Loading...
PRC 1989 06 13 .3 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 1989 ,...... Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Jan Lash, Jim Mady, Ed Hasek, Larry Schroers and Dawne Erhart MEMBERS ABSENT: Curt Robinson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hasek moved, Boyt seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated May 30, 1989 as amended on page 28 by Jan Lash to change the word "timers" to "timbers" and on page 10 by Jim Mady to include Lori's response to the question concerning whether the money can be used anywhere other than Herman Field. The answer should read, the money is availabe only at Herman Field. All voted in favor of approving the Minutes as amended and the motion carried. APPROVE PLAN FOR LAKE ANN PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZE PURCHASE. Lash: This is now $546.00 over budget? ~Sietsema: Right. This change would bring this, let me just back up a 3econd. At the last meeting you directed staff to revise the first phase of the plan that was proposed to include swing sets. What we've done is shown free standing swing sets in the corner. The same ones that were attached on Phase 2. Put them in the corner and as Jan noted, it would bring the amount to $10,546.00. That would be roughly $550.00 over budget. Hasek: We knew that that was going to happen when we started playing with numbers. Sietsema: Right and there's probably $500.00 to play with in there. Mady: We didn't have to expand the play area at all? Sietsema: No. Lash: So then is this going to reduce the budget for next year then by $550.00 that we're taking from next years? Sietsema: Well the way our budget is, we're not down to exact dollars anyway so there is a buffer built in there that $500.00 isn't going to blow us out of the water. If it came back over $1,000.00 or $1,50~.00, then we would need a budget amendment and that would mean that we would have to take something out of something else but for $550.00, I think that will be in there. ,r-.rJash: So are you planning on just swinging this, once you put the next . ~hase in, you're just going to swing this thing around so it connects like it was shown before? Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 2 ...."" Sietsema: No. It would stay free standing and that probably works out better because it gets it further away from the slide and the kids running around and that kind of thing. I think it ends up being a better design. Hasek: The thing that I like about it is the fact that now you can't crawl off of the structure onto the timbers of the swings. My kid would be up there. I can tell you that's the first place he would go. The highest and most...place to be so I guess I'm in favor of the redesign of the structures. Schroers: Have we looked at this, is it north or south? Sietsema: It could be laid out in any direction. Hasek: The one comment I would have that I've seen before, I was out at Rebecca one day and they've got this huge tin slide out there south facing and there was a little girl that slid down that thing and by the time she got to the bottom, there was nothing left of the back of her legs. So if here's any chance that we can make it so that the tin slides face either east or north. I think there's probably enough space out there that they could probably lay it out any way that they want to. Boyt: I had talked to Jim a little bit about a different design that's in this book. Interconnecting ramps and walkways. If you have little kids you know they like to run around and around and around whatever they can -' find. Whether it's running from the dining room, living room to the kitchen. We could do a ramp plan...something like that so it's all inter- connected and they could go around and around and around. I would like to see something different up there. Something that is unique. On page 19 it shows that there is the possibility of connecting things. That's a handicap play area. I'm not interested in one that's 3 feet off the ground but it shows that you can do something. If we did this, it would delay putting the playground in by a couple weeks. 4 weeks? Sietsema: I can't get it on the next agenda because the next agenda is packed so it would go on the agenda the first meeting in July. Then if we ordered it the very next day, it takes about 6 weeks to get here after that and then whenever they can get to putting it up but it can probably be in place for fall softball season. I doubt it if it would even be there for softball tournaments but we've got the equipment that's existing and we're not going to take that out until this comes in so it's not like we'll be void in that area all together. Lash: Is that something we could do with Phase 2? Have these chain walks and make that something that would connect. Boyt: We could redesign the whole thing that .part of it is Phase 1 and part of it is Phase 2. Lash: But like right now with Phase I, they've got the clatter bridge... -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 3 ,..... 3oyt: The chain walk and vertical ladder. I'm talking about maybe not having those there. Hasek: Or they would have to be below whatever we put above them. Boyt: Right. Something they could walk or crawl through. Hasek: Let's just take a quick look at what we've got and see how different that would be. If we did put something over the top of the, what's it called? Lash: The chain walk in the middle? Hasek: The chain walk I see. What is this over here? Lash: Those are the...monkey bars. Hasek: Alright so we'd have to have something go over that. Now we've got 56 inches. I see 29. This would have to tie into the 70 right? That would leave us, yes but if we have to go across over to here. It would have to corne over to this 70 in order to make a connection and it would have to tie into this 70 over here right because that's all got to be 70 inches high. ~oyt: No, you know what? You can have them going at angles. There's that ~ornelia Park in Edina that they've got them going up a little bit. Sietsema: So you've seen this type of thing at another park? Boyt: Yes. At Cornelia Park yesterday. Hasek: But if we design it we don't have to maybe change Phase 1 cost at all. It will only change Phase 2 cost I guess is what we're thinking. This bridge that goes over, the clatter bridge, that could stay exactly where it's at right? Boyt: Yes. Hasek: Alright so then it's a matter of connecting this 42 at this end to something maybe at 70 up on this end? Boyt: want. This is also something that we told the guy who designs this what we He can sit down and do this. Hasek: I guess what I'm wondering is if there's anyway we can get off of this first phase. Leave it in place the way that it is and then just go ahead and have him work with what we've got left. Boyt: I think with different options, how tall is this? ~asek: This is 26 or 28, whatever that is. See I think we go over the top Jf that and that could tie into this 70 over here again. The question is if there is enough distance between 42 and 70 for the kids to crawl through Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 4 there. That would be a crawl space through there and they could tie this .-, across then maybe at an angle or this would be the chainwalk. Boyt: It could be a tunnel at an angle or it could be... Hasek: You bet. It looks to me like we might be able to leave Phase 1 in place and aren't some of these pieces, it's a matter of having some place to attach them. You can raise and lower them if you want to. Yes, I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking about something for those kids to run around there but I also don't think it has to affect the first phase. I'd rather get going on this first phase. Leave it in place and just tell him to work with it and then we'll make any alterations we have to. Sietsema: Would you be available to meet with him and myself. His name is Dave Owen and just so we make sure that we're getting the same ideas relayed to him and then to come up with a revised plan. Mady: He is a landscape architect, Dave Owen? Sietsema: Yes, I think he is. He's with Earl F. Anderson. Mady: Can we move on this item pending the plan being adaptable? If staff finds that Phase 2 can't adapt to this as we've discussed, then we would have to bring it back. Hasek: Why don't we do this. Why don't we see if there's any major alterations to the overall plan that are needed to accommodate that. If it's a matter of a platform here or there, that's okay. ....." Boyt: But otherwise, you all think that this is an acceptable thing? Hasek: Sure. As long as it's not rigid. As long as it's not a flat circle.. If there's a little bit up and down that they can play in, that would be great with me. I guess I'd just like to move to approve phase 1 with some discussion between Lori and Dave Owen of Earl F. Anderson on accomplishing, I'll call it racetracking. The connection of all of the parts with some sort of a walking structure. Lash: Second. Hasek moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to approve Phase 1 and direct staff to change Phase 2 to include the ramps and bring it back to the Commission if major changes are needed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Sietsema: So basically you want to approve Phase 1 and direct staff to change Phase 2 to include the ramps and bring it back if major changes are needed. Hasek: Sure. I think he might even be able to suggest some other things that might make connections in there but I think you know what the concept ~. is that we're trying to accomplish. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 5 I"'" DISCUSSION OF BATTING CAGE AT LAKE ANN PARK. Sietsema: At previous meetings staff was directed to talk to the owners of the home that's surrounded by Lake Ann Park and TH 5 regarding the batting cage that's being proposed out there as to whether they would be for it or against it or whatever. I talked to Mrs. Noderman and she said she had no problem with it at all. There was a buffer with the garage between their home and where it would be placed and she didn't see a problem with it. Then I talked to Dale to find out if he would be able to install it and construct the poles that we had talked about and for $600.00 he says he would just go ahead and order it. He can't really do it much cheaper when you put in the cost of his labor and that kind of thing and besides that, he wouldn't get to it until next fall or winter because that's an indoor project. Then I asked him if it would be possible to move the structure, the frame from Lake Ann to Lake Susan in 2 years when the ballfield at Lake Susan is ready because we're going to want all of the baseball stuff at Lake Susan at that point in time. He said that he did not see how it would survive the move. They're cemented in and he didn't feel that it would, he said either buy another one and put it out there or else wait to do it. So as I noted in the report, the best case scenario is that the field at Lake Susan will be done in 1991, ready for use. If we do the batting cage, my suggestion is to either do two, one at Lake Susan and one at Lake Ann or just wait to do it at Lake Susan. I talked to Dwayne Alseth also who is here regarding the Babe Ruth. He's one of the coaches and it was his """"'feeling that he didn't feel it was worth the money to do it now if we're going to move it or try to do dugouts or anything else. He said we'll just use the field as it is until the baseball field is ready at Lake Susan and then we'll have everything that we want and they were willing to live with that. So I guess given that, my recommendation would be to not take any action on this item at all for this year and schedule it for 1991 with the Lake Susan project and we can just include it in that project at that time. Amend that plan to include a batting cage. Hasek: Would they still be willing to participate in the cost of that next year? I thought there was some comment made that they had the money now and they needed to spend it. Sietsema: I don't think that we can count on them. They may be willing to. They may have the money but I don't have that assurance from them. Hasek: Did you talk to Dale at all about the possibility or did he mention the possibility of putting the sleeves... Sietsema: No, I didn't talk to him about that. Hasek: What the additional cost would be because you can set the sleeves at the same time you set the posts... Sietsema: r"". Schroers: meantime, I don't know what the cost would be on that. I would say if CAA has the money and wants to do it for the tell them to go ahead. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 6 ---' Sietsema: They were going to buy the net and they wanted us to do the frame. Lash: Why don't they go ahead and buy the net if they have the money and they have to spend it. It doesn't necessarily mean... Schroers: He was also talking like he would like to see it up by July or something. Sietsema: The earliest it could get done would be the end of June and I don't think that's going to happen with the 4th of July coming up. He's got all the tables to move around and getting grounds ready for that big celebration. Plus keeping up with the mowing and he's trying to get totlot equipment up. He's looking at me like, what do you want me to do first? What's most important to you? Do you want totlot equipment at Curry Farms? Do you want things mowed? Do you want things picked up? Do you want barbed wire removed? Do you want trails swept? What do you want done first? There's things that need to be landscaped. There's plantings to be done. There's weeds to be moved and taken care of at South Lotus Lake and he's just screams through there hoping I won't give him another thing so I'm not thinking that he would even be able to get to it until after the baseball season this year is over anyway. Realistically. Schroers: I wasn't suggesting that Dale do it. I was suggesting that if CAA wants to spend the money for the entire thing themselves and put it in ---' so they have something to use while they're waiting for their facility at Lake Susan, then I would say let's give them the okay to do it. Sietsema: They didn't have the money for the whole thing. They had the money for the net and did they talk about putting it in themselves too? Lash: They said they could put it in. Jim had suggested they check with the Rotary or the Lion's or someone who had money. Maybe they could find. Sietsema: Yes, if they wanted to do it on their own, I'll let them know that that's available to them. I think that would be fine and I'll let them know that. Hasek: Maybe that's what we should do. Simply plan on putting one in at Lake Susan when Lake Susan goes through. Schroers: If they don't want to wait you know, if they want something right away, then let them put it up there themselves. Hasek: We'll give them the spot and we'll give them permission to do it but they'll have to do it themselves. Mady: So do you need direction Lori? Sietsema: No. If that's the general consensus, I'll just relay that to them. ---' Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 7 "'" REVIEW REQUEST FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS AT CHANHASSEN HILLS PARK. Sietsema: I had a request from a homeowner in Chanhassen Hills regarding development at the park there. He wanted to know when and what was going to be done. I asked him if he received the letter about the public hearing we held a couple months ago asking for ideas from their neighborhood and no one showed up from their neighborhood if you might recall. He didn't remember getting it but thought that probably he did and didn't pay attention to it. At any rate, he wanted to know what he could do to get things done sooner. I told him to write me a letter and that's the letter that he wrote. He's hoping to have development in the park as soon as possible. phase 3 of Chanhassen Hills, the development contract was just approved last night. They're just starting on that now. I am going to be trying to include that they do the grading and the seeding for that park. I have Mark working on a grading plan for the plan that was approved by you so that they can work that right into their plan as long as they're out there already anyway with the roads and whatever. That's all I see getting done in 1989. We just simply don't have the funds available to do anything more but we do have the $10,000.00 tentatively scheduled there if the Council approves as you've recommended it and we'll know more about that at the end of July probably. Whether they approve our budget or not. Remember we were trying to place that last few $10,000.00 that we had taken out of the reserve. So there is $10,000.00 and that would put in a first phase totlot equipment, small, and a volleyball court and maybe a parking ~pad. That's pushing it. Boyt: Gravel. Hasek: Even if we went with the gravel, I would just as soon, I know what tar can do out here if it doesn't settle properly so you put the gravel in there to begin with. Sietsema: Yes, we probably would do that. That's what we did at Meadow Green Park is just put in the gravel at first. I told him that this was basically what I was going to be telling you tonight and that I didn't see much chance of their getting anything done yet this year other than the grading and if we can get that grading done, then we're ready to just plop things down next year. I sent him the agenda and the staff report so I kind of half expected him to be here but given my bleak forecast maybe he decided not to show up. So the recommendation is to just go as we had planned. It's unfortunate and I have it on my list of things to do, to contact some of the developers and ask them not to tell people that the parks are going to be developed the first year they move in because it's really causing us some problems. Hasek: Not only the developer but I think the realtors are kind of taking advantage of that too and that's a real cheap trick. Yes, you've got a park and it's coming next year. Schroers: Do you need a motion on this? ,.... Sietsema: Yes, I really should have something to respond to his request. His request is requesting that Chanhassen be developed as soon as possible. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 8 If you just want to direct staff to tell him what I've just said, that as -' soon as possible would probably be next year if budget's are approved as proposed. If the contractor doesn't do the grading, then that $10,000.00 will all be eaten up by grading pretty much so that would mean it would be the next year after that would be the soonest if there's money available to budget for that area. Mady: Then I'll move that we direct staff to work with the developer to do grading as they're doing site work for the rest of the third phase of Chanhassen Hills and that pending the grading being done, the City will do it's best to start the work with it's budgeted items for 1990. Lash: Seeding too. Grading and seeding. Hasek: Second. Mady moved, Hasek seconded to direct staff to work with the developer of Chanhassen Hills to do the grading and seeding as a part of their site work for the third phase and pending completion of grading, the City will do it's best to start the work with it's budgeted items for 1990. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW APPLICATION TO AMEND LAND USE PLAN ON PROPERTY NEXT TO LAKE ANN PARK. .....", Sietsema: I'm not real familiar with the details that led up to this proposal except that I believe that the owner of the property discussed in the proposal is suing the Met Council for additional money for the easement for the Lake Ann Interceptor. What he wants is a settlement is that they would include his property within the MUSA line for development sooner than what is scheduled. So what this proposal is in essense then is a land use amendment to change this from rural residential to residential low density which would be a typical urban type development. Typically I would not even bring this type of a request to you because it's a planning issue. The only reason that I brought it to your attention is that the area around Lake Ann in the land use plan, if you look at one of the attachments, this one is the land use plan and the little, what looks like tree tops is parks open space on the land use plan and it shows land all the way around Lake Ann as potential parkland. I just wanted to make sure that that is still our intent so if they rezone that, that they continue to include the area around the lake as park open space so we can make that future trail connection. We do have, as you well know, the connection along the east side of the lake and we want to continue that. It may not happen soon or even in our lifetime but in the long range plan, I think that's something we would probably want to continue to plan for. Maybe I should just back up and clarify some things because I know we have some new members and maybe even some old members don't know this but the land use plan is in the Comprehensive Plan. When someone comes in to develop their property, they have to go by the zoning that's on the land use plan and the types of land uses. If it's park open space, they know in advance, before they put their~ development together, that we're looking for park space in that area. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 9 ,.... Maybe in some areas it might be something real nebulous in an area but this is very specific that we want it around the lakeshore so they know that we want that property and they can count on not developing up to the lake. So that's the purpose of the land use plan is to keep everybody informed so they know, they don't waste their money on developing plans that they're going to have to be changed because the City needs certain things. Lash: So the City doesn't actually own that portion? Sietsema: We don't own it, no but they can't develop it without either us signing off on it and saying no we don't want it anymore or us buying it from them or them dedicating it to us or whatever. We have first dibs on it. Lash: So if he develops it, as far as your park fees or whatever, would that then qualify or would he then also have to give the City more? Sietsema: What's the total acreage of this? Hasek: I think it kind of depends upon whether you take it as a trade... Sietsema: If we take it as outright dedication or if we just get a trail easement around it, it's 140 acres so in a typical development is 420 lots. ~Lash: He's talking about low density. Changing it to residential low density. Sietsema: That's single family. Hasek: That's low density. Lash: That's low density? Hasek: In the sewered area, yes. They can go down to what, 10,000 square foot lots. Sietsema: 15,000 square foot lots. But then you take roads and everything else. Lash: I thought low density was like 2 1/2 acres. Sietsema: No. That's rural residential. That's what it is now. Hasek: I certainly think it's important that we continue to show that on the actual... Sietsema: That 980 people so what's 980 divided by 75? 7. Boyt: 7 acres. ""'(There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 10 Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend-' to maintain the parkland designation around Lake Ann to preserve the integrity of this undeveloped lake and to enable the City to continue the trail system around the lake. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW, VINELAND FOREST. Sietsema: This proposal is 9.5 acres proposed to be subdivided into 18 single family lots. It's south of Pleasant View Road and east of Powers Blvd.. It's quite a bit south of Pleasant View Road. I think there's some land in between there so it's not on the frontage of either Pleasant View or Powers. Basically this area is served by existing parks and with the water tower site that was proposed to be a passive type piece of parkland, developed into a passive picnic area type thing, this area is served. Therefore the recommendation of staff is to acquire the park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land and trail construction. Hasek: Just a quick question. Where is north on this map? Sietsema: At the top. Boyt: Is the water tower just north of Peaceful Lane? Sietsema: If Lake Lucy Road went straight, it's at the corner of Lake Luc: Road and Power s Blvd.. ......" Boyt: Which is the lot? Sietsema: It's not divided. Boyt: Okay, there's a for sale sign on the corner lot right where Lake Lucy Road splits and the water tower is right up above. There's a for sale sign right there. Sietsema: That's Carver Beach Estates in there and there's a lot of houses for sale in there. Boyt: Yes, I was wondering which is the piece of property that's passive park. Sietsema: Straight up that hill to the water tower. Boyt: Is it on here? Hasek: Not it's not shown. Siestema: No. The lot line isn't shown on here because this is an old map. Schroers: It's actually the water tower site itself that's parkland. ....." Sietsema: I think that it's like 3 arces or something like that. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 11 ,..... Lash: So you're looking for a motion to get park dedication? Sietsema: Right. Hasek moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land and trail construction for Vineland Forest. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW, MINNEWASHTA FARMS. Sietsema: This site is located just off of TH 41 about a half mile north of TH 5. North of the Crimson Bay development and south of Camp Tanadoona. It's a 100 acre site and they're proposing to split it into 3 lots and an outlot. The big item here is that it is outside the sewered area so they have to go with the 1 per 10 with 2 1/2 minimum lot size. That's why they have the one big lot. Staff feels that their intention is to further develop that larger piece at the time that the MUSA line changes and includes that piece of property. So if we take this item alone as it stands, as it is proposed, staff would recommend that we accept fees in lieu of park dedication and that we connect the trail that's along Crimson ~Bay as the trail plan shows, goes along straight through that development. The other thing to consider, if you recall in Mark Koegler's report that we recently reviewed, it calls for community parkland in the western part of Chanhassen. We're not going to get a large piece of property in western Chanhassen any further west than this I don't think because the area on the west of Lake Minnewashta is pretty much smaller lot sizes. So I think that in the long term plan, that the Comprehensive Plan, we may want to consider amending it to include this as a western, I don't know if any of you went out to look at it. I know Larry did and I did and I think there's enough topography there to work with for a community type park and there's some natural areas on it that would make it very amenable to a community park. I don't mean to say that we want to identify this now for sure and forever and ever amen that this is going to be the parkland that we're going to acquire. As other things come up and we look further, there maybe other spots that we want to look at also but if we amend the land use plan to include this 79 acres as potential community parkland, we have to sign off on it before they can develop it. They have to come before us and we sign off on it which is similiar to the other item we just reviewed. I think that might be in our best interest to do that. Schroers: Another nice thing about it is is that the majority of this area is a cornfield right now so it is already cleared so we don't have to cut down a bunch of nice vegetation. Boyt: It's pretty rolling in there isn't it? """Schroers: Yes, it's rolling. Sietsema: It's actually a pretty piece. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 12 ...,.., Boyt: Yes it is. I've been out there. Hasek: When the trail comes up, is this Crimson Bay road at the bottom here? Sietsema: Yes. Hasek: It shows on here, it looks right an awful narrow right-of-way. Is it actually wider than that in reality? Is it a normal 50 or 60 foot right-of-way? This one looks awfully narrow to me. Sietsema: I think that it's your typical residential type because it ends in a cul-de-sac right now so it would probably be 50. Hasek: Are you suggesting that we would connect that to the road that's just to the north of it then? Sietsema: Not to the road. We would want... Hasek: To go west or east along that property line into the larger piece? Sietsema: No, I'm suggesting for the trail. The trail plan, I should have included a copy of that in here. I'm sorry. I apoligize. This is Crimson Bay Road ends in a cul-de-sac right here right now. ..."." Hasek: Okay, this is what shows. Sietsema: What the plan calls for is the trail to just go right across here. See it's really wooded and a lot of topography down here by these houses where this road is so if they're getting access down there and they're approving that, that would be the place to get it. But just basically to get an easement so we can make that connection up to Tanadoona because it shows the trail coming through this development to Tanadoona and up. Lash: So this is Crimson Bay Road? So that's this right here? Hasek: No. It comes right now, this piece has been developed right here and there's a road that comes in that's this. It's actually to about here and there's that easement and that's where we're seeing this cul-de-sac. This road deadends and this narrower piece is platted. Sietsema: This is Dogwood and it serves these homes that are on the lake here. So this would come in and follow whatever access these homes get. Hasek: I guess I'm just thinking from the standpoint of that guy who's got that piece of property down here. Sietsema: Yes, it doesn't work very well with that one. Hasek: Yes. Is there any reason why we could go this way with the intent ~ of crossing this piece up to here at some point? Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 13 ,..., Sietsema: What I would suggest, instead of crossing the big piece, because we don't know. That's a cornfield until they develop or it becomes park or whatever happens, is just follow this entire lot line out to TH 41. Hasek: It looks like there's an...in here of some sort. Sietsema: I think that's part of road right-of-way though because I think that goes into, I'm not certain but I think that goes into the Arboretum there. That's how you get access in here. So what I would suggest then and maybe that's a better plan. It doesn't cut the front of these lots, is to follow and go all the way to TH 41 and come up here on TH 41 rather than go to Tanadoona and up. Hasek: At least we can take it and there's always the chance if it doesn't work out, we see a better opportunity to take it up to Tanadoona for some reason, we can do that. I think isn't the intent of this trail to kind of serve whatever might happen up along TH 41 and get them down and over to the Arboretum without going along TH 41 and TH 5. Sietsema: It would be a connection of the Minnewashta Regional Park down to the Arboretum and they both have indicated working with us to include, be able to get on more city wide trail system. ~Hasek: What's happening up here? Is that proposal for that higher density residential still in the works or has that failed? There was one that had kind of a funny stovepipe going down to the lake. Remember that one? It had like a 50 foot wide outlot going all the way down to the lake. Sietsema: If you look on the other one, I think that's on this piece. Hasek: Yes, okay. That's up a little farther. This is what was approved? Has this happened yet? No? Yes? Sietsema: I don't know. Hasek: Because they had a deal that came down like this. Sietsema: Yes they did. Hasek: The regional park ends in here someplace doesn't it? Isn't that kind of the boundary? Boyt: It's around these houses up here. It touches the back of the