PRC 1989 06 27
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
~UNE 27, 1989
~hairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Curt Robinson, Larry Schroers, Jim Mady, Dawne
Erhart and Jan Lash
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Hasek
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
APPOINT ACTING CHAIR. Boyt moved, Lash seconded to appoint Larry Schroers
as the Acting Chair for the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mady moved, Boyt seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June 13, 1989 with the
following amendment by Jan Lash on page 15 to change a statement regarding
the acquisition fund from Erhart to Lash. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Public Present:
REVIEW RESULTS OF RESIDENT SURVEY FOR HERMAN FIELD DEVELOPMENT.
~
Name
Germaine Grant
Paul Prenevost
Fay Dudycha
Robert A. Riesselman
Judy Hinklin
Betty Lang
Dolores Ziegler
Marcia and Bob Schiferli
James Senst
Mary Kilby
Laurie Johnson
Donna Bechthold
Bill Bevan
Pat Hanely
Address
2782 Piper Ridge Lane
6351 Minnewashta Woods Drive
6451 Oriole Avenue
6320 Forest Circle
6345 Minnewashta Woods Drive
2631 Forest Avenue
6441 Oriole Avenue
325 George Street, Excelsior
2820 Washta Bay Road
2930 Washta Bay Road
2731 Piper Ridge Lane
2722 Piper Ridge Lane
2701 Piper Ridge Lane
2650 Orchard Lane
Schroers: Do you have those results Lori or is there a representative
from Herman Field neighborhood?
Sietsema: Both. I don't know, do you want to present your results.
Pan Hanely: Sure. I'm Pat Hanely. I live at 2650 Orchard Lane. We
handed out 115 survey slips. 77 replies came back. We did this by
~ontacting one person in each block and having them distributing them. The
irst question of priorities of access. The first priority was people
~ould walk, bike to the park or most people would drive to the park. The
priorities for seasonal use were summer, fall, spring and winter. Question
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 2
...."."
3, 66% of the replies I got said that both spouses would use the park. 14%
said only one spouse would. Question 4 is 57% of the replies I received
said they had children who would use the park area. 19% had no kids.
Question number 5 was amenities that were going to go in there. What I did
is have each person list like 5 things in priority of what they wanted to
see and then took a tally from that. You can see hiking and biking and
jogging trails were number one and cross country skiing, swings and
sandbox, picnic area, picnic shelter, tennis courts, multi-purpose open
fields, ballfields, basketball, horseshoes and the others were some people
put down swimming pools and that type of things. Of the tally, 56% you
would use an access if it was provided over the Piper Ridge Trail. Now
even some people from the eastern end of town said they would go ahead and
use an access there meaning they would go in off Forest Avenue, go through
the park system and walk back out the street in that direction. 23% said
they wouldn't use that. The parking issues, we asked the question would
you like to see limited parking there. 86% of the people said they'd like
some limitation on parking and 45% of those said 5 spaces was all that was
needed as far as they were concerned. 10 spaces was 25% and more was 10%.
68% said they would like to see a gate system that was monitored on the
park to close out the parking of some nature. Meaning a representative
would come and open it up in the morning and close it up again during the
top hours, I assume 9:00-10:00.
Schroers: Gate across the parking lot?
Pat Hanely: Gate across the road so the parking lot could not be accessed.
55% said they would like to see a natural barrier of some type or a fence
around the parkland to designate where parkland starts and stops so
surrounding neighbors did not get their property infringed upon. I don't
know if you folks have been out to walk it. I know some of you have. It's
difficult to see where the boundaries are. 30% said that was not needed.
--'"
Schroers: Would boundary signs, boundary markers be acceptable?
Pat Hanely: I think the question is and still would be debated some
whether it's a chainlink fence, a split rail fence, how much protection is
really needed there. I didn't ask that question but most of the people
wanted to define the boundary. You can define that with a split rail fence
also. You could define that boundary with a natural barrier. Plantings.
Any question on the surveyor how it was taken? I tried to cover as many
people as we possible could.
Robinson: That's a big help to us. I don't think any resident has taken
this upon himself in the past to do this so we really appreciate that.
Boyt: Do you have any percentages on the priorities of access? The
question number 1. Do you have any percentages for walking, bicycling and
driving?
?at Hanely: No I don't. I think Lori has my tally sheet though.
--'
Sietsema: It's upstairs. I don't have it down here.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 3
,...
Schroers: Do you recall the name of the cul-de-sac where that proposed
walk through...to the park is. Remember the first place that we stopped.
Hoffman: Piper Ridge.
Schroers: Did you have any negative response about using that?
Pat Hanely: Question 6 was would people use Piper Ridge trail access if it
were installed. 56% said they would. 23% said they would rather not see
it go in.
Schroers: Did you have any opposition from either of the...
Pat Hanely: Yes. It would be worth your while to go out there and take a
look.
Schroers: We did and that's exactly why I'm asking because there is enough
space there and it goes right between two houses.
Pat Hanely:
to overcome.
""ietsema: Yes. They received the copy of your results and then the survey
forms that had the comments on it.
And it is a steep bank there also. There are some obstacles
Did they receive a packet of all the information?
Pat Hanely: Okay. Any survey that came back that had a comment written on
the back of it, I proposed in your packet. Those people have all put
comments on... I think their name and address should be on there.
Schroers: Thank you very much. You did a very good job.
Sietsema: And we do have the rest of the surveys that didn't have comments
as well.
Schroers: Okay, does staff have anything to add to this?
Sietsema: No. I just want to open it up for discussion as far as how you
want to proceed from here. Maybe we want to discuss what we have on the
existing plan would tie into what has been requested or what the survey's
come out with.
Schroers: Are there any residents here that have anything more to add in
regards to Herman Field?
Betty Lang: My name is Betty Lang. I live at 2631 Forest Avenue and
you're talking about the access, extending Forest Avenue for the access to
the park. I just get a little nervous when you talk about developing and
~e really don't know what's going to happen to our property in regards to
_he access and I guess I just want you to consider that.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 4
...",
Mady: Lori, did you talk to Gary Warren about gravel road access?
Sietsema: I talked to him just briefly and it was his recollection also
that there was discussion of just a gravel road being, as far as the
extension of Forest Avenue going into the park.
Betty Lang: I don't know if you're aware of it or not but there are two
private properties involved in this road that you're talking about.
Mady: Are you referring to assessing you mean or buying or purchasing?
Betty Lang: Your access and assessing, both things I would like you to
consider.
Mady: I'm trying to recall specifically because my recollection that we
kind of thought that by using a gravel access without putting curb and
gutter and the street in, we may not have to assess the homeowner. It was
just basically a driveway in.
Betty Lang: That was brought up at one time.
Boyt: Did we look at access off Forest Curve, off the cul-de-sac?
Sietsema: No because this area is wet so I don't believe the soils in
~here would support a gravel parking pad. This is the original plan and ~
it's parking area here. The revised plan put the parking area showing here
on Forest Avenue and that parking area would be right in this area. We
haven't actually modified the plan because we didn't know how it was going
to come out but if you recall the feasibility that came out, the Forest
Avenue was the most feasible, economically and through the soils and the
rest of the work that needs to be done.
Schroers: They can get that driveway in or make it an access to the park.
We have to go on someone's private property?
Sietsema: Right. We'd have to acquire an easement between these two
property owners here.
Resident: That's not the property line. The property line is to the right.
Sietsema: It comes down here right?
Resident: It's over farther to your right.
