PRC 1989 04 25
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
~APRIL 25, 1989
Chairman Mady called the meetjng to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Ed Hasek, Jim Mady, Curt RObinson, Larry
Schroers and Dawne Erhart
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Boyt
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHAIR.
Schroers moved, Hasek seconded to appoint Curt Robinson as the Acting
Chair for the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Public Present:
UPDATE OF LAKE LUCY ACCESS AND CHAIN OF LAKES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
Name
"...,
Brian Tichy
Allen and Barb Finstad
Madeline Hickey
Dale and Gloria Carlson
Ron and Mary Knudten
Conrad Fiskness
Joe Morin
Eric Rivkin
R. Guhtmiller
Address
1471 Lake Lucy Road
1701 Stellar Court
6990 Utica Lane
6900 Utica Lane
6830 Utica Terrace
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Watershed District
1441 Lake Lucy Road
1695 Stellar Court
1801 Lake Lucy Road
Sietsema: At the last meeting staff was directed to look at a couple of
options. One of them being the acceptability of a portage access, to
check it out with DNR. The idea was to launch a boat on Lake Ann, paddle
across and portage through Greenwood Shores to Lake Lucy. I called DNR
and their initial reaction was actually positive. They thought that that
would be okay. When they took it up to the head office, they denied it.
They said that that would not be an acceptable option It would not
provide equal access to non-riparian lake users. They said that the lake
is on Met Council's list of priority lakes and would require a ramp of
it's own with parking. I then called DNR and asked them to meet with me
because I wanted them to look at what we were dealing with out here and
the limited options that we have out here. I approached them about the
idea of dredging the creek between the two lakes, putting in a barrier so
"...,that you could paddle up the creek and lift over as we had discussed in a
, previous meeting which would not really be a portage but it would still
require paddling across Lake Ann to get to Lake Lucy. At first they
weren't real negative on the idea. We did go out and walk the site and
upon walking the creek bed they were not impressed with the idea at all.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 2
.....,/
Although they wouldn't give me a flat out no, I have a hunch that they're
going to take it back to their departments and think of good reasons why
it would not be acceptable. Then the other option that we were to look
into, staff was direct to prepare a mini-feasibility on the outlot in Lake
Lucy Highlands to determine if an access could be accommodate on this site
and what it would look like and what kind of costs would be involved.
Scott has prepared the mini-feasibility study. It was included in your
packet and he's here to address some of the high points of that. After
that I can address how DNR felt about that option as well.
Scott Harri: The subject piece of property that we were charged to look
into was Outlot A of Lake Lucy Highlands subdivision. The site is located
in the northwest corner of Lake Lucy on the south side of Lake Lucy Road.
Presently it's a long rectangular lot almost 1,100 feet in length from
north to south and nomimally about 300 feet in width. As you can see by
the little graphic marks on the subject piece of property, about 70% of
the site is marsh or wetland. About 30% of the site is higher ground. I
say higher ground, anywhere ranging from perhaps 3 to 6 feet higher than
the marshland. The proposal, what we looked at, Lori mentioned we looked
at two basic questions that we wanted to answer. Can we fit facilties
size large enough for a boat access to Lake Lucy and secondly, what would
the costs be for that. In applying the standard DNR criteria for a boat
access, we were able to look at a number of alternatives incorporating
various different options for parking arrangements for access, location
and also for where the boat access, either be at the shoreline or back
closer to the high ground. In looking at all these things, we presented
this one that you see right here which shows parking for boat and car
combinations of 7 which meets the DNR criteria of 1 every 20 acres of
water and we're proposing a 20 foot wide driveway and a boat ramp that
would come down over in this location right here. Furthermore, what part
of this project would entail, dredging approximately a 50 foot wide
channel depending upon where...and how deep the depth to the ground
surface. We would be dredging anywhere from 2 to 4 feet of material to
provide a navigatable type of channel out to a contour map where there'd
be about 4 feet of depth of water out to Lake Lucy. In conjunction with
this, we feel that the project cost is approximately $118,300.00 to
accomplish this. In summary conclusion, we feel that parking access fit
on Outlot A. It can meet the DNR expectations and regulations for boat
access. The project would require both winter and a summer season to
construct due to the lake area dredging and the marshland types of
dredging. And that prior to proceeding with, I guess a commitment to
purchase the property or do anything further, we would recommend that soil
borings and topographic surveys be obtained so that we could better update
the cost that we presented in here because we've made a number of
assumptions which I guess was the intent of the mini-feasibility study to
get a ballpark cost figures. So we do think it's a feasible project from
an engineering standpoint and we can fit facilities on the site.
'-'
Hasek: Is the cost of the topo survey and the soil samplings in the
$27,300.00 or is that an additional cost?
""""'"
Scott Harri: That would be part of the $27,300.00.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 3
I"'"
Schroers: Do you plan on installing any retainers to keep the dr.edged out
area from filling back in with sediment?
Scott Harri: We had not contemplated that level of detail at this point.
Our intentions was to do some over dredging if you will so that the 50
foot wide channel could perhaps encroach over some purative years and have
some sediment build up could come and still the channel could be accessed
with boat traffic for an indefinite period of time before redredging or
widening would have to occur.
Mady: Do you have any estimates Scott on the length of time before
redredging would be necessary?
Scott Harri: Not really. We have not looked at that at all. I think it
would be quite a long time. I think that marsh and stuff is a fairly
stable area so I wouldn't anticipate within 10 years something would have
to be done.
Mady: You're anticipating it would be a fairly gentle slope down to a 4
foot depth?
Scott Harri: In typical boat access areas, this portion of the ramp would
be fairly steeply sloped. 10% to 15% grade so that you could get a
""trailer in the water to float a boat. Then this portion of the channel
would be excavated at essentially level. At one depth because it would
actually be the water level here and we would just take it down to a
uniform depth below that.
Mady: Okay, I was wondering about the side slope~ of the trench.
Scott Harri: The side slopes in the trench, they could be made to be
quite flat, yes.
Robinson: How long is that channel?
Scott Harri: This channel right now is about 500 feet long to get out to
the area that is about 4 feet deep in the lake.
Hasek: Is the scale on the drawing wrong or is the drawing wrong? It
looks like it's about 800 feet if you scale it out. About 700 feet.
Scott Harri: From here to here? From the lakeshore to a 4 foot depth is
about 500 feet. That would be the lake area type dredging and then the
marsh area type dredging would be another almost 300 feet, 200 feet.
Sietsema: Upon receiving Scott's feasibility study, I felt the DNR should
take into consideration the economic impact of putting in a facility on
this site before flatly saying no to our other options so I asked them to
,.....,come out there. We went over the options that we previously discussed and
we went to this site. They were excited about this site. They thought it
was a good site. They felt that they would not put in, they would not
recommend or require an access built to these standards. We could have an
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 4
....",
access with a gravel road and gravel parking pad. We wouldn't have to
have curb and gutter. They felt that you didn't have to go to a 4 foot
depth. That would lessen the amount of feet you have to dredge out. They
felt there was a lot of cutbacks that we could make to make this work.
That would also keep it more natural looking and not have as much of an
impact on the wildlife that's out in that area. They indicated that with
their resources they could probably do it for much cheaper and hearing
that, I asked them are you available to assist us in con~truction with
this because we don't have $200,000.00 to buy the property and put in that
access for 7 car trailer spaces on a lake of this type that has such
minimal open water. They asked me what I thought would be reasonable and
just as a shot in the dark I said, well what if we purchase the property
and you build the access. They said they thought that was reasonable.
They'd have to walk it around the head office and get everybody's okay on
it but initially they didn't really see that that would be a problem. I
think that they're making a big effort to work with us on this and with a
downgraded access, you still could launch a boat similiar to what is on
the lake but it would not be attractive to a larger boat. It would be
attractive to the fishing type boat or canoes and that kind of thing and
that's the kind of thing DNR wants to attract anyway. So giving that
information, that they wouldn't approve a portage type access or the
dredging between the two lakes, what I need tonight is a recommendation to
pursue this or to look somewhere else. To do something different one way
or the other. We need to proceed with this because the chain of lakes,
the PCA needs to see progress in our area because they are approving the -'
funds to be spent on the chain of lakes clean-up project. It would then
be staff's recommendation to pursue an agreement with DNR to have them
construct and maintain the access and we would purchase the property and
deal with enforcement. Also, then to recommend that we enter into
negotiations to purchase the property upon holding public, formal public
hearings to make sure that we've taken in all of the public's concerns and
get their input. One of the other things that I want to mention on this
site is that it would not require any kind of surface zoning on boat motor
size or boat size so whoever has boats on the lake could maintain what
they have. Again, to hold formal public hearings before actually
purchasing anything and then also to recommend that we apply for LAWCON
funds or State bonded grant to help us acquire the property.
Mady: The question I had Lori was on the grant. That's not to build now,
it's just to purchase without the actual building. Does that impact our
possibility of getting a grant?
Sietsema: I don't think so because we've gotten grants in the past for
acquisition only. North Lotus Lake was acquired with a LAWCON grant for
acquisition only and so was a portion of Lake Ann Park so I do not feel
that that would be a problem for them. The only thing I can think of that
might give us fewer points or something is that DNR is actually doing the
construction and they may consider that the State's share already and say
that they're doing enough and maybe wouldn't kick in but if we separated
the two and this was acquisition only, my feeling is that we have a pretty
good shot at it. -'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 5
I"""'"
,
Mady: In your recommendation you mentioned that the DNR is looking
favorably on possibly building this ramp and you said and maintain.
sietsema: Well we didn't talk about that at the meeting but it was kind
of a second thought after they left. If we buy the land, own the land and
enforce the rules, and we have them construct it and maintain it. They
feel that the boat traffic will keep that channel clear and you're never
going to have to go in there and dredge again. But just to be sure, I'd
like to stick in the agreement that they maintain it as well. It's
something to try.
Hasek: I think even if we should lose it, if they don't agree to it,
there wouldn't be a whole lot of maintenance to go into a gravel lot.
Some erosion perhaps. Even if it did fill in there in 10-15 years. The
DNR doesn't think that it's going to fill in so there's a good chance that
it won't.
Schroers: Lori, do you have any estimates on the cost of gravel versus
the pavement? How much are we saving and where is the money coming from?
Sietsema: Well if they do it, it saves us the whole construction if they
do it all. We don't have to pay for any of the construction then. They
would do it. I don't know how much the paving is but Scott might.
~ Hasek: It'd probably be the aggregate less the bi tuminous and the curb.
I cut the number in half myself.
Scott Harri: That's pretty reasonable for ballparking. Maybe even a
little less than half.
Robinson: Anyone else have any more comments or questions before we open
up the public hearing?
Schroers: I guess I have some comments on it. I think that Lake Lucy is
one of the last precious few natural environments left in the city. I'd
like to see it left that way. I'm not in favor of a formal public access
to Lake Lucy. I guess I would prefer to pursue making Lucy a quiet lake
the same as Lake Ann. Non-motorized and I would like to continue
negotiations further with the DNR as far as working out something as far
as a portage type of access.
Mady: Lori, a question on that comment. When you met with the DNR, did
you bring that up, making it a quiet lake? With their requirement for the
non-riparian owner have the same rights as riparian owners, would those
two coincide?
Sietsema: We can make it a quiet lake. We have to initiate, change our
ordinance and submit the ordinance change to the DNR for their approval
but if it's a quiet lake, it's got to be quiet for everyone. That means
~that people that live on the lake could not have motorized boats if the
general public was not allowed to. It's become a state law since the
Christmas Lake ordeal.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 6
...."",
Hasek: Would that position go through Council for approval before it went
onto DNR or would it go straight to DNR?
Sietsema: It would go to Council first. If I could make just one more
quick comment. I know that Conrad Fiskness is here from the Watershed
District to answer some easy questions about what's going to happen with
the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes clean-up project but I would like to just
say that I know that you got the work plan. It's a draft copy of the work
plan of how the whole project is going to take place but it's not our
jurisdiction as far as how that's going to be carried out and if people
have specific questions about the work plan, they should go to Bob
Obermeyer at the Watershed District and discuss those because it's not
within our realm of responsibility or anything else. That portion of it.
Mady: What's a BMP? Talking about non-point source of pollution.
Sietsema: I don't know. Maybe Conrad could answer that.
Eric Rivkin: I'm here because I live on Lake Lucy and I love our natural
resources so much that I had to find out what's going on. My lot borders
the access. I have a couple of concerns. One is that, a question I have
is how tied is the ability to get the access to clean up lakes project? In
other words if, let's say there were different ways to do the clean up
that did not include DNR involvement so we would not have to be required
to put in the access, could we still get a grant to clean the lakes up? -'
Sietsema: As I understand it, Lake Susan is part of the chain of lakes
and for them to do any work on Lake Lucy, we have to have access so it's a
requirement. They can't do one without the other.
Eric Rivkin: Is the plan designated with the EPA? Is funding designated?
Sietsema: Yes.
Eric Rivkin: It is designated? In other words, everything that's
proposed in the plan, can only be funded by that grant? In other words,
if other methods are picked...
Sietsema: I might defer that question to Conrad.
Eric Rivkin: Conrad, if other methods were picked or let's say we don't
get public acceptance for whatever reason of this plan, that we could open
up discussions or get bids, the EPA could get new bids or whatever for new
proposals?
Conrad Fiskness: Conrad Fiskness. I'm President of the Watershed
District. The history of this is that over the course of a number of
years, there have been a lot of studies done on Lake Riley and the other
lakes within the Watershed District which includes the Riley chain. As a
result of a number of things that happened at the regional and even the
federal level of the EPA, they were looking for places to do demonstration ~
type work. Because of the advance level of some of the work that has been
done on this chain, particularly on Lake Riley and some of the others,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 7
.""
this was identified as a system that met a lot of their criteria, in fact
virtually all of their criteria for a project of this kind. One where
they could demonstrate what they have developed today. And they really
went through and looked at all the work that had been done and said, if
this agency will do this. If this agency will do what they have proposed,
you'll see in our proposals that have been made, I don't know if this is
the report that you saw, there's a lot of work that's been done so the EPA
said, if this is done, we would do this project. So because of the fact
that this chain is in two cities and two counties, there is no one agency
that they could really go through without having a joint powers agreement
other than the Watershed District so they came to us. They literally
recruited us to be the sponsoring body. We didn't design the project. We
didn't decide what was going to be in the project. Basically we took what
they came and said would be if, the EPA said we've already talked to the
MPCA and they'll do this. We've talked to DNR, and they will do this.
This looks to us like something that we would be willing to fund and if
you will do the work of coordinating and sponsoring it and one of the
contingencies is that there has to be public access for the local, as I
understand it, they've got some rules. Number one, all of this should
have been done before they committed the money including the access but on
the basis of commitments with the City of Chanhassen had made, they said,
okay we'll rely on that and we'll go ahead. And they also were willing to
allow the DNR portion, which would be a lot of the work in the
restoration, to be counted as the local contributory part to the project.
~Consequently, the amount of money that has to come out of us here, either
the Watershed District or the City of Chanhassen or the City of
Eden prairie is very, very minimal. We're talking about $20,000.00 on
what's almost a 1 million dollar project. So to answer the question, the
technology was basically brought to us. If we were to say, well we don't
want to do it this way, they would say, well then you pay for it and that
changes the whole ballgame because you're talking about, for example the
DNR portion is $322,000.00. I don't know that our district, I know that
our district is not prepared or able to pick that up and I doubt that the
City of Chanhassen is either. That doesn't mean that we have closed the
door to hearing other ideas. I know that Mr. Rivkin had an informal
meeting of some local residents which I attended last week. I believe you
probably received a letter from our engineer's office inviting you to come
in and share whatever information that you have. I don't hold any great
hopes that we would be able to convince them to abandon some technology
that they wish to showcase. I don't know if that answers the question
but. I don't know that the door is 100% locked but it's a little bit
beyond our domain too to say okay, we don't want to do this. We want to
do this and I think we would probably lose it all.
Hasek: Is our portion of this worth about a million dollars? Our segment
of this as the City of Chanhassen? We are providing $20,000.00 and DNR is
providing $320,000.00 and a remainder of that million for our segment is
being put up by the EPA?
~Conrad Fiskness: The total project is $966,000.00 and that includes
public information. The construction work is estimated to be about three
quarters of a million and then about $200,000.00 in education to control
non-point source pollution.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 8
....."",
Hasek: Okay. The City of Chanhassen has committed to that public project
for $20,000.00?