further north house. Hasek: So do you think this is it right here? Sietsema: I think it does but it does some kind of a weird jog down here "....., too . Hasek: It took in a wetland or something down there. picked something up. I'm wondering if that is, is there any plan that we have to try to put a Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 14 trail through the regional park or is that possibly leading to them? Sietsema: That's definitely a possibility is that if you got on TH 41 or you got on TH 5, you could go out to TH 41 and go up and get into the Minnewashta Regional Park. ~ Hasek: The question I have is, is there a way to access that park other than through the front gate? If we were to propose a trail that come in along the south end or they not amendable to that? Sietsema: There isn't right now but they are amendable to doing that. They've indicated that they would make a break in the gate or something that we would be able to just walk in and stroll around. Hasek: I would rather see it go that direction and I guess I'm not against us proposing taking an easement out along the south piece out to TH 41 but I would have to have to assume that we got within, run a trail all the way out to TH 41 or the park. I don't want to suggest that that's our only alternative. I think it would be from the standpoint of people using a connection from the regional park to the Arboretum more...suggest that we go somehow through those parcels when they develop. It may be farther down the road. Sietsema: The big parcel? Hasek: Yes and you may be right. The most immediate connection might be -,. out to TH 41. Boyt: Well if it does go through, here's a line. If we were able to walk there. Hasek: These pieces when they come in, they're going to come in as chunks. This was an oddball deal because this had to do with some... They will be a big chunk. There are probably some big owners in here who own some chunks of ground and they'll come in and choose, like this one, when this comes back, I think this whole thing will go. Sietsema: So are you saying, what if we got a trail easement along the southern lot line and then at the time that it develops in the future, that we would go through the property. Hasek: I would make a suggestion at this time that we want to connect somehow from that line up to Tanadoona so we don't have to use TH 41. Maybe that's how the motion is made. We'll take an easement but we want them to understand at this time, with this approval... Boyt: Along the east? Hasek: Yes. Boyt: Do we want easements along the southern end? ....", Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 15 '" Sietsema: South for now and through the outlot at the time it develops in the future. Hasek: It may end up that we'll take it along the east but I think rather that just suggest that we take it on both sides here, I would like to be able to go, I would love to be able to go up to Dogwood but I think to suggest that is going to cut that gentleman off. Sietsema: I think that at the time that the 79 acres comes in, we have a lot of options to get trail easements through there. Hasek: And again, this Council may not even be here when that happens. Boyt: Something else we need to talk about is if we're interested in land in western Chanhassen because the Met Council's going to be moving the line within a few years and then the property values are going to rise again quickly and we won't be ready. And we need to find a way to get another big chunk of money so we can buy some property. That's where we really need. Like it says in here, we need another 180 acres in Chanhassen for the entire future of Chanhassen. Lash: And to buy it now while it's still cheap instead of waiting because you know that MUSA line is going to be pushed out. ~Boyt: So are we going to ask for another referendum or ask for direction from Council on how to go at this problem? Lash: This acquisition fund that we started with this budget already, how much did we put in there? Sietsema: property. Those were for specific pieces. For the Lake Lucy access. They were for the Carrico Erhart: But I thought that we had... Sietsema: There wasn't a fund that was just for something, no. We wanted to start one like that but because we don't have the funds, we just don't have the money in there, all we could do was put money aside for future acquisition of parcels we've already identified. Schroers: I wonder if we could approach the Metro Council with something of this nature and just tell them our situation and see if there would be any funding available to help us acquire parkland for future needs. Boyt: I think we need to approach our Council first because they might have ideas. We have the use of more funds than just what we bring in. Erhart: We should schedule a meeting with them and talk to them about this. If there is talk about pushing the MUSA line out. It could happen for 2 years. Even talk about it makes the value of property go up. It ~oesn't even have to be moved but just people anticipating the MUSA line moving. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 16 Boyt: These people are anticipating it right now. --' Erhart: Then the property's probably gone up. Hasek: But that doesn't mean we have to stop. Erhart: No, and I'm not suggesting that either. Lash: I guess I'm confused because I was thinking when we were working on the budget, at one point there was something that was earmarked for park property in western Chanhassen and I asked you, I said have we specifically said and you said something along the lines of, well yes we decided we better put a name on it for western Chanhassen so that it wouldn't look like it's just a slush fund or something like that. I thought that that's what we had...and I was thinking it was a pretty good chunk of money. Hasek: I think what happened is through the course of time here it got redirected. Lash: I thought right off the top we took a big chunk. Sietsema: You're right. I don't have the final in here though. I think there was $75,000.00 in there for property in the Minnewashta area. I think that you're right. Mady: The west side of Minnewashta. ...-I Sietsema: I don't have the final here but according to my notes, you didn't take anything out of that so I believe there is $75,000.00. That was for parkland on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. Like in the Lake St. Joe area. Boyt: Do we have anyone looking for property out there for us now? Sietsema: No. But the thing to remember that we do kind of lose focus on is that the park dedication fees are for neighborhood parks. It's not really for the acquisition of community parks because those developers are putting fees into a pot to develop neighborhood parkland to serve their neighborhoods and the City is suppose to provide the community parks. Mady: Part of my commission presentation tonight is going to deal with park dedication fees. Boyt: Well then maybe we do need to meet with the Council because the funding will have to come from outside of our sources. Mady: possibly. Schroers: Jan, did you get it cleared up what you were talking about? Lash: Yes, she did find that we have allocated $75,000.00 for park acquisition. .....,if Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 17 .,-... Boyt: For neighborhood parks. Lash: Well we didn't say that. Boyt: But that's what our funds are set aside for. Sietsema: Technically, when you get right down to technicalities, the park dedication fees are for neighborhood park acquisition and development. Boyt: In the area that the development takes place. Erhart: And we really don't have any money set aside then for acquiring land. If we do, it's a very small amount right? Schroers: I thought that we set $50,000.00 into a land acquisition, park acquisition fund. Did we do that? Sietsema: We put money, funds aside for acquisition for Carrico, Lake Lucy access and for the Lake Minnewashta area. Schroers: We specifically earmarked that money? Sietsema: Right. ~Boyt: And the $75,000.00 needs to go to a neighborhood park. Schroers: I thought that we established that fund with the idea that there would be money there available in the event that property may come for sale like in western Chanhassen or around Lake Minnewashta. Sietsema: And there is. Schroers: These other areas, then we can't... Sietsema: There's three funds. There's one for the Lake Minnewashta area. One for Lake Lucy access and one for Carrico. Boyt: What we're saying is, after reading Mark's report it's apparent to us again that we need to be looking for more community parkland. We can't use our funds for that. Lash: The we shouldn't have this earmarked for it. Boyt: $75,000.00 will buy a small neighborhood park. It won't buy a park like Bandimere Park like we just did. Sietsema: Typically community parkland is acquired through the referendum process, LAWCON grant process. That's how we acquired Lake Ann Park is through referendum and through LAWCON and dedication as well and outright purchase so we could ask the City Council to set aside funds out of the ~3eneral fund for parkland purchase or we could recommend to them that we think that there needs to be another referendum at some point in time for the acquisition of parkland in these areas that are going to be deficient Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 18 given that if we don't do it now, it's going to be much more expensive 20 years from now. -" Hasek: I think if we do decide that that's the route we want to take, I think we ought to sit down with the Council and talk about it before we run into any kind of... Sietsema: I think so too. I think so too. I just wanted to bring to your attention that this is a piece of property that is the right size and the right topography, just looking at it has the look. Has the right look for a community park in western Chanhassen. Lash: Is this property north up there developed between here and the regional park? Sietsema: That's Camp Tanadoona. It's a Girl Scout camp. Lash: All of this? Boyt: Part of it is privately owned between these houses and the lake. Lash: But there would be no lakeshore available? Sietsema: No. Schroers: At our last meeting with the City Council we did touch on -' acquisition. I don't remember exactly if there was an outcome. Boyt: It's probably time to be more specific and maybe send them Mark's report ahead of time. Sietsema: I think with Mark's report, it really outlines what our needs are and what our goals, if we want to adopt that type of philosophy, that that's what our goals are. Schroers: I don't think we have a choice. If we want parkland, we're going to have... Boyt: That's the same thing with our $75,000.00. If our budget is approved, we need to start acting before that budget comes into being so that we can make an offer on some property. If we wait until next year to start looking, the prices just go up all the time. We're going to miss out again. Hasek: And that piece is within the sewered area of the city too. Western. Boyt: Western Minnewashta. Mady: We need a motion on this item. Hasek: I guess I would like to suggest that maybe after some discussion with Sue here, that we ask for a trail easement along the southern edge of --' Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 19 II"""'" the property from the end of Crimson Bay Road extended to that property line. From that point east to TH 41 and I don't know if we want to go through the property. Maybe let's at this point suggest that we'd like to also an easement along the eastern edge from the southern property line up to Tanadoona. Suggesting that we would like to make a trail connection to Tanadoona before it gets to TH 41 and alternatively to the north and into the Regional Park along the south edge rather than along the TH 41 access. And whatever else the staff recommends. Lash: Is there anything east of this? Hasek: Another piece. Lash: I know there's a piece of land there but is there something on it? Sietsema: Yes, there's a farm site. Oh, that might be this. I'm not sure if that farm site that's out there is on that triangular piece or, it looks like it's vacant and the farm site is on the outlot. Schroers: That triangle is kind of a nice maple woods with pines going on the highway there isn't it? I think that is. Lash: And there's nothing south either? ~Sietsema: South is the Landscape Arboretum. Apple orchard. Lash: Oh, that's right. So we're asking for trails to kind of go through nowhere. You're just splitting a bunch of nothing? Mady: The easement is for when development occurs. Sietsema: 20 foot trail easement. Schroers: Between TH 5 and the property is the apple orchard? Sietsema: Yes. And some vegetable stuff. I just wanted to clarify that that was a 20 foot trail easement? Hasek: Yes. Mady: Is there a second? Erhart: I'll second it. Sietsema: The motion was made by Ed to accept park fees in lieu of parkland and to acquire a 20 foot wide trail easement along the south boundary from Crimson Bay Road to TH 41 and to note that a future connection through the outlot is planned and this would be done in lieu of trail fees. ~asek: I'd also like, if you would, when you put that together mention the intent that we're trying to get to the south boundary of that Regional Park without going out to TH 41. That's why we're going north... Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 20 ....."", Boyt: I think if you want to ask for this you can. Hasek: I think we did didn't we? Boyt: Yes. You also asked for this line. Sietsema: South and east. Hasek: With the intent that we wanted to let them know that we want to make a connection. Boyt: If when it's developed it works better to go through the development and up to Tanadoona. Lash: ...rather than having it on TH 41. Boyt: Well it won't be up TH 41. Lash: I know because there's no property here on TH 41. Alternately I guess I would like the trail to go on TH 41 rather than having it go through all these other places and having to screw around with it but I see where there would be some logic in having it connect up here to Tanadoona because then you could go from Tanadoona out to TH 41 if you wanted to have access. can (There was a tape break at this point in the meeting.) ...." Hasek moved, Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park fees in lieu of parkland and to acquire a 20 foot wide trail easement along the east and south boundary from Crimson Bay Road to TH 41 and to note that a future connection through the outlot is planned and that trail fees will be accepted in lieu of trail construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW, OAK VIEW HEIGHTS. Sietsema: This next item is the Oak View condominiums. It's a subdivision. We saw this item before as a PUD. The PUD request failed at the City Council last night and this is a request for subdivision of 18.93 acres into 11 high density lots for 182 condominium units. When we look at our ordinance for park needs, if you take the 182 units and you take that times 2 people per unit, you create the need for about 4 to 5 acres of parkland. Although this is in the area, it's served by other parkland in the area, those parks are heavily used right now so instead of making them give up 5 acres of their development and instead of us overtaxing our existing parks, I indicated that perhaps they. could put in some recreational facilities to meet their immediate needs, their immediate uses of the people in their development that would be privately owned and maintained. That would take some of the pressure off of the park. Still . the organized things would be going through the park system and whatever ~ and then they would pay the park dedication fee. Is that clear to everyone Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 21 ~ what I'm trying to propose there? It's a little bit different than what we've done before but I don't know, I think it could be worked out. The developer called and he said that he didn't feel that it was fair that we were asking for recreational facilities and for 100% of the fees. He felt that he should get some compensation for the facilities that he's putting in there. I said well basically the way I see it, you can give up 5 acres of land for park because that's the need you're creating or, and that's the minimum that we accept, or you can provide some facilities and take the pressure, meet some of your own needs that you're creating. Boyt: Is there any guarantee that you would not later develop the 5 acres with something else? Sietsema: Well it wouldn't be 5 acres that he would develop into recreation. If he were to give up 5 acres, then it would be parkland then. I mean that's what we would require. This would be just... Erhart: Instead of. Sietsema: Instead of parkland, recreational facilities on site that would be available to the people who are in those units and therefore take some of the pressure off of the public parks. Hasek: Okay, I understand. So in essence we're not going to take 5 acres ~here for a park, then we're going to take it someplace else but he's providing some facilities for the people. Sietsema: Right. He didn't feel that that was fair that he should have to pay the whole thing and he felt that he wanted to know how much those types of facilities would cost. I said at best $15,000.00 unless you put in bigger, more equipment that that. Erhart: He's going to need more than that. Mady: A lot more than that. There will be over 400 people in that park. Sietsema: What he suggested is that he pay for half of that and get the other half as a credit to his park dedication fees. $7,500.00. Boyt: I would think he'd maybe put in at least a $20,000.00 piece of playground equipment. Mady: I was thinking more than that. We've got a school up here that has far more kids and we're looking at putting over $40,000.00 worth of equipment. Sietsema: Right but you're not talking about just 400 kids moving into this development. It could be some elderly. ~Boyt: Do you know what... How many people per unit? Sietsema: I figured 2 people per unit. I think that's high. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 22 Boyt: For houses it's 2.something. ~ Sietsema: It's 2.8 for single family. Boyt: You think it's less for apartments? Sietsema: Yes. Boyt: We're getting a lot of kids from the apartments into the schools. I'd say it's more than 2. Sietsema: Maybe you know there's 2 is what they figure but usually it's less. Hasek: I think they figure 2.3 per family and that's generally across the board. Apartments, it's strange to predict that. It changes almost yearly based upon the economy. Even if we counted one whole child per family for each unit. Sietsema: And they're not all duo parent families. Boyt: No, but they still have kids. Sietsema: But I mean when you figure people per unit. Boyt: I'm looking at the number of kids. ...."" Erhart: Are these going to be rental units, these condos or are they going to be privately owned? Sietsema: I think they're privately owned. Boyt: Then I wouldn't expect it. Erhart: I can see single parents in rental property with kids. People that are going to buy condominiums are usually with one child at best. Most of them don't have children, I wouldn't think. Boyt: Most of the people moving into Chanhassen are young, just starting their families. That's why our...are growing tremendously. Erhart: Yes but I mean that's why I was asking if it was going to be rental. Hasek: There are two types of people moving in condominiums. Old empty nesters and young starters. Boyt: And the old people aren't moving to Chanhassen from what we've seen so far. Hasek: They can't afford the taxes. .."". Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 23 ,... Boyt: Well there's nothing out here for them. I'm concern that we're not providing enough for them. Sietsema: Keep in mind that they are in the service area of an existing park. Boyt: But they have Kerber Blvd. to cross and Powers Blvd. to cross. I saw kids out playing on the new playground equipment at the site next to them today and they're playing there. They're not going over to the school which is a lot safer for them to stay where they are. Schroers: There are children in the rental units. Mainly the plan is to come out here. Get your condo. Get established. Start your family. Get out of your condo and into a single family house but there may be a few years in there where, especially younger aged children. Mady: Do we know what his park dedication fees are? Sietsema: $300.00 per unit. Lash: Per unit? Per condo unit? Sietsema: $54,000.00 I think. ,...Schroers: Do you need a motion on this Lori? Sietsema: I need something. Schroers: Should I try it? I'm going to move that we recommend that the developer provide a large playground structure, a standard size sand volleyball court and a half court basketball to prevent overtaxing the existing facilities and recommend that land for this recreation area be approved by the Park and Rec Commission and that park dedication fees be required in lieu of parkland. We'd also recommend an 8 foot wide bituminous trail to be constructed along Powers Blvd. within the 20 foot easement. 