Loading...
PRC 1990 05 21 ~ PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 1990 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Jim Mady, Jan Lash, Curt Robinson, Dawne Erhart, Jim Andrews and Wendy Pemrick STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sitesema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mady: Page 14, my last comment. It'd be the second paragraph from the bottom. In the third line it has three dots, ... and then it says but we've got to change it. I think it's not what I said. Well that's part of what I said but because the first part was mangled somehow in the tape, it makes it sounds like I want to make sure it gets changed and that's not my intention with that statement. I believe the first, the comments prior to that had to do with discussion of that some people feel we have to change it. I just wanted to make sure that gets in there because otherwise it takes away from the nature of my comment. Sietsema: You want to just strike the last pal-t of that sentence? ,..... Mady: I think what I'd say is yeah. Take the but we've got to change it and then say, if we've got to change it, well let's get some specific proposals. That way we'd at least get the flavor of what I was saying. Just add an if in there. Robinson moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated May 8, 1990 as amended by Jim Mady on page 14. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW - LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST. Public Present: ...._.._...._......N..?.m..~...._....__..._._.......................__......._............_..............__._...__._.._..._...._................_.._.._._._0..g.9-I..Sl_:?..~__....__.._....__...._...._............._....._.................._..._..............._...........__.._.._.._..........._._.............._..._..........______...:._ Carolyn Barensky Wilmer Malmar Marc & Pam Synder Duane Eischens 8731 Audubon Road 8541 Audubon Road 8470 Ibis Court 8460 Ibis Court Sietsema: This is a PUD amendment proposal. If you will recall a couple years back the Lake Susan Hills West planned unit development was approved with a number of phases and an agreement at that time was signed as to what was supposed to be contained within that. It's a 300 acre overall development with I think when it's all done it will have about 1,000 units within it. This just represents one section of that PUD. For this area there was one big park that was to be dedicated by the developer. It's an ,..... 18 acre parcel. It's one of 4 pieces within the overall PUD. I've included in the staff report the PUD agreement so you can see what was ",..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21, 1990 - Page 2 proposed and what kind of credits. The PUD agreement requires a 50% dedication towards the park dedication fee. The amendment that's being proposed is to reconfigure the layout of the lots and to provide additional park property. The property owner is interested in relaying out the lots and there's an area that is unbuildable because of poor soils and they'd like to dedicate that as parkland and as a part of that dedication, they would like the remaining 50% of the park dedication fees to be waived. Mady: Lori before you go any further, since we have 4 members on here who weren't here when this was previously reviewed and it is a PUD, I don't think we reviewed a PUD before or since those 4 people have come up here. A PUD is a very unique animal. I guess in easy terms it allows the developer to do some things that he couldn't do in our normal development and it would do those things which in some respects, depending on your point of view, makes it easier for the developer to do some things. Smaller lot sizes. Higher densities but to get those things the City expects to get more out of the developer. The developer to do more for the City and that can be in a number of different things. We always look at I guess get more park. More parkland. Better parkland. More things done with the parkland, what have you but there is a requirement, we kind of make a requirement for the developer to give more to get a PUD. I don't know if that's a good explanation or not but I guess that's the explanation I use in my head. ",..... Sietsema: That's very true. Because of the concessions that are made towards, like you said, towards lot sizes and what not and higher density, the developer's expected to dedicate above and beyond what is normally required in a typical subdivision. And keeping that in mind, that's why we have a dedication of like, I think it's 37 acres within this PUD and they were given 50% credit. That gives us the property and gives us 50% of the funds to develop the property. They also dedicated some wetland areas that a,e not useable for active pa,kland so the total is somewhere in the neighborhood of 65 acres of what is dedicated for park property within this area. So given that, it's obviously that this is not a park deficient area meaning the needs should be able to be met by what is required by that PUD agreement. When it was originally requested in the PUD agreement, the park property within this area that we're talking about being amended is this area here and then this block attaches down here. So it's 18 acres. It's rolling. There's a steep grade in it and there's some flatter area in the lower parts and there's some limited use but it's not the best piece of park property but it's a big chunk. What is being proposed is that this area be also dedicated. It represents 3.8 acres of additional park property upon which they need to drain, most of the water that comes off of this area will be d,aining to that piece and this would be the holding pond. In a 100 year storm situation, this entire area would be wet for a matter of days afte, a large rain or 100 yea," storm. There's also pipes coming in on each one of the corners coming in with water so that is a drainageway. Staff feels that with the amount of water that needs to be stored and where the streets are with pedestrian access. There's pedestrian access off of this street here, one here and then the main access to the larger two chunks of property is off of here. If this whole ~ entire area is wet, it leaves the people stranded up here without being able to get through there if there's any amount of rain. Right now that Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ .~ May 21, 1990 - Page 3 would be very wet until it dried out for a few days. So what staff is proposing is that that whole wet area be moved up into this area and leaving the rest of it at least a berm or something that would be high and dry so that a trail could be built in there that would provide pedestrian access to this area of the subdivision through this area over to the remainder of the park. Again, if parkland is available to the be given, staff would recommend that we accept it. However, given the amount of development that needs to be done to all of these park sites, it's not recommended that we allow any further credit simply because otherwise they're going to have to wait a long time. It's like buying a house and not having any money left over to furnish it and we've been stuck in that type of a situation and are continually frustrated. This PUD was designed to take care of itself. We've got the property and we've got 50% of the funds coming in to develop the parkland. Brian Olson is here with Argus. He's got some comments also and I think he's got a nice pretty drawing too. Mady: One comment first. The pedestrian access on the north that comes into the north off that cul-de-sac, are you proposing that a berm be constructed along the edge of there so that that... ,-. Sietsema: I'm proposing that the pond be something of banana shaped, something along here so we can still get pedestrian access in through this area and have some kind of a berm coming in. Brian is going to probably go over this but they feel that if they have the major bulk of the water up here, ~hey're still going to need some ponding down in this area so it's important that the grading plan of the park include or of this area include some kind of a berm so that we can get the people into the park without getting their feet wet. Mady: Okay, one last question. None of those homes exist yet. This whole thing here is part of what's coming in front of us so none of those people have already bought lots and border that? Sietsema: I don't know if any lots have been sold. I don't think so, no. Mady: Okay. Just as long as we're not infringing on somebody who already thought they were getting something that's high and dry. Schroers: This is the area that we walked. We went out there and walked that. Mady: This is the big park. Sietsema: We came in right down at this point and looked down that hill and down this hill. Lash: I have a question too Lori. So this whole thing is now what they want to add? Sietsema: They want to add this whole piece. ~ Lash: Okay. Alright. And then the rest of it is all down here? The original park was down here? Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 21, 1990 - Page 4 Sietsema: This is parkland here and this is proposed parkland here. Andrews: It's unbuildable? The new portion is unbuildable? Sietsema: This is unbuildable. Poor soils. Now what they could do is bring the lot lines in and make those bigger lots. If that's what they want to do, I would say go for it because I don't see how we can really use the property without... Andrews: What kind of money are we talking about with the 50% dedication. What's that going to get us? Sietsema: How many lots would this be? Brian Olsen: Our portion is going to be 154 lots and so it'd be $38,500.00. Mady: Is that relatively flat? Sietsema: This is flat, yep. It's all slope going down to it and this is relatively flat. So if you can consider the 3 pieces, it would be considered the flatter piece. ~ Schroers: But it's too low to do anything with it as far as active park is concerned? Sietsema: Well I think if they had the whole pond, the whole pond in the lower area, this would be quite useable but then you've got you can't really get through to get to the rest of the park and it's the smallest area. I mean it would be tough to get a ballfield in there. I don't think you could get 200 foot lines, sidelines out there on a ballfield but you could put other facilities in there. Playground equipment or something 1 i ke that. Resident: Would you put the other map on there please? We'd like to know where Huron Drive is? Sietsema: It's not on here. It's way north of here. Resident: What do you mean way north? Sietsema: Well it's about right here. Resident: Well where is this pocket? We don't understand what you're talking about. It comes here and it goes out to Audubon Road right? Is this Huron Drive here? Mady: It's hard to look at those sometimes and figure out where in the world you're at. Sietsema: Especially right now it's just a field. A plowed field. ".... Paik and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 21, 1990 - Page 5 Robinson: It is. Theie's no tiees on any of that. Up wheie we weie standing. Mady: On top theie wasn't. On the east side theie on the bottom theie was. Resident: Wheie's the second? Sietsema: I don't have a map of the whole PUD. This just iepiesents the aiea south of HUion Diive but iight now it... This ioad along the nOith, you see the ioad along the nOith, that is HUion Diive so it's all south of HUion Diive. (The commissioneis weie talking amongst themselves at this point.) Schioeis: LOii, they want to save $250.00 pei lot. How many lots? Sietsema: 159. Robinson: $38,000.00. Sietsema: Yeah, it iepiesents, it's 159 lots so we'ie talking... It's almost $40,000.00. ~ Mady: Why don't we go fUithei with this. Sietsema: Do you have some things to add? Schioeis: No. Sietsema: Do you want Biian to speak? Mady: Yeah. I think that'd be the best at this point. Biian Olson: I'm Biian Olson with AigUS Development. We weie not the oiiginal developeis on this Piopeity. AigUS' Development is owned by Joe Millei and he also owns Joe Millei Homes and we'ie the exclusive buildei in the whole west side heie and we also did a couple additions on the east side of CR 17 heie. The location heie, heie is CR 17. Heie is HUion Diive and OUi 3id Addition and this if the first addition that we put in a couple yeais ago Oi a yeai ago so and this just went in last fall. Now we've got two stieets coming down from the south. This is the peiimeter of the oiiginal PUD which like LOii mentioned comes down and comes back up. There are about 2 1/2 acre plotted sites along this location and theie's some laige lot subdivisions diiectly to the south of the park. Then theie's a couple existing small acre farms on the west and then you hit Audubon Trail. When we fiist took a look at purchasing the balance of this piopeity, we decided to change the approach that we'd come in to the City. Typically we've been kind of coming in at the Pieliminary plat just on a phase at a time and we'ie ending up with quite a bit of dowling costs based on the soil types out theie. I"think when they appioved the oiiginal PUD, ~ the original developer's engineei didn't ieally take a close look at the soil types out theie and plan aiound that instead of just looking at the Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,..... -", May 21, 1990 - Page 6 topography. So we've taken a new approach on the balance here and the original PUD basically said that you could have x amount of lots in this area and so we looked at a design and how can we best utilize the property with the number of lots that we're allowed to have and still we're subtracting some access points and connections here...connection to the property along the west side here. That wasn't even a part of the original approval also. Resident: May I interrupt on that? Why the connection to the west property there? Brian Olson: The City's requiring that. Resident: But that west property is agriculturally zoned at present. It also contains historical Chaska brick houses. Brian Olson: Right. That won't change the zoning at all. That street. It's outside the MUSA line. Resident: Then I'm wondering why you're building it. Brian Olson: Well if I. ..1 wouldn't want it either. Resident: That's kind of just the end there? """ Brian Olson: Right. So in the future someday, eventually the City's going to develop. Over the year, 20 years or whatever and you want to have street connections inbetween neighborhoods for safety reasons, police access, all these various things. Then underneath the street is also the utility hook-ups for the sanitary and water. So those are part of the staff review and then we've got to provide the street stub to the west there. That doesn't mean it's going to change any of the zoning. It just means you're going to provide access for the future someday. Resident: It's my understand the City requires you to? Brian Olson: Yeah, we don't really benefit by putting that street in. All these lots run out onto an existing street so we actually have to...so that would be the only reason for it. Resident: of that. You mentioned like that large lots on the pond on the south side What...access to that? Mady: They access off of Sunset Trail currently. Those houses exist and have for a number of years. Sietsema: They're off of Lyman. Resident: I guess you were talking about putting four houses? Sietsema: No, they're already there. ~ Brian Olson: I don't know how many houses there are right there. Another thing the property has is a pipeline easement running through right..,to Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 21, 1990 - Page 7 the northern border and it's proposed park area here... The orange lines in here kind of represent the proposed phasing here over the next year or possibly 3 years here. Since we're the only builder there, we've really got to watch how the economy goes here as far as on phasing. Our first phase would be going in in this location and would be approximately 45 lots. Lori and I have a difference of opinion about what to have in here. We had to buy this area. We paid x amount per acre for this whole area. However, we did not pay for the park area proposed as part of the original PUD. ..at final platting would be dedicated to the City. So roughly when we're looking at this area in here, we're looking at approximately a $50,000.00 gift to the City. That's us as a developer. The pond right here that's shown... Resident: Excuse me, why would that be a $50,000.00 gift? Brian Olson: Because we paid x amount of dollars per acre. Resident: Did you know what the soil conditions were when you bought it? I would assume you knew you couldn't develop it. .,.... Brian Olson: It can be developed but... It's got a high water table. It's.. .silty clay and we've developed over this property up in this area already. The only difficulty is you've got more grading costs to make it developable. It's developable. It's not peat. It's nothing like that. As a matter of fact it's the exact same soils down here as it is down in this location. That is the only difference on this project. This has all been farmed. You've got to go across on it... Resident: Then why don't you want to develop it? Brian Olson: Well there's a couple reasons. One, we already have the amount of lots that we can already do here. Resident: They need more lots? " Brian Olson: And I'd like to explain this storm sewer situation here. We have some storm from the overflow from that pond that's laying in the 3rd Addition up here flowing through and it comes down into and comes off of this location. We've got other storm sewer coming into here and we've got another one in this location. We cannot move this pond. This is a siltation pond where this whole area has to drain in to so that the sediments and all that will settle to the ground before it goes off the property and downstream. So it's very important that we have to have this pond here and that's the location of the original PUD approval also. The original PUD approval for a park area basically kind of came up approximately like this and the pond was shown in this location. Now when you originally approved the PUD you never figured out your storm sewer calculations so the exact extent of the pond was not known at that time and we weren't even involved at that time either. The dark blue here represents the area approximately where it will be a pond at all times. The outline here in blue which it's kind of cross hatched would be a storm of a 100 year flood which might mean 4 times a year or you might not have any for 20 years. You know how that 100 year flood works right? But we ""'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21, 1990 - Page 8 ""'" can make prOVlSlons in here to redesign the configuration of this pond and make sure any kind of trail system would be out of that. That can be handled quite readily. Also, when we were dealing with the engineering department and the storm sewer coming in here, we are proposing to bring the storm along the back property line down here and go into this pond. Right now the engineering department is, I'm not sure whether there even needs to be another plan at all whatsoever and there has been some talk about instead of having an over land swale along here, now that the developer may have to put it all underground in place so that's going to be another additional cost for us. And again, these are not bad soils, it's just a higher water table. And so this whole area is very suitable for a ballfield. It's probably one of your few areas in this whole lower part. This whole area here and the lower, you've got more than, you've got a 10% grade there. You've got a 1 foot drop in 10 feet. You've got some flat areas along here not big enough for any kind of field activities and then you've got a very steep slope that really separates the park and then you've got a very small low area in here which the configurations to here