Schroers: Where is it in relation to the path that goes in there?
Resident: I would say this is it right here. This is Lot 30,
and this is the other part of 30. I'm just guessing. That's
it is. This is correct where this arrow road is right here.
;he easement between these two properties.
part of 31
about where
That would be
--'
Sietsema: So that would come down, straight down in the middle of this
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 5
,....
little curve here?
Resident: Right.
Bob Schiferli: Can I enlighten on this a little bit? I'm Bob Schiferli.
My wife and I live on the other piece of property involved. It would be
going through here. This is approximately where the property line is. Now
this road coming through here is now stopping right here right now.
Blacktop. The rest is all proposed. All your water running from here
could channel all the way through to your main road through here and make a.
perfect pond for your park. All this water could run right on down through
here. The only thing stopping it from here on down now is a...and
everything else. As far as this ground down here for building or anything
like that is concerned, it's all black. It's subsoil is not suitable for
building on it at all. It's more or less wild and practically swamp. In
fact it was all swamp this spring with all the water coming from here and
also...here.
Schroers: It looks like a creek...
Bob Schiferli: There is water coming down from here. You put a road
through here, you'd have a river right to your park... This is a proposed
road. It's all woods through here and like I say it's all low. This whole
~hing is low. The thing's all a swamp. You'd have to clear it to build a
oad in there in order for that road to be stable. Thank you.
Bill Bevan: I'll Bill Bevan on Piper Ridge. Could you show me where it is
on this. I want to put it on that spot.
Sietsema: Where's Piper Ridge?
Bill Bevan: Yes.
Sietsema: Right here.
Bill Bevan: Is this...now?
Sietsema: It doesn't show the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac is up here on
top of the hill.
Bill Bevan: You were out there. You saw the steep embankment. I would
say down about l5~ feet there's some wetlands down there just so you're
aware of that.
Schroers: Right where the ravine kind of opens up into the open area?
Bill Bevan: Yes. That's correct. You may have seen it.
~chroers: I don't know if we have any input from any of the other
)mmission members. I'm personally encouraged by the results of the
durvey. They coincide with my way of thinking a lot. I think the area
lends itself very well for walking, biking, jogging, cross country skiing
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 6
......,
and more nature oriented, passive use type activities rather than a very
active area with a ballfield and skating rinks and that sort of thing. I
like what the survey had to say and I would like to pursue those types of
activities for Herman Field Park.
Boyt: Passive type park. What about a pond in there? Creating like we
did at Chan Pond Park for drainage. Would it solve some of the problems
down there?
S.ietsema: It could. We could refer that in looking at the overall thi.ng
to the engineers.
Boyt: And we could with a passive park, we could include some sort of play
equipment that's nature oriented throughout the area. It wouldn't be
structured. A tire swing here. I like the idea of keeping it more
natural, more passive.
Schroers: I would too. Todd and Lori and myself went out and we walked
through the entire area. It is really nice. It's too bad that it just
can't be totally left alone but then it's not being used either.
Boyt: Our passive park gets a lot of use. There are people walking
through it.
1ady: We have access to it.
--'
Boyt: Yes. It's a mowed path. It's not even mowed this year.
Schroers: It does have to have access so it is available to people and I
think that you can put a trail system in there and build it to accommodate
different types of uses at different times of the year without doing a lot
of damage to the environment and that would certainly be my recommendation
is that anything we do in the Herman Field Park, we take extreme care not
to damage the environment any more than we have to.
Lash: I would agree with Larry on that point too. I think it has a
natural beauty as the residents on the survey have indicated that they
would like to see that reserved. That's the route we should go. Realizing
we have somewhat limited funds to work with to get it started, I think a
little trail is maybe just the thing to encourage more wildlife back in
there. Salt licks for deer and I don't know what you put in to encourage
more birds. Get some kind of bridgeways over some of the wet areas so you
could go around and hit some observation areas. Maybe ultimately end up
with some type of cleared area. Quite a few people indicated they'd like
picnic tables and maybe little play equipment. Put those in a cleared out
area and the rest of it is natural. Fencing I~m sure would be really
expensive and if we did end up putting in some kind of barriers, I would
think a split rail fence or something that would fit in the best as opposed
to chainlink. That kind of goes against the natural feel.
Schroers: Now that you brought that up, if you're going to put in a
boundary of some sort like a split rail fence or a berm or something like
...."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 7
!"""
that, when you go in there to do that kind of construction, you do a lot of
moving the environment around. You have to cut down a lot of trees to get
equipment in and you use a tractor with post hole diggers on the back for
making the fence posts in and you have to open up quite an area to put in a
barrier like that.
Lash: I would think a lot of the woods and stuff would be a natural
barrier...of getting in and out of that area now. It looks like it'd be
pretty tough to get through some of the woods the way it is now if it
stayed that way. I can't imagine people going through there.
Schroers: Well to fence it would be very expensive.
that would use up most of our funding for the park.
have allocated for this park?
I'd have to believe
How much money do we
Sietsema: $30,000.00 to $35,000.00.
Schroers: $35,000.00 wouldn't build a fence around it.
Lash: What kind of things going along the vein that we're talking here...
can you get for $35,000.00?
Sietsema: In fencing?
,....
..ash: No.
Boyt: Overall.
Robinson: What about the access road? Would that come out of the
$35,000.00?
Sietsema: Yes, that would have to come out of the $35,000.00 too so the
access road could chew up a good portion of it. with parking and picnic
area and totlot equipment, it's real hard to say in that kind of a
situation without having more specific information.
Boyt: We could start with some of
getting a trail graded like we did
build bridges over the wet areas.
Observation decks. Play equipment
the basics like the access road and
at Chan Pond Park and then step by step
Put in some picnic tables later.
in different steps.
Schroers: There are areas in Herman Field that are basically clear and
open. It wouldn't be much more than mowing actually in order to put in a
couple of picnic tables. I think that we wouldn't have to get into
removing many trees. I think there's enough open area on high ground where
you could just basically go in and mow it and put down a picnic table or
two and you'd have it. I don't see a lot of expense involved right there.
I think a turf trail for starters would be the way to go. Again, it's
~asically just getting through with...and after that it's just periodically
~eping it mowed to a useable level.
Lash: If it ends up costing us the whole $35,000.00 just to put in the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 8
....."
access road and the parking pad, I guess I'd rather wait on the whole thing
then have an access road and parking pad which would lend itself to kids
going in there and partying and having nothing in there for anybody else to
do.
Sietsema: Yes but mowing's pretty cheap though if you go with the turf
trail.
Mady: Lori, aren't we at the point here where what we're trying to do is
find out what the neighborhood input and at this time develop a master
plan?
Sietsema: Right but I need your comments as well as theirs as far as what
to go back to the drawing board with. Are we going to scratch this whole
thing or do we want to keep in line with this and take out some of the more
structured things? I think it's a pretty passive park. If you want to
take out the ballfield so you're not taking out those trees and make that a
turf trail instead of a bituminous trail or ag-lime or anything, then as
Sue said, as we get down the road put in a boardwalk that would connect the
middle portion to the eastern portion and we could expand it down the road.
I think you're going to want to get some kind of access in there so people
are able to know when they're there.
Boyt:
.iround
anyone
didn't
We've had for the past couple years a
and then hit a stop because there was
from going out there and walking down
matter that it didn't go anywhere.
mowed trail that went halfway
water and that didn't stop
it and walking back. It
....",
Erhart: Are we at this point looking at the second access off of Piper
Ridge too because that's where I'm having problems with this whole thing.
