Loading...
PRC 1990 08 21 ~ CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 1990 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Jan Lash, Curt Robinson, Jim Andrews, Dawne Erhart, Wendy Pemrick and Larry Schroers STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor; Jerry Ruegemer, Program Specialist and Mark Koegler, Consulant APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Schroers moved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June 26, 1990 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. TRAIL SEGMENT CONNECTING SADDLEBROOK AND BUTTE COURT TO MEADOW GREEN PARK. Public Present: .................N.?I!J..f?............. Ad<;;!re~.gs Steven and Polly Gammaun 930 Butte Court ,..... Hoffman: This was reviewed briefly by the City Council after a petition from residents of Saddlebrook was presented to the City Council requesting that that trail segment which is identified there, be completed so those folks can have access which is identified and paved down that short segment of trail easement. Down into the new triangle section of Meadow Green Park and then eventually down into the play areas of the park. As stated in the report there, I did go on site and visit as many of the neighbors which are adjacent to the trail as possible. I talked to two personally and they were not opposed to the trail. I have since found out that the other two are not opposed to the trail either which are directly adjacent to it. The folks there at lot, as indicated Lot 16 on Butte Court did stop back into my office and discuss some concerns about safety of children and their t.houghts about the pond. The depths of the pond and running this trail down along side that close to that retention pond. Those types of issues so basically at this time I'd like to open the meeting up to comment by persons in the audience. Get their reaction and then again see what the Commissioners think about this issue. Mady: Is there any residents here for this item tonight? Okay, I guess we'll just open it for commission discussion then. Anybody got any thoughts? Lash: I have a couple of questions. Just to get my bearings here a little bit Todd. Now Outlot A as shown on here, that's where the holding pond is right? Hoffman: The holding pond is the black line which goes over into Powers Blvd. in the back of the lots along Butte Court. The thin line. Outlot A is the new strip of parkland which is added with the Saddlebrook development. Connects right down into the ballfields there in Meadow Green Par k. r--. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 2 ".... Mady: Todd, are we cutting the weeds there in the outlot now? Hoffman: Outlot A, yeah. That has become. It's active. Mady: That's flat now? Hoffman: It's flat and maintained as part of the active portion of Meadow Green Park. Erhart: Todd do we know what the price of constructing this trail will be? I see you have the funds that we've collected as $30,000.00 so far but do we know what costs for construction would be? Hoffman: In consulting with the engineering department, again this estimate included clearing and grubbing and subgrade prep which they included $400.00 and which would be minimal in this case. They included the reseeding of $280.00. If we take those two figures off the total and the total would be somewhere around $2,800.00 to complete this segment including Class V gravel for the base and then the bituminous surface. Erhart: Okay, and does it have to bituminous at this point? Hoffman: It does not have to be. I'm not sure it would be desireable to put in crushed rock and leave it at that point. Andrews: There's no sidewalks in that neighborhood in there? ".... Hoffman: Sidewalks? In all of Saddlebrook there are some sidewalks in Saddlebrook yes but not this piece. Andrews: Would it be connecting sidewalk to sidewalk here? Hoffman: No. Robinson: $2,800.00 did you say? Hoffman: $2,800.00. Robinson: How many feet is that do you know? Hoffman: 400 feet. Robinson: Sounds cheaper than what I thought it would be. Hoffman: The Class V is $738.00. Rock, or bituminous is $714.00 and the bituminous material would be $468.00. And that's the cost of material and that would be installed with the regular public works crews as they complete other asphalting projects throughout the project. Erhart: That's why the cost is down? Hoffman: Down, sure. Normally the cost which we deal with with installing asphalt trail would include the cost of installation or labor. "". Robinson: I see. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 3 ".... Mady: Any other discussion? A motion's in order. Schroers: I'll move that we recommend to complete this project. Erhart: I'll second. Schroers moved, Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to complete the trail segment connecting Saddlebrook and Butte Court to Meadow Green Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW VACATION OF LAKE LUCY ROAD. Public Present: .................N..!;\l.m..~_...................._ .. ............PJ..9..9.I~..l?l?....._... Barb Peshek Clarence Schmidt Aadnu & Kari Eliassen Glenda Hoo 6480 White Dove Drive 6450 White Dove Drive 6460 White Dove Drive 6470 white Dove Drive Hoffman: This has basically come about, it's a portion of old Lake Lucy Road as indicated on the map there. Lot 6 of White Trail Ridge Court. That owner I believe wants to build a garage or an out building or something of that nature. Is that the reason why? That's what I heard. If somebody has different information, we can certainly. ,.... Resident: I think he wants it to be a lot for his home. It's not a big enough lot. Hoffman: Lot 6 he does not. Resident: Yeah, he kind of squeezed in Lot 6. It was a pond lot... I don't know how they approved it because it wasn't big enough for a home and that's why he wants to take. Hoffman: Currently there's no home there? Okay. Clears up that portion of it so the City Council at the July 23rd meeting approved this vacation with two conditions. One of those conditions was provision of any trail easement as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission. Do you have the maps in front of you, it shows that segment which we would be taking the trail easement at this time. It would just be the cross hatched area in Lot 6 of White Tail Ridge. The whole question in area is labeled there, would be the entire segment of old Lake Lucy Road which really as you address this one small segment, you look down into the future of what that would mean in the eventual future of the remainder of old Lake Lucy Road being vacated. The question at hand is really then if we just want to retain a trail easement along the one portion of Lake Lucy Road which is being vacated. If that is desireable at this time. Mady: Todd, so we get this straight. All we're talking about for vacating is the cross hatched area? ;--.. Hoffman: Correct. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 4 ~ Mady: Now, what about the rest of Lake Lucy Road? I would guess Lots 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 on Lake Lucy Road, which is part of Lake Lucy Highlands, those all front on Lake Lucy Road or do they front onto White Dove Drive? Resident: We front on White Dove Drive. Mady: So you don't need. Resident: We're in Pheasant Hills. Mady: So you're part of Pheasant Hills? Then Lake Lucy Highlands, no one fronts onto the right-of-way there? Resident: No. The person behind us.. .wetland. Lash: Oh really? That road isn't really there? Resident: No. We're there now. Mady: It used to be there. Resident: But it's been graded as part of... Resident: What they did is they stripped all of the blacktop off...and just let the weeds grow. ,""" Resident: Yeah, we've been maintaining it for... Resident: For a year. Resident: We don't want no trail there. Robinson: So is the next thing for people to come in and want that same piece of land on Lots 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1? And would we do that? I don't understand why we're taking one piece at a time now simply because the lot number 6 owner asked for it. Hoffman: Normally the vacation of the remainder of the old Lake Lucy Road would not normally be pushed forth by the City. It would be something coming from those homeowners or if the City was interested in completing some sort of project in that area and wanted it. Robinson: I see. If we do vacate this piece on Lot 6, would his tax base change accordingly? Hoffman: Correct, yes. Then it goes back onto the tax rolls and that portion has been, as stated earlier, has been approved for vacation at the past City Council meeting and just one of the conditions of approval was that, take it to the Park and Recreation Commission to look at any trail easement which would be desireable. Lash: Who owns this where the road used to be? ~, Hoffman: The City. Pa,k and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 5 ,..... Lash: The city owns that? Sch,oe,s: Well if we own it, why do we have to get an easement? Hoffman: We',e vacating it back. We',e deeding it back to the owner of Lot 6. Mady: All we',e t,ying to do is p,otect ou, oppo,tunity. Resident: We sta,ted this a long time ago, 3 yea,s ago and then they got ,eal busy he,e and they d,opped it. Sch,oe,s: In ou, ove,all t,ail plan, is this little section at all significant? Hoffman: As stated in my ,epo,t, this section is somewhat significant to people to the west of he,e as the pa,k is developed in that a,ea. It's not designated on the ove,all t,ail plan as a segment. Sch,oe,s: Is it being used by anyone fo, anything ,ight now? Resident: No. It's kind of ,ough te"ain actually. "..... Resident: What it is, is we, did you get the lette, 0, copy of the lette, that we sent...lt's ou, 5 homes, ou, back ya,ds basically is what it is. It's ,eal steep.. .and all it would be is access fo, the 5 homes that...a t,ail so that those 5 homeowne,s can get to the main pa,k if the,e's a pa,k. . . Robinson: How do you feel about this? Resident: That's why we',e all he,e. We',e all homeowne,s and we don't want it. Resident: No we don't. .,,-... Resident: I've lived he,e fo, many yea,s but I see whe,e all the t,ails a,e and I see how they a,e acco,ding to the homes and usually the,e's some so,t of, the back of the home is down 0, it's along the side which we',e 3 sto,ies up plus there's anothe, about 10 feet d,op so it's totally in view of ou, homes and then the,e's all woods. The,e's like a wooded line behind...so there's going to be a lot of p,oblems with snowmobiling, kids going back there because it is p,ivate. And it's just like a 500 st,ip of land. You know feet. I feel that if they want to walk to the park, they can just walk through he,e 0, walk up and down the st,eet 0, whatever 0, even if they walked through the back of ou, yard I guess that wouldn't be the end of the world but a lot of us have small child,en. We have swing sets back the,e. When our kids, ou, 3 and 4 year olds go back in the back ya,d I can kind of watch from the deck but I'm not conce,ned that somebody's going to be cruising by and snatching up one of my kids. So the,e's secu,ity conce,ns and we bought that p,ope,ty p,ima,ily because it was a very private and we checked with the city. We knew that it was going to be vacated. That Lake Lucy Road wouldn't be the,e. That the,e was not a trail to be planned th,ough the,e and then as we caught wind of all this Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 6 ;If11"" happening, we might be a little late on this now but we didn't find out until. Well we found out the man who was pushing for the vacation of his piece of property and kind of bringing all this up was telling each of us homeowners a different story about what each of us thought. Everybody else thinks it's okay and we hadn't even talked to eac~ other. Resident: Then all of a sudden we talked to each other and find out, because" we're all friends, that we didn't say this to him so he was letting it all on that we all thought this was find. It was great. He came right out and told my husband...wants to make the lot sellable and especially saying that there might be a trail will make the lot sellable... Mady: You're saying that Lot 6 is not sellable? It's as big as Lot 5, it's just simply a flag lot. We have many of them in the city. Resident: I guess the way it's situated, it has to curve...so they can't get a garage on it. Mady: It's a flag lot. We have those allover the city so I find it hard to believe it's not sellable. I guess that's not an issue though for us. Resident: We don't really care if he builds a house there. I mean that's find, if it is sellable lot but we don't want a trail easement or a trail being put in there, being pushed through for that single reason to make it a more desireable... "'" Mady: I don't see that as being a question for us. Whether he wants a trail there because it makes his house more sellable has no bearing on it okay? Unless somebody else feels it does. I don't see how it could ever be a bearing. All we have to do as a commission though is make sure we protect the future development of the city. That's the question I have to look at. I don't foresee us building a trail here but there's a very real concern that I have that because Lake Lucy Highlands, all this area is not in it's final development. I mean 30 years from now it's going to look different than it does today. These 5 acre lots aren't going to be 5 acre lots 5 years from or 20 years. Resident: I know the gentleman behind us with 7 acres with 3 buildable lots and the rest of them have 2 buildable and so on like that. They don't have, they can't completely develop. They have so many wetlands. It actually is swamp back there so I know how many buildable lots. They have told us...and he doesn't want the land developed behind us but we feel we're willing to go on the tax roll and keep doind what we've been doing and take care of the land. But for myself, if there's a trail easement there, I don't care to pay taxes on the rest of the. Lash: Is this something that if the city owns it would we be, if we wanted to, I mean this is just kind of hypothetical but could they buy it from us? Mady: No we just simply, we own it already. We just vacate it. They just get it. Erhart: Can we sell extensions on it? JI"'- Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 7 ,... Mady: I guess that's usually not how it works. There's no reason for them to want to buy it from us. A need to buy it and the City has no need to have the land because there's never going to be a road through there. That's why they're vacating it. All we're looking at here is, there's two questions. Does the City maintain an easement for their utilities which the engineering department says we have to. We need that and do we need to maintain an easement to protect the future interests of possibly needing a trail there at some point in time. That's the only two questions. Is 20 years, 30 years from now when the City is completely into 15,000 square foot lots, or 50 years, whenever that becomes, is this going to be something we might need. That's really what the question is. Chanhassen's not going to be a 10,000-15,000 person community 50 years from now. Resident: I've lived here for many years and I've lived in...we pay minimal taxes and had a nice park and we're paying mucho taxes in this neighborhood and we don't have parks so I know you're looking at 30 years down the road but we're kind of looking just for now for us because we don't have anything else. This is all we have is our lots and privacy... Mady: Okay, I don't think the question here is simply, I don't foresee us building a trail there in the next 20 years. Schroers: If we just choose to have an easement there, it's not really going to change the area at all. It's going to look the same. In order to build a trail we have to acquire an easement along all the rest of it and get it all connected and that could take forever. ~ Resident: This is our area. We're it. This is all that has to be connected is these 5 lots...so the question is why does there even have to be an easement only if that's 5 households anyway? Mady: Simply because you 5 households are here today. 