Conrad Fiskness: No. That's split between Eden prairie, Chanhassen and
the Watershed District so your share is one-third. The other thing though
is that it was the responsibility of the City in where a lake was located
to provide that there would be public access to the lake and the DNR can
not go in and do their work on public waters using public money for lake
restoration if the general public can't use it. They just are prohibited
from doing that.
Hasek: Okay, second question. The project was basically begun because
all of the cities made a commitment to go ahead. They agreed that it was
good proj ect and they made a commi tment to fi nd the accesses were
appropriate. Were we the last city to commit to that?
Conrad Fiskness: Yes. Eden Prairie, they weren't going to spend any
money unless Chanhassen committed to pulling their half of the wagon.
Eric Rivkin: I want to applaud the efforts of the Watershed District to
try and improve the water quality of our lakes and I also want to thank
Lori for her asking the DNR whether they would help with acquisition and
development. That was one of my concerns early in the game and I'm glad
to see some progress was made there. Also, downgrading the access to make-'
it unattractive to large boats. Thank you very much. If, for whatever
reason, the public access for the lake goes through, then I think we have
a couple of concerns. One was the number of trailer parking spaces in the
access. Dale Carlson who lives on Lake Lucy caught some discrepencies in
the report and there are 2 or 3 figures used in the plan and I found some
others that are used from government sources. I got an aerial photograph
or drawing of Lake Lucy and it says 175 acres. There's a figure of 120
some acres in the report. 132 and another says 94. It makes a
difference in the number of parking spaces so if we could make it more or
less attractive for people corning to use the lake and cut that down by
finding out what is consistent and what is up to date with the figure.
Sietsema: And I've done that. I checked with them and asked them what's
the real number and DNR goes by, and I forget the source but for their
requirement for parking, it goes back to what they have on their records
and it's 134.5 acres or something like that so we have to have 7 is what
they require.
Eric Rivkin: There's less than that. That goes to the ordinary high
water mark?
Sietsema: Right.
Eric Rivkin: And that would include about 50 to 75 acres of cattails and
marsh. --'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 9
,....,
Sietsema: Right and they are aware of that. I said don't you go by open
water because you can't boat in cattails. But they said, no we go by the
ordinary high water mark and that is determined by what they have on their
maps.
Eric Rivkin: As with public spaces, there's always neighborhood concern
about parties and stuff going on there and people using the gravel road as
additional parking. I understand that you can actually turn around, it's
limited to 7 and that's it and you can be turned away.
Mady: Anybody can put their boat in and use it to park.
Sietsema: If the City adopts a policy that there would be no parking
along the access road or along the street, which there is no parking along
Lake Lucy Road as we all know, if you post it that way, then you would not
be allowed to park there but you cannot turn a boat away. We tried to do
that on the Lotus Lake deal and they said that was limiting access,
therefore discrimnatory to the non-riparian lake users and therefore
illegal. And we went round and round with them on that one and we go
nowhere fast. The only way we can control the number of boats is by
limiting the number of parking spaces and limiting where parking elsewhere
is available.
""'Bric Rivkin:
park there?
You've got to allow them, they can come in but they can't
They have to make their own arrangements to park?
Sietsema: So therefore if you had a friend that lived on the other side
of the lake and you could park in their driveway, you could do that.
You'd have to figure it out on your own where you're going to park if the
parking lot is already filled.
Eric Rivkin: As I heard at Minnewashta, I think friends of somebody else,
at Lake Minnewashta Regional Park there are 21 spaces. They have a booth
there I understand. He was turned away.
Sietsema: That's the way it is and DNR is catching wind of it and it
won't be that way very much longer. They were doing that at Lake Riley
and they put the kaboosh on it immediately.
Eric Rivkin: So...get access?
Sietsema: That's correct. 7 is the minimum.
It's not the maximum.
Eric Rivkin: Also as a concern of myself and a couple other residents who
have canoes, that we'd like to walk in and like a municipal park like on
Lake of the Isles, Lake Calhoun. Just have a simple, inexpensive canoe
rack where we can simply lock up our own canoes and leave them there.
I don't know what kind of liability would be turned over but I would like
,....,to use it as a canoe storage myself since I'm adjacent to the lot and it
Nould also eliminate the need for me to pursue extension of my permit to
dig a channel for my riparian rights to get lake access. I have a permit
with the DNR right now. All I have to do it get Council to approve for the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 10
.....,;'
extension which may not be so easy with this now so in lieu of that I'd
like to see that for not only myself but for other people around Lake
Lucy. . .
Hasek: If I could address that. I think we've talked a little bit about
the possibility of putting up canoe racks. The problem that we've run
across and we haven't decided how to handle it is who gets the right to
use them. I think because they're on the lake, they're put in by the
City, that all the residents in the City should have an equal opportunity.
I don't know if that's done with a lottery or what but I think to expect
that we as a City, I know I wouldn't be in favor of putting a rack down
there simply for the adjacent users to use because there's a lot of people
in the City who would like to be able to get down to the lake. I guess
that's my own opinion. We've talked about it but haven't come up with a
solution to that yet.
Eric Rivkin: Canoe racks are a pretty low impact thing.
Hasek: No question about it. The question is, if you put them there, the
people to lock them, then what you've done is basically allowed them a use
that you haven't allowed anyone else. The question is, how do you allow
that? I lived in Mound for a,while and they had city docks out there and
the way the City docks were run is you put your name into a hat and each
spring they draw names out for the people who are non-riparian homeowners
within the city get to use the docks. You might have one year and you
might not have it the next year.
.-,
Eric Rivkin: It's worth a try. We're not as populated an area. If it
doesn't work, you can always take them out.
Hasek: Exactly. I think part of it is that not everybody is going to
want to participate in that particular use. Not everybody has a canoe but
however we decide to do that, if we should decide to do that, it has to be
equitable for the whole city. Not just for the immediate neighborhood.
Eric Rivkin: Also, there's a wetland ordinance, as you all know, whereby
any alteration to a Class A wetland has to go through Council to prove a
benefit to the wetland. Just being treated equally here, I had to go
through the process in the alteration of this wetland.
Sietsema: We will too. The City will have to go through the same
process, or the State if they're going to construct it.
Eric Rivkin: I'd love to hear what they have to say about what proof
there is, that there's actually benefit to the wetland. I also have
questions, and they're all technical oriented towards the project itself.
I just want to summarize the questions and if Conrad can answer any of
them, that's great. If not, either Lori, I would expect somebody from the
City to try and investigate the answers to these. One is, as I mentioned
first, how tied is the grant with this? I know Conrad gave a very lengthy
answer to this but I talked to Mark Tomzcak who this was addressed to and -'
he seemed to be open to the idea of opening this up more to public
understanding of what's going on. He said the plan would go ahead, he
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 11
"'"
wouldn't approve the plan unless there was public acceptance of this so
that means some kind of a discussion open to the public and open to
experts. Maybe scientists that are...that may have opinions about the
plan or shed some light on it so we're not kept in the dark about what
we're really getting ourselves into. My questions to Barr Engineering who
developed this plan, one is how many lakes have they restored and do they
have any data?
Sietsema: How many lakes has who restored?
Eric Rivkin: Has Barr Engineering restored and do they have any data.
Hasek: Lori, the easy thing would maybe be to just have him submit his
questions to you.
Eric Rivkin: Okay, but I wanted the public to hear them because it may
spur some other questions. How much of the nitrogen and phospherous,
which are the bad nutrients studied in the report, typically corne from
outside the lakes? It's shown that almost always more nutrients come from
inside the lake itself than from outside the lake. From things like
waterfowl and fish excrement, 4 times as much nitrogen and phospherous is
released from bottom sediments when it's released anirobically, which is
in sludge. In the muck. In the lakes than it receives from the inflow.
"""We can't put diapers on the ducks or geese. There's more geese than
ducks. I question the amount of effort that's being put into cleaning the
lake. The nutrification whi~h was cited in the report was the number one
water quality problem. On page 20 or 28 it says, that's the number one
problem. What are we doing about that? Also, the calcium nitrate
treatment which is slated for Rice Marsh Lake. Has it been proven to work
to reduce nitrogen and phospherous in a lake? I want to cite a report
that was done in Long Lake in the south basin done by...who is the Ramsey,
I think I gave Ursula a copy of that this morning. I don't know if it's
been distributed yet for this meeting or not... He's the Ramsey County
City Engineer and they did a test, it was very highly experimental thing
where they took calcium nitrate and tried to improve the water quality
with it and the experiment didn't work. The calcium nitrate happens to be
more soluable than sugar. It's 1.2 times more soluable than sugar. I
don't know why calcium nitrate has been applied. It's one-third of this
$966,000.00. $310,000.00 is slated for calcium nitrate treatment.
Where's the proof that this is going to work? Water clarity on Long Lake
was 11 inches. They said you could put the disc in the water, when it
disappears, that's when you read it. 11 inches is regarding as extremely
poor. Where is the funding corning from? The biggest part of this budget
is the Rice Marsh treatment. Is that really the pivoting point of this
project or is it approved in the works somewhere and we don't know about
it. The City of Roseville, Eb Kare who is one of the councilmen up
there, Roseville turned it down after...Long Lake. I'd also like to know
which projects they c~te to education. To farmers and residents to use
"....less phospherous and nitrogen. What projects have Barr Engineering
conducted where education resulted in improving water quality? What
projects have they conducted where a control of nutrient inflow resulted
in improvement of water quality? Do they know of any documented cases
where by manipulation of fish, which is cited as one of the inlake
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 12
--'
treatments, by manipulation of fish population contributes significantly
to the improvement of water quality? Water quality improvements is the
main objective of this project. That's why EPA is doing this. Again~ the
predominant...identified in the report is nutrification. Why isn't more
attention being given to that? I guess that's my observations.
Mady: Your questions are really technical in nature. My understanding
this whole project has been of an experimental nature. If there's no
proof available that really show that calcium treatment does indeed work,
would you want the City to say no, not to do the whole project or to throw
it all out?
Eric Rivkin: Yes, I think we should. If it proves that the feasibility
of the recommendations show that it's not going to work, why waste the
money and the effort. There are a lot of hidden costs and hidden agenda
in there. What happens when the calcium nitrate, when it fails? Will the
City have to pick up the tab to retreat it? It will be more expensive to
do it later. What would happen when the calcium nitrate, all it will do
is add nitrates to the water. I've been told that it does not lock out
the phospherous which is the nutrient pollutant that they're trying to
control. That we'll be left with, they want to do it at Lake Riley, it's
right upstream from Lake Riley. What's going to happen when all this
nitrate dumps into Lake Riley? Are we going to be left with all kinds of
environmental problems that are going to be bigger than right now? So
yes. These lakes are our most important natural resource. We shouldn't
screw it up and it could be disastrous, I don't know but I would like to
put the proposal to the test somehow.
.....",
Mady: I guess my comment is, I don't feel we're going to get a yes/no
answer on a lot of those questions.
Eric Rivkin: I know, not here. I don't expect to.
Mady: But if we don't have a yes/no answer to those things, I guess my
concern is, I've been hearing about Lake Riley for 8 or 9 years now. How
bad Lake Riley is. I guess this is the only effort that I've seen to kind
of address the problem. I would hope this is the best knowledge around.
My concern is if we don't get a yes/no answer, what happens? If we do
nothing, because we're losing Lake Lucy right now. Everybody admits the
lake is slowly filling in. It's getting worse and worse and that process
speeds up, it doesn't slow down.
Sietsema: What I'd like to do is take Eric's list of questions and submit
them to Bob Obermeyer up at Barr Engineering and he can respond back to
us.
Schroers: Do we have a deadline that we have to meet as far as proposing
something to the DNR and getting the program started by a specific date?
Sietsema: I have deadlines if we want to apply for a LAWCON grant money,
I have to know by June 1st so things can start getting, and we have to -,.
show consistent progress towards access on Lake Lucy to PCA for them to
continue to hold those funds for this project.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 13
"""
Eric Rivkin: It's got to worth all this trouble. If we're going to have
an access and it's contingent upon, it's got to be worth it. I live on
Lake Lucy and my biggest concern is there but also I hate to see a million
dollars wasted on something where, Bob Obermeyer told us we won't see an
appreciable increase in visible water quality. That means when we look in
the water, it's not going to be really clearer than what it is today. I
think we've got to raise questions and get some answers on it pretty
quick. I'm not sure that getting questions from Bob maybe can answer
those.
Resident: He's not impartial though. He wouldn't be giving an impartial
answer. You've got to get a third party to give you a partial answer.
Eric Rivkin: We need a second opinion. If the lakes have cancer, let's
get a second opinion.
Resident: Would they EPA monitor this? Would they do anything else
afterwards?
Hasek: I guess Lori the question that I have is, the City Council has
made a commitment to go ahead with this project and obviously...and it's
not going to work out and we find the answers to these questions are
""'negative, and we find we're going to want to step away from them, what is
the potential impact on other things we may want to do this year? Is
there any ramification? Is there any political thing that could happen?
Sietsema: No. It's on their list of priorities. It would just probably
delay the access. There eventually, according to them, will be access
on Lake Lucy. It just will delay it because it wasn't slated for next
year's construction in this budget but it might be in 5 years or 10 years
or at some other time. I don't think that if we back out of this now
because we don't agree with the project or what the project's going to do
for us, I don't think that has a negative effect with DNR.
Hasek: Do we know, are we aware of how the EPA assessed this program at
all? How they looked at it and what they did to analyze the program?
They must have some means of evaluation to determine that it was a valid
way of attacking the problem.
Sietsema: I'm not aware of that but Jo Ann or Gary may be because I was
only handed this portion of it to get access on Lake Lucy. Then it goes
back to Planning and Engineering to coordinate the efforts with DNR and
PCA and the Watershed. The only reason Park and Rec is involved in this
is because we're in charge of boat accesses so I could direct Eric's
questions to Gary and he can get an impartial answer if that's what you
want to do too or I could do both.
~Hasek: Perhaps if there's not an impartial answer out there through some
other agency that's already taken a look at it and determined through
their own sources that the program has some validity. I think it's like
anything else. As soon as you send something to test it, you're going to
get different results from everybody. The question is, how different are
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 14
-'
the results? It may be worth while just to try and track down through the
EPA whether any studies were done by them on Barr Engineering's proposal.
Conrad Fiskness: I think there's a bit of misconception here. It is not
a Barr Engineering program. Barr Engineering is a consulting firm that
does the technical work for the Watershed District. The Watershed
District was asked to be the coordinating body. The technology was
brought to us by all the other agencies that have been mentioned.
EPA came to us and they had pulled all these things together. The DNR has
basically submitted what was their best technology. Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and EPA so we were charged with, we're carrying the ball
through the various local agencies and then also with the writing up of
what has been submitted. You go through the plan you'll notice that a lot
of it, there are proposals that have been submitted by the other agencies
so all we're doing is really coordinating. As far as the statement how
many lakes has Barr Engineering restored? Barr Engineering is an
engineering firm and so they do have knowledge on staff and that kind of
thing but that is not their main thing. They're a consulting engineering
firm but they are coordinating this effort as the hired arm of the
Watershed District.
Sietsema: And I'd just like to reiterate again that the City Council made
commitment to the project and directed the Park and Recreation Commission
to achieve the mission of getting an access on Lake Lucy. These questions
may better be addressed at the Council level where they can direct the
appropriate staff. Not that I'm trying to pass the buck. It's just that -'
I don't have the knowledge or even the contacts to find out some of these
answers. It's not our portion of the project. We're here to deal with
access on Lake Lucy. Questions about the work plan and the rest of it
should really be addressed to engineering and planning.
Schroers: I'm just interpretting what I'm hearing. It sounds like there
are a number of agencies that want to conduct experiments on our lakes.
That concerns me. If they work, fine. What if it doesn't? Then where
are we?
Mady: I think Eric brought up the point, the comment he made that you've
got to look at it as cancer. Think of it as a cancer patient. You have
to look at what the research that's been done to date. Does it look like
it works? Does it look like it helps? Benefits. If it does,...then go
ahead and do it. If it doesn't, then throw it out if there's evidence
that it doesn't work but there's no way you're going to get a scientist to
say unequivably that this is going to work 100% of the time. Just
anything, there's no cut and dry answer to this. This thing is
experimental. We've got a serious problem in the chain of lakes. There's
no doubt about it and to...