We were out there and looked at it too and it's very dense and very steep
and the houses are very close around there.
Sietsema: You can do nothing with it at this point in time. Address it
later. It's up to you what you want to do.
Erhart: I'd be in favor of scratching that myself. My own personal
feeling after looking at it. First of all it would chew up a lot of our
funds to even clear that area out and build a sidewalk down there.
Mady: My thoughts on this are, on Piper Ridge access, the easement exists
correct?
Sietsema: Yes.
Mady: Let's just leave it as it is and not develop it. We'll find out
real fast once there's some sort of development in the park if the
neighborhood is going to utilize it or not and if they're not utilizing it,
there's no reason to build it. If they are going to utilize it, then it
leeds to be developed properly and at that point in time the neighbors will
tell us what they want. I don't see any reason to develop it at this time.
Kids are going to go wherever they feel like they can go the easiest. That
...",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 9
"""
will establish the natural flow and no matter what we do, it seems like
kids are going to go wherever they feel like going whichever is easiest for
them. We might even have a wrong spot for it so we might as well let
nature take it's course and determine where it's going to be. The passive
nature of the park is excellent. It's great. That's what the land is.
It's what it's been utilized as. I'd like to see a park plan at least
designating, in the planning process, designating whatever is the most
logical position for it as open space like a multi-purpose field for
neighborhood touch football games. Small soccer games. Pick-up baseball
games, whatever the neighborhood kids play. It doesn't have to be a full
baseball field but at least something big enough so if they're going to
throw a decent pass and not run into 2 trees. I know with limited funds,
the access road is probably going to, even if it's just a 12 foot wide
gravel road going in, it's going to use up a lot of dollars just to do
that. We don't need to get real sophisicated in this park right now. I
think once it's there, the access is there, I think the residents are going
to get a better feel for what it is and how much use it's getting and we'll
get even more comments. I think we've gotten a lot of great comments
already. The work done by the neighborhood is fantastic. If we got this
kind of input on all of our parks...
Robinson: Jim are you saying that on question 6, would you use Piper Ridge
Trail access and 56% said they would, is that a trail or a road?
,...,
ady: Just a walkway.
Erhart: There's a sidwalk that would go up, right Lori? Or a staircase
that would have to be built.
Sietsema: Right, it's a trail easement. It's not a road type easement.
It goes between two homes.
Schroers: Right now it's nothing. It's two people's yards.
Sietsema: I don't think they're accessing the park now that way but if
there was an access built in that way, a trail to make it accessible that
they would use it. That's my interpretation.
Lash: The problem with that is though you wouldn't be able to use a
stroller or bike or anything. With that steep bank, you'd have to have a
big staircase and that would make it really...for anyone walking.
Boyt: Then the lower priorities, hiking, biking and jogging is number one.
In looking at it, I think we need to plan to make the trail maybe an
aggregate base later because you can't jog on a turf trail very easily
unless it's been graded and you can't bike so that would leave it for
hiking. So start out with turf trail and work into something more
permanent.
~2dy: It's nice to have a turf trail just to, you find out your useage.
_outre going to find over time where your wet areas are going to be
problems just with water runoff and things like that. We'll just get a
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 10
....,.,
better feel for what we need to do. There's no great rush. This park's
been in existence for quite a time.
Schroers: When you start with turf trails you have the ability to change
them easily if you'd like to maybe meander the route more for cross country
skiing or if you can get more use out of the area that is available by
switching the trail back and forth than having it meander around, you can
do that much easier off of a turf surface.
Robinson: Would the trails then be used for cross country skiing in the
winter?
Sietsema: They could be, yes, very easily.
Boyt: We don't have to groom them. It would be a self groomed trail.
Robinson: I suggest we go totally by question 5 with priorities when we
look developing that park. There's the priorities right there.
Boyt: Except as far as funding goes, we can't afford to put in a, I don't
think we can afford to put in an adequate biking trail.
Robinson: No, I agree.
Joyt: And they want some of the trails but it sounds like there's a lot of ....,.,
children there so we can put that in.
Mady: At this point what we need to do then is have a park plan developed
with our comments.
Sietsema: What we have is a park plan. If you want to amend this park
plan, I need a motion to direct staff to amend the park plan to include, if
you want to just leave it open as many of the comments in the survey as
possible or anything specific that you want specifically changed because
right now this is the approved plan.
Schroers: Do you feel that we can work off of the existing plan and then
make the changes and amendments off of that plan without rebuilding this
totally?
Sietsema: Yes. For instance, if you wanted to take out the more
structured type play equipment and the ballfield and that kind of thing,
that might be the comments you want to make. I think this plan is pretty
close to what they're asking for here. What's shown up in the survey.
Maybe we don't need a bonafide ballfield with a backstop. We just need an
open grassy area that you can throw a couple jackets out there for bases or
play football or whatever. You know, that kind of thing. This plan is a
pretty natural plan.
tobinson: Could we break that up into phases also to cover $35,000.00 this
year and...
.....,.,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 11
,....
Sietsema: I think that might come later as I bring back a modified plan is
that's what you decide to do. Then when the plan is modified, I can get
prices. What prices will be so you can phase it because I really don't"
have prices right now.
Robinson: And there you would have a ballfield in there. We would also
prioritize beyond that park fee? The gentleman commented on the access
road that's low where it would be a river. I think that should really be
looked at.
Sietsema: I can have that addressed as well.
Mady: There's one comment or question I wanted to ask, being the neighbors
are here that answered. The swings and sandbox on the survey...natural
swings or tire swings or what have you, I want to hear from the neighbors
what their thoughts are. You've maybe seen some of our play equipment
around town in different areas. We usually go for the timbered play area
structures. Do you have any thoughts on those? What types of things you
want to see on them? Is that what you want or would you rather just have a
couple of swings or maybe a couple of tires hanging in trees. Give us a
little more input maybe if you could.
Resident: We put up some things like you were talking about at our school
~hat I think, and I'm just speaking for myself but the nice structure
hather than just the swings. You can get those play areas that have swings
attached to some other climbing apparatus's attached to one of those nice
things made out of the wood that would fit into the environment and all
that.
Mady: That's what we typically do use.
Resident: Okay. Could I just ask one question while I'm up. You know you
keep allotting to the $35,000.00. Is there more money to be put in or is
that all there is?
Boyt: There's the opportunity in future years to spend more money on the
park.
Resident: Okay, because we moved into our neighborhood 15 years ago and I
think it came up 12 years ago on this park was there then and we've been
waiting for the last 12 years and our kids are almost grown so I was just
wondering, that $35,000.00, was it in some kind of an interest thing that
they could have gained interest on it or something like that?
Sietsema: Yes it is. It's gaining interest.
Resident: To me it should be over a 10 year period
about $16,000.00 in interest.
,.....
3dy: Unfortunately I
places, the interest.
interest be added into
it should have gotten
was led to believe that that money's been used other
I've never seen us getting a budget that shows
it.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 12
--'
Sietsema: The interest is deposited into the park fund but the interest
wasn't allotted to the Herman Field, that specific because all of our money
earns interest and it just goes back into that fund.
Mady: In other words, you're not being giving an allotment for the
interest. It's been utilized, probably been utilized every year. We don't
have a big pot of money. It's just a fact of life. We must have had half
a dozen neighborhoods in here yelling for parkland. Park development.
They don't even have $35,000.00 allotted to them.
Resident: We've had ours.
Mady: No, that money's never been utilized.