5 years from now you may not live there. The 5 people who live there 5 years from now may want something else. We have to look at the whole picture. The whole scheme of things and protect it. Resident: You guys can come over to our homes 'you could see that nobody would want a trail behind those lots. Nobody would because it's right back there and all you've got to do is walk out and walk out into the property you own now. ,..... Mady: We don't know that. You see you're saying it's an absolute but 30 years from now it might not be an absolute. Okay? So all we're simply doing is protecting the interest of the city. That's what I'm looking at is protecting the future opportunities of the city without having, because if that becomes a need for whatever reason, then we have to go out and buy it. Then we have the same problems we had trying to get a park for Pheasant Hills. You know back ~hen your development came in, this commission, the City Council should have put a park there but they didn't. That was 8 years ago, whatever. Now we're paying $140,000.00 to put a park in. We shouldn't have had to pay anything for that. And that was only probably what, 8-10 years ago? So now we're looking at something here, we have the same type of thing. It's not the magnitude of it but we've still got to try and protect those interests and that's kind of what we're here for to make sure that we don't make a mistake today that's going to cost us Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 8 I"'" money 20 years down the road. And we can do something here that's not going to affect anybody. It really doesn't. This easement because to put a trail in there, this commission's going to have to look at it. The Council's going to have to vote on it. Approve the funds and I don't see that happening because the need doesn't exist today. But we have to look at what the need may be 30 years down the road, 40 years down the road, 50 years down the road and those needs may be there so we're not causing a problem by taking the easement now. Resident: Maybe it would help us to understand how the whole process works. We just listened to that one you just talked about a minute ago... checked with all the homeowners and there was only 1 that had an issue. Let's say it is 20 years from now. Let's say that there's we 5 are there or 5 new families like us that don't want a trail there. The easement's there. What would the chances and I know you can't look in a crystal ball but I mean if the 5 homeowners who it immediately affects in their backyard, would that be something that would gO through? Mady: You can't say for absolute. Resident: I know but you guys have experienced that. ,-. Mady: What has happened in recent history, no it wouldn't go through. Okay, but I can't guarantee anything. But as it works right now, if it was these basically 6 homeowners here and the one guy wanted it and the other 5 didn't, it probably wouldn't happen. But from my point of view, what I'm looking at is protecting 25-30 years down the road that 5 say yes and 1 says no, well then maybe we have something that we need to do. That's all. Resident: There's an easement through there already? There's gas through there and sewer through there. Lash: So we own it already. Hoffman: We own it already and there is a utility easement running. Mady: It's the same strip of land. Lash: So if we decided we wanted to do it, we wouldn't have to pay anything for it later anyway? Mady: Right. The question to us is, do we want to maintain that easement or do we want to just give it up? Hoffman: And all we're talking about tonight is the one small segment across this. Resident: ...easement because I do eventually want to get on the tax rolls because eventually we're going to pay. If you keep an easement, because I know the guy behind us doesn't want it because he's got 7 acres that he's paying taxes on but I know that if the city keeps...taxes are high for where we are. We would get the 60 foot road or whatever and then we would...or whatever because I know eventually they're going to want to do that and that's I know what... ".... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 9 ,... Lash: So really the only easement you're talking about is on this little shaded block so it's not affecting their homes at all? Hoffman: No, not at this time but. Mady: But it will. Hoffman: Why don't we run down commission comment just briefly on this item and move for a motion? Any other comments? Erhart: I'll just say that I did visit the area tonight and I know what you're talking about and I know how steep it is. Pemrick: You mentioned earlier you were willing to keep a foot path. That wouldn't cause you any problems with these other lots connecting at some point to use it? Resident: Not for a foot path but I mean if a kid wants to run through the yard, there isn't anybody that's going to say. Resident: The grading would be a problem for a foot path even because you'd really have to level off the lot. It's also very wet back there... RealI y wet. Resident: There's a lot of wildlife back there and over the years what's been changing...and we know the people...that's family land... J1I'" Pemrick: I can appreciate all the comments and I did read the letter from the neighborhood and they were all valid concerns. That's why I said, just to keep it an informal, run across if you want I think is generous and I think that's fine. That's all I have to say. Robinson: If we're just talking about vacating that one piece, I guess I would have to go along with that. Andrews: If I could clarify, this does not fit into our current comprehensive trail plan, is that correct? This piece of land? Hoffman: The issue which you bring up is the new park which is located just to the east of this area. Andrews: Do we have another east/west connector there on the trail system? Just to the south of there right? Hoffman: On the street on Lake Lucy Road. Andrews: . ..so we don't really need an east/west connection. We'd be very close to an existing one already. Hoffman: Well Lake Lucy bows down quite a bit here and the type of road or the type of traffic which would be on Lake Lucy would be.. .different. There's some accessibility issues there. Larry or Jan? Anything else? ~ Schroers: I just don't see that getting an easement there is really going to have any adverse affect to the neighborhood because my feeling is that Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 10 ,... nothing will be done with it anyway. Hoffman: Again, as I highlighted in the letter, we're not talking about a trail element. We're specifically talking about saving the possibility for sometime in the future and that would be in the City's best interest and the best interest of all the residents now and in the future of the City. Schroers: And it would have to fit into some kind of a trail plan. Some kind of an existing scheme. I mean the other portions of the trail would still have to be acquired and that's just not likely to happen. Resident: What do you mean by that? Schroers: That little section that we're talking about right now does not constitute a trail. That's not a trail. It doesn't go anywhere. It doesn't take you from one point to anywhere else so what we're saying is that you don't have to worry about having a trail going through your yard because in order to do that, we would have to have it going from one point to another point and this would be a little section in the middle. I don't see it happening. Lash: Somewhere I think we're not, we still have some gray areas here. I don't think we're communicating. I think that, are you thinking that we're talking about taking an easement all the way along the old Lake Lucy Road that was through your bacKyard? ,... Resident: No, we understand that right now you're just talking about Lot 6. Lash: Okay. Resident: But as Todd mentioned in the letter, that eventually it would be for consideration to have an easement for all of those lots if they're vacated if that's the route it was supposed to go. So if you vacate one and leave an easement, then the precedent is set that you can vacate we 5 homeowner's lots and the same thing will happen and then... Schroers: But there would have to be a reason for us to want to put a trail in there anyway. It's got to lead you from somewhere. It's got to take residents from the neighborhood to a park or it would have to have some purpose. We don't just put a trail in because it would be a nice place to have a trail. Resident: Well there's eventually going to be someday. I mean I know you're paying a lot of money for that park and it's going to be a little while before it's developed and that's what we're afraid of is 5 years... Mady: Well then that becomes, I guess that becomes a legitimate reason to even maintain the opportunity then. If those homes would benefit... At this point in time we're not talking a construction issue. We're just saying that we have to protect the interests of the City the best we can and those interests go beyond a particular homeowner or 5 homeowners. If we do something today that costs us money down the road that we didn't have to do, then we didn't do a very good job. ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 11 ,.... Schroers: I think Jim explained it best by how he put it in regards to why Pheasant Hills didn't have a park area in the first place and that's what happened. People didn't seize an opportunity when they had one and then when you come back after the fact, it's much more difficult. It costs you 10 or 20 times more and all this is right now is an opportunity to gain an easement so that we have it should we decide that we need it or want it for any reason but it certainly doesn't indicate that we have any plan to do anything with it. Andrews: Jim, I hear everybody saying we have no interest in this and this is probably not going to be a trail. More than likely if the residents are against it, it will never be. The lot is steep. It's wet and then I hear us saying let's keep an easement just in case something changes. Lash: That's what I'm hearing too. I'm getting such a mixed message here. Andrews: I've got 2 questions here. First of all, do we agree it should be vacated and I think we all agree it should be vacated but I think the question is here, do we really want, do we need an easement here and my personal feeling is that we don't need an easement. Hoffman: In the not too near distant future it was a road base. It is a fairly, it would be a fairly nice place for a trail being it was a road. Resident: You've never been back there. You haven't been back there. ,..., Mady: Trails are 8 feet wide at the most. And if you're concerned about wetlands, travel the Chan Pond Park trail. That's a turf trail and there's some fairly steep grades in there. Resident: . ..grade in our backyard is like it'd be, we'd be wide open to whoever was walking back there. There'd be no privacy fence and there'd be no way that we could have any privacy at all back in there. Mady: If you want to see how that works, walk the pond trail okay? Because there are homes now there and they have a fairly steep drop down to the pond. Resident: The trail... Mady: The pond park has existed for a number of years. The trail went in last year as a turf trail. Schroers: And the homes were already there and they're just exactly like you're talking about. They're elevated up on a hill and the people from down below, it's not private. You can look at the back of the person's house if you want to but neighborhood trails don't draw an influx of undesireable people. Resident: .. .woods on the other side and well...kids are in the neighborhood...young kids who we're worried about. And being a nice, it's like a heavy duty woods line.. .between our homes and the trail. You don't know what's going to be happening or who's back there. ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 12 ,.... Schroers: We.ll one thing is that ATV's to my knowledge are not allowed on any city trails and if it is designated as a trail, you can enforce it. I know what you're saying. Resident: I've seen things change real fast here. I've lived here over 15 years so things always make me nervous. Lash: Well I was there too and looked at it and I don't know, maybe I tend to put myself in the other person's position and if I lived there, I'd be real nervous. I would not want it. I wouldn't even want to have to think that someday there'd be a trail going through my backyard. Resident: .. .property value and we've been hurt here and that's what's scaring my husband and I because we really got hurt in Chaparral and we lived there when they built, the City let them build junk that's falling and that's why we moved out. It's falling down now and then now that this trail...winter and hopefully we'll have a good heavy snowfall. Lash: I'm saying I understand what your feelings are. I really do and I agree with Jim Andrews' comments that I don't know, I hear what everybody's saying and it's coming out kind of mixed like well, we'll never put a trail in there anyway so what difference does it make. You shouldn't be worried but then yet we take the easement. That's sending a real mixed message and I'm getting kind of confused where people are standing but I'm feeling like well, if we never figuy'e we'll ever put a trail in there, then I don't really understand what the point is of taking an easement. ,.... Mady: Because the crystal ball simply is always cloudy. If your reasoning was that way Jan, we shouldn't take easements in any part of the city until we were actually ready to do something. Lash: Well I don't know. I guess when it's, I always figure if it's something new going in and you take the easement and the people who are moving in there know you're taking the easement and they know what they're in for, you know that's okay with me but where I run into the problem is where there's somebody that's living there. Mady: What you've got in Curry Farms Park. Lash: They think they know what they bought. Mady: We do that in Curry Farms Park and you voted against the trail and that was in the development contract. Lash: The sidewalk? Mady: Yes. It was in the development contract. There was no surprises there. Lash: Well they said they were surprised. They said they were not informed. Schroers: I don'~ know if it would make it less confusing or not but I think just as, it's more of a matter of policy. When we have something ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting Au~ust 21, 1990 - Page 13 ,... t.hat's available, we just don't pass it up. It doesn't make any sense to do that. Resident: We don't have... Mady: We have lots to say. We're not building a trail. All we're doing is protecting the interest of the city in the future. That's all we're doing here. Andrews: Could we put this to a motion? Resident: How big is the existing utility easement? 6 feet? 8 feet wide? Mady: It's a 20 foot easement. Resident: Utility? Mady: Yeah, it's the same as the utility. 