Hasek: I think Lori brought up a very good point that might help to kind
of shorten things up here a little bit. I know there's a lot of concerns
out there about the technical aspects of the program. Park and Rec's
mission is to find an access so the thing can get onto Council. The -'
Council level is where all the technical issues should probably really be
addressed. You're more than welcome to put them in the record here but we
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 15
,...,
have no answers for you. Our decision tonight is this a good location for
an access? Should we proceed with it? If the project should go forward,
is there where we'd like the access to be and under this design so that's
kind of what our mission is here.
Sietsema: We don't have the option of saying this is a bad project and
not pursuing. We have to give the Council...
Hasek: The Council's going to give this, they have the final say on this
really. Our mission is to try and pick the best location for an access
and a design for that location.
Joe Morin: My name is Joe Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. With
that in mind, I won't comment on some of the previous discussion although
I do have some comments to make. With regards to the access, I really
support Larry's idea that it should be a quiet lake and that we should
continue to pursue the alternative of a carryon access for Lake Lucy. I
live on Lake Lucy and I'm willing to give up my speed boating rights. I've
said that before.
Mady: If I'm not mistaken though, you don't really have water. You've
got a large swampland on your property.
~Joe Morin: My property goes all the way down to Lake Lucy.
Mady: Basically like Eric's property where you'd have a problem getting
to actual open water.
Joe Morin: Not really. I have 10 to 30 feet of cattails to go through.
It's not a problem. Neighbors on both sides have docks.
Schroers: Do you happen to know how any of these neighbors may feel about
the quiet lake? Have you spoken to anyone else in the neighborhood in
regards to this?
Joe Morin: The people I've talked to feel the same. I'm not saying that
everyone around the lake feels the same.
Schroers: But do you think there would be more neighborhood support for
making Lake Lucy a quiet lake?
Joe Morin: I think you'd get in excess of 80% that would agree with that.
That's just my own gut feeling. I've only lived there for a short time.
About one week so I'm not a very good person to ask.
Ron Knudten: My name is Ron Knudten and I live at 6830 utica Terrace. We
do have a beach. We do use the lake. There are a lot of people on the
lake that enjoy it. We've been out there for 20 years. This is one of
,...,the reasons why we moved out here. We would like to continue on with
this.
Mady: You have a boat right?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 16
Ron Knudten: Yes. We have a boat.
......,.,
Schroers: It doesn't bother you that there may be, the general public may
be coming out there and using the lake as well. Seven other boats running
around out there doesn't bother you?
Ron Knudten: I don't think you'll have 7 boats out there.
Barb Finstad: My concern about the access, and I have let the DNR know
how I feel about my concerns about that access but maybe the public will
share my concern. It's to destroy the habitat for all the birds and the
wildlife that are on that shore of the lake. I lived next to Eric so I am
also adjacent to the outlot and I've observed a lot of the wildlife and
the habits and with the deer that travel back and forth, it would be right
across the rear of that access. There's ducks and geese and pheasants and
this year we've had egrets and herons that come and feed on that south
shore of that lake which if there were a lot of traffic, I doubt that they
would. And they sometimes travel 50 miles when they feed. That's my main
concern. I'm not a boater. I would prefer a quiet lake but my main
concern is that area. If you just preserve it. It's just beautiful. You
don't see much like that anywhere in the city or anywhere really. It's so
protected right now and to build that channel through there would destroy
a lot of the habitat and the habits of the animals.
Sietsema: I asked DNR about that because I gave them your letter because
I got it before they did. ...Their initial feeling was that this type of .....,.;I
an access, downgraded as I described, would have less impact on the
wildlife there than a house would and the people who own the lot are
planning to build a house.
Barb Finstad: And a channel?
Hasek: The channel, we've got one gentleman who's already got a permit.
Barb Finstad: I know and I know what he went through. That's why I was
surprised that this would be such a favorable site for the DNR.
Hasek: I guess what I'm suggesting is, if he can get a permit for a
channel, then the likelihood of somebody building there and putting a
channel in that area is still there...
Barb Finstad: But if a single person had a channel, you wouldn't have the
cars and the constant traffic going through there to interrupt all that
wildlife.
Mady: One thing that Larry's talked about is the City has to check with
Roger Knutson, the City Attorney and find out if making the lake a quiet
lake actually becomes a taking to those riparian owners and what
compensation would be necessary to the riparian owners for taking away
their right to utilize the lake that they've had in the past. We would
need to find out what that compensation is.
....."".
Hasek: I guess again, I think that's a matter for the council.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 17
,.....
Mady: Yes, but the question should be asked.
Mattie Hickey: My name is Mattie Hickey. I live at 6990 Utica Lane. I
also live on the lake. I am opposed to making it a quiet lake. We've
lived there for almost 17 years. We don't have a boat right now. We have
canoes and two sailboats but I don't really want to give up what it does
for us to be able to. Our kids had allergies, the lake is filthy so when
our boat went, we didn't replace it but now we're going to be having
grandchildren. They may not have allergies. Also, just from a property
value standpoint, it would reduce our property value if we live on a lake
that is not accessible to water skiing so I am definitely opposed to a
'quiet lake.
Dale Carlson: I'm Dale Carlson at 6900 Utica Lane. I'm one of the 20%.
We've lived there for quite a few years and we purchased land there also
to use the lake and use a boat on the lake so obviously I'm also opposed
to a quiet lake. Thank you.
Hasek: Just a further question. Are you in favor of a boat access?
Dale Carlson: I'm in favor of a boat access if the boat access is
necessary for the improvement of all the lakes in Chanhassen. And I think
~I need to thank Eric. Obviously Eric's done a tremendous job of
researching what's kind of happening here. It amazes me how much he has
learned in the past weeks and months. Some of the things that Mr. Mady
you say are too technical, were not technical to me and from the
standpoint that why spend a million dollars if it's not going to have a
pretty good chance of making it. And from what he said, it doesn't sound
to me like it has a real good chance of making it.
Hasek: I don't know that what he said necessarily makes it sound like it
doesn't have a chance but there are certain questions that have to be
asked in order to make it reasonable to go ahead with the opportunity.
Eric Rivkin: Just a couple responses. I was talking to Larry and Barb
and Joe, myself about, trying to preserve that side of the lake is a prime
nesting area for egrets and herons. Four beautiful snowy great whites
feeding there on the minnows and it was a beautiful sight. Now if we've
got a boats zipping in and out of there, every 150 feet there's either a
pair of mallards or geese. That's their territory. It's all around the
entire perimeter of that end of the lake. That nesting area. What's
going to happen when we have new chicks and we have boats zipping in and
out? On the other hand, there's no dark shadow cast on this lake
improvement thing. There are methods that I know about that will work on
cleaning up the lakes and for a lot less money. I would like to have some
opportunity to present these for some educational purposes. I don't claim
to be an expert... I'd like the opportunity sometime to explain these to
,.....Conrad and show him these lakes that have been improved by other methods.
It has worked and it is possible. If this plan is not gone through,
technically speaking it may not work. There are other ways to get grants
from the EPA through lobbying with individuals that I know about. I have
their phone numbe~s out, that can lobby to get grant the way we think it's
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 18
..",,;
going to work and not have to have an access. You don't have to deal with
DNR and it doesn't have to be a million dollars. So there's light at the
end of the tunnel and just being more educated and more knowledgeable.
about all this stuff. I try to make a plan simple when I start talking to
the residents that live on the lake and I read that report and tried to
separate the understandable language stuff from the temptable language
stuff. I was able to do it and I think anybody can so. I stayed up
nights trying to pour through those things because I was so interested in
it but there is light in the tunnel. There is no dark shadow so I just
want to make sure there's some opportunity to see that in a different
light.
Robinson: Anyone else? The public hearing is closed. Comments.
Schroers: I guess I have a comment. I don't like to repeat myself but
I'd just like to ask the question. How many other unique areas
environmentally speaking do we have in and around Chanhassen? I think
that people move out to this area for the peace and the tranquility that
other echelon rural suburbs can't give them and I think to preserve some
of our natural areas is money well spent and I would prefer to pursue the
education aspect of it as Eric mentioned. Spend more time researching
into what we're actually doing before we actually go ahead.
Erhart: I also would go along with what Eric presented us tonight. I
would also like to see us look into some other alternatives where we do
not have to put accesses on the lake and at the same time we would be able ""'"
to preserve the wildlife. I also agree with Larry on that and if I had to
make a choice, I would be in favor of the portage and would like to see us
pursue that.
Sietsema: The portage isn't an option. No longer an option.
Erhart: Oh, it's not.
Sietsema: They will not approve the portage idea.
Erhart: Okay. Well then, I'm back to pursuing Eric's option.
Mady: On the point of the boat access, a couple things I'd like to see
the City work at. Whether or not this whole idea goes through. I know
the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association has asked at least a couple of times
if not more, is that the City Council take a good hard look at restricting
fertilizer use near the lakes. That question's been around for as long as
I've lived in Chanhassen. It's the reason we got this problem now. It's
just over fertilization of the area causes the nutrification of the lake.
It's a natural aging process of the lake. The lake slowly infills and
ultimately becomes a shallow pond and finally a dry bed. So I think the
City needs to address that concern no matter what they do with this whole
issue. Finally on the boat access, everything that I've seen and read on
this issue for the last couple years has said that the DNR can not under
State law do anything with that lake without a public access. They are -'
just restricted by law to do anything. My belief, and it's only a belief,
is that if we make the lake quiet, it would be considered a taking and
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 19
,.....
would cost the City a lot of money to have to compensate the current
owners of the lake and will severely impact their property value. I
wasn't really happy with this,site mainly because of my fear maintenance
on it. The building of a trench. It sounds like that's not going to be a
problem. I was fearful that we'd have to dig this thing out every couple
years. It sounds like maybe that's a 10 to 15 year project and maybe that
often. If that's the case and if the DNR has worked with that, then it
becomes a very viable alternative so I guess on the boat access issue
itself, if all the other things go through, this looks like to be the best
choice for a boat access. Especially a quiet access. Make a compromise
on all the issues there. Keep the traffic on the lake to a minimum.
Making it a gravel road and maybe not as deep a trench and definitely keep
the big boats off. That's one of my concerns...on whether or not
defending this particular program. I don't know anything about other
methods and what their costs are and I don't think it's this commission's
job really to find those things out. That will be handled by the Council
level probably and directed to engineering but I believe something's got
to get done here. I've been hearing about this problem here now at Lake
Lucy and Lake Riley for a long, long time and if you live by those lakes,
you know there's a severe problem. We can't just hope that someday
something will come along. We're got to try and make something happen
now.
~Hasek: I guess when the time comes I'd like to entertain a motion on this
if I may be allowed to do so but I've got a couple of comments to go along
with that. There's a lot of information out there. The most qualified
information that we have to date comes from the Watershed, the DNR and the
EPA. I don't pretend to be an expert. I'm completely uneducated in this
area. I know that you can get a lot of background information from doing
a lot of reading but I don't know how much real education you can get
without experience. I agree that the questions that have been asked here
tonight need to be answered. I also believe that this commission has been
charged to at least go ahead with this project. I think the questions
that are being asked can better be asked and answered at the Council level
and I would like to see this issue, rather than stalmate here, all the
residents to be able to have that opportunity so I'd like to, when the
time comes, be able to at least make a motion that would perhaps move this
on and pass it up.
Lash: First of all I want to apologize for being late. I had to go to a
school concert tonight but I did have a chance to talk to Conrad several
hours one evening so I feel like I know some of the information. I guess
I would feel that the best of both worlds for this would be, for the
residents that live on the lake and other people who just use it, maybe to
clean it up but leave it natural. I think just about everybody would like
to be happy. I don't know if at this point it's possible but I think
those are some of the things we should try to check into by answering and
try to check into some of Eric's points. I think he had a lot of real
~good questions. This costs a million dollars. It doesn't cost the City a
million dollars but tax money and if I thought we were getting it for
nothing, I usually think of things like that for nothing are worth it. I
would like to check into some other avenues but I agree, that's not our
job. I'd like to see people who have that job check into those things.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 20
...."
If we had to choose an access, I would choose this site. It seems to be
our only option but I even have questions then of spending the City's
money that we would have to spend for that access unless have some pretty
strong guarantees that there's going to be marked improvement in this
chain of lakes and specifically Lake Lucy. It would cost a very large
amount of money for this access and I guess that's all I have.
Robinson: I'd like to see us move forward with this. with an access and
I think the option we've looked at tonight seems to be the best choice. I
guess I would like to see if there are better methods as Eric has
indicated but I'd like someone who is knowledgeable in that area to review
those. Do you want to make a motion?
Hasek: Yes. I guess based upon the discussion we've heard and been
entered into the Minutes this evening, I would like to go ahead and
recommend to City Council that we pursue, that they pursue an access on,
what it is? Identified as Lot 23, on the northwest shore of Lake Lucy but
that I would also caution the City Council to pursue any alternate method
of cleaning up that lake which might either cost the City less money or
cause less impact on that lake. Is there anything else that we need in
that motion?
Sietsema: You may want to recommend that they hold formal public hearings
and if they do go through with this, to approve a LAWCON grant.
Hasek: I think that's just a natural part of this but if you'd like me to~
put it in the motion.
Sietsema: We can do the LAWCON grant at another time.
Hasek: We might as well do it all now because they're going to have to
approve it eventually anyway. I just don't think that it serves the
community or us to keep having public hearings at this level when they
really should be at the Council.
Mady: I'll second that.
Hasek moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to pursue acquiring Lot 23, the Outlot in Lake Lucy Highlands on
the northwest shore of Lake Lucy for a boat access. Also, to caution the
City Council to pursue any alternate method of cleaning up that lake which
might either cost the City less money or cause less impact on that lake.
Also, recommend that the City Council hold formal public hearings and make
application to LAWCON for acquisition. All voted in favor except Schroers
and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
...".,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 21
,....,
PUBLIC HEARING ON PARK DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
CHANHASSEN HILLS
CURRY FARMS
LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST
Public Present:
Name
Jill Blumenstein
Robert L. Eickhalt
Cheryl Douglas
Bob & Peggy Thompson
Jon Thornberg
Kathi Clarke
Bruce Kotzian
Harold & Virginia Larson
Joan Brewer
M. St. John
John Speiss
G. & Kay Eastrum
~John Wi llman
Address
9361 Kiowa Trail
9390 Kiowa Trail
8650 Chan Hills Drive
1330 Stratton Court
1320 Stratton Court
6510 Devonshire
1340 Stratton Court
1350 Lake Susan Hills Drive
9366 Kiowa Trail
6450 Devonshire Drive
6610 Arlington Court
240 Eastwood Court
6510 Welsley Court
Sietsema: Part of the 1989 Capital Improvement Program budget includes
funds to develop plans for the parkland dedicated in Chanhassen Hills,
Curry Farms and Lake Susan Hills West. Mark Koegler has prepared some
preliminary plans based on discussions that happened at the time of
preliminary plat approval and site plan review. We'll start with
Chanhassen Hills and I'll just let Mark take over.
Mark Koegler: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to open with some generic comments
that are applicable to all three of the items we're looking at this
evening. First to talk a little bit about the process that we're looking
at this evening, particular for those who may be recently relocated in
Chanhassen and not experienced what you're going through right now. What
we typically have done in the past and we're doing with the three items
this evening is starting the process of the development of neighborhood
parks. That process begins with a meeting like we're having this evening
which is simply basically an idea generation. We put a couple things on
paper to look at to focus some thought and we're here to seek the input
from residents and the Commission for the types of facilities and some of
the location entries to those facilities that you might have for each of
those parks. So that would apply to both Chanhassen Hills, Curry Farms
and Lake Susan Hills West parks that you're looking at as well. From
here, from this evening we'll take the comments that we do hear, put those
,....,into a more definitive plan form that will come back before this
Commission. This Commission will have the opportunity to review that once
again and then to take final action. At that point in time to recommend
adoption or adopting with modification of that plan to the City Council.
At that time the item does go onto the City Council and is formally
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 22
....."",
reviewed by that body as well and is adopted as the master plan. That
sets the stage basically then for implementation and implementation
obviously is responsive to the capital improvement program you people and
the City Council work out, which is the allocation of money on annual
basis and how all of these things can happen. So the process has several
increments and we're at the beginning at this point. And with that as an
introduction, I'll launch into some discussion of Chanhassen Hills.