doesn't really fit in for a park or a ballfield either. And again, these are the same soils. One problem with this pond design, by trying to move it further to the south, I am impeded by this gas pipeline. So I think we can handle this all very well and also when we look at a PUD, typically it is and the City gets a little more but what the whole intent of the PUD... how can you better design a project without necessarily meeting the full intent of the ordinance requirements. That's what it's really all about. I think we've come up with a lot better design out here. We have fewer cul-de-sacs than the original PUD. We were able to, oh another thing. We eliminated a lift station... On the original they had to have a lift station down in here to serve the sanitary sewer so by us not having to put that in, well we save the cost of that but we also save the city the maintenance of having to deal with a lift station over the years. So I guess again here, this area is not bad soils. There are some trees down in here and we can get that storm water down to this pond here and reconfigure this so that all these trails will not be... Resident: What's the size of the pond? Brian Olson: It's basically an acre. It's going to be at the deepest point about 4 feet. Resident: That's another thing, why aren't they any deeper? Brian Olson: Well we don't need them to be any deeper. Resident: Well like the one on the northwest corner now on the phase 3, that's only 3 feet deep at the deepest part too. If you cut a hole there, enough for 15 feet of water, why then you fill it up. We could have had a private little fishing area down there. Really what good is it? Brian Olson: Well it's not. ..city engineering department who gets involved with the design on that pond when it becomes city property. JII'" Schroers: There are also safety concerns involved with such a high density of people there and deep water. People are afraid of having that deep Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,.... '""\ May 21, 1990 - Page 9 water with little kids. Resident: You can drown in 2 feet of water as well as 10. Schroers: Yeah, but most people don't believe that. They think if it's shallow it's safer. Resident: A little kid will drown in that 2 feet just as well as a 10 footer. Schroers: I agree with you but most people think that deeper water is more dangerous. Robinson: Is it less attractive to you as a developer to have that water up further in the finger there? ,.... Brian Olson: Well we'd have to have 2 ponds. We have to have them at the lowest elevation point to drain all the storm sewer to that point. The watershed district is going to require that. We've already dealt with it so if we have one here, we're going to have to have another one here and I'm still going to have to have an overflow from this pond over to here. So what we're proposing to do is just to have the water go along the perimeter which is also then serve as a boundary for the park you know so you're not going to have people that are going to go into there... They could go on either side you know. Those are some of the details we can still work out and we can be building some berms and things just like... and a trail can be on top and out of the water. Robinson: Is that what that would be is just a little swale then around the boundary are you saying? Brian Olson: Yeah, we've got to get enough slope here so it's not going to be stagnant water. So that the water will have to come down here and then flow down. It's not the intent to have an open ditch system where it's going to be wet. That's not our intent and the engineering department's already told us that's not what they want us to do. But we're proposing 2 trail access points down in this location and there's going to be some, there's some conflicts there but it can be worked out with a culvert and berming up and over the culvert. Resident: Is this figure feet? 506.96? Brian Olson: That's correct. Resident: That's feet... Brian Olson: ...we are giving almost 4 more acres of parkland to the City. There is a benefit to the city for that and it is not bad soil here. Again, as far as PUD agreement, us as the developer have to grade these parks. Well we can grade this how you guys want to have it. The only thing that we're asking is we'd like to see if we can get some break on the ~ park. Again, if the engineering department requires that we've got to put all this storm sewer underground, that's going to be quite a bit of cost ".... Pa,k and Rec Commission Meeting May 21, 1990 - Page 10 because it is somewhat flat and the flatter that you have the ground, the bigger diameter of pipe... Resident: I'm confused on how you're giving 4 more acres of parkland? Brian Olson: On the original PUD approval was for 18.1 ac,es. Resident: And so many lots. Brian Olson: Right and we're adding another 3.8 acres to the 18.1 acres. Resident: But you've still got the lots so you couldn't put any more lots on whether you gave the park or 3 acres or not. Brian Olson: That's correct but we can also make all these lots a lot bigger too. Here's what it really comes down to. We are giving up this area and if we made the lots bigger, we could sell them fo, a lot more but if you don't want to have the land or if we don't get any breaks or things, we'll just make the lots bigger but we',e coming he,e. We're proposing to give that. That's going to be your most flat area for ballfields in this whole area and we saw that as a win-win thing. The City would get something and we were hoping to get something back. ,.... Lash: But you're not proposing to give it to us. You want us basically to give you $38,500.00? Brian Olson: Or something. Lash: What kind of thing? Brian Olson: Well really, we are going to proceed the way it is. Okay? Even if you didn't give us... However, I guess, I'm here to try and see if we can get something done. Mady: Why don't we open it up for commission discussion. Get the thoughts out so if there's any other audience discussion, the questions that need to be answered or things, that we can get it moving. Schroers: Brian, I think that you did a good job explaining you, pos~tion there and your 'intentions are very good. The problem that I have with it is when I look at that 3.8 acre parcel, I have a ha,d time seeing $38,000.00 there. Where we are sitting right now with the parks in Chanhassen, we desperately need funds to develop ou, parks throughout the city and to me the trade-off for that piece of property versus $38,000.00 would not be good business on the point of the city. I think that we could put those funds to better use elsewhere and combine that with the fact that there is enough parkland along with the development and we're not park deficient, I just think that it would be bad judgment for us to accept your offer. "" Pemrick: Yeah, I tend to agree with Larry on this. If there was a problem of too little parkland at present but since there's enough parkland that has been dedicated, we need money for development. I guess my vote would be to take the money and put it towards our othe, parks or towards Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 21, 1990 - Page 11 developing this. Mady: I guess I've got the feeling we're going to hear the same tning from all of us but we don't need additional parkland in this area. Roughly 3 years ago when this whole PUD came in front of the City we spent a lot of time looking at it and I think we did a pretty dog gone good job. We don't always but this one we did a pretty good job making sure we had as much parkland as we needed and we made sure we had some money to do it. $38,000.00 isn't going to buy us a whole lot but it will get us a good start on some of these parks in this particular development and so if the land's going to remain vacant that's fine. I seriously doubt if we'd ever put a ballfield there since we already have thought of where we want to put those anyway. I don't see us having the funds to get that created in the near 'future. The only concern I have with this, with what we're looking at right now is to make sure that with the trail accesses into the park that gets the people into that park from the neighborhood, that the trailways in the park are high enough so they're not under water. I mean under water at any time. Be it a 100 year storm or what have you. They should remain dry at all times. Otherwise, the layout of the whole development is somewhat different than we saw previously but I don't see any problems for us from a Park and Rec and trail standpoint. I think it's important that we keep as much money as we can get because we're going to use every dime of it to build what we need to do in this particular development. ~ Robinson: I really like that layout in that little piece up amongst right in the residential area. Did you say that you would provide access to the lower park out of the water? Somehow get around that pond? That was Lori's concern I think. And you would just get up next to the property line and build that up or build a trail up there? Brian Olson: The ponds are something that you can always change. ..so it might go a lot further on one side of the park fOl- a pond than the other. We can make it work out without a problem. Robinson: I really like that and whether it's a ballfield or an open area or an area that just has a totlot in it. There's a lot of homes very close by there so I really like that. However, I am as cheap or cheaper than most of the commission and I have to go along with them on that point. Lash: And I'm the cheapest. Robinson: oh I don't know. Lash: Oh yeah. I think so. No, and I agree with Curt's comments. I think that will be really, that would be nice for the residents living there to have just an open field for kids to fly kites or frisbee or whatever they want to do and it's a lot easier to get to than the rest of the park so I like that too. But since I'm cheaper or cheapest, I wouldn't feel comfortable passing up the money for this. Are we just talking about this or can I ask a question about something else too further in? ~ Sietsema: Sure. ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 21, 1990 - Page 12 Lash: I have a question, let's see it was on page 3 in here where we're asking for the bituminous on Audubon. Now is this supposed to be connecting with the concrete by Redmond? Sietsema: Yes. Lash: Doesn't that seem somewhat inconsistent to be going concrete to bituminous? Sietsema: Well our trail fund didn't pay for the concrete that's there. They put that in through the industrial park so as long as the trails that we do, it's similar to what's on Kerber Blvd.. We do, if it's not going in front of homes than the policy is that it would be bituminous. Lash: But it's concrete by Redmond. Sietsema: Right. It becomes for rural as you get further down the road. Lash: Does this connect? Sietsema: Yeah. Lash: This is going to, so we're going to go from concrete to bituminous? ,.... Sietsema: Just like we do on Kerber. Resident: Where is the bituminous going? Sietsema: Eventually it will connect all the way down to the school down in Chaska and connect up to the trail systems throughout the rest of the City north of TH 5. Resident: There are no trail systems from Chaska currently? Sietsema: Not yet. There's a trail plan though. That's the big picture. Resident: So currently they're putting this trail on Audubon... Sietsema: Along the road. Resident: Where are we going on it? Robinson: It's on the agenda two items after this one to be discussed. Lash: Well I don't know. I guess I just have a problem with that. I think it seems if we're going to do it, let's do it right and either have it be one or the other and not just stop with one and start with the other. I think that's going to look really strange so whatever people want to do. Can we make him pour concrete? Sietsema: No. ~ Lash: Well, back to the drawing board on that then. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 21, 1990 - Page 13 Mady: Brian had a question. Brian Olson: Are we on another agenda item tonight? Lash: No. Do you understand what I'm saying? Sietsema: I understand what you're saying. It's just that through the industrial park, the HRA was involved in that and they chose to put in concrete sidewalks through that area. As you move into a more rural area where they're not fronting on the fronts of lots, our trail plan has called for bituminous. Again, similar to what's done on Kerber where they go by the school, it's concrete and then you get past the school and it's bituminous. Mady: HRA deals with concrete. Robinson: Is this agreement still effective? Sietsema: Yes. ,.... Erhart: I think everybody has pretty well covered this. It boils down to what are we short of, money or park and we are definitely short on the funds. I understand you coming in here Brian and presenting this to us and trying to get something out of it but I go along with the other commissioners. I'm also cheap. When I look at our budget, it tells me we need money and I would go along with that. Brian Olson: Before I hear any mOTe I'll say two things and then stop. One, again this park area is probably the most, I think it almost is the most valuable piece of, it's really getting to be the whole center. People are going to want to come here... The other thing is, the $38,000.00, hOvJ they came about that is part of the original PUD was submitted with the developer giving up the parkland and the park fees were cut in half so that's how it was $250.00. That's the only reason that came up with that number. But whatever break I can get, it doesn't need to be $38,000.00. The other thing is, if we just don't get anything, we're giving up some land here that we could include into the lots and theoretically the bigger the lot the more you can get for it so there...perhaps when you do see the final form of this it's not going to be this big. Resident: I have a question. The parkland, the original parkland, what are your plans as far as development? What do you hope to do with it? Sietsema: There's no concept plan for that area yet. What we would do is at the time that that, now that they're ready to go in and start developing it, we'll call the neighborhood or the people that live in that area so far, call them in and ask them what they want to see there. See if that's feasible with the layout of the land and the topography and what not. It's very much up to the people that live in the area. ~ Resident: When you say the people that live in the area, does that also include the people on Sunset Trail and people on Audubon Road that will ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21, 1990 - Page 14 back up to this even though they aren't in this development? Sietsema: Yeah. Resident: So we will be informed of this? Sietsema: You were informed... Mady: That's why we asked you to sign the sheet in the back. One of the other comments maybe if I can try to remember from 3 years ago when we walked the site, that 18 acres on top was, well not all of it's on top but it's somewhat flat. We can make some things happen up there and some of the thoughts were a large soccer field might fit up there. A neighborhood soccer field. We had a nice sliding hill in there. There's a pond there so maybe skating could take place in the winter. We're not sure but some of the things were there so we thought we had enough land that we could make some stuff happen there. At least have an opportunity to do it depending on what, when the concept came. We knew going down the road, once the people started moving in we would develop a concept plan with their input and we'd know what we'd want. When we looked at it originally thinking okay what will fit here? What will kind of work in here and we thought we had enough land to get a nice size soccer field so at least we were looking at a flat piece of ground. ."" Brian Olson: Jim, I think we're going to be site grading this whole thing here and that includes the park property. I mentioned to Lori that we need to know what's going to happen here so we can coordinate that. Schroers: Can I make one comment? Mady: Go ahead. Schroers: One of the problems that we run into with this, when we go all the time for the most property that we can get, it leaves us with no money. What happens is we end up with a chunk of land with no money to develop it so the residents come in, buy their new houses and they end up with a weed patch for a park and they end up right back here in this room saying our developer's told us there was going to be a park there. There's nothing but weeds and we're sitting here saying we have no money to do anything with it. That's our position and that's why we're saying that we need, we planned this all out ahead of time like Jim had explained earlier where we got the land that we needed and also some of the funds to develop that property. We're trying to avoid problems that have come to us in the past. Resident: I have lived in...and I have used some parkland and the prairie grass and tried to maintain some natuY"e sanctuaries. You have a lot of wildlife in that area... ,,-., Schroers: I think everyone on this commission is very in tune with the environmental needs of these days and everyone is in favor of having green space, natural areas for wildlife and there has to be a balance of both and that's what we try to do. Paik and Rec Commission Meeting ~ ~ May 21, 1990 - Page 15 Andiews: I do agiee with eveiybody else that OUi needs, with my shoit time on the Boaid heie the numbei of neighboihoods that have come to us looking fOi impiovement of land that we alieady have, it's obvious to me that we can't affoid to take anothei piece of piopeity with no money to Piovide the development fo, the neighbo,s as they move into the new neighbo,hood. The othe, concein I would have would be if we were to go ahead and come up with some sort of a ballfield, how would we get city maintenance in the,e to take ca,e of the ballfield through a wetland aiea? I also t,y to look at it f,om a developer's standpoint which would be what's p,obably going to cost you more to prepare that land to build it than it would to just leave it vacant and you're p,obably going to be able to get mo,e for the p,operties that are adjacent to the open spaces anyway. I do commend you fo, coming to the boa,d and looking fo, some help but I think we',e in a position where we just can't offer it responsibly because of our needs in other areas of the City. So I do ag,ee with the ,est of the commission. 8,ian Olson: That is true. We would get more for the lots around that also... I'm not a ha,d sell as you can tell. Robinson: I think he said they were going to site grade that whole thing in the next couple of months. Does that mean that we should know by then what we plan to do with that acreage? ,.... Mady: We will be looking at that? Sietsema: Should be. Lash: It should be on our agenda ,eal quick. Mady: Well unless there's more discussion, I think a motion's in order. And,ews: I'll make a motion. I vote that we do not accept the additional pa,klands nor waive any dedication fees concerning this development. Sietsema: You don't want to accept it even if it's f,ee? Lash: We want to accept.it, we just don't want to waive the fee. Andrews: I said we don't want to waive any of the fees. Lash: Right but you said don't accept it. Andrews: I said don't accept the land and don't waive the fee. Lash: But we would want to accept the land wouldn't we if he wants to donate it? Andrews: That's true. I stand corrected. If you want to give it to us, we'll ta ke it. Robinson: I second. ""..