20 foot easement and typical construction of a trail is 8 feet wide. That allows you the flexibility if you have to go around a big tree or if there's a depression over here, you've got to kind of go around it. It just gives you enough flexibility so that you can move it as you need to. That's why you go 20 feet instead of just 8. Lash: And we'll always have the utility easement there? Mady: I would assume so. "",...... Lash: So eventually if we wanted to do something we could do it. Mady: I would guess they'd be the same piece of land. Hoffman: Well, not necessarily because it's less than ideal to take the same 20 feet and then you're starting a trail on top of a utility easement and at some point have to access the utilities and disturb that trail. Koegler: The easement document is probably written also specifically for utility purposes which would not legally allow a trail unless there's a trail easement also. Lash: Okay. Resident: Does that mean it would be a 40 foot easement back there then? 20 plus 20? Hoffman: Correct. Robinson: It's currently how much? Hoffman: Currently 20 for the utility easement. Mady: Right now we own 60 feet for the street. ~ Resident: But Jan like you said, when we bought, the main reason we bought those, we were the first people to build there. .. .we paid because Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 14 ;"" Lake Lucy Road was going out. There was no trail planned for that. Nothing was going to be there and now, I don't know but as a mother of small children that's a concern to me you're right. In 10 years they're not going to be so small anymore but it's not what we bought. It's not what we planned for.. . Resident: ...or possibility that there'd be a trail back there. Schroers: All 5 of you are the homeowners? Resident: We're missing one and he was here at the last meeting. Schroers: And none of you want it? Resident: No. Resident: And we are the 5 on the lot there that's... They're really tight lots but they go straight back to nothing which is why we like it. We're close together but. Resident: They're narrow but we all get along as you can see. I don't think anyone's planned on moving. Andrews: I'd like to make a motion and see if I get a second for it, if that'd be okay? Mady: Okay. "..... Andrews: I'd like to move that we agree with the vacation as proposed by the City Council and that we do not take a trail easement at this time. Lash: I'd second that. Mady: Any further discussion? Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission agrees with the vacation of old Lake Lucy Road and recommends not to require a trail easement at this time. Andrews, Erhart and Lash voted in favor. pemrick, Robinson and Mady were opposed and Schroers abstained so the motion failed. Mady: Another motion then. The opposite I guess. Move to approve the vacation with a trail easement taken on Lot 6, or however that area is designated in the crosshatch. A second? Robinson: Is that the end of your motion? Mady: Yes. Because that's all we're looking at is that little Lot 6. Robinson: Okay, but Todd's recommendation is to pursue continuation of this trail easement along Lake Lucy Road. Hoffman: That would be a future time Curt. " Mady: I'm not party to that. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21,1990 - Page 15 "..... Robinson: Okay. I'd second your motion. Mady: Any other discussion? Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission accept the vacation of old Lake Lucy Road with a 20 foot trail easement in the vacation portion of Lake Lucy Road at Lot 6, Whitetail Ridge Court. Mady and Robinson voted in favor. Andrews, Erhart, Lash and pemrick voted in opposition and Schroers abstained and the motion failed. Andrews: We're defeated again? Mady: We'l"e defeated again. Is there a motion that people will vote for? If not it goes to Council without recommendation I guess. Resident: And it could happen anyway? Mady: Well, the City Council's the one who makes. No matter what we did here wasn't a final decision. The Council's the one that has to make the decision. All we do is make a recommendation. What we do is not hard and fast. It's just 7 people telling the City Council that we looked at this item and we think t.his is what makes sense and that's what we do. We don't do anything that's hard and fast. Everything we do has to be approved by Council . "..... Hoffman: Jim, excuse me. In this case this has been approved by City Council. The written document approving the vacation is just pending being written and Karen would like to complete that tomorrow morning following tonight's action at this meeting so if we could reach some type of agreement this evening that would be most beneficial instead of sending this back to City Council. Andrews: I think we had a misvote. Pemrick: I was misunderstanding what was said. I was in favor of taking the easement but not putting a trail in. So do we want to? Mady: being. Oh? Why don't you voice the motion the way you anticipated it You're talking about my motion which was to. Erhart: No, your's was fine. It was Jim Andrew's motion. Jim, voice your motion again. Andrews: My motion was that we approve the vacation of the land but at this time do not take a trail easement. Do not have an easement which means that we're saying that we are not intending to put a trail in. Is there a second for that? Lash: Second. Erhart: Jan seconded it and I voted with you. Andrews: We've got to redo it. "".... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 16 ,... Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission accept the vacation of old Lake Lucy Road and not require a trail easement. Andrews, Lash, Erhart and Pemrick voted in favor. Mady and Robinson voted in opposition. Schroers abstained and the motion carried. TRAIL SECTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Hoffman: Item number 6, Mark Koegler is present to discuss item 6. Item 7 and item 9. I'll turn it over to Mark at this time. ,.... Koegler: In the June meeting the. commission went through and spoke kind of in generalities about the trail plan and what changes you wanted to see made. Hopefully we've attempted to take a first cut at doing that. The essence of the comments were that there was support for protraying what would be an ultimate trail system for the kind of situation you ran into this evening so you knew in advance where you'd be wanting things but to look at a much more scaled back approach in terms of phasing. what could maybe be accomplished in phases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Whatever. what we brought you tonight is the language of the document which would be a part of the comprehensive plan to review. The dollar side of this will still be coming back to you. We were in a meeting today on a capital improvement program which is part of the comprehensive plan also and which will focus on the trail plan as well as all the other park improvements and that will be coming back to you at a subsequent meeting so I don't have dollars for you tonight. We've got the text of the plan to quickly go through and see if you have comments or if that's the direction you had intended I think when we last spoke in June. I'll go through-it pretty quickly because I'm sure you've had a chance to look at it. The plan does depict an overall trail plan for the City and part of your comments last time were show connection points to.. .and we've added those. That's what those semi dark dots are. Those are in accordance with I think the most recent copies we have on file. The city of Chaska's trail plan and the plan for the city of Eden Prairie so the system is not necessarily dissimilar from what you've seen before. I think there have been some links that have been removed. Again you had directed and probably are not feasible. The break down then on the text comes in looking at a phasing situation and essentially it's one that begins to fill out the existing system that's in effect right now and that is the dark lines on that particular map with the dashed lines being what could be first phase trails. For now we've hypothetically said that maybe that's a 5 year period. 1990-1995. I think we'll quantify that a little bit more when we get into the CIP and have some numbers correspondingly to what kind of expenditures. If they put this together, what funding sources. This particular segment though, probably the biggest question in terms of funding would be the TH 101 loop up to the north. TH 5 segment will be done as part of the TH 5 construction so that is shown as part of this phase. The other segments that are shown on here become more connections so we try to begin to build some continuity around the existing network that's there right now. If you have questions anywhere along the way, yell at me and I'll shut up for a minute and respond. The second phase is built off of the first phase. What this particular exhibit shows is the dark lines which. ..with the existing and the phase 1 trails. It makes an assumption that phase 1 trails have gone in to effect and are actually in place. This is labeled as a 1995 to 2000 time period right now. I would emphasize, at least from a planning perspective those time ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 17 ,.... ,.... frames are not as important as maybe the overall sequencing of when you think those should happen. Either the funding sources or other factors of what you hope to accomplish in the first 5 years. It may take 7 years. It may take 4 ~ears but the important thing is that you have a plan that shows the progression of where you want to move after you've gotten through the first phase. Second phase then builds off of that network that is kind of around the center, the population center at least in Chanhassen. Begins to make some of the connections. TH 5 improvements hopefully occurring during that time period going out towards TH 41 and ultimately to make a connection to the trail segment that's been requested by the residents on Minnewashta Parkway. Beginning to make some linkages to the south in the second phase. The attractiveness there being able to provide some kind of separated movement for Jr. High, High School type kids. Middle school kids that would bike to school or want to go to school for recreational activities. To make a linkage with Chaska system where that occurs down. in that area. phase 3 builds again off of Phase 2. In this particular case we said maybe this is a 10 year period because I think the amount of trail segments is more ambitious than it is in the first two. Again, the same comment on the sequencing. Maybe that starts in 2000. Maybe it actually starts in 2010 but the important thing is to keep in order of the sense of where things are going. Again this assumes phases 1 and 2 have been built along with the existing segments in the dark lines. The dash lines then become the other connected points. Now you'll- notice that the original trail plan, the ultimate if you will, had the nature trails on it. We have not shown that at least to date on this particular system. Primary reason being that the nature trail segments are more the subject of when property develops. Where the bikeway segments are probably more a factor in addition to that, what road transportation improvements may occur. TH 5 being a prime example. Minnewashta Parkway maybe an example next year if that route is rebuilt. That's the time if you're ever going to accomplish some kind of a separation for pedestrian bicycle routes so that nature trails have been shown still as a part of the plan. They're not sequenced to a large...because they're in the southern area of the city which is going to be in a development timeframe much further out than the area north of TH 5. So that is an attempt to respond to the comments that the commission made. The text of the plan I think has been modified in accordance again with some of the comments that you made. Even down to the point where I was looking at the typical section have been modified to indicate that in many areas it will not be an 8 foot trail. It maybe a 5 foot concrete trail. It may be a 6 foot concrete trail. Just depending upon the circumstances. The rural versus more of the urban type of setting. So again the intent is that this will be part of the comprehensive plan. What will be another portion of this will be the capital improvement program which will be assembled within the next couple of weeks. So with that Mr. Chairman I'd certainly entertain any questions that you might have. ,.... Mady: Just thought I'd comment on the existing trail map. I know that there's a number of areas where we do have sidewalks in existence now that aren't showing up on the map. We just need to get a little bit more accurate in what we're presenting. Specific areas are, it's a short sidewalk but there is a trail that exists on Pleasant View Road through, what do you call that? In any event, it's on the north side of Pleasant View Road and I'm not sure if it goes all the way to the park and then it crosses a street and it goes along in front of Bloomberg's small Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 18 "" development but there is a small piece there. On Lake Susan Hills, there are some sidewalks in there and also in Saddlebrook there's some sidewalks. Those are the only ones I could remember. There may be more. Koegler: Lake Susan Hills West? Mady: ...sidewalks. Trails. Koegler: That brings up a good point. The segment that's on the north side of La ke Lucy, and I thi nk that li ne got a 1 it.tle ca.rr ied away on the west side of the lake but that is indicative of the improvement project that was recently approved and is under construction now so we've categorized that as existing. That will be in. Hoffman: Lake Susan. Koegler: Yeah. Did I say something else? Hoffman: Lake Lucy. Koegler: I meant Lake Susan, excuse me. Schroers: That basically just follows that interceptor right? That center line? Koegler: Yes, it does. ,... Lash: In reading through this Mark, I saw a couple of things that I just wanted to point out. On page 5 whey-e you have the one on Kerber. It says the trail consists of a 6 foot wide bituminous pathway along one side of the street and concrete pedestrian walkway along the other side. To me that leads me to think that it's that way all the way along and it's not. Koegler: Yeah, it does terminate. Lash: Right. So I don't know if you think that needs to be clarified or not. Koegler: That's a good point. Lash: I think it's kind of misleading. And then on page 6 where you have the map, the 1990 one, there are ones shown as I'm assuming existing but then there's no description of them. As an example, the one along TH 5 from Lake Ann to Powers and the one along Main Street and the one by Lake Susan. I saw those 3 right away. I don't know if there's others. Do they need to be listed individually in here like you have the others? Koegler: Yeah, they probably should since that's the tone of the others. The TH 5 one, I don't know. I think probably has been under some discussion from the maintenance aspect right now with the city. I don't know if that bne will continue. I would hope that would be replaced by the TH 5 trail when the construction comes through because that one's about 4 feet wide and somewhat overgrown and probably not in the best of condition. ,.... Lash: Okay. I had one other comment in here somewhere. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 19 ~ Schroers: I was on that tonight and half of it's new and half of it's old. The newer part is kind of okay but the older part is really tearing apart. It's really scarey. Lash: On page 12, number 2. Up at the top. They've also listed on the bottom of page 11. I was wondering if this was going to be your final thing it should probably be corrected. Koegler: That's easy to take care of. Lash: Yeah. And then I guess for your phase 1 thing here. One of the ones that's listed is, I don't know. I guess we were working on prioritizing and putting them where we thought were probably our highest aemand area and personally I would not think Tecumseh would be a real high demand area. It's a very quiet street. I walk on it almost daily and I don't know if you're talking about an off street one where you'd have to then go in and have to put it in people's yards but personally I just don't see that as a high on my priority list. I understand your reasoning for wanting it because of Kerber and the trail at Lake Ann. I understand that. Kids walk there but it's just such a quiet street and it will never have any more development there. Koegler: No. That should probably be discussed because the way I personally would envision that is it's nothing more than signage. That this is a route. There would be no pavement markings. No intrusion into the private yards or anything. Just some warning signs so drivers know that they can be on the lookout for bicycles and pedestrians. ""..., Lash: Well something in black and white on paper like that is enough to get people excited if it doesn't say it's just signage. Koegler: That should be clarified. Mady: Then maybe the wording should be in there. Koegler: Yeah. Mady: But what you had said earlier on the pieces that were missing on the existing, in the verbage. I'm wondering if maybe when we start talking about each individual piece in the existing that since this is a plan. A concept plan for the future that by 2 months after this thing gets published it's out of date with this piece anyway. But these may not be, I like to see them on a map as existing but I don't know if I want to see verbage in because the verbage gets out of date real fast. Koegler: To be honest with you, I have a problem too. How many sidewalks do you discuss? Granted sidewalks are an important part of this overall plan but I think what you're really focusing on more is maybe the more people mover kind of routes. Mady: Connectors or even nature trails or something but I have a problem with listing each, because some of these are, like on Pleasant View Road, that's maybe only 2 blocks long. If we keep updating this every 3 to 5 years and keep adding to it, this thing's going to end up being 20 pages ~. long and just in that piece and it's just going to be ridiculous. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 20 ".... Koegler: That's a good point. I think this was a carryover from the last plan but at that time there were only sure, 3 or 4 segments. Mady: When you've got 5 segments and this is kind of your crown jewels, you want to make sure everybody sees them but they're not anymore so maybe we're kind of out of touch with that piece. Koegler: Does anybody on the commission have a problem if we remove that verbage altogether? No? Mady: I guess to me what you need to do is maybe some verbage and I mean it's already there to the extent that we do have trails and here they are on the map and some of these are bituminous. Some of these are, that's it. Otherwise they're out of date right away anyway. Lash: Another question I had. If I look at the whole overall map on page 8, it's so teeny it's hard sometimes to tell exactly which roads you're talking about. Like UP on the top on the north, is that supposed to be Pleasant View that kind of goes up north of Lotus Lake? Koegler: No, that goes through the Near Mountain development. Hoffman: A portion of that road is not even existing yet. ,.... Lash: Oh. No wonder I don't know where it is. Okay, and then it curves and comes down. Then there's kind of a straight shot right on the west side of Lotus Lake. Where is that supposed to be? Koegler: That's Carver Beach Road where you've already got a substantial segment in place. Lash: The one going east/west? Koegler: Yes. Lash: Okay, but how about the one that looks like it's going more north/ south? Koegler: Well that becomes, to a certain degree this represents a desire line to make a connection. And in that particular area, there's a street and I don't have a blow up but it probably in reality will end up jogging around to make that connection due to grade and everything else. Again, that's a segment that in all likelihood is not going to be detached from a roadway but just will be a signed segment. Lash: I guess I'd be interested in, when I look at that I don't see a point for having it be off road but when I look at it on the map, I'm assuming that's what the intention is so if there's a way that we can clarify which ones. If you want to just have a signage where people know, if they get off of the trail or off of a sidewalk and then they can kind of take this street over and they can connect up somewhere but when you look at this whole thing, you can't tell what's what and I think it's confusing. ,... Pa,k and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 21 ".... Koegler: That's a valid c,iticism and I think maybe the way to help get a,ound that is in the final plan, pa,ticula,ly this kind of exhibit would be bette, if it was twice this size. We're w,estling with the const,aints of 8 1/2 x 11 and you do lose all the st,eets and if we go a little bigge" we'd callout those segments which will be proposed at least to be sepa,ated f,om the ,oadway ve,sus pa,t of the ,oadway which may be helpful. Lash: I know it's ha,d to come up with enough codes to cover all the different. E,ha,t: Can we colo, it? Colo, different t,ails? Koegle,: Yeah, in the final, that may be feasible in the final plan depending on p,inting budgets. Mady: Staff, can you do that? Koegle,: We can ce,tainly get a black and white ve,sion now I think that's twice this size that will be a lot mo,e ,eadable. And,ews: I'd like to exp,ess my appreciation fa, the plan. I like the concept of b,eaking into phases... (The,e was a tape change at this point.) "... Robinson: I see you put a time f,ame in the,e, 1990 to 1995 on Phase 1 and 1995 to 2000 on Phase 2 and I'm not disagreeing with that but it seems like we should, I don't know how we',e going to get the,e if the,e's not something in the plan itself that says, how we'll implement that in that timef,ame. Koegle,: The Capital Imp,ovement P,ogram that I spoke of a moment ago and I wish I had an example, I had it up until I left the office in my briefcase, is a chart type fo,m that if you ,emembe, it all f,om the old plan it shows, this is just a map so don't get excited. It shows 5 yea, columns. What you',e doing in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995. Costs beyond 1995. We have a little place whe,e we put a g,aphic fo, what that pa,ticula, p,oject is so let's say it's Minnewashta Pa,kway trail 0, whateve,. That will show UP on the,e. The,e will be text about the p,oject itself. The justification fo, the p,oject and the timing then of the anticipated p,oject. The dolla, figu,e will end up in the co"esponding yea, and there will be key to funding sources that are envisioned. So it will be tied to the State Aid st,eet const,uction and assessments 0, tax increments 0, whatever it might be. I think that will put it a lot mo,e into pe,spective and that may necessitate some changing of what right now we look at as being a phase. Obviously if there's not money in 10 yea,s to do what we say is hopefully going to happen in ~o yea,s, we have to push that time line out a little furthe,. That's part of the CIP that we',e working on at p,esent and I think that will b,ing this all into light. Mady: It b,ings up maybe, this might be off the subject a little bit. I'm going to spend 2 minutes on it anyway. One of the jobs as a pa,k commissione" the way I've always viewed the job is to loo.k towa,ds the ,~ futu,e. Is how things a,e happening. And if any of you guys have ,ead the Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 22 " paper lately, the city budgets are really stressed. We're not building as many homes as we did earlier. That means the money's not coming into the city coffers in permits which affects a lot of departments. More so than ours but it just means that next year we're not going to have the money to be developing. We're seeing all these parks and I don't know how many people have looked down the road, we've got a ton of neighborhood parks sitting here open right now with people coming in here weekly asking us. They're calling staff every day. When are they going to get their swingset? When are they going to get their ball diamond? When are they, I don't know if anybody here has been thinking about it but we're going to have to find a way of building that stuff pretty soon. The only one I know that exists is through, going the referendum route and I don't know of anybody here who's willing to say it but I fully see a referendum for neighborhood park development, trail development and community park development in 2 years. We're going to have to find a way to put a large sum of money into the south park. We're going to have to find money for a lot of neighborhood parks and we've got some trail accesses that we're going to need to make, specifically Lake Minnewashta Parkway. We don't have the money to do those things. I guess that's my sermon for tonight but as a park commissioner, I hope you're looking down the road. We can't sit here and react to things. We have to be proactive and we were 'a reactive body 5 years ago. We got to be proactive a little 3 years after that. We're starting to become a very reactive body again. I don't like being a reactive body. Waiting for people to come and tell us things. We have to be here looking to the future and if we're not looking to the future, we're not doing our job. Okay. Did I break the spell a little ,.... bit. Lash: What were we talking about? Mady: We started talking about the capital improvement program. We don't have any money'and by golly we've got to start thinking about it because no one's going to dump a million dollars on our lap and say here, go do something. It's just not going to happen so we've got to start thinking about, if that spurs some thought, that's great. That's what it was intended to do. Jay Johnson: Mark, on the maps, on Audubon, I heard we're putting a trail through the industrial park on Park Road up to TH 5 next year and that we maintain a park trailway from Lake Susan Hills West along Audubon up to Park Road... We may not have that trail section as shown in the future plans...and it doesn't go all the way to TH 5 either. It only goes up to Park Drive. Koegler: I can check on that Jay because 1 know that was developing and at the time the text was put together, didn't know what the outcome of that was. Jay Johnson: Actually there is a trail going on TH 5 but it's on the other side. Mady: I think you're right Jay because I remember we talked about it when Lori was still here and Lori was pushing very hard to get something done and it was not getting support and we may have just seen that ~ evaporate. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 23 ,.... Jay Johnson: Well what happened, t.he final vote is that I got a .reversal on some of it and we did get a trail starting at Lake Susan Hills on Audubon running up to Park Road. Connect to a trail running through the industrial park and up to Lake Ann so the people living on the west side of Lake Susan Hills don't have to go all the way over to Powers to go to Lake Ann. So they can just go out to Audubon and go north to get to Lake Ann. The other thing is, is there anything in here about trailways within industrial areas because you see more and more people out jogging and running and if you ever worked at Opus, they have a whole trail system within the Opus complex that is, there must be 100 people out there during the summer every day at lunch. Jogging, walking, whatever and I've noticed in our area too, that we Rave people out walking along the industrial streets so the industrial trail segments are working too, especially since you've got all the trucks trucking around there. Semis and pedestrians. Mady: It's like bugs and volkswagons. Koegler: There is nothing in here now addressing that and that's probably a good point that at least verbally it should be addressed. Those issues becomes to a certain degree site planning issues, as Opus was. Is was done as one contiguous PUD in an industrial sense and there's no reason that can't happen in other areas of Chanhassen if and when industrial expansion occurs with the blessing of the Met Council. But sooner or later that will happen and that's probably a good point. It's not going to happen in the existing phases of the Chan Lakes Business Park but it could happen in other ones. We'll look at some text. ",..... Mady: Good point. Koegler: We've always looked to Lake Susan Park in terms of users with that in mind. That that's going to get a lot of industrial, people over their lunch hour and so forth so that's a real valid point. Lash: One quick question that crossed my mind last night and now I just thought of it again. When you have the implementation system phasing and then you say that the Park and Recreation Commission evaluted each segment considering the following factors and you've got like 9 of them. That's not in any particular order is it? Koegler: No it's not. Lash: I just wondered. Do you need us to do something with this now? Koegler: I've been noting your comments and we'll make those changes and you'll see this again before it's ultimately adopted by the Council. It will be back to you again along with the CIP information. Robinson: That looks good. Erhart: You've done a nice job Mark. ",..... Mady: I've got one other question. On Lake Susan Hills Park. My mind has I've gotten lost off of that. Let's see. That's why. On Park Drive a sidewalk exists yet it's not showing up. Maybe that's what touched it off. Lake Susan Park, there's no trail running into it and the sidewalk, the ."'" ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 24 concrete sidewalk that's on Park Drive is not showing up on the trail plan. I knew there was something that bothered me about that but I couldn't figure out what it was. It's on the trail plan. No, it's not. It's not on the trail plan either. Hoffman: Is that...industrial park Jim? Mady: On Park Drive, where the new Park Drive runs in front of Rosemount. Between Rosemount and, Lake Drive East. In any event, there's a sidewalk on that and it's not showing up. Shall we move? LAKE RILEY HILLS PRELIMINARY PLAT. SITE PLAN REVIEW. Koegler: The Reverend Jim set this one up so nicely. Taking a look at park requirements potentially for Lake Riley Hills I think you very accurately summarized what probably are concerns that, I don't think the City wants to add additional parkland unless it's absolutely necessary because you're having enough trouble just developing the property you've got now. So I think that was a strong tone looking at this particular development. However, in going through it and I'll be very brief, it's outlined fairly significantly in the context of the report. The comprehensive plan addresses a deficiency of neighborhood parks in this area and identifies it to be handled in one of two ways. Either through the establishment of a new park or by providing better access to Bandimere Heights Park which ultimately will be expanded by another 30 acres. The concern in looking through this is for the 75 homeowners that would be in here plus the property lying both east and west of this, that in the long term Bandimere Park is probably suitable to handle the adult oriented kinds of recreation. If somebody wants to play tennis and they want to get on a bike to go do it, they can do that. If there's a trail that gets them there, fine but the little kid who wants to go play on a play structure, it's not suitable to send them to Bandimere Park and so our recommendation is that somewhere in the form of this development there needs to be a 2 to 3 acre site identified for a neighborhood park purpose which would be primarily to accommodate some flat space. Some play structures. Some sand equipment and so forth oriented really towards smaller kids. It's not to say that there wouldn't be some picniking or open field area that adults wouldn't use either. I think this is classically could be another Pheasant Hills situation if you don't acquire some land. Normally we look to 5 acres as a neighborhood park and we're not saying that that's necessary here but something maybe along the lines of 2 acres would be appropriate. In conjunction with that, securing the trail easement along this portion of Lyman Blvd., which is part of the future trail plan, to hopefully someday allow a linkage to the Bandimere Park as well as the balance of the trail system. So the recommendation is that the Park Commission recommend to the Council that they require dedication of 2 to 3 acres. We've identified that the most appropriate location is somewhere in the vicinity of this Outlot C. It's wetland area in here. Probably more along this side so it's accessible to the apartment complex on the east as well. So with that. Jay Johnson: There's a pretty steep hill over there. Koegler: Yeah there is along there but along the wet area...This is vacant ~. property over here. The actual apartment units sit further over to the Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 25 ,.... east. It is developable property however and presumably someday it is zoned multi-family may have some more units on it. Schroers: Is it owned by the developer that built the apartments? Koegler: I believe so. It probably has changed hands since those were originally built but I think it's under contiguous ownership to the east. Pemrick: Do you know when they plan on beginning this development or it's just in the planning stages? Koegler: Yes. Andrews: Well my comments are. I agree with the recommendation exactly as made. Erhart: I do too. I'd make a motion. Schroers: Looks good to me. Hoffman: Again, you may want to specify a little more specifically to the Councilor to the developer as they go back and relook at this plat as to whether we would like 2 or 3 acres. In taking a look at the park dedication, or if we took 2 to 3 acres of land, there still would leave about 50% to 70% of the park dedication fee left to be collected so $300.00-$350.00 per home. Something of that nature. If we took the 2 to 3 ~ acres. 