Incidentally, there are some reduced copies of Chanhassen Hills and Curry
Farms over on that table if anybody has interest in those. Feel free to
pick those up. The site for Chanhassen Hills Park consists of
approximately 8 acres. It sits on existing streets Lake Susan Drive...,
Chanhassen Hills Drive South, proposed TH 212 right-of-way that's being
officially mapped right now by the City of Chanhassen. It runs along kind
of the southeast quadrant portion of the park. The site orientation is
north is to the top of this particular drawing. In general, the property
has it's highest point right along the TH 212 right-of-way area. It drops
approximately 16 feet as you come through the site to a low point down in
this area which is a drainage pond that takes drainage from parts of the
actual subdivision that surrounds the facility. What we've done in the
initial stage for this evening, again for discussion purposes, is really
target some of the typical, if you want to call them that, neighborhood
park facilities that Chanhassen usually looks at for this type of
facility. In this particular case we're looking at a small, off street
parking lot which sits here which diagramatically shows 4 spaces. That's
a concept at this point in time and will be honed in by the Commission as
to what specific desires are in that regard. Then a connecting trail link"""'""
would go through, there are two actual walk-in, drive-in points. Drive in
on this side. Walk in on this side in accordance with this plan with a
connecting trail linking between them. From there, the interior space
portion of the park down along the south end we show a ball diamond which
would be sized, really could be sized to a number of scales but right now
we're showing it at about 220 feet. It's intended primarily for
neighborhood use, pick-up type games. Things of that nature. We've shown
a couple of tennis courts. A basketball net which could be located
contiguous to that. The typical totlot play area which would be up in
this vicinity and then the rest of the balance of the site would be open
space conceptually and it's only conceptually at this point we've shown
that there would be some landscape buffering that ultimately would be part
of a final plan. So again, those facilities are on paper in that location
to initiate a discussion process and itts at this point in the meeting
that typically I get to listen for a while and take in some of the
comments that the residents and the Commission might have. So before
that, if the Commission has any questions, I'll be glad to entertain
those.
Hasek: The uses look like they fit on the land. I question whether 220
feet is big enough for even a little field but perhaps it is. The
parking, again I'm glad to see that we can put in at least a minimal
amount of parking in the park or adjacent to the park. If we do go ahead
with parking, at least with those 4, I'd like to see 1 handicap parking
space designated. I question the location of the tennis court... -'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 23
~
Mady: The plantings that are shown here on this concept, they're not
existing trees?
Koegler: That's correct. The site is pretty much void of vegetation or
will be by the time, it's not even totally final graded. Hopefully on the
southern end, particularly along the TH 212 right-of-way and again, that
boundary line is presumably fairly well set just with the official mapping
procedures that are occurring. Now there may be some changes to the road
in terms of the elevation which may have minor impact on the park but
essentially the grades are set.
Mady: The topography that's shown on the plan here is how it exists right
now before the development is graded...?
Sietsema: Rough grade. Basically flattening it out to what you see.
This is off the grading plan, correct?
Koegler: Yes. This is, actually this integrates portions of the existing
contours and the developer's grading plan. Where applicable, we have
shown their proposed contours on here and obviously that will be working
for any kind of configuration of a park. Timeliness, hopefully it's
still appropriate that that may be able to be done as they complete some
of the later portions of the grading. That's the reason for doing this
"""'right now. I guess Lori has been negotiating with the developer to make
sure things are as suitable for uses as they can be.
Hasek: That takes care of the tennis court problem.
Lash: Is this Chanhassen Hills...
Koegler: I believe that's a looped street.
Sietsema: It's not in yet.
Koegler: It's not there, existing at the present time but on our plat, if
I remember correctly, it's looped. The entire development, the way the
plat is laid out, it's somewhat of an isolated entity. I don't know how
many homes are in there. I would guess maybe 80 to 100 so as the traffic
really is from that development. There's not through traffic from the
respect of a Lake Lucy Road or something like that.
Robinson: Are we talking a regulation softball field there?
Koegler: We literally can be talking anything that you desire. It's
easily expanded to 250. It's easily expanded to 285 if you so choose.
I think that centers on how you anticipate that facility to be used. If
it's simply on a neighborhood scale, it's reduced. It's perhaps not the
same level of improvements on the infield and fencing and so forth. If
".....you anticipate practices there or something...but there is ample land
there to accommodate virtually any scale design you desire.
Schroers: Would there then be land to accommodate additional parking?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 24
...-r
Koegler: Quite honestly, my opinion on that is additional parking is
going to be difficult on this site given the lot layout and the fact that
it's adjacent to TH 212. If you're going to look at any additional
parking and expanding the scale to roughly 4 spaces that are shown here,
you're going to have to look at taking it internal to the site. You're
going to end up with an entrance road essentially coming off that
northeast side into the center of the site basically and establishing a
parking site there. Again, that gets back to how you see the facility
being used. That's a fairly intensive application for a neighborhood
park.
Schroers: It seems as though it wouldn't be wise to develop the ballfield
to league or sanction requirements and then not have an ample area for
parking.
Mady: But don't you think Larry that you're going to develop a ballfield
for neighborhood use, you're going to have kids who get together and it's
still a fairly large neighborhood, who are going to meet at the Jr. High
and playing Babe Ruth ball, they're going to be hitting the ball a long
ways. They shouldn't have to worry about running into a tree when they're
playing. They've got their 5 guys on the team and 3 in the outfield and
pitching and somebody else playing first base. I guess I'd like to see,
no matter what the intended use is in a neighborhood park that our ball
diamonds in the neighborhood parks still be laid out so that they would
accommodate at least the 28~ foot open playing space. That can easily be ~.
done here.
Schroers: Yes, I would agree with that.
Koegler: You can have a clear zone basically. Keep the landscaping out
of this area and...
Mady: I don't ever anticipate us putting lights on this thing and fences
and that type of thing but we should at least have enough open space so
when the older kids are playing their games and workout and what have you,
the trees don't come into play too much.
Sietsema: Does anybody want to hear from the public. There are people
from the neighborhood.
Robinson: Yes. Does anybody have a comment on this one? Chanhassen
Hills.
Mady: Is anybody here from Chanhassen Hills?
Resident: It looks fine to me.
Robinson: Should we vote on these individually or would you...
Sietsema: Yes, I'd like a motion on this park on if you want us to put
this down more concrete or make any changes or whatever. Direction.
....."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 25
,...,
Schroers: I would say it looks to me as though Mark has done a good job
on laying out this park. I like the way it looks. The only concern that
I had was that there isn't enough adequate open space for a ballfield area
and parking should accommodate the expected use and it looks like he has
that covered so I like it.
Mady: I just wanted to comment on the pond area Mark. Is that pond
sufficient size to allow for neighborhood skating on it? Obviously we
wouldn't be clearing that because of insurance problems.
Koegler: I can't give you a concrete answer on that yet. Lori and I
recently discussed getting copies of the developer's drainage calculations
for both this one and Curry Farms Park so we really can get a better feel
for how much water will be in those sites and for how long. So when we
bring back a more defined drawing, we'll see if we can have an answer to
that issue.
Mady: Would there be a problem, just out of your background, if it is a
designated ponding area if we're ever going to see flooding?
Koegler: It would be no problem. I'm aware of several cities that do
that. I don't foresee it being necessary... As long as the grade will
accommodate, which it could in this case and with parking lot located
~roughly where it is, you've got good access for winter purposes and it may
be very feasible you could do that. The only concern I would have is that
pond does sit rather close to some of the residential lot lines. It's
being looked at as a more...site but if there's no lights or getting
daytime and weekend activities.
Hasek: I agree. I think in concept the plan lays out very well.
Lash: I think it looks great... Will it be done in stages?
Hasek: All of our parks are done in stages. This is probably a 12 stage
park.
Lash: Maybe we should find ogt from people what they think is...
Robinson: In the preliminary stage, that's how we like it attend and it
goes in further details on it.
Mady: I'll make a motion then that we recommend to staff to go forward
with the master park plan based on the comments made to date. That we
proceed as quickly as possible to build this so maybe we can convince the
developer to do all the flat grading that's going to be necessary on this
site to save the City a considerable amount of money in developing this
site.
"..., Robinson: I'll second it.
Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept the master park plan for Chanhassen Hills Park based
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 26
......"
on the comments made and to proceed as quickly as possible in it's
development to possibly convince the developer to do the grading of the
site. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CURRY FARMS.
Koegler: Procedure will follow the same as the last one. First some
brief opening comments about the site itself. Curry Farms Park is about 6
1/2 acres. The main frontage is off Stratton Court which is on the
southern end of the site. Lake Lucy Road is further to the south of this
particular drawing. The park site is delineated by the boundary here and
I'm sure most of the residents know where that is. The site itself is
essentially kind of bowl type of area. The elevation is probably I would
guess about 20-22 feet. The high points being literally around most of
the perimeter. When the developer came through and proposed the plans,
when they were accepted by the Planning Commission and City Council, they
did, as part of their grading improvements, some improvement up in this
area which established essentially a pad for a parking area and kind of a
walkway, roadway down there that would be about a 7% grade. In essence
we've taken that for a starting point and used that grading and contouring
that's there as part of the facilities that are identified in this
particular plan. Again, what we've started with are "typical"
neighborhood park type uses. We've shown a small parking lot in this area
tha t I referenced a moment ago. We I ve shown a couple of al terna t i ves for ....",
discussion purposes of a play area and this is a totlot type of facility.
One places it up at top which would still allow buffering room between the
roadway. The other place is down below which obviously has more
separation yet from the traffic and from the parking area. I think you
can consider the merits of both of those locations. One is obviously a
convenience factor and one is an enhanced safety factor. We've shown
volleyball conceptually court in this particular site. We've shown a
mixture of a tennis court, a single tennis court and basketball court in
this particular location simple because of space allocation. We've shown
a ball diamond consistent with the Chanhassen Hills one at about 220 feet.
That can be expanded. However, it cannot be expanded to the degree that
Chan Hills was just simple because of the amount of land that's available.
This one can be bumped to probably 250, maybe 260. Probably not a lot
more than that. There are two ponding areas on the site. One sits over
in this area. The other is over here on this other side. I referenced
that last time also. We're attempting to get copies of the drainage
calculations that were done at the time this plat was approved so we get
some feel for how much water is in there and more importantly during major
rain events, how much of that water is going to come in and inundate the
softball field for a period of time. Our best guess right now is that it
will not cause any major inconvenience to the neighborhood type users. If
you have league activities here, it might be a little bit different
matter. The other thing we show on this one is a walkway that would come
down and basically run in some kind of a cicuitous manner around through
the park. Again, we're in a conceptual mode but our suggestion would be -'
that it would probably be a narrow bituminous strip. We bring that to you
for consideration because I think it would be wise to consider some off
street avenue for children to ride tricycles and bicycles and big wheels
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 27
11""'"
and all those other things. I know from talking to a couple of the
residents, you're going to hear some information on the number of children
there. I think that will probably support that concept very readily. So
those are the suggestions that we've offered regarding that park for
discussion purposes and again consistent with last time, I'd be glad to
entertain comments from the commission or listen.
Mady: I have a question Mark. The pond in the upper northeast corner, I
remember when we looked at this 2 years ago when it was in the development
stage, I remember that pond was formerly a volleyball area wasn't and at
that time there was some concern from the residents on the Lake Lucy Road
area that what was being shown as the alternate play area would be fairly
close to that pond. Now that the pond's further north...
Koegler: This is taken from the grading plan and is part of the City's
formal approval record so it's as accurate information as we have on the
site for the placement of that pond.
Sietsema: Those concerns were responded to by moving this ponding area up
more into the lots rather than on the parkland.
Mady: On the softball field itself, is there any way of turning this
field so that the backstop is in the southeast corner?
,...,
Koegler: There is. The actual orientation is shown on this particular
drawing gives the optimum orientation for ball diamonds. You can
basically take that and extend it and put it down in the southwest corner
and that really is kind of a second choice so that can be done. It did
not really afford much change in the size of the diamond that you could
fit in here so we oriented it this way so the infield activity where the
noise generation is the highest, is furthest away from most of the
existing residential structures. Rather than reverse it and put that
activity close to the backyards. It's a minor point. There isn't a
significant change but again, you're looking down on it so it is quite
visible from the perimeter of the site itself. But this is the preferred
location for the sign.
Hasek: Are any of the trees shown that are shown on your pl~n at all
existing?
Koegler: Basically here again we're back to conceptual. We would be
enhancing the site with landscaping as a buffer in certain areas.
Mady: Doesn't the southern area...
Koegler: When you get to the west of here, northwest of here, there is a
significant stand of a wooded area.
Schroers: Do you know what the length of the walkway would be? Are we
~talking roughly a half mile? A mile?
Koegler: I can give that some thought here for a minute and come up with
a response to that. I don't know that off the top of my head. The
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 28
....."
exactly alignment of that would be set in final plan form and when we
bring it back to you.
Schroers: Then secondly, would the convenient play area be visible from
the parking lot?
Koegler: Yes. It would essentially have the same elevation as the
parking lot so it would very much be visible from the parking lot.
Hasek: About 2,000 feet in length.
Koegler: Somebody referenced the concept before of staging and that's
certainly something we can apply to anyone including the trail. There
can be a smaller loop that could be established and then even maybe a non-
paved portion that would eventually go around the rest of the site just
for walking purposes. There are lots of options.
Schroers: I prefer a longer walk.
Robinson: Any comments from the residents?
Bruce Kotzian: My name is Bruce Kotzian at 1340 Stratton Court. I guess
the first question I've got was being eluded to earlier and that is, when
the park is going to be built. What does it start? When does it finish?
Do you have any information on that? That's the first question. The
second one would be, and all of us here, most of here are from Curry
Farms, is that it is a neighborhood park and we're real concerned about
not having lights because of the softball. When we get into those noise
and all that in a neighborhood park. I've got a few figures for you on
how ~t's developed to this point for kids. That is, there is, I don't
know if you're aware of this, there are 80 home sites there and right now,
as of today, 57 of them have families in them. Are built and the
dwellings have families. Out of those 57, we have 67 kids so far and 41
kids are 5 or under so I guess pointing out the figures to you is a
concern that we all have, especially the totlot area. Looking at the
plans, this is the first time we've had a chance to look at it and just in
the little talks here with the other neighbors, the play area alternate
looks better to us just being that it's further away from Stratton Court.
We all like kids and know how they get away once in a while. The rest of
it, the totlot and the basketball courts, softball fields all look good to
us. The walkway, being as large as it is, also looks good too. In the
letter that we received, you had eluded to 2 tennis courts and I see on
the drawings that there's one. I guess I had a question...possibly
putting 2 on or whatever. I have some more specific questions on the
totlot and that. I don't know if you're able to answer them tonight. One
is being that there's 41 kids that are 5 years and under, is there for
this ~otlot, is there chairs for the infants...more for the babies? Are
the totlot standards the same the sandpit with a box...
Sietsema: Those types of details are typically dealt with later when
we're actually talking about development. Right now we just want to
figure what we're planning for. Our typical totlot equipment you have,
some of them have baby swings and most of it has a substantial depth of
......,;'
......"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 29
,.....
the buckshot so that it's not on dirt.
Bruce Kotzian: Again, I express my concern about the number of kids we
have and the way it's gone now, I would anticipate it being, everything to
be taken by the end of the year I would think.
Hasek: This year?
Bruce Kotzian: I'm talking about this year, yes. If we're talking about
67 kids and 41 of them that are 5 or younger, I think we have an immediate
need. I realize there are constraints but even if that exists as a totlot
or something like that.
Hasek: Just a question for Lori. In our budget for 1990, what is that at
this point?
Sietsema: You put in enough for totlot equipment and we don't have money
available in the current 1989 budget for any development in this area.
I don't know where we'd pull it from at this point.
Hasek: We are strapped. We have a number of other communities that are
probably equally as developed as you are, the whole city is screaming for
facilities.
,....
Bruce Kotzian: Is there any avenue to grade it again so it's useable
through the summer? This summer. 1989. Right now it's all growing up
and really the kids can't get down there to play. Even that would be a
little better.
Sietsema: I can check to see if they're going to do anymore grading or
what, from the engineering standpoint what's going to be done but again,
there's no money in the budget to do any grading for this year.
Bruce Kotzian: Another concern that one of the residents had was the 6, I
see there's 6 parking stalls here and I noticed on the Chanhassen Hills
that there was 4 but yet that was more acreage than what Curry Farms is.
I'm just wondering, is there a formula that they come up with to determine
if there's 6, 4, 2 or whatever because obviously being a neighborhood park
and with the number of kids we've got, I don't think you're going to have
a problem with it being utilized.
