathy Schultz: And what was the park dedication fee you were talking
about?
...",;
Sietsema: Park dedication, right at this point in time is collected at the
time a building perIliit is issued and depending on how much you paid for
your property, typically it's $509.90 a unit. If you're not building, I
wouldn't worry about it. If you were to subdivide in the future, then each
unit would be subject to, at this point in time, it's $500.00 a unit.
Kathy Schultz: You can see we're city dwellers. Thanks.
AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT: LAKE ANN, PHASE II AND CHANHASSEN HILLS,
PHASE I.
Mady: One item of discussion. Staff is just taking into consideration the
earl ier COIltlTlents dur ing the BandiIliere South Park property.
Boyt moved, Robinson seconded to authorize staff to purchase the phase II
playground equipment for Lake Ann Park and Phase I playground equipment for
Chanhassen Hills Park out of the Capital Improvement Program with budgeted
funds. All voted in fav.or and the motion carried.
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF SOUTH LOTUS PARK MASTER PLAN.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded to authorize the preparation of a concept plan,
which will then be brought back for the Con~ission and neighborhood
--'
~ Park and Rec Corr~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 51
revisions, for South Lotus Lake Park Master Plan. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
SietseIl.a: Just one rr,ore corrlIlient on the South Lotus Lake one. I'm going to
take, you have not given, basically brainstormed or given us any
infor.mation as to what facil i ties you want, al though there is rr,oney in the
budget for tennis courts, ballfield, totlot equiprrlent and that kind of
stuff. So I'm going to go with the assurr,ption that those are the
facilities you want in that park and then whatever else looks like, that's
what we'll try to fit in there.
Boyt: Let's notify more people than we're required to notify on this one.
Everyone over to Frontier Trail.
Hasek: Are there any associations in there where YOIl could notify the
association president?
Boyt: They're old neighborhoods.
Lash: Make sure you put it in the paper then.
Sietsema: I will definitely try to get those that require public input, or
~ we want public input, to get those in the paper.
Mady: We don't have an iteIli 10, or at least we don't have it in our
packet.
SietseIlia: No. The Kreidberg Addi tion is simply, when YOIl look back at the
water tower property. The water tower property, there's a piece of it that
looks like this that's being sold off to Kreidberg's that live right there.
The City is preserving this portion to continue the trail through the water
tower property so they're just selling a portion of that property. I
wanted to jllst make you aware that part of the water tower property was
sold but it did not impact our trail.
Mady: Do the Kreidberg's know the trail is there?
Sietsema: Yes.
Boyt: How much property is left in that section? Is that 20 feet?
Sietsema: It's over 20 feet.
Lash: Does the City own that property?
Sietsema: Yes.
Mady:
Okay, so there's no action required.
"
Sietsema: No. I put it on there for a rerr,ainder for rr,e to talk to YOIl
about it.
Park and Rec COIl~ission Meeting
January 9, 1999 - Page 52
-'
)
SITE PLAN REVIEW - CARRICO.
Sietsema: The Carrico property, as you all know where it is and the
history of it. They're going through with their proposal to subdivide the
11.67 acres into 13 single family lots. I had a difficult time trying to
figure out what the recorr~endation should be on this. It's a difficult
area for us to try to find park property. I think we should take what we
can get. This is comproIl.ising our standards. It's 4.24 acres. A great
portion of that is wet. One thing I did want to bring up though that kind
of slipped my mind before is that our sliding scale on park dedication
fees, if it's more than $12,599.99 per acre, then we go to a density. This
he claims is worth $339,999.99 for the entire piece and with this density
it's 9% of land value which would bring that is $39,999.99. So you may
want to reconsider what my recommendation was and if you would prefer to
have the money or to just give him a credit toward a portion of that and
require him to pay in addition. In all the calculations that the
engineering department has done to date, Dave has indicated that he feels
that the 988 contour line, up to that area will be consistently wet. Even
if they put in a little holding pond as they've shown. That is the amount
of area that is likely to be wet after a normal rain for a matter of a week
to 2-3 weeks or most of the season. So it is not to be assumed that we
could put any kind of active park facilities within that 988. If we have a
199 year storm, which we seen. to have every maybe couple years, then it
would go up to the 999 and flow out of there. Drain out of there at the
emergency flow culvert which is at the 991. So basically what I'm saying,
without looking at it as what facilities can go on there, is that there is ~
some useability. There is some portion of the property that will be dry
and useable but probably not the typical open spaces and active areas that
we're used to putting in neighborhood parks. But given that we're so
strapped for parkland in this area, people need open space and sliding
hills and a low area to flood in the winter for ice skating and a place to
put tot lot equipment would certainly take some of the recreational, the
pressure off the needs in that area.