Resident: But the interest...
Mady: The interest has gone right back into the park development and not
set up for Herman Field. I don't think the money's there to be honest with
you. You've got $35,000.00 there but I don't think there's anything else
there.
Sietsema: It's in the fund.
~ady: It's in the fund but it's not...
--'
Sietsema: But it's not just allocated simply to that fund.
Resident: I guess what I'm trying to understand here is that if you,
you've got $35,000.00 to spend for one year on part of a park, and you say
in the future this will be done and this will be done. Why not start out
with it right to begin with or close to what's right? I think by starting
out with an access road period or whatever, a trail there, I don't know
that anybody's really going to use it. Why not let the money go to
something else? Unless you have enough money to do it right to begin with,
I don't understand. Why bother with it? If you say $35,000.00 this year
and then we'll start allocating funds for more development of it each year,
how do we know that as residents? We might wait another 5 years.
Mady: First off, the $35,000.00 is available only to Herman Field. We
couldn't utilize it any other place. In fact that was part of the deal
when the land was given to the City.
Boyt: And we have many parks coming on line this year and if we wanted to
do them all right the first year which we would love to do, our budget
would be probably 5 times what it is and I don't think it would be approved
by the City Council. The funds aren't here within the city to do that.
You know how the city's growing and there are parks in every development.
Resident: Will you come back with a modified plan saying, okay 20% of this
Jark will be developed with this $35,000.00 or is it going to be like 50%
of the park will be developed?
--'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 13
,....
Sietsema: I can't tell you that.
Resident: You know 10% of the park and spend $35,000.00, it's not worth
bothering with.
Schroers: That's one of the things we're going to be looking at our
amended plan for the park. How much can we accomplish and it's pretty much
a normal mode of government operation to do what you can do with the funds
that you have available at the time and put things in phases and develop in
phases because it's just like you with your personal bank account. You'd
like to do a lot of things but you're limited to what you can do with the
resources that are actually available and we're in the same situation here.
We can't spend what we don't have.
Resident: Are there any priorities as to how this gets done? With all the
other parks, obviously Chan is growing like gang busters and like you say
each development wants a park but because ours has been sitting, is there a
priority as to which gets done first?
Boyt: We don't have a priority list.
Schroers: We did have. We worked on that although it's hard to say what
~t is without having it right here in front of us. A lot of the funds to
~ 'evelop an area come from the area that is developed as part of the
,Jeighborhood parks and stuff are concerned. When a development goes in and
people start moving in, we try to accommodate them as best we can and as
timely and efficient as we can but I don't think there's anything that says
Herman Field is going to be completed by 1990 and that Lake Susan Hills is
going to be done in 1992. It's not that structured.
Pat Hanely: Let me phrase the question in a different fashion.
older neighborhood before Chanhassen started to really boom and
development that paid their assessments for park and recreation
front. Yes we did.
This is an
become a
fees up
Boyt: The older neighborhoods?
Pat Hanely:
Yes, we all did.
Sietsema: Just around the 1980's we started. The late 70's.
Pat Hanely: Shouldn't they have a priority on funds over these other
neighborhoods because they have paid in the money sooner? Regardless of
the $35,000.00. That was a donation.
Boyt: One of the reasons you'll be a
know that you want to be a priority.
wants their park built right away, we
,....
ietsema: I think just want
land that's been undeveloped
are there wanting it, you're
priority now is because you've let us
When we know that a neighborhood
can work on it quicker.
she said is very true. You've had a piece of
for a long time. The time has come and people
going to be pushed to the priority, the top of
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 14
.....",
the list just by default.
Mady: I don't know. I literally can't make a comment on that because
every Tuesday night that we're up here we have a new neighborhood in here
who wants to be first on the list so just in the last two months, Pheasant
Hills wants to be first on the list. Curry Farms wants to be first on the
list. Lake Susan Hills wants to be first on the list and Chan Hills wants
to be first on the list. We can't all be first on the list. I'll admit
I'm not...first on that list. It's just what can be done and we try to do
them all. Every time we hear somebody, yes we want to be first.
Resident: I guess on the survey, when I was filling it out, there was no
question there are you in favor of the park or aren't you. Maybe that's a
question that should be asked. Are all the residents really in favor or is
it 5 or 6 or 10 homes in this area. If it's only 5 or 10 homes that are
interested in it, then why is it a priority out of 50 homes or whatever we
have.
Mady: We received 77 replies on the survey and a considerable number of
them will be using the park. I guess that tells me that...
Resident: But the way the survey was questioned to me, it's like I hadn't
been at the previous meeting so I wasn't really sure is this definitely a
10 ahead or not but I filled it out assuming I still had a say in whether
Jr not it's going in. But maybe everybody didn't understand that. -r.
Lash: It was an amateur survey.
Resident: Right, I can understand that but that was just my attitude.
Lash: There were spaces for comments and that's where some people did
actually fill in that they didn't want a park at all.
Resident: I'm saying as far as prioritizing this, I don't know. Yes, we'd
all like a park but maybe we don't.
Schroers: Actually, to clarify that a little bit. Herman Field is a park.
It's just whether or not you want to develop it and how much we develop it
but it already is a park and it will remain as one.
Betty Lang: That was my impression that we had a say about it. It is a
park period. That's the reason I didn't comment on it. I filled out the
survey as if I had no choice about the park at all.
Resident: About the development.
Schroers: Yes, about the development. We're asking input on the
development. Not whether or not it should be a park. It is designated
parkland. Are there any other comments from commission members?
Boyt: I just had one. It is a park and it's a park for Chanhassen like
all of our parks are and it is to serve all of Chanhassen. And we see it
....,.,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 15
~.
as an asset to everyone that lives in the community and if we took a vote
of everyone in the community, how many of them would say no, we don't want
another park because it would inconvenience a few people? I don't think
we'd have many people that would say that.
Resident: I was wondering out of the 115 homes that were surveyed, how
many homes actually bordered the park out of 115 homes?
Schroers: That's a good question.
Resident: I think that should have been prime consideration. Of those
people, if there are only a few homes that border that park or a small
percentage of the homes that are going to be using it, I think you should
give prime consideration to those people because as you've seen through
walking through there, that is a very secluded piece of property. There's
homes and wildlife around and nature like just the swampy areas. As I
mentioned in the last meeting, we border the park and we've had trees cut
down and there shouldn't be anybody in there now and we want a fence to go
up. I think you have to survey those people that border that park to find
out what they want because I really think there's only a handful of homes
and you're asking 115 homes to use that park. It's very secluded. I don't
know how many parks are in this area that are as secluded as that one is.
.~ady: Can I ask you a question? Are you asking the City to build a fence
~o protect your property or the property of the park?
Resident: Both.
Mady: The tree cutting problem is not something we would allow in the park
whether it be...
Resident: But you see the way the park is right now you can't tell which
is private property and which is parkland. You can't tell that and I don't
think people even, as people have mentioned, they weren't even aware of
what the park was there, if it's actually a park and it's very hard to
control who goes back there. We're fortunate now because it's not used
that much. Once you establish it and start putting walking paths through
there or even a road, those few homes that border that park are going to
suffer some damage. Then what's going to happen when we corne back to you a
year from now and tell you about it? Are we then going to be a priority
and then where are you going to get the money to put up a fence or some
kind of natural boundary? It's a major consideration that I think we
should be concerned about.
Boyt: That's something that will be in our plan that we'll ask Mark to
look at is some sort of natural barrier or some other way to delineate
private from park property. That's a concern that's been brought up so
we'll ask someone to deal with that.