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~. May 21, 1990 - Page 16 Mady: Okay, the motion's to accept parkland if provided by the developer. However, no change in the fee structure. Andrews moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to approve the site plan for Lake Susan Hills West w{th the same conditions outlined in the PUD agreement and to accept parkland if provided by the developer but to give no additional credit toward park dedication fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Brian Olson: ...Right now I am 130 feet from using that as a connection through here and I have a connection of this part to be 100 feet wide right here. Is there something I can do here to play with this to get you a wider connection and maybe not.. .in this area or something? Do you need 100 feet right here or can this be dO~Jn to 7 feet or something? Sietsema: Can you show us how we can get parking in there with less than 100 feet. Brian Olson: Oh the parking lot would actually be? Sietsema: THat would be our only vehicular access to the park is right there. ~ Brian Olson: So all the parking would be right here then? Sietsema: Right. Mady: We're not talking about a lot of parking but when a few spots there. Sietsema: We need at least 6 spots for a park that size. Lash: Could we have the parking in a little bit further and just have that be an access? Sietsema: Do you want to take up your park space with parking? Brian Olson: It is flat right here. Mady: I would prefer not to. Robinson: 100 feet sounds like an awful wide area for 6 parking spaces. Sietsema: For turn around. Mady: You need probably 60 feet for the cars. You've got.the parking, turning and backing area, 20 feet for each so that only leaves you 40 feet for screening. ,.., Sietsema: Because you've got houses on both sides of there, you want to be able to landscape and get your turn around areas and what not and we don't want to take up any more of the flat area, is the way staff was feeling about it, to take any more of the flat area away from the park to put Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 21, 1990 - Page 17 parking in there. We wanted to keep that up close to the street. Brian Olson: Lori and I talked about on the phone I think it was today, was perhaps taking these lots back from the original park boundary but see this is a slope area right here where you're dropping about 20 feet and then 100 feet. So all along, maybe we could extend these back lot lines out here because that's really not useable parkland. That's where that 20% slope is. Sietsema: That seems reasonable. Mady: Yeah, that seems reasonable. My recollection of this 3 years ago, we were thinking of that area would be conducive for a sliding hill in the winter and outside of kids running up and down it and having fun and rolling down in the summer, there wasn't a lot of things we could do to put active. Maybe not even be cutting the area. Maybe just leaving it natural but it wasn't going to be graded flat for sure. Sietsema: The most critical area as far as staff was concerned is right in this area. That that be pulled back as far as it can be so that that narrow area, it's only 130 feet wide, we don't want to squeeze that any tighter in that area than we have to. ~ Brian Olson: Well we'll take a look at this too. Maybe we'll need to move it further north than the original approval .to get you an even better connection here... Okay, well thank you. Schroers: You did a good job Brian. Your timing is just a little bit off. If you knew the recent history of the park, these are the issues that are coming back to haunt us. DISCUSS WINDSCREEN AND TENNIS NETS AT NORTH LOTUS PARK. Sietsema: This is Jim's item. Andrews: The windscreens have been replaced and there's just one tennis net where there's a broken cable, like I was mentioning to Lori, that somebody's tied a rope to keep the net up and it's pulled all the way across so I don't know what can be done to get it properly tighten. Somebody would take a look at that and see if it could be improved any further than it already is but somehow my guess is some kids decided to see if they could stand on it or sit on it and snapped it and that's the way it's been since the beginning of the spring. Lash: Didn't you ask Curt also that we discuss windscreens or something? It's kind of an ongoing problem isn't it? Robinson: Yeah. There's none up here, right up here at the school. Sietsema: That's because they were ripped to shreds by the wind. ~. Robinson: So well I think we should decide on both of them all at once. Are we going to have windscreens or aren't we and I'm not sure. Maybe it's ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21, 1990 - Page 18 just not worth it. Mady: One of the thoughts I had on trying to figure out, the problem we're having is the wind, depending on which direction it's coming from. If it's coming from the direction where the fence side of the windscreen, it's pushing the windscreen away from the fence and it's tearing through the grommets and that's what's happening probably. If the maintenance department were to take even like a piece of 1 x 4 and put that on the back side on the screen sid~ of the windscreen agajnst the fence and take another piece of 1 x 4 and put it on the fence side of the windscreen and bolt those tl~O pieces together, they would have a continuous band across that thing. You wouldn't be having the pressure points at your individual grommets which are probably, well I don't know what they're spaced but I would guess they're about 2 feet apart, maybe even more. That would distribute the tension on that screen all the way across. It would probably extend the life of the windscreen a couple of years. Now you're talking about a lot more maintenance than getting it up and taking it down. If 2 guys trying to put nuts and bolts together on both sides of the thing so it might cause some extra 2 hours to do each individual screen but it would probably save the windscreen for a couple years. Andrews: What do those screens cost us? ,... Sietsema: On a court the size of the one up at the elementary school, I think it's $1,500.00. Andrews: Plus the labor up and down? My reaction at North Lotus is, I just think they're a waste of money to be honest. For the amount of serviceability you're getting out of the money invested and labor invested versus how much wind it really reduces, it's not much at all. It's a wide open area. It's not fully enclosed anyway and it seems like whichever way the wind is coming, that part of the screen will blow off anyway. Mady: Maybe what we can do is move those screens over to the City Center Park which does get a lot of use and I know it's the windiest part of the city. Andrews: You need more shelter there, naturally sheltered area I think to withstand the wind you get, especially in the spring. Sietsema: I know Dale is looking at that. Schroers: Maybe just a planting a shelter belt and I've seen tennis courts with wood instead of a screen. Is that not practical? Andrews: Costly. Mady: It's not as aesthetic either. Sietsema: It's just more costly. ,... Andrews: Yeah, North Lotus is just wide open. There's a half a mile of open space. The wind just gets too strong. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21, 1990 - Page 19 Schroers: I guess that would be my idea is just to kind of think for the future and do some planting and try to screen it off that way rather... Sietsema: Dale is looking into planting. What kind of plantings we could do around those as far as tall bushes, shrubs, trees as well as vines on the fence. They do that in Edina. They have vine covered fences that cuts down on the wind. Lash: And they grow fast. Robinson: A community center up here would cut down the wind a lot. Mady: Anything else we need to discuss on windscreens? Andrews: I'll keep you posted. Robinson: I guess I'd just like to put it to bed. What was the action that came out of this? ~ Sietsema: I was going to have him tighten the tennis net. Look into tightening that. Look into putting boards or some kind of thing to cut down, distribute the wind and also look into a planting plan. If you want to take an action to do away with the tennis windscreens altogether and not purchase those anymore. Andrews: For North Lotus, I think to go the extra expense of putting the wood up there, I think you're just throwing good money after bad. I don't think any amount of screening there unless it's totally enclosed is going to matter. It's just too open to start with. I guess my opinion would be to leave them up as is and not to put them up next year. Hoffman: Windscreens are for country clubs. Robinson: I was over at Round Lake Park today and they have nice windscreens but they have trees around and it is kind of sheltered there. Andrews: That helps. That helps cut the wind. Lash: So do you think that we should take the ones from North Lotus and put them up at school? Schroers: Well it's certainly not a wise investment to keep buying these expensive nets and put them up and let the wind tear them up. I mean that doesn't make any sense. Andrews: You're only looking at half the cost. You've got the materials plus the labor and I'll bet you we've spent more in labor than materials anyway. Up and down and all those little clips you have to put on. It's extremely expensive. Robinson: Does the City Center Park get more use than North Lotus? ~. Andrews: Sure it does. ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 21, 1990 - Page 20 Robinson: Then maybe we should take the ones out of North Lotus and there's two missing over here I believe or a couple. Some of them are missing over here and put them over here. Andrews: Another approach would be to double them up. 80th sides of the fence. 