Hasek: with the parking spots being utilized?
Bruce Kotzian: No, with the park itself being utilized with the number of
kids we have and I guess what we're looking at is, yes, we have to have
access to the residents outside of that but is 6 going to be too many?
Sietsema: I believe that the 6 came from the initial, at the site plan
~concept stage of when we were talking about what would fit into the park.
Is that how we came up with that?
Koegler: Yes. Actually the number that I think was on the earlier plan
was 8 and it was cut down to 6. Again, that number is not set. It's
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 30
.....",
whatever reasonably the commission determines the neighborhood needs. The
reason Chanhassen Hills showed 4 versus 6 here is because Chanhassen Hills
had 80 feet of frontage. This site has 180 feet of frontage so there~s
more room to do some bUffering.
Bruce Kotzian: But that number is at your discretion? If 4 is adequate,
there's no reason not to cut it down?
Mady: You also have to keep in mind that this park serves more than just
Curry Farms. It's a 1 mile service area from this park.
sietsema: A half mile.
Mady: So you're taking in considerable amounts.
Bruce Kotzian: Considering where it's located, there's not much else
around there other than Curry Farms but I understand what you're saying.
I guess our concern is, if we can still keep access to a half mile or
whatever it is...
Schroers: Do you anticipate that most of the neighbors will walk to the
park?
Bruce Kotzian: I think so. The way everything is laid out there. I
think everybody, most everybody would. It's not that anybody's that far
away from the park. Most of us live right on the park or within a half
block off. At the most, maybe a block away. It's really a concentrated
area around that park.
.....",
Mady: My comment again was you have to realize that we can't put a park
within half a block or block of everybody's house in this city so not all
people will be walking to this park.
Bruce Kotzian: Sure. I can appreciate that. We're right now trucking
out kids to other parks to try to get them to use so.
Robinson: Did you say you prefer the alternate play area?
Bruce Kotzian: Yes.
Hasek: That seems to make the most sense to me too because I would hate
to live in this residential units abutting...
Bruce Kotzian: Yes, the guy who lives there couldn't make it tonight. He
called me just before I left and showed his concern on two points. One
was the number of parking stalls because that's right next to him and
where the totlot is going to be situated. He's got 2 young kids and he'd
like to have them close but I don't think he wants it right there. Nor do
we want it right next to Stratton Court, right next to the road.
Resident: Will there be any bick racks allotted here?
....,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 31
,...
Hasek: We haven't historically put bike racks in but that certainly
doesn't mean that we couldn't consider it.
Sietsema: If they aren't automatically put in with the development, I'd
encourage you to write a letter to the Park and Recreation Commission
requesting that if you'd like them. Preferably before budget times.
John Willman: My name is John Willman and I live at 6510 Welsley Court
which is down off of Stratton and Devonshire. What I'd like to know, when
this project was originally planned and this land was allocated, which was
approximately 2 years ago, why wasn't the money immediately set aside
because of the growth that's going on within the community and allover
the area? I mean normally isn't parks and so forth set aside immediately
just for this problem that confronts us?
Hasek: Historically I think yes, if I might just answer a little bit of
that. Part of the problem that we've got within the City is that we've
had areas developed that needed parkland that didn't fall under the
current ordinance which simple says that we take a portion of the property
or a park dedication fee for developments so we're behind the 8 ball. We
started in the hole and we've been trying to crawl out of that hole since
then. When the dedication fees corne from any particular neighborhood,
they don't necessarily go to that particular neighborhood. They go into
~the City's hopper and then they're distributed. That's what's been
happening. As an example, you have a piece of property in a neighborhood
here. I live on the other side of Lake Minnewashta. We don't have a
trail. We don't have a park over there at all and we just recently
started a fund to acquire property which simply means now a portion of the
money we get from all of these parcels that are developing in the city
will got into the hopper to start to purchase land in areas that don't
have parks. More recent than mine even is your neighbors right down the
road at Pheasant Hills. We're in the process of trying to buy a park for
an area that was omitted here a few years ago. Park dedication fees were
taken in lieu of land and they were left without park for a very
substantial neighborhood over there so we're behind the 8 ball there as
well. So that's what's happening.
John Willman: So what we're looking at is we're robbing Peter to pay
Paul?
Hasek: We're taking from Peter to pay Paul, yes.
Mady: The City does not, your not paying any property taxes for park
development. Nothing goes. We get no money to develop parks out of your
property taxes. Every dollar we spend for park development comes from new
development so whoever screams the loudest, actually whatever is deemed to
be the most important gets funded first out of the pool. That's how it
works. That's how it's always worked.
.~Sietsema: And a point of interest. Your development didn't pay any park
dedication fees because all of your park dedication went into the
acquisition of the land so we didn't receive. Typically we receive a
certain amount of money with each building permit that goes into the park
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 32
....".,
dedication fund that we pay for park development. In some cases where
we're park deficient, we require land in lieu of those fees and that's
what we did in your case. So there's no money coming in from your area
either to help for it so that's another case where we're taking from Peter
to pay Paul.
John Willman: I understand that. Then a suggestion I'd like to make then
is, it's kind of like going out and buying something when you don't have
any money in your pocket. I think the next time you should wait until you
build up a little amount of residual and then go out. People sometimes
can't always have what they want right off the bat so they'll have to wait
for it so what's worth having is worth waiting for and it's better off
than not having anything.
Sietsema: But we wouldn't have gotten a park in your neighborhood if we
hadn't acquired it at the time.
Mady: We're looking right now at trying to buy a new park in south
Chanhassen which we'll be talking about tonight. A year ago that was
approved in a referendum. When that concept first went to Council, we
felt we could get land for $3,000.00-$3,500.00 an acre. We're finding out
$6,500.00 an acre is dirt cheap so the size of the park has gotten cut in
half. Land is getting harder to find and it's getting an awfully lot more
expensive than we ever anticipated so what we're trying to do now is try
to find all the land we can get. Grab it now and at least have the land --'
and develop it at a later date versus having no land.
John Willman: Believe me, I appreciate that more than probably you
realize. I guess it's just disappointing for a lot of us to think that we
were hoping to have a park and it's now going to be 1990 before we'll
probably see it or any part of it and it's tough to understand. ...the
way we do things with the parks out here. Recreation's a very valuable
commodity and it doesn't come easy or it doesn't come cheap for anyone and
to be able to recommend that you have to take time out of your...we don't
need to take the kids to the park today. We'll just stay inside. You have
to make time to recreate and you have to have money to recreate and right
now we don't have either.
Mady: That's a very good point and I guess you need to make that concern
available to the City Council members and tell them that you'd like to see
the city work harder to get more money available to development of
parkland. We're stuck with what we've got too pretty much.
Kathi Clarke: My name is Kathi Clarke. I live at 6510 Devonshire and
I just wondered what are the restrictions regarding when it's being used
and stuff for the softball fields. Will there be Little League teams
playing there?
Hasek: We hope not. Currently we're in the process of trying to build
park fields in larger parks so we can hold the league play there.
Unfortunately we've got a situation where we have got a demand that's
beginning to exceed the availability of the fields that we have and we're
trying desparately to catch up with that. Obviously this field probably
....."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 33
,....
will not happen for a number of years. I anticipate that we will be at
that point ahead of the ballgame and this won't have to happen. We have
at this point, had to move some of the recreational plan into some of the
local fields. We don't like to do that at all. We've been kind of backed
into a corner where we have to accommodate the demand that's out there
right now. If the demand gets much more severe than it is right now and
the availability of fields doesn't appear on the horizon quickly, there
may be some cutbacks. We actually proposed that at one point this year
and we managed to work out way out of it but it was proposed early in the
year.
Schroers: Also, the area that we have for this field here is not really
large enough to accommodate league play.
Kathi Clarke: How do you address the safety concerns of the two
ponds? Obviously you moved one. What happens if somebody drowns there?
I don't know who's fault it is. The reason that I'm concerned is...
Hasek: I don't honestly know. It's a requirement of the city to provide
ponding within, approved ponding. I don't know if the city's liable for
that portion that's on their property which would be the parkland.
(A tape change occurred at this point in the meeting.)
,....
John Thornberg: My name is John Thornberg. I live at 1320 Stratton Court
and I guess everybody has said exactly what I wanted to say. We're really
concerned about the light issue. We don't want them. The parking lot, as
small as possible. We don't need any more traffic. The play area, the
alternate one is obviously right. You said it yourself, safety or
convenience. Well what do you think? Let's go safety on this one. The
softball fields is great. No problems. I had understood two tennis
courts. You're going to have a lot of stressed out parents that need two.
These are things that probably can be done.
Hasek: We've done something at another court where we had two of them and
it was the impression of the neighborhood that the tennis courts weren't
being used at their capacity and a lot of people want to play basketball
so what we've got is we've got standards for two tennis courts in place
but we've put hoops on one side so it can be used as a basketball court.
That way the demand can kind of dictate whether you've got two tennis
courts or tennis court and basketball. '
John Thornberg: That's great. I'm looking at it from the neighbors I've
talked to who play tennis. I notice two right here. They're probably
going to be looking at that and the kids are going to want to be playing
basketball and you've got 60 kids and a bunch of neighbors and the kids
are probably going to win out. That's something that we can address later
but. The whole thing, the way the walkway on it. It's fabulous. It's
great. I guess at this point, my land abuts in the back to the park. I
~would love to use this land. The kids in our neighborhood are using the
streets right now to play. It would really be nice to at least get it cut
down so it's not as tall as the kids down there. If we could get any use
out of it this summer whatsoever, I realize that you've got no money and
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 34
....,;I
the grading and this and that but it was nicely graded when I moved in
last August. There wasn't a lot of weeds at that point in time. Now it's
all just grown up. Not overgrown. I guess even if you could send a
couple of lawn mowers through there and just knock it down so the kids can
get down there and just get some use out of it this summer. That can't
cost too much. Otherwise, we just want to see this thing, at least the
totlot get started before all the 5 year olds are 20. Really, get going
on it. Just get in place and get started on it. It's not going to get
done overnight but let's get rolling on it a little bit at a time and
don't worry, you'll hear screams from Curry Farms. We've got lots of
people who'd like to have a park down there.
Bob Thompson: I'm Bob Thompson. I'm at 1330 Stratton Court. I would
like to further address, just again the the...side of the park as soon as
possible. Last spring we purchased the property, the park was completely
bare. Flat. Not over the summer, last summer, the weeds grew at least
this tall. Great for wildlife. We like that but I think we do need some
flat area. If we could just get some weeds mowed down, clear out. Get
some grass. Just plain grass. Seeded. Just get started on that. I
think that would help a lot. We don't need trails just yet. Flat area of
grass would help.
Schroers: I appreciate the concern. I like the layout of the park. I
like the walkway around the park. I think that the alternate play area
that the residents are suggesting would seem to be logical there. I -'
sympathize with the urgency of getting something going. I hope that
there's a way that we can initiate something. I don't have the answer
right at the moment but I like the plan the way it's laid out and I would
encourage us to do what we can to expediate the development of this park.
Erhart: I would go along with that. Also, in the meantime, if the City
would be able to cut down some of the weeds. I sympathize with you.
People that have children. I have a little one too and I would certainly
not want to play. I like the walkway. I'd go along with the alternative
play area and everything else looks real good.
Mady: I had a question on lights... We don't have the money to put in a
totlot there this year much less lights. We want to put lights at Lake
Ann and we don't know how we're going to do it. We're talking $60,000.00
plus per field for lights so lights aren't going to be a high priority.
The mowing question, we asked in our last budgeting process that the City
allocate money in their general operating fund to add another park
maintenance person on because we weren't getting stuff done in our
existing parks. I don't know where we stand on that right now. I know
City staff was short last year. I don't know if they're going to have
time to go down and cut down the weeds in a couple of weeks. It's going
to be tough but it's something we can suggest. They recognize the concern
but I don't know if they can do it. We recognize and we sympathize with
it being done and I'm sure staff will do everything within their power to
get it done but budgets are tight in the city. Otherwise, the plan
itself, I really like the plan. The earlier comment I had on, where the
backstop exists on the softball field, it really doesn't make a lot of
difference to me. If it's optimum there, let's go with it. The sun will
.....,If/'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 35
,.....
be the people's eyes. I guess I'd rather have it going in the sun hinders
it the least. Otherwise, everything else is great. The play area
definitely needs to be at the bottom of the hill. Not next to the parking
area. Just leave that an open space. Green space.
Robinson: I like the plan as proposed. I like that the residents like
the alternate play area and I'd like to see if we can't cut the weeds down
or make it so that the small children can at least play in it some before
we get it developed.
Hasek: I agree wi th all the comments. I guess I would like to suggest
the possibility of putting in two more tennis courts pads and
incorporating them as basketball with that as opposed to one tennis and
one basketball. I think it gets some double use out of that area. I'd
also like to suggest that if we do end up going with 6 parking spaces,
that 2 of those at least be handicap spaces with the realization that not
everybody in the city is able and willing to walk to our parks. I'd like
to at least be able to provide to the handicap and elderly.
Lash: I think the layout is fine too. I think it looks nice. I know my
first thought was the play area alternate definitely would be my first
choice. This might sound kind of cheap on our part but if we could get
maintenance to go down and do the initial chopping down and mowing, if you
,......guys could help out at keeping them down. Do you think maintenance has a
problem with that?
Resident: We could take a look at it. See what it takes I guess.
Hasek: A riding lawn mower.
Rsident: Right now it takes more than what we can do.
Lash: That's fine. If maintenance can cut them down, chances are that
you can get at it more regularly. The problem is that maintenance is so
busy but I think the layout's fine. .If that's the best we can do for this
year, I guess I'm sorry that that's the way it is but I'd like to put the
tot10t in for sure next year.
Schroers: Just for general information, you might want to know that there
are 2 park maintenance people for the entire city.
Hasek: We have a big budget. I guess I'd like to move that we go ahead
with the concept plan as kind of discussed with the alternate play area.
Perhaps extending the ballfield length to it's maximum that we can get in
the park. Two tennis court pads as opposed to one and a couple of
handicap parking spots.
Schroers: I'll second it.
'"
Hasek moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve the Curry Farms Park concept plan with the alternate
play area, extending the ballfield to it's maximum, two tennis court pads
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 36
.....,tI'
as opposed to one and two handicap parking spots. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST.
Koegler: Mr. Chairman, this item I think of the 3 will probably go the
quickest. What we've done...the two parks you've talked about already
were looking for very specific input which you provided. The third area,
the Lake Susan Hills West, there are two park sites and our interest this
evening really is not so much...but what facilities you might want to
include in that area and let me cover that quickly. You've seen this
information before. There was a report provided the Park Commission I
think it was in October of 1987 that looked at all of the parklands down
in the Lake Susan Hills West area just to try to determine if that amount
of land was adequate to service the residents that will be down in that
area. I think there's something in the neighborhood of 2,000 structures
ultimately will be down in that portion of the community. We're focusing
on two sites this evening in a very preliminary form. The first is what's
labeled as Outlot G which is 9.8 acres of land under it's present
configuration. This road that was schematic and now is a little better
than schematic up in this portion, is Lake Drive East or whatever the
current name is. It's changed periodically. This site is one of the
larger sites in the area. The concept plan that was shown previously, and
again these are what we called thumbnai 1 sketches at the time, showed a ..,."
ball diamond, soccer field, hockey rink, a couple of tennis courts and
parking that would suffice to serve all these areas and a designated
picnic area. Part of the rationale behind those facilities was that in
this particular site, the property that's on this side of the road is
zoned industrial. There's also outlots and I don't know what the new
letter designation was on this but that is being high density residential
so the users in this particular area were first of all more numerous than
you would find in some of the parcels we've already talked about tonight
but the composition will be a little bit different in that you may have
leagues that would spill out of some of the potential office buildings or
industrial buildings. They may want to do something on the site. You may
have noon hour athletes. Things of that nature. So that was the type of
facilities that we had shown a year and a half ago or so for that
particular site. I guess what we liked, before we go any further with
some of the planning like we've done the other two, is to get some
reaffirmation of how you feel about that now. Are there other facilities
you think we should look as a part of this as we go into more detail
effort on this particular property?
Robinson: I can't place where this is. Where's Rosemount?
Koegler: Rosemount would be northeast.
Sietsema: This goes over to Powers Blvd. and then will cross at the north
so that would be the park, Lake Susan Park and then further back from that-,
is Rosemount.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 37
,...,
Koegler: That's potentially the area we're talking about right now. That
pending zoning delineated line is the road alignment basically. So we've
got the lOP zoned north and the residential on the south.