2 acres is somewhat small. May not be ideal for what we want to take a look at here so at this time it would probably be wise to discuss what type of facilities we would like to put there potentially and how much level land that would take. If that would be closer to 3 acres, if you want to shoot for that figure or if we think we could get by with 2 acres in this area and shift the rest of these down to Bandimere. Mady: I had a comment. In here you're saying that access to Bandimere Heights Park via Kiowa Trail is approximately 1.5 miles. Right now access to Curry Farms Park from Pheasant Hills is less than 1 mile. That was deemed not acceptable distance for those people to go so if you ever talk about 1.5 miles, I don't think 3 acres is enough. Koegler: Well let me discuss it. Lash: It will eventually be reduced to about a mile. Mady: We're talking about 3/4 of a mile to Pheasant Hills. ,.... Koegler: That number is calculated. The development parcel is right in here. Using Lyman to get over to TH 101, down TH 101 and in and over to Kiowa and access to the park here. The comprehensive plan called, you know you've got the additional acreage as a part of Bandimere Park right here at the present time. 30 acres required. The comprehensive plan says that ultimately this piece is going to be required also. When that occurs you're looking at a very short distance to hopefully get access interior to the park and be able to get into the rest of it so the 1 1/2 mile or whatever this site...to get all the way around, cutting off about a half mile when you actually develop this piece you get this corner and you'll Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 26 "'" reduce it even further to probably like a quarter of a mile by the time you ultimately get that park developed. I think that's...resources right now is you're going to have to look but that's going to occur and that's going to be able to supply the...recreational facilities that are needed. So that was really the reasoning behind looking at a 2 to 3 acre site. 2 acres will accommodate a flat area where you can have a ball diamond or backstop or open field area. It will accommodate a small picnic area and a play structure. 3 acres gives you a little more elbow room for all of that. Mady: How much do we have right now at Bandimere neighborhood park? Koegler: In acres? Mady: I didn't bring my book so. Hoffman: 33. Mady: No, no. Bandimere neighborhood park. Hoffman: Oh, neighborhood park. How many acres there? 2 maybe. Mady: 2 to 3. I'm thinking it's 3. That's my concern is it's so small. It's large but it's not. Erhart: But just for our street you know. ".... Hoffman: Exactly what we're trying to meet here is the need for that 10 and under group where the parents can have them safely ride their bike or walk up the street in their development to a totlot area. To an open play field area. The older kids and the adults can pursue their activit.ies at Lake Ann and down at Bandimere Park. If we successfully do t.hat with 2 or 3 acres, I think that's the real need here. Andrews: So we have t.o balance the age old problem of land versus money. Hoffman: Correct. Mady: Well you can always get money. You can't get land. Pemrick: Now does that trail system connect with the Eden Prairie trail system to go to the Eden Prairie Park? Koegler: Hopefully. Eden Prairie has a link that's probably a quarter of a mile into their cit.y but I can't imagine they wouldn't work with t.he city t.o bridge that gap in the future. Pemrick: There's a real nice park there too. I mean not that that would be our park but. ",.... . Koegler: Just speaking to the Bandimere Park for a moment. If you foc~s on the existing developed park which is 2 acres or whatever that number is. If you take organized play out of there, that's a pretty good sized piece to accommodate just neighborhood uses. I think that's what we're stressing here is that it would be identified for neighborhood uses because you've Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 27 ,.. got a large activity park that's going to be located within the same vicinity when the park is ultimately developed at Bandimere. Lash: So really all we'd be t.alking here is probably some playground equipment. Maybe an open field. Hoffman: Basketball. Koegler: Basketball. Backst.op. Maybe just. for casual pick-up games. That kind of t.hing. Lash: And t.hat.'s about it? Koegler: Yes. That.'s the scale of the facilit.ies given the proximit.y t.o Bandimere Park. Lash: So what do you think is t.he most comfort.able acreage to get t.o do that? Schroers: I like 3 acres. Hoffman: Again it. depends on what, t.he lay of t.he land of what piece we would ult.imately. Robinson: Can't we leave a lit.tle flexible, 2 t.o 3 acres and work with the developer on it? ".... Lash: Put. minimum? Robinson: Yeah, minimum of 2. Koegler: If it. was a different. sit.e I would sit here and t.ell you that. 2 acres is plenty of land but. t.his site has a fair amount of relief on it and it. may be such t.hat. you need 3 just in order to get enough flat. space t.o accommodate these uses. So I think that is one of the charges back to the developer that. you need a strong 2 acres of useable ground and if t.hat. ends up being 3 because of side slopes and so forth, fine. If they can accommodate it with 2, t.hat's fine also. Lash: So can we leave it 2 to 3 minimum. Can we say that? Andrews: 2 useable acres. Koegler: Yeah, useable is probably a good term to put in there. Jay Johnson: And we don't. want Outlot.s A and B. Hoffman: Or C. Koegler: Not for t.his purpose anyway. Robinson: Maybe we should talk about the location t.oo. I think that was a good point. you made Mark. Right t.here by the apartment.s. ,..... Hoffman: Okay. Is there a motion? Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 28 ,.... Robinson: So moved. Mady: Please state your motion. Hoffman: Curt Robinson moved to require the developer to identify 2 to 3 acres of land in this area for park purposes with 2 acres of that area being useable for flat surface type of play structure as well to designate the site of that land to be somewhere north of the vicinity of Outlot C to accommodate the future development to the east. Robinson: Couldn't have said it better myself. Andrews: I second that motion. That's a good motion. Mady: Can we add to the motion please? Hoffman: Sure. Mady: I'd like to see us require the developer to rough grade. Hoffman: Final grade. Mady: Well whatever. At least rough grade. I'd like to see us talk about dedication. Is this going to come back to us before we start talking about dedication fees? ~. Robinson: oh I'm sure it would wouldn't it? Mady: I want to make sure it does. We're only talking about we're only going to get 2 to 3 acres of land. What I fear is we're never going to see this thing again. This is going to Council and the developer's going to slip three things through the Planning Commission and all of a sudden it's a 2 acre and half of it's hill and goes onto the wetland like we got in Lake Susan Hills and all of a sudden what we thought we had, we don't have and now we're saying well maybe we can get a ballfield if we kind of do it this way. Hoffman: Planning is concerned enough where once they. Mady: They've always been concerned but things seem to happen. I've been here long enough to know it. Lash: Do you want to put about the trail easement in there or does that have to be separate? Koegler: That should be in there too. Mady: Yes. Lash: Did you want to add that Curt? Robinson: Yes. ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 29 ,.... Mady: I'd like to hear the motion again. Erhart: Trail along Lyman? Hoffman: The motion includes the developer to identify 2 to 3 acres of land for park purposes with 2 acres of that to be useable somewhere in the vicinity of north of Outlot C to be accessible from the east for future development and to maintain a 20 foot trail easement along the border of Lyman Boulevard. That will be included in this plat. Lash: Do we want with the provision for access to the site from Lake View Hills property? You did say that? Okay. Mady: Okay. Now we can call the question. Robinson moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the plat for Lake Riley Hills be amended to include a 2 to 3 acre neighborhood park site, with a minimum of 2 acres as useable to accommodate an open field area, play structure and other park facilities in the vicinity along the north ~ide of Outlot C with the provision for access to the site from the Lakeview Hills property. Addition it is recommended that a trail easement along Lyman Boulevard be secured to allow the eventual construction of a trail to provide access to Bandimere Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ,..... Mady: And one last point of information, it'd be really nice if we had at least something to go by besides the verbage. I mean I don't know what this thing looks like at all. I mean I don't know if I should be asking for trails along the streets. I don't know nothing right now. We will be seeing this again? Hoffman: Correct. Mady: I really didn't feel comfortable voting on this tonight because I just, I had no idea what the thing looked like. DISCUSSION OF PARK PLAN OF OUTLOT_F, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST. I"'" Koegler: I tell you, you've been doing an excellent job tonight introducing the next item by your comments on the previous item. This follows suit. This is kind of an update I guess of the status. This is now known as Outlot D in their platting scheme. It was Outlot F under the original Lake Susan Hills PUD that you looked at long ago. Probably starting back in 1984-85 and we did a go around in 1987 which the boundaries were different and there were some parameters that were different at that time created a little thumbnail sketch as we called it of how the park might work. We've been dealt a dose of reality in terms 'of what...actually look like. Some of the slope constraints and ponding requirements and so forth look like and that changes the picture a little bit. The park property boundaries now, you can kind of make out and go around here behind this tier of lots and back over. There's the Willian's Pipeline that comes right through here. That's what that easement is. It's shown right there across the back of these lots. The predominant flat space on the site is right up in here. of that, most of that is in pond. There are two drainage ponds. One in this area. One in this area that are Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 30 ,..... linked with a culvert. Both of them have a normal water level of about a contour of 918 so they are anticipated to have water in them. They're not dry ponds. They certainly have a lot more capacity to handle storm water. There's an outlet pipe that comes down here and into this low area that sits down in this area. In looking at it and comparing it what was originally envisioned, realistically the site is wonderful for a sledding hill. There's great slopes on this site. There is room to accommodate some tennis over in this area where it orignally was shown on the concept plan. There's room to come in with the typically small parking lot that may handle 4 vehicles or whatever that chosen number might be. And then back on this end of the site, there is room for what we've identified as a playfield. We don't want to call it a ballfield because the intent is certainly not to ever have organized play there. The City may have just a plain simple backstop for neighborhood kids to play in that area. All of that would be linked with some kind of a trail that probably would be a turf trail as it came through here. Maybe a bituminous trail from the parking lot getting down to' the tennis court. The sliding hill opportunity really exists in this area. It also could occur over in this area and given maybe some parking and so forth we've shown on this particular site. So the plan can be very much in conformance with the other sketch that was done earlier except it will no long accommodate the numbers of facilities that we looked at previously. Will not accommodate soccer. Will not accommodate organized ballfields as a part of that. So this grading scheme will work for the facilities that are shown on the board right now. ,..... Mady: Can I step right here? Right off the hand here we are looking at, this development came in and we first looked at it, I believe it was '87. We were talking about 3,000 people in this development. At that time it was a third of the City's population. When the concept plan got drawn up we had 2 ballfields and we had a soccer field, tennis, picnic area because we knew we had a lot of people. Now I'm looking at this thing, all this land and it's not going to do anything for us and I'm really disappointed. Somehow or other, when the developers got changed and everything else happened, the ponds went in and the park went out and I'm really disappointed. I'm totally dissatisfied with this, developer and this development. We lost all our play area. He saw open area and decided to put ponds and everything. Maybe that's the way it has to be. Maybe it isn't how it has to be but I'm just totally dissatisfied with this whole development right now because we really worked hard to make sure we had enough park area in this thing 3 years ago. Now we don't even come close to the number of people that are anticipated to be in here. . Lash: I have a question. Is this the one that not too long ago the developer was here and he wanted to change where, okay. Mady: Yeah. oh yeah. Lash: I just wanted to know if we were talking about the same. Hoffman: .. .park and trail fees. Schroers: We're supposed to have 18 acres of parkland in this development aren't we? .~ Mady: Yeah, it's a PUD too. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 31 "'. Schroers: 17 acres? 