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