Schroers: Mark, is that two tennis courts just in from the parking there?
Koegler: Yes.
Erhart: Where's the hockey rink?
Koegler: There's a hockey rink shown in there. Two tennis courts and the
softball field with soccer overlay.
Mady: The area that's high density housing was on the right hand side of
this wasn't it Mark?
Koegler: Yes. It would abut the softball field area which the property
that's presently zoned R-12.
Mady: This is R-12. You're not going to get young families in R-12.
You're going to get more singles. If someone would have a need for a
family on the north side, I'd like to see a totlot in there.
~Koegler: That's really what we're after tonight is just kind of a laundry
list and given the users in that area and the composition, what are your
feelings for what types of facilities should be there.
Schroers: I like the hockey rink in there. I also think that in this
type of an area that a volleyball court would be appropriate also.
Hasek: Frankly I don't think that that's...with the industrial areas
that's up there, that we're really trying to provide service for them. We
are suggesting that this might be a league play. I'd rather see a parking
lot than street parking.
Koegler: The assumption I think we made in 1987 was that this would
probably be one of those prime reliever sites. When you're not quite
meeting peak demand at Lake Ann and the new southern park, this one
borders the industrial area and the street and would be a more logical
choice than Curry Farms. So therefore the parking was on a larger scale
on this one.
Hasek: Then again, that's not necessarily the layout that we see but the
facilities are what we're after.
Koegler: Right. We'll bring it a lot more refined back to you.
Schroers: Also Mark maybe take a look at the feasibility of a few
horseshoe pits.
"""
Hoffman: Not everybody that's old plays shoeshoes either. Some young
poeple do.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 38
......"
Sietsema: I don't really need a motion on this one. If you want to see
if there's any comments and we'll just come back with your ideas.
Mady: Was there anyone from the audience that would like to speak on
this?
Robinson: You don't need a motion on this Lori?
Sietsema: No.
Robinson: Okay, does anybody have anything else on it?
Koegler: I'll cover the other one very quickly. County Road 17 is right
here. The other site we were looking at is further to the north. There's
a 3.9 acre outlot right in this vicinity. The crosshatched area in this
particular one indicates a steep slope area so there's no wetlands on this
site. As part of the developer's plan they showed a conceptual trail
connection that would go through here and presumably tie into some kind of
trails that would be on Powers Blvd.. The thumbnail sketch that was put
together for that one simple showed a neighborhood type ball facility and
possibly some tennis courts given the small size of the facility and it
would be walk-in traffic only. There's not going to be the ability to
take in access off of Powers and we didn't see that it's beneficial to
take any access off the cul-de-sac since it's a narrow lot, neck type
situation so we see that one as being really more casual open space with -'
maybe a backstop only type thing even in terms of ball diamonds.
Mady: In this area didn't you have fairly large lots because this is on
the east side of Powers, the lake side?
Koegler: The lots that were shown, at least that were shown on the
concept plan were probably close to city minimum standards. There were
some lots substantially larger than 15,000 or 17,000 square feet.
Mady: That being the case, then I think a totlot might be appropriate
because it is heavily populated. Actually it's heavily populated already.
Hasek: How close are we to Lake Susan? It's just a stone's throw isn't
it?
Sietsema: A block away.
Koegler: A half a mile. Quarter mile maybe.
Hasek: So we're within the service circle and maybe even considered the
half mile radius.
Koegler: Yes. I think you'd want to look at compatible facilities here.
If you put a totlot here, that you need at Lake Susan probably but you
need both.
"""""
Sietsema: Tennis is going in at Lake Susan and we've shown tennis at the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 39
,....,
other one. My big question would be, why do you think you need tennis
again?
Hasek: I would rather delete the tennis out and put the totlot in.
Schroers: On Outlot H?
Hasek: On H, yes.
Schroers: That makes more sense.
Koegler: Outlot H may, it's best purpose may really be a large grassy
field area. Just for kite flying. Frisbees. Whatever kids what to do
more than a developed park and it certainly would help your budget
situation.
Resident: Can I make one comment? One of the things that I think is
interesting is that you geared everything towards development for tots.
Swing sets, sandbox areas. Everything is totlots or volleyball and
basketball courts. The totlot area, they're like 30 feet by 30 feet.
They're very small.
Koegler: On the concept plan, almost all the swing sets are 50 by 50 and
they're intended to, it doesn't say totlot it says play area and that
"""'leaves in I think Lori's comment that when these get a little further,
those are refined and it's determined the composition. If we need more
small children facilities? Do we need some of the play gear that's
greared towards the middle range of ages so it's not meant to imply only
totlots for infants.
Resident: ...tennis courts. Basketball courts and baseball so I guess
I'm wondering, how many baseball diamonds do we need for Chanhassen?
Hasek: Lots.
Resident: Can't we concentrate them in one area then. Put two of those
in one park area.
Robinson: We will do that when we get into the details of each individual
park, that's true.
Hasek: And it's entirely possible that by the time he comes back with a
design for this thing, the demand might have changed too but right now
we've got a demand that's incredible for ballfields. It's- like tennis
courts 10 years ago. Everybody wanted a tennis court. Tennis has kind of
dropped off a little bit.
Resident: Soccer is really big too.
~Hasek: You can always put, or at least we are anticipating that you can
overlap a soccer field over a ballfield so we're trying to make a double
use.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 40
Public Present:
PUBLIC HEARING ON PURCHASE OF BANDIMERE PROPERTY.
-"*'
Name
Hallie Bershaw
Jill Blumenstein
Robert L. Eickholt
Kevin Finger
Arlen Finger
Fred W. Amrhein
Eldon & Rae Jean Berkland
Jamie Heilicher
Bill Bernhjelm
Address
9271 Kiowa Trail
9361 Kiowa Trail
9390 Kiowa Trail
9151 Great Plains Blvd.
9201 Great Plains Blvd.
9350 Kiowa Trail
9261 Kiowa Trail
9280 Kiowa Trail
9380 Kiowa Trail
Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission and the City Council found
out that there's a piece of property in the southern part of Chanhassen
that's available for sale known as the Bandimere Farm. It's located south
of Lyman Blvd. on the east side of TH 101, just north of Kiowa Trail.
What it comes out to be the piece of property right here. The City
Council met at a special meeting to look at the property more in detail
and determine that they should make an offer on the property. This is
using the funds that was approved by the residents of Chanhassen through -'
the referendum that was in February of 1988. The offer was accepted and
that was before we do the deal and have signed the papers before we can
back out or anything, we want to get the input of the people that live in
the area to make sure that we've told you what's going on and what we're
planning. The initial plans for the parkland in the southern part of
Chanhassen when we went to referendum was to provide an active playfield
for the ~of Chanhassen. Currently there is an active playfield for the
T-ball; ragball, pee wee age kids at City Center Park and there's an
active playfield for the adult league out at Lake Ann Park but we have
nothing for the Little League, Babe Ruth aged kids and the middle aged
kids that play soccer either and that was the idea behind acquiring a
piece of property in Chanhassen. Number one it would be cheaper property
because it's in the unsewered area and number two, many of our leages and
many of our children play with the children in Chaska and this would be a
meeting point. It would be more medium than in the sewered area or
northern part of the city. So what we're proposing here is to, just as an
initial concept thing and to put 2 Little League fields, 2 Babe Ruth
baseball fields and a couple of soccer fields. Some parking. Probably
some play equipment or swings for the kids that aren't playing ball. In a
nutshell, that's what is being proposed in this area. I just would
probably open it up to general comment and what your feelings are in this
area. If the city were not to purchase the property, it's quite certain
that a developer will and there would be houses back there.
Jamie Heilicher: My name is Jamie Heilicher. I live at 9280 Kiowa Trail.
My first question would be, when you refer to parking. You say some -'
parking. Obviously you're referring to a number of ballfields for the use
of Chanhassen. What kind of parking are you referring to?
. Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 41
""'"
Sietsema: Mark, do you have an idea of what the requirements would be for
those types of active uses?
Koegler: Most cities, I think you have to bear in mind that this park the
way it's proposed is the closest parallel in Chanhassen is Lake Ann Park,
should there be any misconception about the level of facilities that's
being envisioned. Typically any community in the Twin Cities that runs
say 4 diamonds and 2 or 3 soccer fields, we provide parking for anywhere
from 200 to 300 vehicles.
Jamie Heilicher: Whether I speak for everyone but as far as myself, my
property now is on Kiowa Park which is the small park that's located in
the middle there and if this park goes in, about 75% of my property will
be boundried by the park system. My major concern for what is proposed is
the potential traffic problems that would occur on Kiowa Trail itself.
The question would be whether Kiowa Trail could be designated as a dead A
end street ending at where it ends now. A no parking zone put in at that
point so that the parking, people that are using the park will use some
other access and some other access to the parking area. That would be my
major concern if this was to go through. That would be one thing that I
feel the people in the neighborhood would really look for.
~Sietsema: I would anticipate that the access, and maybe Mark can back me
up on this, but the access would come off of TH 101 and not off of Kiowa
Trail at all. Because of the slopes in this area, to get up to the active
area, if we were going to provide all the parking for Bandimere Park, we'd
have to pave the whole thing.
Jamie Heilicher: My concern is at the end of Kiowa Trail now there is a
sign up for what would be a street to go along the top end of that
line over to TH 101. You can see where the street turns left right there
and right now there's nothing there. That is just farmland where that
goes. My concern would be if that were to come through, we'd have a
tremendous amount of traffic in and out of that street coming in and out
of the park. Using an alternate route to get out of the park. I assume
the parking would be on that area of the park area because of the
topography and how level that area is compared to the rest of it.
Hasek: Just walking the site, it seems to me like the parking is going to
go over adjacent to TH 101 someplace. I think access would come in that
way.
Jamie Heilicher: Maybe in the northeast corner.
Hasek: Maybe not even in the corner simply because there's 2 residents
out there too and we're going to have to take them into consideration but
I would think that the access is really going to be based on the
~geometrics of TH 101 and engineering is going to pretty much tell us where
... our possibilities are. The only place that I could see when we drove out
there that gives us at least a halfway decent stretch is on the west side
over there so the access will have to come in there somehow. And I would
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 42
-'
anticipate that the parking would be on that side where I'm sure we're
going to put most of the ball fields too. We're not going to jam those up
against the residents on the east side. It's ridiculous.
Jamie Heilicher: Just a last question. Is there a time table on this as
far as if it does go through, when they would start work?
Sietsema: We just looked preliminary at the time line.
we're looking in the Army Engineers doing the grading.
can get in, they need like a 2 year prep time to get it
the soonest grading could be done would be in 2 years.
of development, I wouldn't anticipate that we're going
we're going to be able to use within the next 5 years.
We're hoping,
The soonest they
on their docket so
And for this type
to see fields that
Gary Eastburn: My name is Gary Eastburn and I live at 240 Eastwood Court.
I'm on Lake Riley. I used to live on Kiowa Trail there. My concern first
of all, what's the size again Lori?
Sietsema: About 34 acres.
Gary Eastburn: My concern focuses on the lake itself.
of discussion on the lake chain clean-up act that we're
My concern folks is on is there going to be lake access
park? Is that being considered at this time?
You've had a lot
trying to approve.
allowed to this
Sietsema: It is being considered but apparently this land in this area --'
that is vacant and the City Council directed the realtor to look into if
that property was for sale. What the availability was. At this time
I don't know what the answer to that question is and I don't know any of
the details.
Gary Eastburn: I guess there's great concery by myself and on the part of
a lot of homeowners that I've talked to about more access. Particularly
public access to Lake Riley. Eden prairie has a lake access on the east
side. There's 34 homes or lots now on the south side that have a dual
access for everybody in that development all the way over to pioneer
Trail. All those lots. Plus the surrounding public accesses that are
there so I guess that's a concern for the traffic and the safety and
everything else so I guess there would be a lot of people that would like
to say, hey no more public access to Lake Riley because there's already
one side over there.
Sietsema: Yes and when the Council and the Commission met, it's my firm
belief that they had no intention that there would be a boat type public
access. That is not the intent of what they would want. Their intent of
purchasing that property was simply to preserve lake shore that would
enhance the quality of the park. They felt that it would make the park
more special if there was lakeshore there so we're preserving lakeshore
and also providing a beach area or open space area on the lake rather than
add to the other amenities of the rest of the park. But as far as boat
access or anything like that, I can assure you that's not in the intent at.....",
all.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 43
I"""
Gary Eastburn: Other concern is that it's a major drainage into Lake
Riley. They've had problems there with the sewer washing up that's right
there at the base of the property going into the access you're talking
about. The concern I would have there is with grading all of this thing
that maybe some consideration ought to be put in there for a drainage wash
outlot where something can have a chance to settle and set it's drainage
before it comes into Lake Riley and I think that was something that Conrad
Fiskness could talk about if he's still here because he and I have talked
about that in the past. So I think that's something that ought to be
considered environmentally about this lake because the concern of the
homeowners is Lake Riley's quality has gone down over the past 15 years
appreciably so it's a great concern and that's about all I've got on my
list here.
Eldon Berkland: My name is Eldon Berkland and I live at 9261 Kiowa Trail.
He just voiced our worse fears about this park and that is, I think most
of the residents with a well planned park and a lot of the input, are
actually looking at a developer coming in and the choice of a park, really
are in favor of the park going in. Now we want to address the other issue
that was addressed and in the paper last week and that is to actually the
term paper used was to condemn those lots and acquire them for a beach
front type park. You've got a big problem there and that's Kiowa Trail
goes right through the city property, whatever you call it. The Bandimere
Park. The little grassy area that we have there and with that possible
I"""beachlot, it's privately owned right now. It would greatly disrupt the
Kiowa Trail neighborhood and that little bay area where we live. We moved
in the area across the lake that was owned by Gagne that's now Riley
Woods. It was undeveloped and we had a nice little bay. The bay is
shallow. We also had...egrets, herons, ducks, geese in our bay. With
this kind of activity, it would greatly disrupt what's going on there and
it would really appreciably devalue not only our property but also our
appreciation of the environment in that area. Other concerns, we had a
neighborhood meeting this week and we talked about that. That issue was
basically our big, what we talked about. We didn't really talk about too
much the Bandimere Heights property. My own concern right now is how that
community, how you see the community park that we have fitting in with the
big park that's going in there. Right now we have a severe parking
problem because soccer events are held there and I've written to the, we
live at the end of Kiowa Trail. We have a real concern about public
safety vehicles getting through when there's a soccer event going on and
some of the residents don't like reinstituting the no parking that we had
on the street when Prince was residing there but I feel that we really
need to at least have just one side of the street parking presently on the
street because no fire truck or ambulance could get through when there are
soccer games going on. This will allow us when people have house parties
and other types of things. But basically the biggest thing that we see is
we do not see that area as a good place to have a beach front type lot.
Sietsema: Could I clarify then. You're not in favor of the mini area but
~you don't have a problem with this area?
Eldon Berkland: Personally we do not border up to that property and I
think for us, I'd rather see that being grassy areas even though they're
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 44
-'
ballfields and things. Again, talking about lights. Here's another
story. If you're going to put lights anywhere, it sounds like these are
probably an area where you're going to put lights. It probably wouldn't
impact on us 50 much but lights are, especially because that's a high area
and all the residents are down below that.
Sietsema: Addressing your concern about what type of use this park would
get, I would anticipate that that soccer field would not be used or we'd
maybe take it out and do something else in that park. The current park
plan, even though we're adding soccer fields up here. That would take the
pressure off and that may eliminate your whole parking problem here. We
can use this back for a neighborhood type use again.
Erhart:
about?
What about the road going behind it that somebody was talking
Is that going to connect up?
Sietsema: I was not aware of that and I will have to check on that
because I'm not informed in that area.
Hasek: I don't think, from the standpoint of this board, I don't
necessarily think that we would be in favor of making that connection.
Just ringing the park with a road. I think it reduces access. We also
have the possibility when a piece that's north of that develops, that
large chunk, we've kicked around the idea of taking land in lieu of which
would actually increase the size of that park 50 we certainly wouldn't be
in favor of pushing a road through there to sever that piece from the
larger piece down below.
-'
Sietsema: If that were to develop into a housing development, then there
probably would be that connection but being it's a park, I don't know that
that would be the case. I could check with Planning on that.
Erhart: Would you remove the existing homestead that's there now? The
barn and the house?
Sietsema: At least part of it. We haven't gotten into that much detail.