.~
esident: Is it possible to put pine trees or some kind of a hedge?
Boyt: That's what we've done in other parks.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 16
....,
Resident: That would still not be a fence with upkeep and all of that. I
was going to ask one question as far as the development, is it possible to
get like a 5 year plan or is that asking too much too to just say we'll
develop this much and we will spend $35,000.00 and get this section of the
park done and by such and such year get this section so at least we know or
we're not always wondering what's going to be developed next. And one
other thing, being that there are a lot of kids, there's a lot of kids in
that neighborhood and there isn't anyplace to play except your backyards
and the street and I think they need something like I know you want it
natural and I know it's very conducive to that, but some kind of a field.
Keep that kind of in there because they need someplace to go play catch and
to play ball.
Boyt: That's high on your priority list here is a field.
Resident: I thought it was getting lost when I was listening so I just
wanted to...
Boyt: I think it's right up here on this list.
Mady: It's probably 4 on the list. If you throw your trail useage as 1
and swings as number 2, your picnic is number 3 and I wouldn't call active
uses, tennis courts, multi-purpose field as active but that would be number ~
! .
Boyt: It is possible to get phasing. This phase will work out this year
and phase 2 will be done.
Schroers: That's what I was going to say. I think it's reasonable to try
to do it in phases but to say that we're going to set up a 5 year plan and
that we are going to do this specifically in a 3 or a 5 year period. It's
hard to say because we don't really know at this point what kind of funds
we're going to have.
Boyt: Things happen to us like things happen to your home budget. We will
probably have to spend a big chunk of money on something we didn't budget
for because we're required to do it. A lake access. That wasn't in our
budget. The money will have to be found somewhere so once in a while
things come in and mess up our budget.
Pat Hanely: More specifically on Mary's question, to get money can we
petition to get money budgeted for future years?
Sietsema: Sure.
Pat Hanely: Do we have to specifically request that? It's one thing to
say you generally we'd kind of like to do that but how do we get another
$20,000.00 for next year and $20,000.00 for the year after.
...""
Sietsema: A petition always helps. The Park and Recreation Commission is
aware of your needs and your desires now so they're more aware of it and
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 17
,...
able to identify where money should be spent but a petition always helps
show the Commission and Council and the people that allocate the money
where people want it spent. So it doesn't hurt.
Resident: One other comment. I'd like to see a park and of course I'd
like to see them put in a safe park. I think you do need to take into
consideration people who border the park...pay for the whole thing and
protect the property but also our community's going to be using that park
and I don't think that's much negative element in our community that we're
going to throwing...just like that.
Boyt: My yard borders a park and once in a while people walk through the
park through my yard and they're nice people. They are and they talk to me
and I talk to them and they say, oh where am I. I didn't know there was a
house here. I say you're welcome to walk through. You can go this way and
get to the street or back this way to the park.
Resident: I think the vandalism...a neighborhood park is for good
people. . .
Boyt: And once it's developed then they know it's a park and it's not a
place to go and hide and do what they want to do in the dark.
~chroers: I agree. I think he's right.
Resident: Is there a standard that you have when you develop a park in
terms of how many feet from the priviate property or is it typically right
there?
Schroers: Our parkland generally runs right up to the abutting property.
Boyt: But we don't put tennis courts right up close to a property line.
We don't put active equipment next to a private property.
Mady: We do screening. Natural barriers wherever we can. We need to.
That's the situation we have in Curry Farms now. We're trying to look
at...there are two adjoining homes that were just built in the last year.
The parking plot that we had was planned in one spot and now the homeowners
are saying gee, there's nothing there and they're really very concerned
about cars parking next to the lots. The plan is to put natural barriers
with trees, bushes, shurbs so that when you're standing on one side you
really can't see through and have the impact onto the property. We look at
those things when we put lights on a tennis court let's say. The lights
are not going to, you're going to be lighting into somebody's back yard or
things like that. We always try to avoid that whenever possible. In a
natural setting like this, unless of course you have a situation where you
only have one piece of property to work with that's high enough and dry
enough that it would be viewed but I don't think we're going to have that
~ituation. We have enough flexibility here where we keep it away from as
lch as possible. We're not talking about making a large active play
Lield. We're talking about a natural park hatbitat area where hopefully
we'll be able to find a big enough piece of somewhat flat land so half a
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 18
..""
dozen neighbor kids can get a small stickball game or something. We don't
need a field that can...and I don't think that's what anybody up here is
thinking of.
Schroers: I think that you've done a good job in presenting your views to
us tonight. I think it's going to be very helpful in helping us rewording
wise or amend the existing park plan to accommodate the desires of the
residents of the community. I think that at this point I'd like to ask for
a motion to amend the existing park plan to coincide with the results of
the survey and take into consideration concerns of the residents of Herman
Field.
Mady: Alright, I'll make a motion to ask staff to amend the present park
plan to show the park access where it will actually, it looks like it has
to go to all the conditions. To find out what pricing is on the priority
of items that were set up in the survey and then come up with a phasing
schedule to address those.
Boyt: We need to change the trail from bituminous to turf and ask for a
planting plan that would improve natural barriers?
Mady: Yes, to review it. If it needs to be planted or what. I guess we
need a price on density to review the whole thing. We know what the -'
jimensions are of the park. We can get a pretty close ballpark just from
the dimensions. It's going to obviously be more expensive because some of
the areas are going to be very difficult to get to.
Schroers: I think in this motion all we really have to do is move to amend
the existing park plan and then we can work out the details.
Boyt: Second.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
to amend the park plan for Herman Field to make it a natural park
reflecting the results of the neighborhood survey and to look at the
drainage to identify wet areas within the park and how drainage affects the
access road. Also, to consider natural barriers around the park, change
the surface of the trails from bituminous to turf, show revised park access
and to direct staff to come back with prices and a phasing schedule. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Resident: Can I ask a question? ...the money that's been set aside, the
$35,000.00. When will that be used? will the park be started this year at
the rate that it's going?
Schroers: Probably not.
Resident: Then is it possible that if you have the $35,000.00 set up in a
loney market account or something that's very safe that draws interest that
we could specify would be used only for Herman Field because even
conservatively estimating, we should get $4,000.00 interest on that per
..."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 19
,.....
year. Maybe that's a little bit high but I don't see why that money should
be set aside for any of the other parks when we're trying to get something
organized and I think if Mr. Herman set that money aside for Herman Field,
then that's what that money should be used for. Whether it be for interest
to be applied again the park for the future and not for some other park.
Schroers: I think that sounds reasonable but I don't know that we have the
authority to make that decision.
Mady: I think that's probably a Council decision.
Sietsema: I'll check into it.
FINAL APPROVAL OF MASTER PARK PLAN, CHANHASSEN HILLS PARK.
Mark Koegler: This will also serve as an update for more information than
what was presented the first time around. Specifically pertaining to
grades, the grading information that we're working with at this time was
the proposed grades subsequently were changed. Essentially the grading
activity that's occurring out there right now will create largely a level
site here. It will have about a 1% grade coming down from TH 212 and
coming down eventually over this pond area so there really are very few
~onstraints as to what types of facilities you want to put on there and
hat was one of the things we talked about before. I don't think that
.lecessarily has an impact on the overall plan because we still had tried to
achieve tennis courts roughly in the middle of the park so they weren't
impacting anyone property because proportionately the ball diamond, openf
field area down in here where we had the larger areas so those are the
prime elements that still remain in that location. If you recall when we
met a month or so ago on this item, there were very little if any resident
comment and I think Lori wanted to publish it again tonight as another
opportunity for anybody to comment on the facilities that are there and the
changes that they would like to see.