Hasek: There isn't any spot for a sliding hill here though?
Sietsema: If Y0U start out at the road and slide into the wetland.
Mady: I talked to Lori about this item yesterday and asked her if it was
possible to move the wetland into the corner to open up mor.e parkland. I
don't know if that's a possibility or not.
Boyt: That was the other thing too, we alter the wetlands.
Mady: So we get parkland.
Sietsema: I can check with Jo Ann. I haven't had the opportunity to talk
to her about that yet but I don't know. It is a Class B meaning that it
can be altered. I don't know if it can be altered to that degree.
Boyt: Norrr,ally we wouldn't recorr,mend anything like that. It's just that
we're so hard up in this area.
-'
J!I""
Park and Rec Co~~ission Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 53
Mady: Otherwise, ~IY only other thought on this whole thing is, we need
parkland, what we do is we take, it looks like maybe 2 acres on the far
west side of this property and let hilli keep is other 2 1/2 acres of wetland
and not give hi~1 any credit. We don't need to give hilli for wetland.
Sietsellia: No. I would not reco~lmend giving hini any credit for the wetland
area. Just the area that is the dry but he would dedicate that all as one
hunk. We would only give him credit for the useable area.
Boyt: This $30,000.00, is that total?
Sietsema: If we strictly took money, the most we could get, if his figures
are correct. That it's worth $330,000.00, which he claimed in his
appraisal. Then the park dedication fees would.be $30,000.00. 2 acres at
that price would then be, so we may not be better off. We can't play both
ends of the stick.
Lash: But do we have to take whatever part of the property he's offering?
Sietserr,a: No.
Lash: If we say this is not acceptable...
J!I"" Boyt: We can say that.
Lash: ...and ask for something that's better.
Sietsellia: What you could do is say we'll accept the property but because
it's so compromised by the wetland area, that we will require the full
dedication or only give him 25% credit or maybe give him some credit.
Boyt: If we wanted to ask for a different portion of his property, they
would say we're being unreasonable. They'd say we could have it if we
want to buy it.
Sietsenia: We would have to cO~lpensate hilli for that.
Hoffman: We've gone through it before.
Lash: ...unreasonable for an area that's so park deficient, it just
doesn't seem like it's going to fill the need is it?
Boyt: No. But i t ~,ight...
Hoffman: You can't always put the full burden...
Lash: ...one lot at th~ very end here, or something. At least that would
maybe be a chunk that would be totally useable. Is that being unreasonable
too?
,'-'"
Mady: We've always tried to state it...just the ease of being able to
maintain them. When you've got a third of an acre, you can't do a whole
lot with it and it's just a headache.
Park and Rec Co~~ission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 54
-"
)
Lash: No, but I mean in addition to what he's...
Boyt: No. ...because of acreage.
Lash:
that.
What if we locked off the one end and said we're not interested in
We want this plus this other acre on the end or something?
Erhart: You'd have to compensate hini. Legally you can't go in and just
say, I want this piece and he has to give it to you.
Boyt: We've done that before though. On a piece of property not too far.
sietsema: You have to conJpensate the person and it's si:milar to the Oak
View Heights where we felt we needed more than what he wanted to give. We
have to compensate and if we're requiring more land than what he's required
to give, then we have to pay for it.
Hasek: He's got how many acres here?
Sietsema: 11 1/2.
Hasek: So 1.5, we could require 1.5 or 1.6 and that would be compensation.
Sietsema: No. Our's is not l~%. Our's is 1 per 75 people. 1 acre per 75 J
people. I acre per 75 people and this is 13 lots. It's l~% on con~ercial ~
industrial but it's not l~% on residential. It goes by density on
residential. So 1 acre per 75 and at 2.8 per unit, it's half that. We can
require half an acre if we go.