If there's something to be saved there for storage or recreation rooms or
that kind of thing, we may keep some of the buildings but some of them
look like they're past repair 50 definitely they'd be coming down.
Resident: Where the driveway is that comes up into the Bandimere property
right now, is that where you're anticipating the parking would be?
Sietsema: No. That's down here. That's down in this area. That's where
the buildings currently are and given the curves on both sides of that, we
were looking more in this area.
Resident: That was one of my concerns. Has any thought maybe been given
to parking off of Lyman? Oh, I thought it was going up there. Sorry
about that. Then again, that's my concern. A parking lot, would we be
looking at a parking lot possibly then if we looked out our back? ~.
Sietsema: Where are you?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 45
"""""
Resident: I'm right on Kiowa.
Hasek~ I think it really depends upon the final layout and where the
facilities want to go but just having walked that piece of property about
2 weeks ago or whenever it was, it seems to me that there's kind of rise
that goes across the middle of the property and that they're may be the
opportunity to put all the parking on the far side adjacent to and out of
view of any homes. If it's possible to hide or screen parking or any of
the uses that are obtrusive, we certainly want to try and do that.
Resident: I guess that's my big concern. I'm all in favor of a park,
just to let you know that. I'm all in favor of it. I'd rather see that
than a housing development.
Hasek: Just a quick comment on the lights too. If we got the park
started with lights in it, it would probably be our intent, at least it
would be my intent. I would be in favor of developing the lights on all
of those fields before we move to another field. The side of that park is
kind of abutting industrial uses right now and it's out in the middle of
no place so any development that carne into that area would be aware that
those lights are there when they carne in as opposed to where you are
having no lights and then all of sudden us trying to jam them down your
I"""" throa t .
Resident: You do not have the money to budget for lights I hope. I guess
another concern, my husband wrote this. I'm supposed to be asking these
questions here. Is there a possibility of like planting trees or having
some type of natural barrier between the park and the Kiowa Trail homes?
Hasek: Certainly.
Resident: What would they be?
Sietsema: Typically, well Mark and Scott both walked the site with me and
indicated there's good potential to be able to work with the topography to
put the fields down, similar to what's at Lake Ann Park and if you look at
other areas, we do use planting material to screen, especially parking
lots and roadways and that kind of thing so a landscaping plan will most
certainly go along with this to answer those concerns.
Resident: And as of right now, you're not planning tennis courts here
because they're planned in these other parks, is that right then? You
really have no plans right now because it's mostly for Little League and
Babe Ruth?
Sietsema: It could accommodate it. It could accommodate tennis courts.
We just haven't gotten down to that level of detail.
~Resident: Okay. Thank you.
Bill Bernhjelm: Lori, are you considering the impacts of the pipeline
that goes through the property and how that's going to affect the grading
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 46
...",#
and so forth?
Sietsema: Not at this point, no.
Bill Bernhjelm: It's something to consider because there's a high
pressure fuel line that goes right through that property. Before you get
a 19 year old PFC on a D-9 Cat running through there we ought to be real
careful about that. That's a concern of mine. It was a concern of mine
when I bought my property. That needs to be considered. The other thing
I want to make a comment on. My name is Bill Bernhjelm and I live at 9380
Kiowa. The other comment I would make is it seems that as it is a
somewhat intensive use of that property to put in as many fields as you're
proposing, at least currently. The thing I would like to go on record as
saying is that as a property owner I would like to make sure that the
funds are allocated to provide the proper berming and natural screening
and noise protection and all those kinds of things before we get into a
situation. It would seem that if it came down to it, whether we put in 5
ball fields or 6, the line could be drawn if we put in 6 and and cut out
the berming and vegetation and that kind of stuff and I know that's not
you guys intent but 5 years, you guys might not be there and the City
Council might not be there and the way the City's growing, who knows who
we're going to have in power and I'm just going to go on record as saying,
protect the people that are there now. When I bought the place last year
there was a farm there. I'd rather have a park than an apartment building
or factory but I think we need to protect our interests.
--/
Mady: The trade on that really is, look at Lake Ann and how we built Lake
Ann. That's the way this City does their parks. You won't find a
community park to my knowledge in the metropolitan area that is done as
good a job of building their fields...with natural sloping for visitors to
view games. Just the layout of the park being more passive. A passive
design for an active park. I think the City of Chanhassen has done an
excellent job there. There's no one here that got involved in that. That
was a lot of years ago but that's the way, I get compliments on Lake Ann
Park all the time from people outside the area who visit it and that's the
way we're going to do the south park too. I can reassure you. That's the
way it's going to be built. It's going to be the best park in this part
of the country, this part of the State. It really will be.
Resident: I think people are really nervous. Watching what happened to
downtown Chanhassen in the past few years as to foresight in planning, I
think it makes people very, very nervous as to what people are going to
design in our neighborhood because I haven't heard very many good comments
about downtown.
Mady: You've got to separate a little bit the bodies.
Resident: I'm trying to do that but I'm just saying, I'm a little bit
nervous. That's our most recent project and I can't say that's turned out
as we had hoped it would. I have great concerns about the lake shore
property. I think that before you condemn some of thi s property, you need ~
absolute dire circumstances when your backs are up against the wall and
I know that the people who own it don't want to sell it.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 47
"'"
Ursula Dimler: I would like to address that. I met with the neighbors,
some of you there and I know it's my position that I would never consider
condemning property. It is not for sale and to my knowledge is there.
another property there that is for sale?
Resident: Yes...
Ursula Dimler: Okay. I would never consider condemning Mike's property
for that purpose and I know that Torn Workman indicated that he wouldn't
and I know Mayor Chmiel indicated that he wouldn't. I don't know what Jay
Johnson told you because I left before he arrived but anyway you've got 3
votes there against it and I think that's pretty strong consideration that
we will not be condemning that property.
Mady: Ursula...look toward the future in that, I look at this
development, whole development as the way Minneapolis developed their
parks back 100 years ago. I don't know of anyone who would condemn
Minneapolis' park development system. Back in 1880 people were run out of
town on a rail, practially tarred and feathering and the president of the
University of Minnesota lost his job because of the design of the
Minneapolis parks. We have to look to the future. There is to my
knowledge no open lakeshore...
~Ursula Dimler: Okay, but we can wait until that property comes up for
sale.
Resident: I think too you're talking about access for lakeshore. If you
go alongside of Lake Riley Blvd., you have the Lakeview Apartments which
have access on the lakeshore on that side. There's also a new development
a multi housing unit development going up for sale there as well. Now
that is also going to have access to Lake Riley. They own Lake Riley
frontage. If you want lake front, that would be the place for you to go
to.
Hasek: I think that the concern is that a place in the city don't become
private lakes if there's anyway that we can prevent that. It's just an
issue to look at. I don't know that condemnation is necessarily the way
that anything has to go but if we take a look at it and decide that we
have the ability to use the park access within Eden prairie and that can
supply us and will do, that that's fine. What we don't want is our
lakeshore in Chanhassen become exclusive and our ability to use the lake
eliminated simply because our ability to use the park in Eden prairie is
gone. That I think is one of the concerns. If we have the ability to
purchase at a decent price a piece of property and again, I don't think
condemnation is necessarily the way it has to be approached. It's one
approach and it's a very immediate approach. It could be used if we
wanted to use that tool. It was something that was thrown out, I think
that it's something that maybe scares people but it was a suggestion and
~that's all it really was. Again, I think the Council would have to vote
in favor of it and I think Ursual has indicated that there are probably 3
on the Council, perhaps 4, maybe even 5 who, if we were to suggest it,
would simply vote against and maybe the motion would never even be made.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 48
-'
Ursula Dimler: But it was also my understanding that that property never
really was for sale. When we were looking at that site, we were misled.
That property was not for sale at that time. We liked that site because
of that thinking that that property was for sale. I guess I'm a little
angry about that.
Hasek: This particular piece of property in general, the mention was made
of the Gagne piece. When I first came on this council I think the first
night I was here we talked about the possibility of acquiring part of that
property and we just didn't have the money to do it and that was really
what generated everything that's happened since then. The referendum and
everything else to get things going. We realize that there was a need
down there. The parcels of land were disappearing faster than we could
count and this is a fine opportunity for us to purchase a piece of
property at a real decent price.
Resident: I'm very in favor of the park. I think that's a wonderful
idea. I'm not in favor of the beach front property and especially
condemning someone elses, what's to say you're not going to say, well it'd
be nice we could expand this beachfront. Let's condemn the property on
either side of this.
Robinson: Let's move on. Did you have a comment?
Kevin Finger: My name is Kevin Finger. I live at 9251 Great Plains Blvd.-'
which is not on Kiowa Trail but it's up to the north. There is some road
that goes across there. I'm glad somebody brought up that Al Klingelhutz
misled you. He misled midled the paper also and that is that he could
call a couple developers and that property would be developed like that.
It's not going to. I've been in front of the Planning Commission a lot of
times and they have stated over and over and over that sewer will not go
south of Lyman Blvd. by Great Plains Blvd.. It's too expensive. It's got
to go down and back up for the service that would be used. It's not going
to happen because that was one of the big things before I bought my
property I went over and over that with them. They said no way and that's
why Riley Hills I think it's called, that's why they don't have it.
They've got 2 1/2 acre lots. They couldn't get sewer out there. Anyway,
but it's done. Another concern is you know, and I would be all for trying
if they could try to make that a lot like Lake Ann. It is very well done.
My concern is, if we're going to put diamonds down, that pipeline is 4
foot under. That pipeline goes right through the heart of that property.
Somebody should look at that before you close that deal because if you, no
matter what you do with that property, you've got to do something with the
dirt because it rolls too much to do anything.
Hasek: Would you like to buy some?
Kevin Finger: I would like to buy 2 acres. I really would. I was going
to buy it and Klingelhutz told me, oh no problem. No problem. I'll let
you buy a couple acres before anybody else gets it. He's never even
called me before this deal was made. Never. Anyway, so let's move on.
My biggest concern about the whole thing is, I'm like everybody else.
A park can be one of the best things for everybody but I bought that land
....."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 49
,....
because there was a farm all the way around me. Total privacy. As long
as I can keep my privacy, I don't care. But if I lose my privacy, I'll
fight this all the way but I think you can handle that if you do it right.
Future plans on paper, I really got concern because I have a feeling
there's only one way this land can be expanded and that's wrapping my
property. What are your future plans? How many more acres are you going
to think of taking and where are you going to go? Are you going to wrap
around my whole property? Should I just sell off now and hurry up and get
out and go out and get some other privacy somewhere? What's the future
intent?
Robinson: We've reached our maximum as far as dollar amount from the
referendum. With the two pieces I guess. With the lakefront property as
well.
Sietsema: This person who owns this property has indicated that he's not
willing to sell until there's water and sewer available and then that will
be a housing development so he's not, unless we want to condemn, he's not
willing to sell until he can get development prices out of it. So I can
tell you that we can't afford it.
Kevin Finger: That's what I thought but I'm glad to hear it.
~Sietsema: But I can't tell you that we'll never acquire the property.
What is likely is that when water and sewer is available and he does
subdivide that property, that we may at that time require additional
parkland but the maximum that would be is about 20% of what's there.
Hasek: So of 50 acres is 5 acres. But just as an additional comment, it
wouldn't make any sense for us to take 5 acres and wrap it around your
piece of property. If anything, we would try to acquire a piece that
would make some sense for additional activities in the park. I guess that
would be the intent of buying or taking additional land. Also, it's too
far down the road. This park is already in use and design and it doesn't
make any logical sense to add to it at that location. It would make some
sense to take those dedication fees out of the 50 acres of land to develop
parkland so it's something we talked about. Potential of that is, we
wanted how many acres to start with? 50 and we're ending up with 30...
(A tape change occured at this point.)
Ursula Oimler: ...and it just wasn't available.
Hasek: Which one is that?
Is that the one that's down off of Pioneer?
Hoffman: Correct.
Ursula Oimler: TH 212 is going to be on the other parcel. It's going to
",be east of that parcel that I'm talking about. There's 75 acres there so
there won't be room for expansion.
Hasek: And he's willing to sell a portion of that?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 50
..-r
Ursula Dimler: Yes.
Hasek: What's the topo like up there?
Hoffman: It's got a huge drop in it right in the middle of the property.
Hasek: That's the parcel that he's got in the favor of the Metroplitan
Waste Commission to purchase all the level land.
Ursula Dimler:
build a plant.
Well yes. The possibility is that...provided for us to
Sietsema: All of these issues area real sketchy right now because all
we've done is go out there like you have and looked at it. Mark will go
out there with Scott and put everything, the topo on paper and look at how
realistically things could be arranged and how that pipeline affects this
orientation. The other comments, do you want to add to that?
Koegler: That was new to me as well this evening. I'm not surprised I
guess by it but... My problem right now is the best topo information
there is U.S.G.S. which is a 10 foot contour and that land has been farmed
and reshaped for a number of years so we're not certain what the grades
are relative to the pipeline elevation. We can try to pin it down through
the...records exactly how much depth and cover there is on that and see
what impact it has. If it goes through some of the areas, it may have ---,'
substantial impact because as somebody said, the high and low area, if you
put in the high and put in the low...
Hasek: If nothing else it would affect the purchase price of the
property. If it wasn't disclosed and then all of a sudden it's there,
it's going to be public record and it's going to substantially affect,
obviously you can't put a house on top of it. I don't think you can even
put a street on top of it can you? I think you can cross the pipeline
with a road but I don't think you can build a road on top of a pipeline so
that starts to affect the design of a neighborhood.
Koegler: You can cross the pipeline with a road. I've been involved in
Apple Valley. We were able to put a parking lot on the easement but not
on the pipeline itself.
Hasek: So it has an impact on whoever buys that property for residental
purposes 100 years from now. Maybe that will be kind of hidden plus in
the end.
Resident: It's not an inappropriate use but if you decide you have to
move the pipeline to do your grading and ballfield designs, you're talking
about taking $210,000.00 piece of property and costing another $200,000.00
or $300,000.00 to move the pipeline. You're talking about a lot of money
for 34 acres.
Resident: I'm a little concerned that you've gone this far and you
haven't found this out yet. These things are big pipes that stick out of
the ground with signs that say pipeline. If you walked it it's so hard to
.....,;
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 51
,....
comprehend that you wouldn't see these but I think that's one point. I
think most of us say, hey the park is great. We'd probably rather have a
park than factory or high density units but I guess what we'd like to say
is could we have you stipulate that the park will be fine as long as we do
not go after beach access on Lake Riley because of the.envirnonmental
impact of it or some study done on that so I guess that would be the
recommendation that I would make. Would it be feasible for you guys to
say, hey the park is fine but we'll not pursue a beach access?
Erhart: It was the feeling of the Commission that that was the natural
attraction to this parcel over another parcel that we looked at.
Resident: There's only 200 feet of lake frontage there so you're going to
put like Lake Ann, whatever, 100 bodies down there, bathing down there and
you've got people on the left and people on the right who are going to be
listening to this.
Hasek: If you wanted to get an impact of what it might be like I would go
to the north side of Lake Ann at Greenwood Shores Park and take a look.
They've got 150 foot length of beach over there and the useage of that is
very minimal as compared to, almost non-existent compared to Lake Ann.
That would be a comparable that you could visit this summer if you wanted
to know what we were thinking about.
"...,
Resident: I'm sorry. I'd have to disagree with you because when you go
over to the Eden prairie side of Lake Riley and you wonder how...and you
look at how many people are utilizing their beachfront over there.
There's quite a bit of people that do spend time over there.
Mady: Can I say one thing here. We've never talked about a beach. It
was never my impression when we talked about that lake that that would be
a public beach. It was simply going to be an open public space so people
can walk down to the lake but it was never my intention that it was going
to be a beach because it simply isn't a big enough parcel to be a beach.
Resident: Is it going to be patrolled then because we walked around Lake
Riley yesterday and over at the Eden Prairie/Lake Riley access there were
about 3 sets of people all drinking. Well into their liquor and just
hanging around...
Resident: I would say, if you're going to condemn that lot, I guess I
would have to say I don't want a park then. I would not want a park.
Resident: We have little kids too and we're concerned as a play factor.
We're concerned about our kids. That's not what we want them to
experience and that's a natural location for that. The kids are going to
go down there at night and that's what's going to happen.
,......,Resident: They tried to ban alcohol on the Eden prairie side last year
. and...and they said they would not ban alcohol in that park.