Schroers: Do we have any residents who wish to comment?
Dave Lundquist: My name is Dave Lundquist. I live at 8705 Mary Jane
Circle. This is the first I've seen of this and we have a lot of kids in
the neighborhood now and there's a lot of interest in it but I was speaking
to one of our neighbors who has been to one of your meetings. He said
we're really not informed. We didn't know that we should speak out. Now
at this meeting I was told that's really a priority to do that so being it
looks like I'm the only one, but there is a lot of interest. It's just the
people don't, it's a new neighborhood and we've only been there almost a
year and what we were told from the builder is all we really know out
there. We're just been kind of sliding along and waiting. I have 3 kids
and I'm anxious to see it go in so really the interest is there. It's just
~he people aren't really informed. They're still just kind of moving in
~~d things like that but I'm sure if they're aware of people that they
,hould speak out and let it known that we want the park and we really do.
All the people that I've talked to. I guess the only question I have is,
would there be like skating in the winter and stuff like that. Is that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 20
......"
proposed at all?
Sietsema: It's an option. It's definitely an option. We do typically
have ice skating in our parks, the neighborhood parks.
Dave Lundquist: Is that something the residents should put forth or how
does that come about?
Sietsema: Typically a lot of times what does happen is that the residents
get together and all sign a paper, could you please put a skating rink in
our park and we schedule it in.
Dave Lundquist: Like me, I'm here so we really don't know what to do as
far as getting things done.
Boyt: Can skating not take place on that pond? Is it big enough?
Sietsema: I don't know. Do you know?
Dave Lundquist: Is it a pond or is it a swamp?
Koegler: It's a wet holding area. It's part of the storm water system for
the area. I haven't seen any drainage calculations so I don't know if it's
intended to have water full time or not. Presumably the grades would
;ccommodate that area to be flooded and expanded to have a free skating -'
~rea. There are no hockey rinks planned for the park. I don't think you
should relay that to the neighbors but in terms of free skating, that's
very definitely a possibility there.
Dave Lundquist: Would that be cleaned off by the City?
Boyt: Yes.
Dave Lundquist: No warming house?
Boyt: That's not on the plan. That's an expensive item.
Dave Lundquist: Right. Just someplace where the kids could come down and
skate. See we don't have any access to this town now. All we've got is TH
101 and we don't want to send a kid on TH 101 to come into town. I
wouldn't want to go on TH 101.
Boyt: We could have some benches or picnic tables left there in the winter
so the kids can sit and change their skates.
Dave Lundquist: Being out where we are, there's just no access to
anything. If you have those types of things, even a small pond is
anything. It's something.
Schroers: It would be real helpful if you'd
jenerally agreed on a few of the things that
and just put it in writing or even call into
and ask for either Todd or Lori and let them
talk to your neighbors and
you would like to see there
the city during business hours
know.
....."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 21
,....,
Sietsema: Specifically if it's something different than this. If they
accept the plan, then it will go on to City Council for approval as the
master park plan. So if you want something different than what you see and
ice skating isn't any structure to do except just go in there and move the
snow around and put the water down so that's not that big a deal but if you
want something different than what you see here, then we need to know that.
Lash: ...have a copy of that so he can show that to the neighbors?
Sietsema: Sure and I've sent letters to everyone in your neighborhood
twice now. I know that's the problem. Like you say, there's so many
things that go on people just have other things in priority right now but
there are a lot of kids out there.
Boyt: I don't think they realize they have an impact either.
Dave Lundquist: I don't think so. See I'm from Bloomington. You didn't
have any say. In Bloomington they did what they want to do and that was
it.
Schroers: That's what we try to avoid here. We would much rather have
your input and work together to put something together that we're all going
to enjoy and be able to get some use out of rather than just putting
~omething there and having you come back in in 2 years and say why'd you do
hat? We don't like this at all.
Dave Lundquist: It looks great. The plan looks great. Really my concern
was just the skating. If there was going to be any so the plan to me is,
the time element too. I know that that access is going to be put in now.
They're starting to grade and everything. Is there any time limit on when
we're possibly going to pursue this?
Sietsema: There's money tentatively scheduled to be spent in your area in
1990.
Dave Lundquist: 1990. Next summer.
Lash: Enough to do what Lori?
Sietsema: The grading plan is going to do all the grading for us so all we
have to do is, we could do the ballfield and the play equipment. Well,
probably the play equipment in the first year.
Dave Lundquist: That'd be okay.
Mady: Then you'd at least have an open...
Sietsema: But the open area will be there and be mowed so you can play
pick-up games of baIlor whatever. Frisbee, soccer, whatever anybody wants
~o do out there too.
Boyt: Tennis courts and basketball will come later.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 22
....".
Dave Lundquist: TH 212 will run right adjacent to that. Is there going to
be like a buffer or something or are you going to be contending with trucks
and stuff?
Sietsema: I don't know. Do you know?
Al Klingelhutz: It seems to me there is sort of a mound that you push up
there already along where TH 212 is going to go. I guess that's one place
where there probably should be a fence because you're going to have small
kids in that park and TH 212 is proposed to go through there. That's going
to be a freeway. Maybe the highway will even fence it themselves because
most freeways are fenced. One thing you've got to remember, I know there's
an awful lot of small children in that area. Of course they grow up and
the use of it is going to be pretty heavy.
Schroers: I think normally fences...run along with freeways so hopefully
we won't have to buy that.
Al Klingelhutz: It seems to me in that whole subdivision there's a ridge
of maybe 8 feet high from TH 101 to Lyman Blvd. which should help buffer
the highway from the residents and the park. If you plant a few evergreens
on top of that I think it would make a great buffer.
~ady: Lori, do we have any input on the grading plan? Maybe what we
Jhould do is find out from the developer. He's the one who's grading isn't
he?
......"
Sietsema: Yes.
Mady: Is he just putting that dirt there and the top soil will be used
later or is he putting it as a berm? Maybe you can find that out.
Sietsema:
It's the final grading plan isn't it?
Koegler: I'm not sure exactly where the edge...I don't think at this time
the final grading for TH 212 has been set. Bear in mind it's probably a
200 foot wide right~of-way right there so there'd be a lot of room to
accommodate additional buffering that the City coordinates with MnDot. The
plans will proceed at 5 to 10 years out what it's going to be but we'll
take a look at berming along there too.
Schroers: If you find that your neighbors want to make any changes, I
would suggest that we move on it quickly because it will be going to
Council when?
Sietsema: July 10th it's scheduled to go to Council.
Mady: If you get back to us with something different, Lori can always pull
it off of Council and send it back to us so once we say something doesn't --'
lecessarily mean it's final.
Al Klingelhutz: I have a question. Are they going to have a neighborhood
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 23
,...,
picnic there this year?
Dave Lundquist: We're working on it. You'll be invited, don't worry.
Al Klingelhutz: I was thinking that would be a good time when the
neighbors all get together to discuss this thing a little bit.
Sietsema: I can schedule it for a later time if that's more convenient.
Schroers: Does anyone have anything more to add?
Mady: I'll make a motion to accept the master park plan for Chanhassen
Hills as presented tonight.
Sietsema: Recommend approval.
Boyt: Second.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
approval of the master park plan for Chanhassen Hills Park as presented by
Mark Koegler. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW PARKING AREA AT CURRY FARMS.