10 foot of additional street right-of-way be dedicated along Jenny Lane which is a thru street and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk constructed within that right-of-way in lieu of trail dedication fees. Hasek: Do you want to put a dollar figure on the play structure Larry? Lash: I think we should set a minimum on that. Mady: Is there a second? Hasek: Yes, I'd like to second that. What do we feel is reasonable? Can we have some sort of consensus? Lash: For the play? I'd say at least $20,000.00 for the play. ""Hasek: So we've got a volleyball area and half court basketball, you can get those two for $5,000.00 right? Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 24 Sietsema: What's shown here is a $9,000.00 play structure so if you wanted-' to double that, it would be $20,000.00. Hasek: Okay, the $25,000.00 would include the basketball and volleyball. Okay, is $25,000.00 a reasonable number? Mady: I think so. Hasek: Okay, do we want to set a minimum of $25,000.00 for construction costs for the facilities? Mady: Was there any reduction in fees due to the construction? Hasek: No. Boyt: And I want to ask that this be constructed in the first phase. Hasek: I think that's fairly smart. Then when people corne in, they won't be corning in here asking. Lash: I have just a couple of questions. Where is Jenny Lane? Sietsema: It's shown on the site plan. Lash: It goes through to Kerber right? ..."", Hasek: No it doesn't. Not yet. Sietsema: It doesn't go through yet. It will hook up to what goes through the apartments right now and go all the way from Kerber to Powers Blvd.. Boyt: I don't see where he has room on this plan to do this? Sietsema: That's why I put the stipulation in there that he has to corne back and show us what he's proposing. Boyt: I'm concerned that it's not going to be big enough. That we're going to have another case of the condominiums between you and me where the kids spend all their time on the road. We know that they need 5 acres to meet the needs of the people moving in there... They will have other parkland near them but now right there and we've been hearing over and over again that people need something within our neighborhood. I think we need to make sure that it's enough to serve this neighborhood. This is a neighborhood. Hasek: In and of itself. Schroers: So you want to amend the motion to... Hasek: Let's look at it this way. If we took 5 acres out of there and the units that go along with that 5 acres, how many acres have we got total? .....,. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 25 ,...... Boyt: 19. Hasek: So that's 20% of the almost 200 to 140 people. Boyt: But this is 25%... development so we would now cut it back from Hasek: Are the condominiums only going into what is shown or does it include this future apartment? The 19 acres isn't the total parcel. The condos are 182 units. So we've got an additional future apartment building going in here? Sietsema: Right. Hasek: So there's more units then even. Boyt: You see this corner where it says future apartments, that's about 5 acres. Hasek: So we've got additional. in the district that they're in? How dense are they developing that parcel The zoning district. Sietsema: R-12. ~Hasek: 12 units per acre. Erhart: And there will be a lot of kids in the apartments. Boyt: There might not be in other towns but from what we've seen in Chanhassen, it's little kids. And yes there might not be 10 years from now but we know what's happening right now. Mady: What are we trying to accomplish here? Are we trying to get 5 acres of land out of this guy as well as build a park? Boyt: No, I don't think we need to do both. I'm concerned that we get enough so we meet the needs of the people. Sietsema: I think that's up to him though to corne back to us with a plan. If we aren't asking for parkland, the notice is on him to corne up with a decent plan that you're going to accept that will meet those needs. Boyt: But I don't know if could vote for this or if I could go vote for taking the parkland. That's my concern. I don't know if we could get enough from him but I'm only one vote. All we have to do is move on it and then the Council can get it. Sietsema: And he'll corne back to us with the plan. So the motion I have added to what Larry said is ask for a minimum of $25,000.00 on the ~facilities. $20,000.00 of that going towards totlot and that it be done in Phase 1. Ed seconded? Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 13, 1989 - Page 26 Hasek: I'd like to just add something to that. If we're going to take $25,000.00 worth of equipment, that goes to the facility, not the grading or seeding or landscaping for the facilities. ...""" Sietsema: On facilities. Schroers moved, Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the developer provide a large playground structure, a standard size sand volleyball court and a half court basketball court so as not to overtax the existing park facilities. To recommend that the plan for this recreation area be approved by the Park and Rec Commission and that park dedication fees be required in lieu of parkland. Additionally recommending an 8 foot wide bituminous trail to be constructed along Powers Blvd. within the 20 foot easement. 10 foot of additional street right-of-way be dedicated along Jenny Lane which is a thru street and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk constructed within that right-of-way in lieu of trail dedication fees. A minimum of $25,000.00 on recreation facilities ($20,000.00 for totlot) and that it be constructed during Phase 1 of the development. All voted in favor except Sue Boyt who opposed and the motion carried. Lash: Lori, just one quick thing. When we have developers put in sidewalks, concrete sidewalks, when those things deteriorate and need to be replaced, who then pays for that replacement? ....." Sietsema: The City. Lash: So all these things that we're putting in allover, ultimately we're going to have to pay to have replaced. Sietsema: The City does. The park maintenances doesn't but the engineering department does. Mady: Because they do that in Minneapolis. you're responsible for the sidewalk and the trees. Lash: But that's not the city paying for it. Mady: They'll have to make a decision on that when it comes 30 years from now. Boyt: And it might be assessed to the homeowners. It depends on who's on the Council at the time. Lash: I think that's something that needs to be considered before we start putting these things in allover. Sietsema: It's being considered when they came up with the trail plan. All those considerations were taken at the time the trail plan was developed. --' Park and Rec Commission June 13, 1989 - Page 27 ,..., Boyt: We had so much budgeted per year for upkeep too and for maintenance equipment. We didn't talk about who would be replacing it in the future because that's quite far in the futUre. Mady: The sidewalk in front of my parent's house was there for 70 years before it was replaced and it was only replaced in front of their house because the City felt that a 2 inch gap in the sidewalk was too high and they have to tear it all out. That was 70 years. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: Mady: I don't know if anyone else has anything. I have a couple things I want to talk about tonight. First off, real quick. The new sidewalks down Laredo Trail, they're just putting the sod in, they started last week and they're continuing this week. I'd like to see staff send a letter to every homeowner who lives along Laredo reminding them of their duty to water. that sod. It looked pretty rough that first day and if we hadn't got rain the last 2 days, it would have been dead by now. So if we can get a nice, friendly letter to them. Schroers: Can I ask you a question? How does a homeowner's... Sietsema: They asked for it. "...., Boyt: The ones I've talked to like it. Two people. One of them is just thrilled. She has a 3 year old boy and a 1 year. Schroers: They're happy with the construction part of it. The way it looks. Boyt: You haven't heard any complaints and you would. Hasek: Just a little side note to that. Larry you're the one that's familiar with my neighborhood. It's 3 cul-de-sacs up there and the parents up there, and I'm talking about 3 cul-de-sacs and that go noplace in the neighborhood. I mean you can't get thru to anywhere, have expressed some desire, they wish that sidewalks had been put in because they've got little kids playing on the street. When we first moved in out there, it was fairly quiet but there's been a turn over and we've seen lot younger kids coming into the neighborhood. Older parents with high school kids and we've got kids tearing through the neighborhoods right now and there are some concerned parents out there that wish they had sidewalks in a cul-de-saced neighborhood. Just to get the kids off the streets. I don't think it will ever happen but there is a desire out there on the part of some people. Mady: One of my good friends lives a block from me. He's very much against trails. Has two little children. One's 4 and the other one is 2 1/2 I believe. He keeps telling me his kids will never use the sidewalks ~yet every day they take their children to the sidewalk a half a block away to teach them how to ride their bike. Park and Rec Commission June 13, 1989 - Page 28 Boyt: Many of our neighbors are really against sidewalks. I've seen all of them walking on the sidewalks because it makes a nice loop around. --" Mady: Now you can go around the Chan Pond Park. Boyt: I think it's as we put these little segments in, people are going to realize that they're not as bad as they thought and become more acceptable. I think some people like them. Erhart: Especially if they have little kids. Boyt: And some of them are older people. All their kids are gone but they go for an evening walk. Erhart: I was thinking of the Preserve with many, many cul-de-sacs but no sidewalks in there. Sietsema: Was that a motion to direct staff to ask homeowners to water sod? Mady: Yes. Hasek: I think just direct staff to do that. Does it have to be a motion? Sietsema: It has to be a motion to direct me otherwise I'm doing something that he wants and not necessarily what the group wants. ......" Boyt: Second. Mady moved, Boyt seconded to direct staff to write a letter to the homeowners along the newly installed trail on Laredo Drive to water the new sod. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Boyt: Do you keep a little list of items that we think should go to budget next year? Just kind of a curb list? Sietsema: Not formally. Boyt: We need benches for the players at Carver Beach Park. A real simple thing. (Dean Johnson, the developer for Oak View Heights arrived at the meeting at this point and Lori Sietsema informed him of the action taken by the Park and Recreation Commission on his development.) Dean Johnson: What about some assistance for playground because if it's my understanding that you could give park dedication. Now what you're causing me to do is pay park dedication and put in the facilities so you've over burdening me. ...., Park and Rec Commission June 13, 1989 - Page 29 ,..... Boyt: I don't think that's what the motion said. I don't think we're charging full fees are we? Sietsema: Yes. Boyt: Well you're getting away with a lot less land. We'd ask for 5 acres. Dean Johnson: 5 acres of... Boyt: That's to meet the needs of the number of people. Dean Johnson: I'm in an area where the present park system should be adequate for them or to your staff? Sietsema: No, that's not what I said. There is existing parkland but it's already at a near capacity level of use. Therefore, that's why they're requiring that you put in facilities to meet your own needs instead of parkland because the land that we have currently is already at almost full capacity. Dean Johnson: What happened to the $10,000.00? Sietsema: They decided that what you're proposing is... ~Dean Johnson: Instead of spending it on playground equipment, if you're 90in9 to do anything you should spend it more on say adult activities because the people you're...are not children. I know the Planning Commission and Council feel the same way. They think this is going to have a lot of children and that just isn't right. You're going to get single people. You're going to get married couples just starting out. As soon as they have that first child, they're not going to be sitting there in a townhouse, some $50,000.00 townhouse. Boyt: That's not the way it's happened so far in Chanhassen. That's the information we have to use to predict. What's happening right now in Chanhassen. Dean Johnson: But what you're doing is spending an enormous amount of money for children... Boyt: No, it's not all children. We're asking for basketball and volleyball as well. Dean Johnson: A volleyball court has 2 posts. Boyt: Is this something that you guys should discuss or is it something that we all have to discuss since our motion is passed? Sietsema: Well if you want to hear his comments. He might want them for the record to go along for the record. ,..... Dean Johnson: You're just not going to get that many children. I've done townhouse projects before and with...we got less than 20 children. Park and Rec Commission June 13, 1989 - Page 30 --' Boyt: It depends on the town you're in. Dean Johnson: ...You're spending $25,000.00 on children and probably $5,000.00 on adults. Boyt: You can spend more. Dean Johnson: If I'm going to spend it, I'd rather spend it on something that's going to attract my customers into the thing. That's not going to be a huge playground facility. It's going to be... Lash: You don't feel that people with children are going to be moving in there? Dean Johnson: Not to the degree that $25,000.00 is going to be. Are we talking about $25,000.00 just to install it or we talking about... Hasek: We're talking $25,000.00 for the facilities that you put in exclusive of grading and seeding and landscaping. I think rather than trying to convince us of something that we really, we've got information that we use to make our decision. If you want to change the minds of somebody, it would have to be the Planning Commission and the Council. If you'd like to spend $25,000.00 or you can convince them that you're going to have all adults and no children, fantastic. That would be fine by me a~ long as they're provided for within their own development. That would be -' great. Dean Johnson: ...recommendation, you people... These are obvious things. You're just not going to get that many young children in this thing. You're going to end up with single parents, families who are divorced and they have one child or two, that are now probably 12, 14 years old and married for 8 or 10 years and 12 years and didn't see eye to eye and split. That was a majority of what has moved into other townhouse projects that I have built. You talk to Tom Workman...he says the same thing. He's in a building that's all elderly except for himself and he bought his on a repo or something like that he had told me. That's why he was there and he fully expects to sell to an elderly person. Sietsema: The difference though, what we have to go by is what we have experienced. The three buildings around Tom Workman's building had 9 children in them each. Lash: I could certainly see with this going in across the street from an elementary school that it would be a real drawing card to people with elementary children. Dean Johnson: I would say no going in behind a commercial... Yes, I see what you're saying. I understand that but then on the other hand... Sietsema: What would you rather see in it? -' Park and Rec Commission June 13, 1989 - Page 31 """ Dean Johnson: Obviously I think that having to pay a fee and...you're talking about is overkill. I think you're overstepping it... If you say you can take 5 acres, but that would be... I would rather see, if anything, I would rather see something more for the adult, a tennis court or something like that. ...you'll see a lot of just married couples and you're going to be seeing a lot of single couples coming back from divorces and that kind of thing. You're just not going to see a lot of children in an area like this. Erhart: That's what I was trying to drive at. That some of your luxury condominiums they don't cater to families. Dean Johnson: These aren't going to be luxuries though. Erhart: How many bedrooms? Dean Johnson: These are 2 and 3 bedrooms but if you look at the plan, you're going to see, I don't even know if you have a plan in front of you... Two single guys or two single girls or that type of thing. Put in two bathrooms so each of them has their own bathroom. Mady: Okay, we're going to move on now. Hasek: I'm sorry that you missed us. I guess the only thing we can say, ~I'm a planner myself and I always ask the same question when I go to these types of meetings about the time you expect to be on. Historically I'm there about a half an hour before then because I know these things can get screwed up so I apologize that you didn't make the meeting but it's in your own interest to be here. Mady: The last thing that I had on Commission presentation. We keep running into this in the last couple of months and that's the park dedication fees and parkland being developed in new developments. People expecting a park to be there immediately. Just a problem we've run into really with new developments in the past couple of months. What I want us to do is look at two different things. One is when do we get what we're getting from the developer. Be it land, be it park money, whatever. If the development comes in with 100 lots in it and he sells 30 of them, already we have a need for a park yet we might not get all the money and may not be able to do anything for 5 or 6 years. We have a problem. We had Curry Farms in here. We had Lake Susan. Chan Hills. They're all in here. They're all screaming for their park that they were promised from the developer or the real estate agent or whomever. As this city is now standing at 10,000 people, by Mark's estimation we're going to grow to 35,000 people over the next whatever years. As the MUSA line gets changed in the next couple years, and I hope it doesn't personally, but if it does, that needs going to grow real, real fast and we need to be proactive and find a plan now so we can plan for those extra 25,000 people. Not wait ~until the third phase of their development comes in and hope that we get 30me money. In view of that, I want to look at our park dedication fees. Those 25,000 people moving into Chanhassen are going to create, what is it, 180 additional community park acres. A need for 180 yet we're not gaining Park and Rec Commission June 13, 1989 - Page 32 anything from our park dedication ordinance with that and I believe we can.-' We need to look at that. Sietsema: For a community park? Mady: Yes. They're going to create a need for 2 things. Community park and neighborhood park. Sietsema: The State Statutes don't allow for any, there's no vehicle to collect money for community parks. The park dedication is to provide neighborhood parks. Mady: Pull that out because I don't remember reading that in the Statute. We haven't looked at it for a couple of years but could you pull that out for me. I think we're missing the boat here. Every time we need a community park, we expect that 10,000 people already live here who pay taxes and get what they needed are now going to pay more taxes to provide for the new 25,000 people. If we can split the park dedication fee so that x dollars goes toward a community park fee and x dollars goes to a neighborhood park fee, and we start ballparking it out, what we have to have to develop a park, to buy the land, develop the park and charge for that now and get it when the developer puts his final plat in, we get it at that time instead of as the building permits come in here, we can then do something for these people rather than sorry, we don't have any money and gee that's too bad. We need to start planning and doing this right. If this city starts to take off like some people are suggesting, we better be ~ looking at this with open arms instead of doing it as we are now which is really working very well. Boyt: One of things we've been asking lately is that the parks be done in the first phase. Grading and seeding be done in the first phase. Maybe we need to be more explicit. Do they need to be done when the first door opens or by the time... Mady: If they're selling that land, saying there's a park there, then the park should be there when they're selling it. Not because it's on paper hoping that the city someday is going to put it in. If the developer is saying he's got a park in his development, then he should be putting in a park in his development. At least doing the grading so it's a flat piece of land that is useable. Boyt: Maybe we need to change the way we do things too. Do more like with this but have it be parkland. Take Chan Hills, we want our acreage graded, seeded and the equipment put in. Order the equipment for that neighborhood right away. Mady: All I'm doing here is I wanted to bring the point up. I spent about an hour on this the other day trying to come up with some formulas and calculations. What I want to do is cause some thought. I don't expect an answer tonight. I don't expect it in the next 3 months but I would hope that by the end of the