Mady: I think it's the responsibility of this Board to attempt to acquire
as much lakeshore as possible. There are a number of people that live in
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 52
...-'.
this City who never will have the opportunity to be near a lake.
Hasek: It's not actually the responsibility of this Board, it's actually
stated in the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan which is one of
the things that we are supposed to use as a tool to make decisions. If
that's the vehicle to changing this...to change the comprehensive plan.
We have to take into account obviously the desires and concerns of the
neighbors. No question about it. We also have to take into consideration
the wants and desires of the general public because that's who this board
really serves in the general public as well as the individuals. The
question is, what's the use that goes in there? What's the appropriate
use? I'm not saying, I didn't walk down to the beach. I was dressed in
dress shoes and I had mud up to my knees by the time I was done walking
around where I did walk around in the cornfield out there. Perhaps the
beach just isn't a logical use for that particular piece of property and
maybe a natural area is. Security obviously is one thing we're going to
have to consider and maybe it has something to do with the road design and
when we design it, they'll consider that. But I certainly at this point
am in favor of acquiring the piece of property that might be available,
perhaps not through condemnation but at some point in time could it not be
up for sale and purchased at that point.
Resident: If you're looking for a place to have, somebody mentioned
Minneapolis. Like a Lake 'Calhoun type. Picnic area. Maybe not a beach.
That area owned by Lakeview Hills Apartments is an excellent place. It's--,
on a major road that's heavily traveled. It's probably not for sale
either but they may be more willing to sell than Sid Monmouth and
Halversons. It's a good spot actually for that type of use because the
road's close to the shoreline. It's a through road. You could have just
pull off the road parking. It's got beautiful trees right now. It's a
nice spot. That spot on our street is not a good spot and it's not for
sale.
Lash: I think the intent of when we went and looked at this was that it
appeared to be a natural extension to this park. I don't think our intent
was to acquire lake property.
Robinson: That's right.
Lash: When we into this we were looking basically for ballfields. When
we saw it we thought it would make a nice natural extension but I think
these are the exact reasons I was in favor at the last meeting of having a
public hearing before we went into a purchase agreement because these were
exactly the concerns, the kinds of concerns I fully expected to hear.
They were talking about take a look at Greenwood Shores. That's where I
live. I know exactly what you people, I can totally relate to what you're
saying. I can totally relate to having a beach in the middle of your
neighborhood. It can be a nice asset to your neighborhood but it can
attract some unsavory activities that you don't want your families exposed
to.
"""""'"
Resident:
already.
The problem is this lake has got three of these beaches
Eden prairie has a huge frontage on theirs. Lake Riley Woods
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 53
"""
has an outlot which 34 people can party on. Lakeview Hills has that big
lot over there that can be used for the same thing so I guess from the
standpoint of whether or not the access is in Eden prairie or Chanhas~en.
I salute the right for everybody to lakefront. I've worked hard and long
to get my own but I want the people who aren't as lucky as me to have that
access too but there's nothing that says it has to be in the City of
Chanhassen. The residents of Chanhassen have every right to drive around
and go do whatever they want with the Eden Prairie access over there, and
they do do that so I think it's great but I hear this body on one issue
earlier this evening talking about, getting really concerned about the
quality of our lakes. The quality of Lake Riley has gone down over the
past 15 years so that's a great concern. I don't hear anybody saying I
want to do an envirnmental impact on what this might do to Lake Riley.
All I hear about is gee, we'd like to get lake access for the residents of
Chanhassen. That's great but I hear one side of the issue over here says I
want a quiet lake and protect this but over here, let's just go ahead and
put this park in. I hear one guy saying, gee I've never had a vision for
a beach on here. I hear another guy saying, gee we want beach access but
does it really make sense so I guess I'm really concerned about what we're
hearing here. There's already plenty of access, public access for this
lake. There's 3 right out here.
Hasek: The reason that you talk about is the reason why we vote. If we
~all had the same ideas, there wouldn't be a need for 5 or 6 of us, 1 could
do it.
Robinson: Is there any other new comments that somebody has?
Resident: I do want to make a point when you said controlling. I think
until we can have more money to control, because it takes more money to
control any of Lake Riley. We have what, one full time person that
handles all of the lakes in Chanhassen or Carver County. Last year we ran
into a lot of problems trying to get the drunk boaters off of the lake.
We have very little people to do any patrolling at all on Lake Riley. The
second point is, there is a piece of property that's for sale. It's listed
in the multi-zoning properties but is not in Chanhassen. It is on Lake
Riley and there's lakefront. It's the perfect spot. There's lot of room
for tennis courts. It's the old Eide property. If you're going to look
for pieces of property that non-residential areas, why don't you look at
that.
Carol Dunsmore: My name is Carol Dunsmore and I live on West 96th Street
which is just south of the proposed park area. I'd like to go on record
to request a certain designated use for this park area if it goes through.
I'd like to see a combination horse trail and cross country ski trail just
around the perimeter of the park. That would be a minimal maintenance
type trail. You would just have to mow it a couple times during the year
for the horses. No track would be needed to set in the front for cross
~country skiing in the winter. I wonder if the sale goes through on the
parkland and it will be a couple years before any grading is done, if
horse people and cross country skiers would be allowed to use the
. perimeter of the park? If that's an option before you get the grading
started. If we can seek permission to use that. So I guess that's just
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 54
--'
an option I'd like Mark to address when he's looking at proposed uses for
the park.
Mady: Where was the property that's for sale?
Resident: The Eide property is, if you're walking it's Lake Riley Blvd.
and it's right after Lyman Blvd.. It's Lake Hills, investment corporation
that owns the Lake Hills... Anyway down in this area, part of the
property is zoned multi-unit with lakefront rights.
Hasek: Is it on the lake?
Resident: It's not on the lake because there's a road. Lake Riley Blvd.
runs inbetween it so there's quite a bit of property, I'm not sure how
many feet there is between the lake and the road though.
Hasek: Is that attached to the piece to the north? Is the whole thing
for sale? Is there a big sign up there?
Resident: It's a very big home there.
Resident: 51 acres I think.
Hasek: Who's selling that?
Resident: I think it's Edina Realty.
"""""
Hasek: You don't know who owns it? It's not Derek Companies?
Resident: I believe it was Eide's property.
Hasek: Yes but he sold it to a developer I think because I think we
worked on that piece of property.
Mady: That's unsewered area?
Hasek: Yes. TH 212 also is a big chunk of that.
Resident: If there's 51 acres for sale, TH 212 can't be through all of
it.
Hasek: It's kind of cutting it in half and that was kind of the game the
developers were playing with at the time if it was being condemned and go
through condemnation.
Resident: The part where TH 212 is going through, is not even close to
the lake.
Robinson: Any other comments? Let's close the public hearing.
Sietsema: I don't need any action on this item. It's simply a public ~
hearing so we can go on record and send these comments onto City Council.
I can tell you that I will check with engineering on some of the questions
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 55
,...,
that came up and also work with Mark to figure out some kind of a way to
work on the site.
Mady: Has the City entered into a purchase contract already? So the
price has already been set?
Robinson: We've paid earnest money?
Mady: We may want to, considering the fact that the pipeline is running
through there, we may want to see the hired assessors go through and
appraisers and find out the impact that pipeline has because if there is a
pipeline going through there, that property no longer is worth the same as
any other property there. We're getting a little better deal but not
much.
Hasek: I think the fact that we have council members still here that
Council is on notice to what's going on.
Mady: I just want to make the comment that maybe we need to look real
carefully and quickly at that contract and break it maybe and really look
at the price if possible. At least look at it. It's still, in my
opinion, I'll go on record, looking at all the parcels we've looked at,
it's still the best spot for a community park. With or without the lake.
~The Sever Peterson property's got considerable topo. Large hills and
valleys.
Resident: I think you have complete neighborhood support for the park. I
don't think that's an issue for the neighborhood.
Mady: My concern is to take every opportunity we have. We'll never look
at short term but if short term is beneficial, I always look long term and
the long term may draw a lot of screaming and yelling and whatever but I
will not support a short term ideal with then long term isn't going to be
as good.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION:
Don Ashworth: The City Council at their meeting that involved the
Eckankar proposal, their ending position on that was that staff is to go
back to each of the commissions, primarily the community center task
force, planning commission, park commission for their input as to
potentially purchasing that property, all or a portion of it for park,
community center or school. Tonight there's no way we can address that
issue tonight without information in front of you. Having something
from Lori as to what the issues here. What did the school say and
something. I simply came down this evening to alert you to the fact to
the fact that the Council has asked for that type of input. The primary
~question was really one of trying to package a potential referendum and in
. doing so, should they be looking at all of the property, none of the
property or a portion of the property.
Hasek: what was the survey results?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 56
--'
Don Ashworth:
don't buy the
of not buying
defective.
We received approximately 1,400 responses. 800 saying
property. 600 saying do buy it. It was about 54% in favor
it. 45% that did want the City to buy it and less than 1%
Robinson: Did that have any bearing on the Council's decision?
Don Ashworth: The decision was to table action on the item. They've
asked for an anlysis of ground water. There's two sites that are
potential areas where contamination may have occurred because there were
barrels out there at two different points in time. They've asked for a
ground water analysis to be complete. That will take at least a 4 week
period of time. The earliest that item will go back to the City Council
will be May 22nd.
Lash: I think the impact of the survey was that they had 35% return which
is not...that's quite low.
Hasek: But 35% is a great return. We had far less than that when we did
our survey didn't we?
Robinson: If you put it up to a referendum, what percent of the voters?
Don Ashworth: 1,400 in comparison to registered voters?
--'
Schroers: In general the ethics of this commission would almost have to
say if the City was able to procure parkland, we'd almost have to be in
favor of it.
Mady: My whole concern with this thing is, our Comp Plan does not show we
need any park there. We need park in a lot of places in this city and
we're not getting it. Minnewashta needs them real bad. If we need one
there, we've got to look at the whole thing then.
Ursula Dimler: Can I make a point of information? I guess the reason
that we did that Don was because it wasn't the Council's idea to go for a
referendum. It was the demand on the Citizens Concerned for the Future of
Chanhassen and we went along with that just to see the feasibility and get
the input. The impetus did not come from the Council. It came from the
Citizens Concerned for the Future of Chanhassen.
Hasek: I don't want to argue this point a whole lot. I was at the
meeting. It just seems to me that in the case of the survey that went
out, that the Council acted on the demands of the minority that happened
to be more represented at that particular meeting. I for one~ I guess I
don't understand it. It's really going to be interesting to see how this
thing falls out in the future. I agree with Larry that if we have the
possibility of acquiring land for parkland, that we should probably do it.
'The thing that bothers me is that this isn't the location that we were
really looking for additional land. We have a huge park. We have one of
the largest community parks I would wager in the entire city and if we're
going to add land to it, we'd better have a real good reason for doing it
--'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 57
"""
before we purchase land in other areas of the City that have much greater
demand that this particular area. I find it real difficult to go along
with just saying yes, we'd like some more land for the heck of it.
The plan came through. There's already a road alignment in place between
the existing park out there and this particular property. The past
commission that passed this thing must have decided that this is large
enough already. Why make it larger just for the sake of making it larger?
Ursula Dimler: The community center task force had looked at that site
for the community center prior to the application for the conditional use
permit so that was one of our sites. I think you have to keep that in
mind. For the community center. We had never picked a site for the
community center. We had looked at several different sites and that was
one of them.
Hasek: But we also have on record a referendum that decided it didn't
want to build a community center.
Ursula Dimler: Yes, that was the other side at the Animal Fair there.
We're looking at another referendum for the community center and that's
what we're working on.
Mady: We don't have the 3 million dollars to spend and the fact of the
""matter is, there's not going to be a community center to buy the land.
It's not going to happen for over 10 years so if the City decides to buy a
community center...it will not happen. Unless somebody can give us 6
million dollars to build it, it's not going to happen and that's the
reality. When we start facing the realities, the City has a very low
threshold of what it can do so it's maybe best to hold things. So if we
buy the land which mayor may not be a good idea, it throws all the other
decisions out the window. There's nothing to make a decision on.
Don Ashworth: I think you may have... You should remember, the City
Council did not act to endorse the position to go back to referendum nor
did they endorse a position not to. They said staff was to go back to the
Commissions and look at this issue and try to determine whether or not,
how this thing could potentially be packaged and should we really even be
doing it. I think for you to be able to make an intelligent
recommendation, you're going to need input from school district officials,
community center task force, review of your own comprehensive plan, what
it is you need for overall park properties and potentially coming down to
a conclusion really based on all of those documents. For this evening,
there's no way that we could provide that. Lori is going to be putting
that together. Sending it to you so that you can get it well in advance
of your next meeting and again, my reason for being here is simply to
alert you to the fact of the action taken by the City Council.
Hasek: Don, I want to apologize to you. You're talking about an issue
~here and I get hot about it. I don't mean to step into the politics of
this thing either for Ursula or for yourself. Unfortunately this
particular issue I think has really divided this community. There's
nobody that's sitting on the fence at this point. you're either on one
side or you're on the other and you're pretty grounded and it's pretty
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 58
......"
unfortunate... and I want to apologize to you and Ursula.
Ursula Oimler: I like to hear your opinion.
Hasek: I like to give it.
COMMISSION PRESENTATION:
Mady: It's late but I have a Commission Presentation. ...each one of you
probably Friday concerning Eurasian Water Milfoil. Steve...you were out
of the office on Friday but he dropped one off at my house on Thursday
and I talked to Steve a couple times last week and it's got an article on
Eurasian Water Milfoil. What Steve wants to happen is he wants to go in
front of the Council and make a presentation. What he doesn't want to
have happen is have something tabled or sent back to the Park Commission
because his point of view is the parks have historically for the City have
meant for land. The water is a public area and is a recreational area so
maybe that comes under us, maybe it doesn't. I don't really know but he
wanted to make sure that this body addressed the issue so when it goes to
the Council, they had thought coming from us. He's planning on going, he
wanted to wait until the Eckankar thing got through last night. Now he's
planning on going to Council next 2 weeks I guess it is. What he wants to
know is what our thoughts are on solving the problem. Mainly he put
together a budget for the City in the $15,000.00 area including signage, -'
pUblic education and control. What he wants to see the City go forward
on, get something going, get a plan in place, have all the steps done now
so that when this weed is found, it's not a question of if, it's probably
now when, that we have an actual plan in place immediately to take care of
it. He's got the water patrol's already set up on the lakes. They're
willing to go ahead with it. He needs to have a commitment from the City.
Find the money in the current budget out of some sort of contingency fund
that's going to have to happen. I guess what I told Steve I would do is
bring it up tonight and hope to get a recommendation to Council to vote
for or against it. He wanted to be here tonight. He's in New York but he
will be calling me I think on Thursday.
Sietsema: What's the bottom line?
Mady: The bottom line is, I want to see this commission recommend to the
Council that they go forward with his program of signage, every location
in the City that has an access. The educational steps that need to be
taken and the funds found in the City to control the weed when it's found.
Not if it's found but when it's found becaues it's probably going to be
found. Maybe not this year. Maybe not next year.
Sietsema: oid you want to address where that money was going to come
from?
Mady: The City has a contingency fund set up for this type of thing. .
There's money always available in the City for emergency situations. This.~
is an emergency situation. If we do not kill this weed when it's first
found in the lake, it will take over the lake. It will grow and spread
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 59
,-....
over a 4 week period to the point where you can't control it and it's
already found, as soon as the ice went out in Minnetonka, it was found
growing in Minnetonka. We're probably already too late. We may already
be too late rather. We need to do it now. We don't have the opportunity
to sit and think about it and find out what else is happening. We need to
make a recommendation. The Council needs to act.
Sietsema: Was there a second on that motion?
Schroers: Second.
Mady moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to the City Council to move forward with a program of signage in
every location in the City that has an access, implementing the necessary
educational steps that need to be taken, and providing the funds out of
the City's contingency fund to control the weed when it's found. All
voted in favor and th€ motion carried.
Lash: I know it's late but I did want to talk on this land acquisition
fund.. .and I totally agree with what we did. I think it's something that
we need to ask the public their opinion on that because if we take this
big change of philosophy and start going with it and they don't agree with
it, we're going to get shot down before we even start.
,-...
Sietsema: Jan they get our Minutes and if they don't, they'll send us a
message and we will be sending our budget and if they don't like it,
there's plenty of time for them to send it back and say, revise. So it's
in the system.
Mady moved, Hasek seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
,......
c. ,