,...,
ietsema: If you recall at one of our previous meetings we had a resident
~rom Curry Farms and ask us to consider on street parking rather than the
off street parking on that park site. I've asked Mark to review it and to
look at all the pros and cons and he has submitted a report for us. Do you
have any other comments?
Mark Koegler: Yes, just very briefly. This is the scheme that's on the
plan that's being approved which calls for 6 cars off street. In looking
at the same capacity, first of all we've made the assumption that's
consistent with the City's engineering staff that we like the parking off
street and maybe it's adjacent to the street but it's technically out of
the traveled roadway. So the way to accomplish that as outlined in the
report is essentially you would go parallel along here. The road on here
would be basically along the edge of the road. You could come in and have
parallel parking along the curb of the park. Given the dimension of the
park and the dimension of the normal parking space, to accomodate 6 spaces
you've essentially walled off the park with parking. You literally will go
bumper to bumper, border to border if there's 6 users at the same time. I
didn't think that necessarily was very advantageous to either the
neighborhood or the park as an entrance. I think we're trying to preserve
more of the open space quality of the yards, the housing, the park itself
so we would not recommend that as an option. The other alternative is to
take a look at punching parking in that's 90 degrees to the street. That
can be done. The inherent disadvantage of that is you're parking back into
~he traveled roadway in order to make every...while exiting. It's not
~rticuarly a danger when entering the park facility as a normal turning
lovement. It's when exiting when it becomes a little more hazardous.
You're speaking in a minor degree of hazard here admittedly because it's a
residential area but the general policy of the city in the past has been
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 24
that when the option is there, to alleviate that potential danger if you
will and the option clearly is here and has been here since this
development was really originally drafted. This has always been shown as
park. This has always been shown as the pad that's been designated for
parking area. Bear in mind the plan that you've approved is a concept plan
in essence only but when the City gets to the time of building this parking
lot, there certainly is no reason why the abutting neighbors, particularly
this property, could not be consulted and worked with so the planting plan
and an active parking layout could be derived that would minimize any
impact it would have on that residence because this certainly is the one
that would be closest to the parking because of the grades itself but the
recommendation would be basically to leave the parking off street in a
separate lot with one driveway entrance for safety reasons and then to work
with the abutting property owner on coming up with the concept that would
screen that ultimately and cause minimal impact to the structure.
...",
Lash: Mark, could that be moved into the park further?
Koegler: It can some. The problem we've got is we hit a grade line right
over here but that's not to say that the parking might not be stacked in
here and be single loaded headed this way for example which would again
minimize impact over here. We'd have a little bit more penetration. You
may loose a space but I think we're dealing in a realm of 4 to 6 spaces for
most of these anyway and it's kind of interesting that that was confirmed
?y the residents last time around when they asked for 5. So minor changes
~ike that certainly can occur. That would have an obvious benefit of the
dust situation in getting headlights and things away from this parcel so we
would suggest that maybe that's appropriate to look at dead end loading to
one side as an alternative. That allows a little more buffer on this side
for plantings or whatever the screening.
...."
Lash: Into the front too? Could you put some plantings in the front?
Koegler: Yes. We're leaving intentionally some buffer areas so we can
screen from the street. Trying to create an attractive entrance because
it's really a nice lowland area that flows back through there. We tried to
preserve that.
Schroers: Are you requiring any action on this?
Sietsema: I think you might want to hear from some residents and then all
I'd need is that you recommend to leave it as the plan shows or to change
it, if you want to take any action.
Schroers: Okay, is there anyone here that would care to comment in regards
to the parking at Curry Farms?
Joe Cook: My name is Joe Cook and I live at 1291 Stratton. Our property
is right directly across from the entrance to this parking lot that you're
talking about. First of all I'd like to know, you've got 6 parking stalls
:here. Any particular reason for 6 or is there a formula for the park area ...."
ratio that you use, parking lot ratio?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 25
,....
Jietsema: 4 to 6 was the designated number at the very beginning.
Joe Cook: Okay, what about he said 6 cars would be pushing back the curb
like was mentioned earlier. Well if you had four car parking area, that
would seem to open up, leave an opening for cars to enter in that space.
What do you consider a parking space in length?
Koegler: About 20 feet.
Joe Cook: So you're open up 40 feet.
Koegler: Across the front of the park?
Joe Cook: Right.
Schroers: The problem we have with that though is parallel parking along
the street is generally kind of a safety hazard.
Joe Cook: See if it was parallel parking, it would require any backing out
like he had mentioned which I can see a concern on that and that's
legitimate but if it's parallel, maybe see someone pulling in and then when
they're exiting they just continue in a forward motion out of the parking
area.
~ady: In a street situation, how do you limit it to 4 cars? They're going
.0 pull up in any space they can between 2 driveways.
Schroers: The real hazard there is kids corning out from between parked
cars into the lane of traffic. Not the cars themselves pulling in and out.
It's the kids darting out from between parked cars. That's where the
concern really comes from.
Joe Cook: I see. Okay, then we're looking at can we reduce size because
this is, as you all know, you're aware of where this is and it's going to
be a minimal useage from outside the city residents. We've looked at other
parks in the area and they're virtually...as far as cars parking in those
parking lots except for special occasions and whatever but this park for
the most part is a neighborhood park. It's says it's a city park. That's
why you gave it parking in there but it's for all practical purposes you're
talking, it's really a neighborhood park and the need for 6 stalls of
parking is not there. It's simply not there. If we have to have an
interior parking lot, let's make it the minimum size because the residents
in that neighborhood are certainly going to walk to this park rather than
drive.
Schroers: Are you not in favor of a parking lot like that in a park?
Joe Cook: I'm not in favor of any parking lot again because I'm directly
across and I have to look at this. My ideal situation, if there has to be
~ne would be to push the curb back. If not that, I would like to see this
educed to a minimum size and buffered up as best as possible. So that's
~ind of my priority on that. Also, Mark had indicated that this had been
on the plan ever since slated. Well, there again it has been but it has
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 26
not been known to any of the buyers of the Centex, Curry Farms project. In-'.
their model home they show the nice, it says a city park and it just shows
a green area. No indication of parking lots or anything. The sales
people, all they kept telling everybody was that there's going to be at
most a walking path into the park and that's all they indicated as it shows
there. Conveniently enough they've said that they deleted the parking lot
issue which happens to be, like I said, right across from my property.
Also this is another issue but Centex has, they are obligated to put a bike
path in from Lake Lucy along Devonshire and again this bike path was not
disclosed to any buyers of property that it affects up and down the whole
street. This is another disclosure problem that buyers have had with
Centex with their sales force and their upper management and the whole
works so that goes with it but it's related to this same issue that they
have not disclosed pertinent information to buyers. We're just extremely
upset about it and like I talked to Lori it, there's really not too much we
can do about it because it's in writing and the City requires it but it's a
disclosure thing is another aspect of it.
Mady: Can I just give you some information. What you're using as a
neighborhood, I think you're probably talking about Curry Farms.
Joe Cook: Yes. The Curry Farms subdivision.
Mady: A neighborhood park in the City of Chanhassen is an area that's
~ncompassed by a radius of a half a mile. We literally cannot put a park
Nithin 2 blocks of everyone's home. It's unfortunate that the developer in
this situation didn't make you aware of everything that we were aware of
when he came in front of us and the City Council to get approval for this
development. And you're not the first development that's had that problem.