17 or 18? Hoffman: Yeah. Mady: Up by the apartments, or multi-family rather. It's just this was going to be the main block of homes in this thing and all I'm seeing is, it's great but it's kind of telling me like we did up in Pheasant Hills. We lost a lot of natural area and not a whole lot of play area and all of a sudden that's kind of what we got here. We got a lot of natural area and we've got a nice sliding hill but it's going to be awful tough when you've got that many people up there and you want to get a pick-up game of anything going and you don't really have a place to put them. I'm just really kind of disappointed with the whole thing. Lash: Do you have shown on here a place for playground equipment somewhere? Koegler: No. There is room to accommodate that. Let me look because I asked. I don't think that got added to the drawing before it got shot down. Pemrick: There's a playfield up here. Lash: A playfield, that's more for like a big open area. ".... Koegler: The intent was to have it in the vicinity of the parking and picnic and tennis. In this general area of the site. There is plenty of room to accommodate that but we should add that to the plan. Lash: Okay, and then another question I have, where the sliding hill is, I mean obviously it's a pretty steep grade so this turf trail that's going to be used, is this going to be like a real tough thing... (There was a tape change at this point.) Robinson: ...so we're really stuck with this, like it or not I guess. Koegler: I think the biggest impact is that you really lose the potential to do any kind of organized activities on this site which in all reality were probably going to be somewhat difficult to do anyway just because of the penetration into the neighborhood and so forth. But you do lose some of that useable open space that's now ponding and so forth. That will have to be accommodated at the other parks. Schroers: Were we just short sighted in regards to the ponding when we Wel"e originally looking at this area? Did we not realize that it was going to require so much ponding? Is that what happened? "",..... Hoffman: Since that time there's been some redesign of this entire area. The streets and that throughout the development, etc. so I'm not sure what occurred in the interim there but we have been, since this original plan was brought forth here, tne whole street configuration has been switched around in that area. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 32 ~ Lash: I find that frustrating that you start out with what you think is a r~ally nice plan and then the developer has the power or the opportunities to switch it around to suit him the best and then we get stuck with something that we feel is unacceptable and somehow it just happened and. Mady: I don't know if we still have the opportunity or not. I don't know where the development contract is with this thing but when this thing changes as it has, my impression is it's changed drastically, we've lost a lot of useable area. To me it tells me that if we forgave park fees in this situation, we should get them back. It's changed so much from what we saw. Maybe the Council approved it and they liked it. I don't like it. I don't like it at all. Robinson: Can we see the original? Hoffman: On the back of your report. Mady: What we envisioned. I mean we went out and walked this parcel. Jay Johnson: Where it should be softball fields, that's still in the park is it not? There's just too much slope. It shows slope inbetween but the thing you had up there shows slope right on both of these fields are. Mady: But there's ponding in the bottom part. If water's going to be at the 918 level, the 285 foot softball field's half under water. ~ Koegler: The drainage pattern precludes that one and the soccer field. Mady: Yeah, they're both under water now. Koegler: The street arrangement of Flamingo Drive changed a little bit and that other softball field was probably somewhat questionable to begin with. Mady: Well we knew it was going to be low. Schroers: We had anticipated a lot of grading. Mady: Yeah, but what was going to be the ponding area is now a playfield. Everything that was large playfield is now ponding so it's like we got a little playfield up in the north side and we gave up all the play area in the rest of the park. Lash: We had a sledding hill up in one corner which didn't affect anyone and now they have to walk up and down it to get from one part of the park to another. Mady: This has all changed. Erhart: I think part of the problem was that we didn't have a map that showed the slopes on it. Schroers: .. .require the developer to supply.. .water scheme. r-. Erhart: We didn't have a map that showed the grade of the slopes. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 33 ".... Robinson: Well if this is drawn in proportion, this is a lot different than this. Mady: That's because the street's changed too. Koegler: They're not the same scale drawing. Lash: But why didn't they, when they changed all that, why didn't it have to come back to us so we could look at it and decide if we were willing to accept that? Robinson: Good question. Jay Johnson: Quite frankly, if you look at it, there wasn't that big of a change. You see where William's Pipeline is? That used to be the edge of the park. Okay? So it's moved, those houses have moved in from.. .there isn't a scale on it but those have moved, we've lost 20 foot on the side of the parkland. Maybe 30-40 foot along that pipeline. So if you look where the one softball field could still sit over there. There's no reasonable way to get to it. The first plan to me, now that I see the topography in there, wouldn't have worked anyway. Mady: Well we knew it was going to be low. We were going to be low but the ponding was going to, I'm going to use the term the active ponding where water was actually going to be was up in the very north part of this thing so evel-ything was going to drain over to that. That's the way the ".... whole thing got presented in the development. And developers have changed since then and the wetlands have changed since then. Jay Johnson: They decided to drain it downhill instead of uphill. Mady: Well I don't know if that's the case. to put the water in the middle of the park. drain it that way. They decided they were going Back then it was feasible to Andrews: Have we still got a ballfield on the bottom of the sliding hill? I mean it looks like. Mady: There's going to be water down there. Koegler: Yeah, the drainage outlet is into that area now and realistically it would be so soggy. Mady: It's wet to 9-8 feet. Jay Johnson: ...clear through that area? Koegler: You might be able to do that. It becomes fairly remote from everything also that way. It was before also. Andrews: We're talking about 50 feet of grade. That's about the only piece of flat land we have any chance of doing anything with. ,.... Hoffman: The north farthest most notherly part of the pal-k is designated as playfield. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 34 ,...... Andrews: But that's even more remote really. There's no way we could even try for any. Mady: You've got to remember, the rest of this whole western portion is developed with homes too. Lash: How about up by the tennis courts here. That's like a 20 foot drop over. I'm not real good at looking at these things and figuring it out but is that something we'd be able to maybe to bring in? Andrews: A 20 foot drop for about 230 feet. Lash: So that won't work. Schroers: I'm not even sure why we're discussing this. It seems like the contractors are in there. The grading is going on. I don't know what options we have at this point anyway. Koegler: That's why I indicated at the beginning that this is really to update you on the status more than anything. That this is what can be accommodated. Erhart: In other words no action. Robinson: Next item. ,...... Mady: I think Jan put it appropriately. We got hosed. Jay Johnson: Remember it when they come in to develop the northern park. Erhart: That's a good point Jay. Mady: Thanks Mark. Hoffman: What has taken place between the first time this came to you and now is a. Mady: A lot of developers. Hoffman: Things have progressed in both the planning department and engineering department. Mady: We've had 3 planners in that period of time and that's what happens. And a new Council so things change. Hoffman: Lack of a person in the coordinator's position in our department so it's easily understandable how things have happened. Mady: So the City is poorer for it. Next item. " Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 35 ,..., PARK DEVELOPMENT UPDATE: A. LAKE ANN PARK B. HERMAN FIELD PARK C. CHANHASSEN HILLS PARK D. CURRY FARMS PARK Hoffman: This is basically brought to you for your information just to keep you up to date. We haven't discussed as a group for a couple of months and a lot of projects are ongoing and just to keep you abreast of the progress there. As Jim eluded to earlier, we do get daily phone calls on Curry Farms, Chanhassen Hills, Lake Susan Hills West and we are going to have a job to meet the demands of those neighborhood parks as those continue to develop within those lands that are currently there. Lash: I have a question. On the Chan Hills Park one? So the new magic marker lines are the new? Hoffman: That's the new layout. Lash: Okay. Are we comfortable with the play area, that's the playground equipment, that close to the pond or is that something that we need to look at? I don't know if there's any other options or not. ,..., Hoffman: The pond originally was, they have dredged it out so there will be water within the middle of it instead of muck and weeds so water... But as you're well aware, somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 feet from the edge of it as shown there. Again, this is just real rough. If you have dire concerns on being located 100 feet from the edge of that holding pond, I would certainly look to move it on top of the hill which at that time be Erhart: That's a good point Jay. ......, 'I.".(...I...t. ~~~lIlvll'- VI Iw..llv t-'UI ,... UII'-i U.,L';;;;:'V '-QI'..LII~ ..LII,,"."""'" '-'VII.:;,;)...L......n:;~I' 0. (,......J,. v II '-'Iv ~o...L..L.1 ..Ly,J.\...I and losing the safety aspect up there. Mady: The other option, you just put a 4 foot chainlink fence along that edge or something. Lash: Okay. Well, you can't tell from here how far it is from the pond either. Mady: It's a good point. Hoffman: The figures are rough... Lash: Well if you're comfortable with it, that's fine. I just wanted to double check. Schroers: I don't see that those ponds are much of a threat anyway if it's not a maintained area because cattails and mosquitoes and all that aren't all that attractive. Robinson: Todd, the new grass at Lake Ann and the new fields. Are you satisfied with the way they look at this time of year? ,-. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 36 "".... Hoffman: At this point I'm fairly satisfied with what we've had after the long struggle to get to where we're at. Being seeded in basically the middle of summer, we were fortunate enough to have fairly ideal weather where in the past 2 years we would have just had nothing there so: The fields are green. They're growing. They're patchy but they're coming along nicely. Schroers: The infields are growing a nice crop of weeds. Robinson: We'll be able to use them next year? Hoffman: We won't be able to use them full force as a normal field but we will surely do some scheduling there. If there's wet weather, we'll just have to pull the games off of there so it will be a difficult schedule to work with on those fields next year but... Robinson: Good. It really looks nice out there. ,.... Mady: A question I have Todd on Lake Ann Park. Two weekends ago I played in a softball tournament at Round Lake Park. Eden Prairie put a warning track in along their fences and they've got 280 fences out there and it's a very attractive park. It's nice. Being an outfielder I understand the problems when you don't have a warning track. Lake Ann Park at 268 fence lines, as an outfielder, fortunately in the over 35 league there aren't that many people putting it over the fence. But as an outfielder it's awful nice to know that when your feet tell you you're within 8 feet of that fence or what's going to happen. You don't always have the luxury of being able to check back. And many of the players in our league aren't familiar enough with playing with fenced fields that they know how to go back on a ball and find the fence. I'm wondering if we may not, at least if not this year, in the future be looking to coming in and strip the sod out of there. Utilize it somewhere else and putting in ag lime in there to give that warning track that we probably should be putting in. I think from a liability standpoint and just from an aesthetics point of view for a park that might be a good idea. Hoffman: We've discussed that in the past and again it's one of those in-house projects that we just need to take the time or the maintenance staff and some dollars to install that. Again we want to look at if we're setting a precedence to do it on the fields 1, 2 and 3 which are currently there. Is it necessary or is it then just a pre-requisite that we put it in on the 3 new fields which are 300 foot fences and will play quite a big differently than the shorter ones. Andrews: I think from a liability standpoint, if you do it one field, you'd better do it on all because if somebody got injured on one that was not fixed, you'd be wide open for a lawsuit. Mady: I think for future park reference, when we're doing ballfields with fenced fields, we probably should just be doing it. I was probably remiss in not pointing it out when we did approve the concept at Lake Ann the first time around. Since we've got Lake Susan to go, and then ultimately the new south park, we should probably just be doing that. It doesn't require any additional maintenance really to maintain a warning track so ~ it's just something that is just smart development. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 37 "... Hoffman: Yeah, Dale Gregory did bring that up and discuss it with me as well in reference to the new fields at Lake Ann. Mady: You know it's not that difficult to strip the sod so it's maybe something we should be looking at. Hoffman: Any comments, questions on the updates? AMENDMENT OF 1990 PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF 1991 FEES. Hoffman: Item number 10. Taking a look at the current park fees. Some changes which have occurred and then establishing new fees for the year 1991. As Mark has spoken to earlier, this is a timely subject as well. Looking to the shortfall in building permit revenues we're having this year and looking to the future, just being uncertain on what will happen in those cases. Again, it would normally be reviewed a little bit later in the year but there was a recent challenge to this resolution which resulted in a passage of a resolution amending fees for commercial and industrial properties. If you've all read through that, as I eluded to, I tried to briefly explain it. We have in the past discussed this and last time it was discussed to amend the fees, we discussed it for 3 meetings at length and so what I tried to do is be brief as possible yet explain it concisely. If you have questions on my reRort, I would gladly address those at this time and open it up for commission discussion on the report and on the future of park dedication fees and trail dedication fees within the city. ;JI" Erhart: So other communities charge 10% you're saying and it's taken out at the time that we come in for a building permit? Hoffman: Correct. Lash: And Council just changed it to $1,200.00 and acre? Hoffman: Correct. The last time, before the last time the Commission changed the fees, the commercial/industrial park fee was at $1,200.00 per acre for developments under $12,500.00 per acre. Then the Commission initiated or wherever the sliding scale portion of the fee resolution was initiated for industrial/commercial land over $12,500.00. Then it went to a sliding scale. 10% of the total land cost which in the one instance which was there was under an acre of land. .9 some acres of land for 140 some thousand dollars which results in park dedication fees of $14,000.00 for less than an acre of land which is being used for a parking lot which is not generating any more use and is exorbinate. So what they did was just take out the sliding scale portion of it since it hadn't really been used and proven in any other communities but it was discussed at length there for those 3 meetings. It was thought at that time that it would work but it is showing that it does not work so they just bumped it right down to the original fee of the $1,200.00 per acre until the commission could take a look at it and see what they would want to do with the fees for the future. Schroers: Todd can we ask, what are you using to justify the increase? The rationale there. ".... "... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 38 Hoffman: Okay. The 10% of raw land value or true land value is a factor or a percentage which is being used in just about the entire metropolitan area. In the past the commission has looked at a flat percentage between the land cost for residential. Residential within the MUS A line. Residential outside the MUS A lind. Industrial and commercial and taking that and taking an average of all those land costs and basically what that figure, magic figure has been in the past is $10,500.00. That had increased a little bit to $12,500.00 so the 10% at that time was taken of $12,500.00 of the average so that's where the $1,200.00 for industrial fees came about at that time. The other communities don't do that. They take a look at if you're paying, the industrial developments are paying higher costs for their land, they should be paying a higher park fee. Paying their share, their one time fee. They're only paying that once. They should be paying a higher share of the fees than the rest. Actually what you're doing in taking that average is taking a little higher fees maybe from the residential and then giving the industrial a break. Giving the multi-family a break which really is representative of what is going on so the $2,500.00 per acre in the industrial land is based on a fair market value which is at the low end for industrial land at $25,000.00 per acre. It's increasing. At that rate currently it's more UP to the $30,000.00 market at this time. Mady: Todd, your costs for land costs. Do we get those from the County Appraiser this time? Hoffman: Yes. The County Appr~iser and basically just taking a look at what's been going on in industrial/commercial developments and residential developments within Chanhassen and Chaska. The County Assessor was taken ~ into consideration there. His figures were somewhat higher than this on the industrial/commercial. Up over $30,000.00 with $30,000.00 per acre being the low end of the figure. ~ Mady: Okay. I guess in looking at what we paid for the south park, what we paid for Pheasant Hills, the residential number looks like it's probably reasonable in relation to those two items. The industrial number, my feeling is it is low. Hoffman: Currently at the $1,200.00 per acre. Mady: No, even at $25,000.00. I think it might be 20% low. I'd feel better at 30. But I definitely agree with bumping the industrial up to at least $2,500.00. I don't have any problems with that. Did you do any checking on what Eden Prairie's is at right now? Hoffman: Eden Prairie's industrial/commercial is up around $2,800.00. Mady: I would want to be more than them but we should be close to them. At $1,200.00 we weren't even approaching what we should be at so. Hoffman: Basically what we're looking at is, with these last two developments which we originally tried to base the fee on the resolution which was in place, it was exorbinate. It didn't work so we did lose the $2,500.00 to $3,000.00 to $5,000.00 in the interim so what we want to do now is correct that. Do it at a quick pace. Get this back to Council. Get it approved so all the new industrial development just coming in which Park and Rec Commissio~ Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 39 ,.... at some point very near in the future will begin to slow down. So we just get the fair share at this time. Again it's just a one time fee. It's based per acre and they are generating the need which those dollars are spent meeting. Schroers: Well would you have a problem Todd asking for like $2,600.00 or $2,700.00 as long as we stayed underneath Eden Prairie? Would it be worth while to go for an extra $100.00 or $200.00 on it? Hoffman: Again, with the recommendation at $2,500.00, it's $100.00 over doubling currently. It is to our fault that we have been sitting or we had to go back down to the $1,200.00. If we were currently at, ohsay $2,000.00, bumping it to $2,600.00 may not appear to be so drastic. But again moving any closer to say Plymouth, Eden Prairie, some of those communities that are up around the $2,700.00-$2,800.00 mark, may be premature at this time. $2,500.00 may be a safer figure to go back to the Council with to get approval on. Schroers: You've got me sold. Andrews: I was coming under the multi-family portion of the fee. I feel that, I don't see the sense to have a lower rate per unit for multi-family versus single family. I think that multi-family units are going to generate much more use on our park facilities. I think that the rate should be the same at the worse. Persons living in an apartment complex have no yard to play in themselves. They have to go to a park if they wish to have any outdoor recreation facilities normally. ~ Hoffman: Yeah, I strongly took a look at that because in my initial figures they came out closer to the $500.00, about $480.00. Taking a look back to any other communities, that would be setting a precedent. No other community in the survey which I had, which included about 60% of the metropolitan communities had a fee which was the same as single family residential. A number of them were this close to that. If you followed the formula which I used to come up with that $440.00 per unit, you can take a look back at what is used for single family and you just can't do that because there are so many more units, so many more people packed in there per acre that we can't take a look at it per acre. So what we fall back on is the commission's and the department's 75 people per acre of parkland and that is the method which was used to generate this fee and then the persons per unit which is fairly standard so that $440.00 is defendable where if we just arbitrarily say that obviously you don't have a yard. They're out there using parks, which is very true by the way. That was discussed as well in coming up with these figures, but again we needed to have something to back it up. Back those types of thinking up with. Mady: If there's not any other discussion, I'll make a motion that we recommend to City Council that they accept the 1991 park and trail dedication fees in line with staff's recommendation on their report dated August 16, 1990. Andrews: Can I add to that? That we bring this up for review of these again next year. Mady: We do every year. Every year this is one the things we do. ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 40 ~ Andrews: Okay. Robinson: I second that. Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the following park dedication fees for 1991. Keep the current residential single family/duplex park dedication fee at $500.00 per unit and raise commercial/industrial to $2,500.00 per acre and multi-family to $440.00 per unit. It is further recommended to discontinue the sliding scale method of determining fees for both commercial. industrial and residential developments and to continue reviewing fees on an annual basis. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously_ VEHICLE PARKING AT BANDIMERE HEIGHTS PARK. Hoffman: Some of you may recall that have been around on the commission for a while that this has been a reoccurring issue. We've always talked that eventually someday down the line we'll b~ able to pull that soccer field out of there. We won't need to use it because we'll have other facilities to fall back on. Mady: 20 years from now. Robinson: It's a lousy little soccer field anyway. ~ Mady: But it sure saves us. Hoffman: As we've painfully aware, that has not occurred and probably will not occur in the near future. Meaning probably 5 to 7 years. So really what we're taking a look at, if the soccer groups definitely have the interest. They need the facilities. They may not be that interested in labeling this the ideal location but nevertheless they certainly would like to use the fields that they do have. So what we're faced with is just coming up with some sort of solution to appease the neighborhood there. Not only appease the neighborhood but come up with a safe solution so we don't at some point occur, run into some problem down the road. Public safety vehicles not being able to access that or even people drive home being able to access their homes... Again, I'm glad Jay is here. I would like to just ask for some comments from Jay at this time. I've never first hand been down there during one of the soccer events. Some of the neighbors call me and say yeah, the cars are parked for a block and a half on both sides of the road and it's difficult to get through so if Jay has some comments on what does occur. What he has experienced down there. Jay Johnson: The soccer club plays are under 10 teams. Last year was the first year we had an under 10 team. Previously we used it as a practice field for the other teams before the regular fields. In 1989 we had our first under 10 team. In 1990 we have two. We're predicting three under 10 teams next year which means we're going to need another one of these fields because we play on a 50 yard by 70 yard field here. ...supposed to be a fairly decent field. They're supposed to be grading it right now. Regarding it. Reseeding it. To say that it's dangerous to have cars back .,;-. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 41 ,..... out onto the street, we've got that already. I mean at the beginning and end of the games, the cars are doing everything. Mostly they park two wheels on the road and two wheels off the road on both sides of the street when we have a game there. And I usually, when I pull in, I pull in all the way perpendicular park all the way in because I'm usually first there and last to leave. I set the fields up and then I ref the game and then I leave after everybody else and then people usually park behind me. And then people are doing U turns in the middle of the street and everything as is. If you had perpendicular parking where you just made the thing and pulled straight in facing the park and then back out onto the street, you'd probably be as good if not a better situation than you have now. Schroers: Just make temporary parking right on the edge of the field? Jay Johnson: Yeah. But if it's raining, you can't do that. Robinson: How many households are beyond the park on both sides? Jay Johnson: 4 on the right and 2 on the left. Pemrick: There are about 5. ,..... Jay Johnson: On the east side you can't do much. You've got about 3-4 foot and then it drops. You've got a drop off so the cars that park on that side don't get very far off the road. I think you could make a .lot on the west side by just expanding the street or just drop gravel in there behind the asphalt curb fur whatever it takes and just have a gravel patch that people would just pull onto and park in. And then true, they are backing out onto the street but then no parking on the other side of the street. Robinson: I mean you're talking a dead end street. Jay Johnson: And they only play 1 night a week. Only Monday nights because under 10's are only allowed to play 1 game a week. They do come down and practice 1 night a week but then you've got half the cars and a lot of the kids do car pooling, you may only have 7-8 cars when they come down to practice. Schroers: Jay, would head in parking there, is there enough room to accommodate the cars that need to go there for the time being? Pemrick: No. Jay Johnson: If you parked the entire length of that straight in? Schroers: Yeah. Jay Johnson: Probably. Schroers: And why does there have to be gravel? Why can't it just be on the grass? Jay Johnson: If you have a year like this year. I"" Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 42 "... Schroers: Is it very wet there? That's what I'm asking. Jay Johnson: Well I took a shovel when I dug a drainage ditch through there this year in order to drain the fields one Saturday afternoon so we could play on the fields. We have real bad drainage problems. We started getting wetland, in fact we had aquatic animals in the mud and stuff in the middle of the field. If we left it much longer it would be designated as a wetland. Pemrick: I had calls from neighbors. I'm the very last house on that street off the dead end and I've had times trying to get through and you're almost clipping people's rear view mirrors. Now that's how close some of the cars are. Jay Johnson: The ladder truck's not going to make it through there. Pemrick: My neighbor's a paramedic and he's called me a couple times and he's said I could not get an ambulance through there or a fire truck and a couple of people that live beyond that point do have heart problems and it could be very serious. The t.hing that I think is really irritating people is that they're parking on their lawns. The cars are actually parking on these people's lawns and then they dig up grass when they try to move out and leave and it's just not suitable so I think everyone would be pleased if they'd all just park perpendicular on the field and be told, stay off the yards and give room for vehicles to get through. ,;J'" Jay Johnson: The worse situation we had this summer, there was a party going on at the top of the hill before you go down to the pal-k and the people were parking both sides of the street, all 4 wheels on. I had trouble getting my Plymouth Horizon through. We had a game that night so we had people coming in in vans and everything else. Schroers: Well it doesn't seem like there are many options. Do you need some kind of action on this Todd? A recommendation. . Mady: Public Safety has to review the no parking issue correct? Hoffman: Yes. Mady: And you're only talking about the soccer league. This has nothing to do with the CAA soccer in the fall? Jay Johnson: No. We were thinking about using this field for CAA soccer this fall but being the CAA soccer commissioner too, besides being on the soccer club, knowing that they're reseeding it, we're going to Meadow Green Park. We're going to play at Meadow Greens instead. Mady: Is there room Jay to put the under 10's in like North Lotus? Jay Johnson: The under 12's play at North Lotus opposite nights from Little League. Little League has it Tuesdays, Thursdays and we have it Monday and W~dnesdays for the boys and girls under 12. Schroers: Why don't you guys just forget soccer and play Little League? I"""" Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 43 ,..... Mady: Wendy, has the neighbors indicated a preference on the side of the street because obviously if we put no parking signs up, it precludes parties and things of that nature. Families come to visit and all this type of stuff. Andrews: The east side is lake. Pemrick: But you can park beyond that. They park beyond that. Mady: This isn't going to solve the whole problem. If you've got a block and a half worth of cars, you're going to maybe fit 20 cars in here but you're still going to have some on the street. Hoffman: Some of those residents probably remember back when it was all no parking due to Prince's residing there so it's a revolving door this issue. Schroers: Do you think by hauling in some ag lime in there and just the portion closest to the road, bring it in deep enough, 20 feet or whatever you need, would that be the solution? Mady: Maybe some bollards too. Hoffman: Again, we're talking about money again. Schroers: See the thing is, if it's too soggy or too soft underneath, just dumping ag lime isn't going to help anything because all you're going to do is drive on it and it's going to sink down into the mud. ,.... Jay Johnson: Well I don't know what the base is like there. The road seems to be holding up. Robinson: Yeah, I don't think it's that bad. Jay Johnson: You know we had a lot of rain this year. Pemrick: But it does get wet in there. Mady: That's where the water is meant to stand though too because the park drains toward the street and the street drains into there so it's kind of a ditch there. It's not real deep but it does. Jay Johnson: It's about 6 inches deep now. Mady: Maybe we need a culvert under the road directing it to that outlot. Jay Johnson: There is a culvert under the road. Mady: What we should have done maybe Jay, right after we bought the land on top of the hill, we should have bought that large parcel next to the lake and put a parking lot in there. Schroers: If we recommend putting ag lime in there, who pays for it? Do we have funds for that and is that a reasonable solution to this problem? ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 44 ,... Hoffman: Again, as Jim eluded to, later any additional expenditures at this time are scarce to come by but ag lime to solve a, or potentially solve a problem here is going to be something that we can come up with. Again you notice that I did not make a recommendation because I do not think there is an all in one solution here. There's potential to shuffle the problems and the opinions around. If we pull off parking, a gravel lot there, sign the opposite side of the street or the lake side of the street no parking. Go a block up one way, a block up the other way. If we enter into somebody's yard, they may be opposed to that no parking sign because it's in front of their yard but they may want it there because there won't be any soccer players parking there. Schroers: Is there a car pooling option? Are there a couple of parents that own a van that can. Erhart: They can park at the Bandimere Farm and then just drive them in? Lash: Is there an option of putting the no parking signs up during the soccer season so they don't have to suffer with those restrictions all year round. Jay Johnson: That'd be Monday nights. ,..... Mady: Well yeah it'd be Monday night but ultimately within 2 years that field's going to have to be used for soccer. I mean this problem's not going to go away. We're not going to be developing the south park for a number of years. We're going to be using this thing and we do play kids soccer there 2 nights a week. Lash: I'm just saying for the months. If it's like July and August or whatever for those two months. Mady: You're talking about summer and fall. Jay Johnson: We start in April and go to August. Mady: For summer and then the fall one goes until November. Lash: oh it does? Jay Johnson: But we don't play there in the fall. We've never played there in the fall. Hoffman: Currently we don't. Mady: years. My daughter played there. I coached down there. Girls soccer played down at Kiowa for 2 Jay Johnson: That was before I was involved with the CAA then. Mady: Yeah, that was the CAA. Hoffman: Fall soccer may go down there again. ".... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21,1990 - Page 45 ,... Mady: We simply have a field shortage so what we need to do is find a solution and we're not talking about 1 or 2 years. We're literally talking about more years because the City's growing and our parks aren't as fast as we need to so whatever we do, I think we're going to have to bite the bullet and put ag lime down here. I don't think we've got the money for probably bollards. Schroers: The entire distance across the frontage, like 20 feet in. Jay Johnson: Have engineering look at it. Lash: It can go in next year when we have our new budget so if we try to put the money in our budget. Mady: Well next year's budget is going to be lower than this year. Robinson: We don't need it this year I don't think because it's done. Lash: It's done now. Jay Johnson: It's over with. Hoffman: Yeah, but it would probably be wise, it be the work schedule of the park maintenance crew this fall. They can work these types of... Mady: Actually it's the street crew that dumps. ,..... Hoffman: . ..all the way up into November whereas in the spring they're very, very busy and rushed so we'll have that installed this fall. Again, it's a minimal cost item. If we do some signage, park up to signs or something of that nature and then discuss the no parking signs on the opposite side of the street with the Public Safety Commission. Have those installed. I think Jan's comment about possibly having them removed is an idea but again, taking up and putting down signs every 6 months for every year just creates more hassle in the area. Mady: It's confusing for the residents too. Lash: Or if the sign said no parking April thru November or something. We have some of those that say that anyway don't we? Jay Johnson: See a lot of times when people park down there, they're maybe half a car's length between cars. It's a very inefficient way. The first person gets there. I mean there's been places where I've wanted to get my little Horizon in and stuff because I figure I could probably fit in there and then I just went and took a different spot. Pemrick: How many cars Jay do you think we could fit there perpendicular? Jay Johnson: Perpendicular? 30. Andrews: That should be enough for, are there 2 fields there? Jay Johnson: There's only 1 field there. '"" Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 46 ,..., Robinson: It's 175 feet it says. Andrews: That should be plenty. Mady: That's 17 cars. (Everyone was talking at the same time at this point.) Jay Johnson: There's very rarely that we have 2 games. 3 times a year we have double headers there. We'd like to have it more often because it's the best. Schroers: Todd, did you pull one together? Hoffman: Yep. There's a motion on the floor to install Class V aggregate along the frontage of Bandimere Park at a width of approximately 20 feet in consultation with the engineering and park maintenance division to accommodate pull in parking during the soccer season and to consult the Public Safety Commission for the installation of the no parking signs on the east side of the street. Robinson: Second. Hoffman: Who made the motion? Mady: He made the motion. I seconded it. Any further discussion? Robinson: I'd just like to see this brought back before us either late ~ this fall or eal-ly next spring to make sure that it's been accomplished. Mady:Wendy lives there. She'll tell us_ Andrews: Have they started the new grading there Wendy? Pemrick: Yes. They brought in dirt and they've been spreading it out. Schroers moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission pursue installing Class V aggregate along the frontage of Bandimere Heights Park at a width of approximately 20 feet in consultation with the engineering and park maintenance division to accommodate pull in parking during the soccer season and to consult the Public Safety Commission for the installation of the no parking signs on the east side of Kiowa Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FROM MCGLYNN'S BAKERIES FOR COMPANY PICNIC AT LAKE ANN. Hoffman: Again, as I stated there, just since this is somewhat unusual because of the magnitude of the persons employed with McGlynn's, I just brought it forth for the Commission even though I think it is only appropriate as a large firm and business within the community which has treated us well that we do the same for them. But just to discuss some ideas about the potential conflicts. I think we can basically handle it. Obviously we won't schedule other picnics, softball tournaments and those types of things. Inform the life guards and all of those necessary precautions but just an item of interest for you. ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 47 ".... Lash: Do you get to collect a fee for this? Hoffman: Sure. Lash: ~ike how much? Hoffman: The fee is for reservation picnics in the park, we collect a $2.00 per vehicle as they enter so they either pay individually or the majority of the companies provide them with a picnic card or a picnic pass which we collect and then bill the company for. Lash: There's no other fee? Hoffman: There is a $100.00 damage deposit to ensure that litter is picked up. Things are not damaged.. .responsibilities. Mady: This damage deposit may need to be, and not just for McGlynn's, I think it should be maybe a minimum of $100.00 and it's based on the number of people anticipated. Lash: will they be requesting any additional services from the City like additional tables or additional Satellites or any of this kind of thing? Hoffman: Basically they would need additional tables in the area which they are using which currently we do for a larger picnic. That morning, the time before they mow they just push the picnic tables UP there as they mow. Additional Satellites, those types of things, we would need to ~ address at that time if they felt it was necessary. We could charge them for them. Other than that they would have it catered and take care of those things on their own. Mady: Do you need a motion or was that just an update? Hoffman: Just an update. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION. Hoffman: Administrative Section, any questions? Comments? You received one addition to the Adminstrative Section. Those two pages there. Just to confirm the purchase of the parkland in the Pheasant Hills area. Also to confirm the meeting schedule for the rest of 1990 and the rotating chair. Any questions? Mady: It's not really, on your letter or actually it's Dennis Unger's letter on the city trail easement on Chan Hills Park. The one for Kellee Lowdermilk. I thought that was Curt Lowdermilk or is his name different? His legal name different? I'm positive, when we discussed that thing, everybody kept saying that's Curt Lowdermilk. His wife's an attorney and that's how this whole thing came about so that one hit me as funny. Hoffman: Robert? Curt? -"" Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 48 ,..... Mady: Whatever, yeah. I brought up the deal on the warning tracks. On Lake Susan Hills Park, is that something we can do when we put it in? Since that's going to be a baseball field, it probably should be. I don't know if it's in the plan. I don't remember that specific but it's something we should probably address right away because that's going to be a fence and a baseball field, it should just be that way. Hoffman: ...we talked about earlier and pre-construction meeting was just held on Lake Susan Park on Monday. You should start seeing earth moved down there on Thursday-Friday of this week. Mady: Great. Because I'm real anxious to see that is a nice location. Couple of things. How long do we have Jerry as an intern? Hoffman: Potentially now extended through the end of the yeaT. Mady: Great. I was concerned since we're short staff. Jerry helps out a ton. Thanks Jerry. Since basically Todd had to assume most of Lori's responsibilities, we've lost our recreational person and you're it guy. Hoffman: He knows it. Mady: We appreciate it. Schroers: There was a lot of very positive feedback in regards to the tournament this weekend also. It was well run. Everybody had a good time. It was a good tournament and so. ~ Mady: His team won that's why. Our team lost 2 games and I thought it was a terrible tournament Larry. We played the worse ball we have all year. We won't talk about the umpiring we had. Andrews: One question for you. I don't know if you're aware of it or maybe the City did it. One volleyball net is missing from North Lotus Lake. I don't know if one of the neighbors just needed one or what. The other thing I wanted to say was that the Chanhassen 4th of July event this year was really great. It was a lot of fun to work there and it was really fun so. Lash: Todd was wonderful at bringing us water on the verge of passing out. I had something I wanted to ask. I don't know if this is a possibility but somebody suggested this to me the other day. I thought it was kind of a neat idea and it could be a nightmare for you, I don't know but I'll just bounce it off you and see what you think. A lady expressed an interest, she thought it would be a really neat idea if the City or someone could try to coordinate a sKate exchange. Mady: The Hockey Association does their own. I think it's a nightmare. That's why most of the skating stores that sell skates have pretty much stopped doing it. You have the potential liability of a disease through the skates. It is a nightmare. That's why you've kind of seen everybody go through. It's a nice idea but it just. Lash: I thought it would be great. I mean I sit with the skates my kids outgrow and each year I have to go buy new ones. ".... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 49 JII" Mady: At $150.00 a pair for hockey skates. Lash: Well no. I just sold them at a garage sale and this lady said you know we should have a skate exchange and then people could just bring a pair of skates and get a pair of skates. Hoffman: I've had that question raised before and I've sent them either to, I know the Waconia Hardware Hank has a skate exchange where you can bring your old skates in there and then either buy new ones or sharpened used ones. I've thought about some larger departments which have a little nicer facilities do have skate rental. You have that option as well would be probably not a failure but more a lot of work for what you would accomplish in that short month and a half, 2 month skating period. The Hockey Association does their, for that group they do their equipment exchange type of thing which I have received in the past. I've referred to the hardware store which do that. They advertise that during that time of the year anyway. There's one in Excelsior. A little far'ther north. Lash: Maybe even in one of our winter brochure, fall and winter brochure something. Even list something and say some of the places where people could do it. I mean I would have no idea where to do that. Mady: Find a room and say okay, if you want to exchange something, bring them in and leave them and come back in a week and take whatever you want. Find somebody's garage. JII" Jay Johnson: You could run a special ~~ant ad section just for skates at some time of the year. Robinson: Todd, I noticed there was a small discussion, a short discussion last meeting about the acting chair. The reason I declined tonight was because I've changed my opinion on that. I was in favor of that in the past. Based on our joint meeting with the City Council in May I believe it was, the Mayor sounded like he was opposed to that and I would agree with him. Hoffman: I'll take you off. Okay. Lash: Did we talk at the last meeting about maybe, did we just decided to wait until the end of the year and discuss it? Mady: The rules are in place for the meetings as they were voted on earlier in the year. They would have to be amended to do that. Hoffman: Last time it was discussed Jim, Curt, Jim and Larry were interested in maintaining that schedule. Mady: I don't see a reason to change it now since there are only maybe 4 meetings left in the year. Depending on when reappointments are done, I may not even be here in November so. One last question, unless somebody else has anything. DataServ fields. With the new road going in, did we lose or maybe we've lost the use of them anyway because of DataServ but did we lose a field there? " I"""" I"""" ,-. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 21, 1990 - Page 50 Hoffman: Basically the Field 1 was not used this year because of that road. Ideally we would like to just dissolve the use of those fields next year and pick" up the slack on the new fields at Lake Ann. It's a less than ideal circumstance. We have to send crews over there to try to maintain, sketchily maintain. Try to keep them above. being terrible in order to use them. We do not own them. We do not have any interest in putting a whole lot of dollars in there so as quickly as we can, it's been great that they let us use them but as quickly as we can not use those fields any longer, the better. So possibly what we're looking to next year is just not to schedule it at DataServ and to pick up the slack in the new fields at Lake Ann. Mady: Thanks. Any further discussions? Andrews moved, Schroers seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.. submitted by Todd Hoffman Recreation Supervisor Prepared by Nann Opheim