Hasek: What's the point?
Sietsenia: I think that our best bet on this is to accept what they're
proposing and give them no credit and if he feels that he needs credit, he
can argue with the Council. Say we'll take this compromise piece of
property but we're not going to give you any credit toward the park
dedication fee.
Hasek: We don't even have to take it. It's going to end up in a drainage
easement anyway. Right?
Hoffman: There's sottle of it that's useable for us.
Hasek: Well he's going to have to replat it then and try to sell it is
what he's going to have to do. There's no way he's ever going to get a
buildable lot on the west end of that thing. The only way is if he tried
to move his road around ,and get one more lot in on that one tiny little
piece of high ground. He's got to go in for a wetland alteration if he
wants to resubdivide. I ran across this guy in church again the other day
and they want something. They are just absolutely, one of these days
they're going to be in here.
--'.
"" Park and Rec COIlmdssion Meeting
January 9, 1990 - Page 55
)
Sietseltaa: Well they've been in my office a nUIliber of times and I 'Ita working
with theIli to see how fast we can convert those out lots into city property
and see what the potential of one of them.
Hasek: Of this one that's right above here.
Sietsema: Yeah, in pheasant Hills. .
Hasek: The piece that's right on this little pond here. Be grading that.
Mady: Is it possible to table this pending your information from Jo Ann?
Erhart: About the wetland alteration?
Sietsema: I believe it's on the agenda for next Wednesday for Planning so
we can.
Hasek: Can I ask, how come we get these so late?
Sietsema: Because that's just the way the schedule is.
Hasek: Then maybe what we need to do is change our meetings. I Itaean there
isn't any opportunity for us. We give it one meeting and we're almost
"" forced to...
Sietsema: You can table it. You have that option but I just want you to
be aware that that's his process. But if you need I1iOre information, you
certainly have the option to and the applicant then can decide whether he
wants to go on to Planning without a recolt~endation from Park and Rec and
get that later and go on to Councilor if he wants to postpone it before it
goes to Planning.
Mady: I personally want to find out about the wetland before I...
Hasek: The simple fact is, if we can only get half an acre, I mean if you
look at it. This is rougly 2 acres right here right? There's 1 acre.
There's a half an acre. What's the point?
Mady: I'm saying, if we find out that it's legally possible to alter this
wetland, move it, we don't have to require him to do it. He's proposing to
give this to us. Then we just say, we'll take this knowing that we can
then do sOIliething. Otherwise I 'Ita saying, let's not give hilta credit for
anything we know we can't utilize.
Boyt: But we might have 3 acres of useable land.
Hasek: The potential I pee, a real potential for 2. If we don't have to
pay for it, that's great. That's why I was kind of going through it.
,Boyt: We don't have to pay for it.
~ Sietsema: He's not asking for any compensation above the park fee.
Park and Rec COI'fllliission Meeting
January 9, 199~ - Page 56
...,.,#
)
Hasek: Give us that piece of ground that's proposed park area.
Lash: So he gives us this and we can say to him, okay we'll take this plus
the $3~,~1313.1313.
Sietsema: I don't think. No, he's not asking for additional compensation.
Lash: No, but I thought you said we wouldn't have to give credit by saying
this is not that great of a piece.
Sietsema: I'm not saying that he won't argue but we can make that
recommendation. with this sliding scale, it does have some things, it
doesn't all jive together.
Mady: If we were to say, let's take this whole piece hoping that we can do
something with it. If we can't do sOI'fiething with the whole piece and we
still have enough...to maybe squeeze a play structure in.
Hasek: No, this guy wouldn't want a play structure in his front yard and I
wouldn't want to put it there.
Lash: Okay, I'll make a motion that we table this to get inforI'fiation from
Jo Ann.
lBoyt: Second.
....."
Lash moved, Boyt seconded to table action on the Carrico site plan review
for additional information from the Planning Department. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Lash moved, Hasek seconded to adjourn the meetin~. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 113:413 p.m..
Submitted by Lori SietseI'fia
Park and Rec Coordinator
prepared by Nann Opheim
'\
j
/
-,.