year we would come up with some kind of a plan to start addressing the needs of the City in the future because we're going to~ grow by 2 1/2 times in who knows how much time but if the MUSA line gets Park and Rec Commission June 13, 1989 - page 33 ,...., changed, as some people are suggesting, it's really going to change quickly and we're going to really have a problem so we need to start looking at our community needs as well as the neighborhood. Sietsema: I think if we take land in that land as well. cities do that. that's a good point. It's a very good point to include lieu of fees, that we should include the development of I think that's very reasonable and I think that other Hasek: The discussion of asking for the money up front so we've got something to work with is not new either. We've talked about that before. Sietsema: No, and I apologize for not bringing that back. I've talked to Don about it and I have a note to myself about it but I was going to stick it on this agenda and then this one got to be 10 items and next meeting is already. Hasek: What was his feeling? Did he feel there was anything wrong with it? Sietsema: It can be done. I have to look at my notes to remember what he said exactly. Hasek: I had a guy develop 80 acres up in Champlin and he had to pay ~$35,000.00 up front in park dedication fees. Up front. Boyt: If we had the money up front, then we could order the equipment to go on the grading of the property. Lash: We could end up with a timeframe that when a development was going in, there'd be a priority list so if the development started this year and they graded and seeded it, it would automatically go on our budget for the next year to be developed. I can't see that we could develop it right away because we wouldn't know the specific needs of what kind of a neighborhood it is. We wouldn't know if it's mostly kids or maybe retired people. Sietsema: But you can get the basics. If you look at our neighborhood parks, they all have the basics. They have tot10t, basketball and a backstop. If there's some extra room so people can come in and say, we would really like a tetherba11 or we would really like something that's different that's not typically put in there, you'd have the room to put it in there. Going back to Sue's point that at the time that they dedicate the land, if we required them as part of that dedication to put the facilities on it. Grade it, seed it and put on the facilities and it has to be done in Phase 1. Lash: If they were to earmark x amount of dollars for us then. Sietsema: It's better for them to do it than for us because it takes, ,....,you've seen the red tape that we have to go through to get anything done. Boyt: We could still have the input on how it was developed. Park and Rec Commission June 13, 1989 - Page 34 Sietsema: Right. We would approve the plan at the time, instead of just -' looking at this and saying, we're going to acquire 5 acres of parkland, we give him the plan. We'd show him what we want on there as well and where we want it. We'd go through all of that now. Boyt: Then we wouldn't have to order the equipment. Sietsema: We wouldn't have to get our budget approved. to get contracted out for grading. We wouldn't have to contacting Dave Owen and figuring out a play structure. would be done now. We wouldn't have go through All that stuff Lash: So we'd give them specs so they would know exactly the supplier and the way it has to be installed for liability type things? It has to be inspected by someone from the City that it meets everything? Sietsema: Yes. And that frees up Dale. Hasek: When I first got out of school 12 years ago, the first 3 years I worked as a planner for a number of large home builders like Vern Gagne, ...New Horizon Homes, etc.. Not the quality stuff, that's true but a lot of homes they were building. There wasn't a single project that we didn't work on where we weren't responsible as planners going to the City to work with the park board and the recreation staff to come up with a plan for the parks. Those weren't developed by a consultant. They were developed by u~ as planners and we had to work with them. Show them what we wanted to put -' in the park and justify it. A lot of times the city... Sietsema: We save money all the way down the line. We save time and money. Staff time. Maintenance time. Consultant fees. All the way down the line we would save time. Hasek: To be frank with you, when I started here I was very surprised at the way that it was being done. It seemed backwards to me. It's like you say, when you move into a neighborhood and there's supposed to be a park there, you expect there to be a park there. There's no reason why... Sietsema: And if it's their responsibility, they're going to have the people barking at them to get the park done. It's also a selling point for them. Hasek: Everyone of them is using it as a selling point except where there's no park. There is nothing there. Erhart: That's what happened in my brother's neighborhood in Savage. He moved into a new area and they told him there was going to be a park and that was over a year ago. He hasn't heard anything. Schroers: I agree that that's definitely the way we'd like to work and approach it but the bottom line is we're asking more from these developers and I think that's fine and I don't feel bad about it but I think that it'f only decent to show them a little bit more consideration when they come in -,' here and they have some concerns. I think we should at least listen to Park and Rec Commission June 13, 1989 - Page 35 ,..... their point of view and not cut them off short and tell them, hey if you don't like it, go talk to the City Council. Boyt: He came in here defensive. He came in here late. Hasek: It's his responsibility to be here and he felt that we had screwed him. That's not the way it was. I don't care who told him 9:00, it doesn't make any difference. He knows the meeting starts at 7:30 and it's his own like it's my own when I go to these meetings myself to be there. If you walk into a council meeting someplace, you've missed the issue, they're not going to sit and listen to you. They're not going to go backwards. It's your fault for not being there. Period. Doesn't matter. What you do is you roll the dice when you call. I know I called the city here and they don't like to do that at all at Chanhassen. They don't like to predict what time it might be. Sietsema: It's impossible to predict. You can think that an item's going to go, I've told people well, it's the second item after the consent agenda at City Council and probably it will go maybe 8:30 and it doesn't get on until 11:30. Midnight because the first item on the agenda is Eckankar or something that that's lengthy so it's impossible for us to try. We try to guesstimate. I can't judge how windy you guys are going to be. Schroers: That's not the thing. They probably understand that too and ~theY've dealt with this same situation in various other communities and I'm sure they understand that but I got the impression that they went out of here not happy. Less than happy. Boyt: I don't think they're going to be happy. Mady: No, they're only going to happy if we give them only what he wanted us to do. Boyt: They're wheeling and dealing to get the most they can for their buck. Hasek: Larry, if we had told them we weren't going to charge them anything and we were going to take parkland... It's their nature. It's their job. They don't want to spend dollars that they don't have to spend. Sietsema: Let's move on. Mady: The item was park dedication, is an item I'd like to see us discuss with Council. Sietsema: Does anybody else have any other commission items? Lash: This has been brought up a couple of times tonight with this tape recorder. I think we need to find a better system because I think some ,.....important things are being missed. As an example that Jim brought up ~arlier. Your response to the people from out by Herman Field. I think that would be important to have in these minutes for anyone years down the road. If it goes to Council, for them to read it to see that these people Park and Rec Commission June 13, 1989 - Page 36 were notified of the meeting and that doesn't come across when you read the-' Minutes so I think you were slighted in that particular instance and I think it's because of the tape recorder. Another one was on missing a big chunk of something that I think should have been in there and that was discussion of the playground equipment for Curry Farms Park. All it says is the motion. Granted we didn't discuss it very much but I think what was discussed should be included in the Minutes for all to hear and see. I don't know what we can do about it. If there's a different kind of machine or a tape or a beeper on it when it runs out. Something that you will kick you. Mady: My hand held one beeps when it gets to the end of the tape. Sietsema: That won't pick all you slight voiced people up. Mady: But I would think there's a new model available. I know a couple of people who sell those things. Sietsema: I'll check into it. Has anybody seen the bridge? Mady: I've seen it from the trail but not from Kerber. Sietsema: It's a nice bridge. Needs to have the ramps put on and Dales going to do that. Mady: It's wide enough for Dale's park equipment? -" Sietsema: Yes. Mady: Did you talk to Dale about the other bridge? Should that be widened? Sietsema: No I didn't. I'll put it on the list. Mady: That was put in at 4 feet and I think we should go to 6 feet. Sietsema: Does anybody want to go to that workshop? Lash: I thought it would be beneficial for the two of us, since we're new. Erhart: Is that the 24th? Lash: 22nd. Hasek: We as an office participate in government training services and it's got some really excellent programs put together and they do do, they're bringing some really top notch people to kind of inform those like us who really don't know what the heck is going on. What our job responsibilities really are and they're good things to participate in. Mady: It'd almost be a nice to see if they could do a private one for the ~ City of Chanhassen. Park and Rec Commission June 13, 1989 - Page 37 ""...... Hasek: There are cities that do that. That would be an excellent idea. Lash: Dawne and I will go. Sietsema: Do you want me to register you? Erhart: It's just for the afternoon Lori on the 22nd? Lash: It's noon to 5:00. Sietsema: So Brooklyn Park on June 22nd. Erhart: If the Commission thinks there is something to be gained by it, then I think it would be good for us. Boyt moved, Erhart 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 ,..... "'"