'Lash: What a good idea. Robinson: Jan just told me that and I said that's dumb. Mady: Then you'd have both sides covered then literally. Lash: who would have guessed somebody else would come up with that idea. Andrews: It's a good idea. It would probably eliminate the damage. Mady: If you have any great, just blurt those things out. Lash: Well I hate to blurt out too many stupid things. ,..... Andrews: I hate to see you spend the money to take them back down that they're already up from a labor standpoint. I guess I'd feel for next spring, I don't think we should put them back up at Lotus. I think it's Just a waste of time. Sietsema: We don't take them down because it's too labor intensive. Andrews: Oh you don't? Schroers: Let the wind take them down. Mady: We've got a comment here. Resident: Are we finished talking about the trails? Mady: The trails, not that will be the next item. Resident: We don't have an agenda. It said on our agenda that it would come up at 7:30 and now it's almost 9:00 and we're sitting here talking about it. Mady: time. Oh, well our agenda I guess is never, nothing ever comes at the The meeting starts at 7:30. How it progresses is Just... Resident: I thought I'd get out of here by 8:00. Lash: Did we come up with what we're going to do now for sure in this? Mady: We're going to leave it. ,.... Pemrick: Well what about the vines? I like that idea. Do you knovJ what it takes to get. " Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 22, 1990 - Page 21 Sietsema: I'll look into it. Pemrick: Would that be just like a year shot? Sietsema: Well no, it would take a number of years for them to cover a fence and one of the things we didn't go ahead and do that with the City Center is because those fences are in such disrepair and if they're all going to be replaced, we weren't going to put the vines in and rip them all out so... (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Sietsema: . ..on the Lake Susan Hills amendment. The item that we just previously talked about and that we would be talking about the trails in the parks during that section. So I don't know what specifically in trails you want to talk about. Resident: We didn't talk about any trails in that system. Where are the trails going to go in the Chanhassen Park thing is what it says. The trail and park issue, where do you about propose them. I""'" Sietsema: The PUD agreement for this development calls for trails along all the thru streets that are not cul-de-sacs. A sidewalk along all thru streets that are not cul-de-saced. That's part of the PUD agreement. Resident: Are they going to be 8 feet wide? Sietsema: No. In front of the homes they'll be 5 foot wide concrete similar to what's along the first additions that are on the north end of this whole development. Also, it calls for an 8 foot wide, well this section of the PUD does not call for anything along Audubon because it doesn't affect Audubon. The additions north of this called for an 8 foot trail along Audubon but that doesn't have anything to do with this portion of the PUD because that's already an approved item. Carolyn Barensky: Just a question. How wide is the sidewalk in front of the McGlynn Bakery? Sietsema: I believe that that is a 6 foot wide concrete. Carolyn Barensky: Why couldn't that have been extended all the way down to Lyman Blvd. on that side? What are you going to do? Build an underground pass to get from one side to the other? Sietsema: The intention of the trail that goes along McGlynn's was that the people, the employees of McGlynn's would be able to access the trail system north. Cross the road there, get on the trail system if they wanted to go south and because the higher density of residential is going to be on the east side of Audubon Road, the rest of that trail system would be on the east side. I""'" Carolyn Barensky: Where does this trail go along Audubon? Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,.... -, t1ay 22, 1990 - Page 22 Sietsema: It will go along Audubon eventually down to Lyman Blvd.. Carolyn Barensky: Will it be in the ditch? Sietsema: No, it would be, when they improve the road, it will be along the side of the road. Carolyn Barensky: When they improve what road? Sietsema: Audubon. Carolyn Barensky: Is that going to be improved? Sietsema: Eventually. Mady: At some point in time. As the City fills up, ultimately within, I don't know how many years it will be but there will probably be homes on both sides of Audubon Road. Carolyn Barensky: There already is. t1ady: homes. But I mean you're talking like these downtown. Neighborhoods. You're going to have "..... Carolyn Barensky: Well I think what you've got to be aware on Audubon.. .not meant to be... Mady: Well, I guess I'll disagree. 20 years from now the City's going to be full. I mean we're going to have 45,000-50,000 people here and they're going to have to be third acre lots ultimately. People are ultimately going to divide their lots up. As property becomes more and more valuable and the sewer's there, you're probably going to see a number of people sell their property. Nothing's ever forever. 10 years ago all these nice 5 acre lots have now been cut down and we see a few of them/every year. Schroers: Prairie. Basically what you're going to have to do is just look at Eden Eden Prairie used to be. Carolyn Barensky: ~.Jant . . ..look and see if that's what Chanhassen residents Schroers: Well you have a point there but development has a way of going and you have to work with the system and when you see what Eden Prairie is like now, that's a real good indication of what Chanhasse may be like. We would like to see more space saved but space is money and it's very hard to convince some people that it's worth that kind of money just to have a gree~ space sitting there. Mady: We don't necessarily agree with it getting smaller. It's just looks like it's a fact of life and so we're trying to in our planning process, do the best job we can to allow as much happening that's to the benefit of the ~ people that already exist here because developers like Brian come in here all the time and they're always, 3 years ago it was approved and this is Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 22, 1990 - Page 23 all the things they were going to do for the City. Now they're trying to get a little bit more. They're always looking to get their extra pound of flesh out of us and you've got to keep your guard up every time. It's difficult. It's a tough call. Carolyn Barensky: In other words, you have to keep your job for the rest of your life here because you have to know what went on 5 years ago and 10 yeaY"s ahead. Mady: Well that's why we have staff. That's why we have meeting Minutes that are kept forever so that people, because I've only been here 5 years. Some of these people have been here a few months but as long as we have people here and have some history, you'll have a flow and you'll have knowledge. That's why you keep it written do~~n so you can look back and that's why we have a comprehensive plan that's, well I didn't bring mine tonight but it's a book thicker than this that you can look at individual portions of the City and see what the ideas were when the plan was developed and what we're going to try to be doing. It tries to give you some cohesive thought process tc getting the City developed yet maintaining at least somewhat the rural flavor of this community. Carolyn Barensky: Who's going to maintain these trails? ~ Mady: The City would. Carolyn Barensky: P 10vJ the snow? Mady: We're not talking about plowing the snow in all situations. For the last 3 years, we want to have some of those remain open for cross country skiing or snowmobiling. Carolyn Barensky: Snowmobiling? Mady: Yes. In some areas. Lash: Right now the City's in the process of writing the comprehensive plan for the next 10 years and there's going to be public hearings this summer so if you have feelings in the direction that you'd like to see these things go, the public is invited to these and you really should think seriously about providing your input into that. That's your right as a citizen. Schy"oers: One thing that is happening with trails right now is that they are becoming very popular. People want them but they don't want to pay for them and they want to use them for a variety of reasons so what you need to do is come up with a multi-purpose trail that can be used for a number of things and figure out a way to pay for it. That's what we're going to be discussing and looking at doing with the revision of the comprehensive trail plan. Mady: Okay, should we move on then with the implementation item? ,-... Sietsema: My recommendation on the implementation was to postpone any ",.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22, 1990 - Page 24 discussion until after the joint meeting tomorrow night. Mady: Okay, was there any items that anybody wanted to bring up tonight prior to? Carolyn Barensky: What's the joint meeting tomorrow night? Sietsema: There's a Park and Recreation Commission and City Council joint meeting. Kind of a meeting to touch base with each other and figure out what goals are and that everybody's on the same track. Carolyn Barensky: Do you know what time that is? Sietsema: 7:30. Mady: It's in the new conference room courtyard. All meetings are open to the public. It won't have a formal agenda type of thing; Sietsema: It's more of a work session. Mady: It's a work session. Ideas flowing back and forth. Do you need a motion to table? Sietsema: No. ~ UPDATE ON CARRICO PROPERTY. Carolyn Barensky: about tl"ails? Before you go on could I ask just a couple questions ~1ady: Sure. Carolyn Barensky: Who decides where trails go and when they're built? I mean from observing just the last few months, basically it looks like when a road is improved, let's put a trail on. Mady: That's what we try to do typically because that's the cheapest time to do it. Carolyn Barensky: on? Okay. How do you decide which side of the road they go Sietsema: A lot of it depends on the topography. Schroers: And how it's going to connect into other parts of the trails and where the majority of the people are coming from that are going to use it. There's just a large number of factors that are taken into consideration. Carolyn Barensky: And what do you do about easement rights? Mady: We always try to do it where we already have easements or we already have a roadway easement. Otherwise we have to buy them. ,... Schroers: And we try to gain easements from developers? We require it. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 22, 1990 - Page 25 Carolyn Barensky: Where you have to buy land, where is that money coming from? I just sat here and heard how Park and Rec doesn't have money to develop. t-1ady: We don't. Carolyn Barensky: Where are you getting money to buy this land? Mady: Every time a home gets built in the city of Chanhassen, a piece of property gets developed, there's a park fee and a trail fee that gets charged. Well usually there is. Sometimes they get forgiven or credited like we did with this guy. He only has to pay 50% and there are reasons to do that. But typically it's $165.00 per single family home that's built for trails and $500.00? Sietsema: $400.00 an acre for industrial. Oh, for trails. Mady: For trails it's $500.00 for the park fee per home. Then there are different amounts for if it's an industrial plant going up or apartment buildings. The fees are different but typically it's $500.00 for a house and $165.00 for a house for trail and park. ".... Carolyn Barensky: that. . . And what's the Board's philosophy on mature trees Mady: The trees come first. Carolyn Barensky: Where do you go with the path? Mady: You go around it. Carolyn Barensky: street? Do you go closer to the house or do you go towards the Mady: Whichever way has to be done. Schroers: Whatever makes the most sense and is the most feasible. Sietsema: Do you live on Audubon Road? Carolyn Barensky: Yes I do. Sietsema: Okay. Typically what we do is we try to stay within the road right-of-way so if we have to meander around the trees. It may be necessary then to go, put the trail right up against the road rather than to take the trees out. I don't know of any instance where we've taken the trees out because the trail had to go through. 1"""'. Carolyn Barensky: trees on my land. . ..If Audubon Road is approved, I have a lot of mature "...., Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22, 1990 - Page 26 Sietsema: And they wouldn't go if the road was in without the trail? Carolyn Barensky: I'm not sure. Sietsema: I think that they would. Carolyn Barensky: They're all on my land. They're not on the easement. Schroers: I can give you a prime example. We built the trail along the Carver Beach Road and there was one big mature cottonwood tree that all the residents came in and voiced a concern and there was concerns both for and against the tree. Some people felt we should take the tree out because we shouldn't have a corner there because people are going to come down the hill, miss the corner and run into the tree. Other people it was the only mature tree in their front yard and they didn't want to lose it. We looked at the situation. We decided to build the trail around the tree. It happens to be right across from my house and that tree didn't matter to me other than the fact that I hate to lose a mature tree anywhere that we have to but I've gone up and down the block. Talked to all the residents. Everybody's totally happy vJith the trail. The tree is not hurt and the tree hasn't hurt anyone and it's come out just fine. People are real apprehensive and )-eal concerned about new things but when they see the finished product, a lot of times they're pretty satisfied with it. .!""" Mady: Most of the time those sidewalks and trails, they're actuall)/ sited on the property. On a piece of, a drawing up here it may look like it's going to go straight through but usually the engineers go out there and they literally do it foot by foot. Whatever makes the best sense. A number of times they'll do it with the resident of that particular property right there. Schroers: Especially right now with the environment in such focus that there's particular attention being paid to mature trees and wetlands. Resident: In the discussions tomorrow night, will the parkland that's on the north side of the third phase of Lake Susan Hills West, will that be discussed tomorrow night? Sietsema: No. Mady: Probably not. Robinson: This is a total city trail plan issue that will be discussed tomorrow night. Resident: It's just the trails then? Mady: Well it's anything that comes up at the meeting because it's a work session but the ideas on the agenda are to talk about how do we go about getting, building this trail. You know we've got a huge trail plan and nOvJ it's how can we, how do we build it over the next 20 years. It's kind of a ~ pie in the sky type of meeting. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 22, 1990 - Page 27 Lash: If you have a concern about a specific park though why don't you make sure and let Lori know that so when that is on our agenda you'll be notified. Mady: Or it can be put on our agenda. Sietsema: Put YOU1" phone number down and I can give you a call. Mady: I mean if you have a concern she can put it on our agenda so we discuss it. That's one of the ways we have items on the discussion is somebody has to take the step forward to say there's a problem or something needs to be looked_at so we can look at it. Thanks for all your help tonight and if you haven't signed the sheet, please do so. UPDATE ON CARRICO PROPERTY. Sietsema: We got it. Mady: Did we? Now has Carrico's option run out? ,.... Sietsema: Yes. We have entered into an option agreement with the owner of the property who happens to be the President of the Franklin State Bank. The bank foreclosed on the property and he purchased it from the bank so he is the legal owner of the property. We've entered into an option agreement. Not an actual purchase agreement so that we legally have first option on the property and he can't sell it to anybody else without giving us that first option. The agreed upon price is 5145,000.00 and we will be planning to hold public hearings in June to make sure that the people in the area want us to purchaes it and then we can enter into the purchase agreement any time after that and go into closing. Mady: Could we send out a letter to the people who have been here? Sietsema: I have contacted a number of them and the word is out. Mady: Because I want to make sure they know already that this is happening. I don't want them to have to ~ait until June. That's another month. I mean they've complained enough that... Sietsema: They had given me a list of people that wanted to be kept updated on the project and I've given them all calls. Mady: That's okay. I just wanted to make sure they're informed before it shows up in the paper. Lash: Are ~~e glad we didn't jump to Carrico's tune or condemn it and end up having to pay 2 or 3 times that? Robinson: Procrastination pays. That's a good job Lori. I'm sure you hussled that through. ,..... E1-hart: Yeah, that's wonderful Lor i. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,... ,May 22, 1990 - Page 28 Sietsema: No action is necessary. And what I thought was kind of comical is that right after the last time we discussed this, we had talked about acquiring the land adjacent to and the guy wants $300,000.00 for .3 1/2 acres. Mady: The guy's no dummy. He saw the going rate and he... Can't blame him for that. UPDATE ON FISH MANAGEMENT ON CHANHASSEN LAKES. Mady: Todd, it looks great. Hoffman: Again, I just an informational item. If you have any specific questions that you would like me to take back to Duane Shodeen or anybody else at the DNR. Mady: One thing, could you send this, something like this to the papers so they could, that "Jay it'd be nice if this information went out to the general public. I know a number of my neighbors would like to know it. I'm sure that Dave Peterson and Chris Burns and whoever does the weekly news, sometimes has a need for space and there's nothing timely about this so it could in anytime in the next two months and still provide some information to the City. ~ Schroers: I would like to know the location and feeding time of the .. .Walleye in the city of Chanhassen. Sietsema: That's classified information. Mady: What you need to do Larry is go out with the DNR when they're netting and find out what they've got. Schroers: Hey those guys, they come to our parks and they are very tight lipped. They don't even talk to us. They just come in. They go out and they dump their fish and they leave. Lash: Lori, I just think for the record and for our Minutes we should get these people's names and addresses who were making these comments just so City Council knows. Mady: I think all of them signed up. Sietsema: It will be in the Minutes. Lash: Oh, it will be in the Minutes? Sietsema: She lists everybody that's on the sign up sheet. Lash: Okay' . ,..... DISCUSSION OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. Sietsema: This is just in there to remind you that there has been " Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 22, 1990 - Page 29 scheduled a Joint meeting with the City Council. You should bring any items that you may have that you want to talk about with the Council to that meeting. I don't know if you wanted to discuss some of those items here tonight or if you just wanted to come with your own. t1ady: don't going thing I think it'd be best if we just waited until tomorrow night so we necessarily take a lot of time to rehash things. The Council's not to be here to benefit from any discussion anyway so I think the best would be to wait until tomorrow night. Robinson: Well one of the things on the agenda that maybe we could get a feel on because the time is always so valuable it seems like when we're with the City Council, and that's the chairing procedures and techniques. Erhart: Now what's going on there? Robinson: We were kind of split on that it seemed like and it's always brought up a year ago. ,.... Sietsema: It's not the rotating chair. It was I think that Mayor Chmiel wanted to give, since we do rotate the chair and it is a new experience for some people, to give them some ideas on techniques on how to manage an audience I believe. He had requested that it be put on and I believe that's where he was coming from. Schroers: I hope it is because otherwise when this thing keeps coming up all the time, it seems kind of silly. Erhart: It's not about the rotating chair I don't think. Robinson: Oh, I thought it was again and I thought... Schroers: Yeah, that's what I thought too. Sietsema: It's more procedures. I don't know if he'll go over Robert's Rules of Order or it's just some helpful hints I think on how to manage a big crowd. Robinson: Good. Schroers: We could all use that. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: Mady: I have one. Does anyone else have anything? Schroers: I just want to commend Todd, Lori and all of us who had anything to do with the fishing pier. I was down there on it tonight. Beautiful. People are going to really enjoy it. It's in an ideal location. The end of the pier is just at the drop off in the lake where it should lend itself to be a good area to fish and we did good on that one. ",.... ".... Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 22, 1990 - Page 30 Mady: Say Todd, \~ould you ask the DNR to tie up a 5 pound Northern there with Jan's name on it. Lash: Yeah, I want to catch it in the fishing contest. Call me a broken record but what'd you find out about the playground equipment up there at Lake Ann? Sietsema: it's in or If it's in yet? anything yet. I haven't heard anything. I haven't heard if Lash: It hasn't been delivered yet? Sietsema: To tell you the truth, I didn't even check. Lash: Could you check on that? Sietsema: Yeah, I will. I'll make a note. Schroers: There was a telephone or NSP truck up there tonight. Is some work being done on that shelter right now? Sietsema: He's checking probably a break in the line again from construction on the phone line down to the beach. ~ Mady: The item I had. There was an article in the paper, I don't remembe, which paper it was now, conce,ning the historical significance of the Bandime,e Homestead. I just wanted to have an update. Is there an update? Sietsema: I read the article too. t1ady: I saw it. It was the first I heard of anything. Sietsema: I don't know anything more about it than you do. I know that the,e is a resident that lives down there that feels that the o,iginal buildings should be preserved. I question whether it's worth it. The out buildings are ve,y, I wouldn't walk in either one of them for fear the roof would fall on my head and the fixtures have all been ripped out of there. The cupboards have been ,ipped out. Erhart: There's nothing unique about it. There are old homes like that allover the place. Maybe you should put mine on a historical registe,. Schroers: The only thing that's historical about it is where it's sitting. Sietsema: Yours would be something to preserve. This one has been gutted. Erhart: It's not unique is what I'm saying. Lash: Is she saying preserved on the site or like moved somewhere? Pemrick: No, she wanted. I can talk about this. It's my neighbor and she ~ called me on it and Jill was real concerned because she said Chanhassen has so few historic buildings. You know we've got the one right in Town Square Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ ~ May 22, 1990 - Page 31 or whatever and that's about it for now and she went and did research and called the Historical Society and she was reading me all these fascinating facts, which were really interesting from the Bandimere's past you know. When it was first homesteaded and what not and it was very interesting. I think we need to give her and interested citizens the benefit of having the Historical Society look at it and just check it. Sietsema: Right and I don't think that that's anything that couldn't be done. Pem,"ick: But as far as uniqueness goes, I don't think there's anything really unique. Erhart: Is she saying keep it there or move it? Pemrick: No, no. She wants to keep it there and maybe make some kind of meeting room or have classes there. Mady: We'll find out. Pemrick: But I think we need to look at it and make sure that the Historical Society does get some input into it. "...... Lash: Do you think that one of her motivations is to not have the park developed? Pernrick: No. Mady: That's the picnic area we're talking about because it's so wooded right there. Andrews: That house is in terrible condition. Pemrick: She's just real concerned about an apparent lack of concern in conserving old buildings in Chanhassen. Schroers: I can tell you one thing that that can be something that can really come back to haunt you. From experience I know that we have some histot-ical sites and when you have historical sites, people focus on them and they want them refurbished and put back into a condition where they're suitable for public viewing ~nd all that stuff. The costs with redoing an historical site is astronomical. Erhart: Talk to me, I know. t1ady: depot. Well the City has right now, I think we still own the old railroad The Natural Green property on TH 5. Sietsema: We own the depot, not the property. ,..., Mady: Yeah, the depot. If anyone's gotten close to that thing, it's going to take a lot of work to get it to the semblence of, it looks fairly nice from TH 5. You get up close to it and you realize how much dry rot's in JI'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 22, 1990 - Page 32 the building. Pemrick: And I made the comment about the money involved in something like this and the comment back to me was, well with all the money Chanhassen seems to have with what they're doing downtown, there should be plenty to take ca.e of... Mady: It depends on who's money you'.e talking about. Pemr ick: I'm just relaying what was said to me. Resident: .. .you're right, it will cost probably $100,000.00 or more thousand dolla.s to .esto.e it at least and that would just be semi- restoring it. I think what you need to look at is the property that is p.ivately owned in the City of Chanhassen and t.y to help them .etain thei. historical status. Mady: Maybe what we need to do, what Eden Prairie's done and they have a Histo.ical Commission. They have a separate body that just does that. Erhart: That would be good. Jill might be interested in that. Mady: S.ing it up tomo..ow night. "".... Resident:. . . if I could give you my phone number, I would love to have you. neighbo.'s phone numbe. because the County Histo.ical Society has recommended to me that Chanhassen do that and he, the director at the County Historical Society has said he would provide some help if you'.e interested. Pemrick: oh I now Jill would be very inte.ested. Mady: I guess I'm not in favo. of too many commissions and meetings always but that might be something that's important. You can put it on your notes for tomorrow night. Resident: How did you get the railroad depot did you say? Mady: oh geez, I don't remembe. how we did that but that was a couple years ago. Sietsema: Somebody bought it. Mady: It was the old Council. Resident: You mean you own the property? Mady: No, we own the building. The building itself. Sietsema: We just own the st.ucture and the thought was that we'd put it somewhere down... ,.... Resident: In other words you have to move it? Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 22, 1990 - Page 33 Mady: At some point in time we'll have to move it. Resident: Be aware, the Historical Register, that if you move a building it's no longer on the Historical Register. Sietsema: This has already been moved once. Mady: At least twice. When we looked at that one, at that same time we were looking at the old Merry-Go-Round structure from Excelsior when it was out in Victoria before they put in the golf course. We looked at that real seriously and we just tried to figure out we'd make that work and we just couldn't. It was in pretty rough shape boy. We looked good and hard at that and the Council looked at it too and it just couldn't. Schroers: About all you could have done with that is use it as a blueprint and build another one. Mady: If they're brought up we look at them but boy, I think we probably need a body that has some interest in it that knows what they're looking at and has some direction from the staff. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: .",.... Hoffman: I have one addition. Lori brought it up at the last meeting. There was some question about the budget report on all the park and recreation programs that we do and specifically what information would you like? Would you like it from the past, from the 1990 calendar year from the past 6 months? Is there any further direction on that? Andrews: What I was wondering were what were the fees that are charged for the various fees for service things that we provide in the Park and Rec. Sietsema: You want to know also if we're making money on anything. Andrews: I'll be able to figure that out from revenues and expenses but I just wanted to know what we're charging and for my own information I'd like to take a look at if we're swamped with demand and we're charging a low fee, why not raise it. Sietsema: Because it's pretty much across the board with a few exceptions that are loser, they're break even. Most of the programs are break even. Playground costs us money. We make a little money on softball. Andrews: There are different ways to make profit so I know that in the softball area particularly, we have a tremendous demand on our facilities and we're going to have further demands that require us to spend money to improve fields and light fields and provide various improvements that I think those improvements should be paid for by an increase in the fees. ,.... Mady: It might be an item for tomorrow night. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,.... ., t'1a/ 22, 1990 ~ Page 34 Andrews: I don't think tomorrow night would be appropriate for that. I need the information to look at before r... Mad/: Oka/, I just sa/ every time you raise fees you have a tendency to... The tape ran out at this point in the meeting. A motion was made and the meeting was adjourned. Prepared by Nann Opheim JII""'- ~