I don't know what the City can do to alleviate the situation. I don't know
if there is a solution for that but my comment on this is, to let you know
that we're trying to make this park available to the neighborhood as the
city defines a neighborhood so the parking actually is the necessary and
safest way that I feel we should do at this point in time. That's the
optimum and we have the opportunity to do the optimum. The impact on
particular residents, yourself and the neighbors on both sides can be
eliminated through barriers and berms and natural areas. That's what we
would attempt to do.
...."
Joe Cook: You know, Mark had said going in both stacking and loading
whatever parking lot, so I guess I would like to see a plan drawn up where
it shows that design in loading going straight in with 4 slots of parking.
Boyt: That sounds reasonable to me. I like that design better.
Joe Cook: To make it narrow because it's kind of a sprawling patch there.
Katie Bratten: I'm Katie Bratten. I live right next door to Joe so I also
would look into the parking lot. I guess my major concern, I realize that
we probably have to have parking. The minimal amount of parking but
lesthetica11y pleasing. I also favor more of the stacking. I don't want
to look out my front door and see a square of tar with yellow lines. We .~
bought our property because the park is across the street and was a good
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 27
,.....
~elling point. I realize that it's probably unavoidable that we put in a
parking lot but as aesthetically pleasing I guess is what our point is.
Boyt: Parking also makes the park more accessible to handicap and that's
something that I think is important to keep in mind.
Schroers: And senior citizens. I don't think that we would intend on
doing anything in any of our parks that would be less than aesthetically
pleasing. We want to make them as nice as we can and I'm sure that the
staff and everybody is aware of that and we try to do it as nice as we can.
Joe Cook: You say now you'll do the plantings of trees and shurbs, etc.,
UV'l;'" ......... ':1V ..... ...llUlIcu...a,",C.1.l' LV.1..1.VW"'U':f, a;o o::.VVH ao::. ,",HC .l:-'aVClllCU,", auu ~U"'/J"'U':f
is down or is that something that gets put off for another year or two?
Sietsema: It can be done all at the same time.
Joe Cook: Okay, and it should be. That's something that we would request.
It's going to be done anyway, let's get it done now and let the stuff
mature as soon as possible.
Schroers: A lot of that has to do with money.
Joe Cook: And that's the other thing too. When is this slated to go in?
~~e're getting a totlot to put in I guess sometime in July here. Apparently
hat's what John Speiss was saying. So is this in conjunction with that
totlot? Is it required that the parking go in as soon as the totlot goes
in?
Sietsema: No. We don't have funds this year to do the parking and it
hasn't been, they've allocated $10,000.00 in the preliminary budget for
your park development next year but they haven't determined whether they're
going to spend that money on parking or the ballfield or what.
Joe Cook: Okay, and how about, let's say for instance that next year they
want to put in a volleyball court or something to that effect. Can you put
the parking in last? Until you have something there to draw people to the
park, there's no reason for parking. If you put a softball field and a
volleyball court and a few other things in, then there's going to become a
draw for people to show up there and use it but if there's just a minimum
development of say a totlot, that's not a big draw to bring in a lot of
traffic.
Sietsema: That makes a lot of sense and what we would typically do is when
we're building parking pads at other sites, you'd do a bunch at the same
time. So we've got 4 parks coming on line next year. We may decide in 5
years to put all the parking in at the same time. It doesn't have to go in
first especially when people want recreational facilities. It's likely it
would go in last.
~2dy: We typically don't even put the tar down that same year. Due to
~ettling situations, you don't want to blacktop. You want it to settle for
a year and find out where your soft spots are going to be so you can deal
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 28
with them.
~
Koegler: Just two follow-up comments. You brought up a lot of good points
and they were points that I think this body has considered before. The
specific reason we've gone to off street parking is to provide more buffer,
not less buffer to you across the street. If we stack this with parallel
parking, whether it's 4 or 6, the city loses all ability to buffer that
period. We've got parking there and we've taken a 28 foot road section and
we've expanded that to a 36 or 38 foot road section for that area which has
an impact also. If the Commission is agreeable to what I think I'm hearing
and go with 4 spaces here, if we lop this off, we've got more ability to
buffer around the periphery of this and we've minimized the amount of park
surface that you're going to see from across the street so that's another
reason why it's been off street from the beginning. The bottom line is to
provide you with a more visual barrier than if we put it along the street.
Joe Cook: I guess we'd like to see as much buffer surrounding it,
especially from the street side.
Koegler: The abutting neighbor apparently is not here tonight but
obviously he would like as much buffer as possible for the other side of
the property. That's something else.
Schroers: Are there any other resident concerns regarding the parking plan
at Curry Farms? Any of the Commission have anything?
...",
Lash: Okay we want to make a motion to amend the parking plan to 4 spots
with one handicap spot, correct with the maximum buffering that Mark wants
to put in...abutting property owners.
Schroers: I'll second that.
Lash moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend amending the park plan for Curry Farms Park to change the parking
to 4 spots with 1 handicap spot with a maximum amount of buffering. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PRELIMINARY MASTER PARK PLAN, CARVER BEACH (ALONG LOTUS TRAIL).
Sietsema: At a previous meeting the Park and Recreation Commission talked
to the residents in the Carver Beach neighborhood and asked them for their
input as to how they would like to see the linear strip along Lotus Trail
developed. Previous comments to that in public hearings had been that they
were displeased with the way it was being kept and would like more
facilities in that...
(There was a tape change during Lori Sietsema's staff presentation.)
Koegler: ...Park Commission and the City Council a couple of years ago,
:he improvements I think went in actually last summer in the form of
parking is more defined. Bollards and so forth, at least from what I've
observed in going out to the site a couple times, seems to be working
.....""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 29
,.....
~retty well. That's the area that presently has more of a formalized beach
area, picnic area down in the lower section. There is, kind of graded and
kind of half improved it looks like over the years and it's probably been
some Boy Scout projects, somewhat of a terraced walkway between those two
areas which could be expanded, could be improved, depending on what kind of
surfacing you wanted to use some time in the future, probably never wider
than about 6 feet just because we don't want to go in there and require the
tree removal to occur. In sinking a 6 foot walkway, whether it be an
aggregate or bituminous or whatever through there, certainly could be
accomplished. ...more development potential occurs if you will and it's
fairly limited is along the north side of the park along Lotus Trail.
Specifically in this area there's a small beach at the present time and it
slopes rather steeply from the street to essentially a large, relatively
large sand blanket area. There's a raft out there at the present time that
apparently is used by the neighborhood kids for swimming. That area does
have some potential and it is conceptually we're showing some kind of a
wall arrangement that would exist back behind here closer to the street
allowing more of a gradual grade transition between the...level and the
edge of the lakeshore. That whole parcel is only about 4~ feet deep so
there's not a lot of room to do much in there. This retaining wall work is
either timber construction, rock construction or whatever. I think there
could be a grade transition in there that could be made more useable.
Presumably the trail that comes through here and evetually will hopefully
connect on further to the north would have to bisect that area also in some
~orm that would wrap back to the very end of the site if you wanted to. I
.,oint out then really the other opportuni ty to development if you will
would be possibly limited to picnic on this end and probably canoe racks if
that's an interest. I know that's been talked about by this body in other
parks...about who uses those but I think that's an excellent opportunity to
provide some access. We did notice and I've notice for a lot of years a
lot of beaching of boats along here. Various size water craft. Some of
that may be able to be eliminated if you provided some storage that people
could get on some sort of a basis...so again, I will emphasize we're here
to kind of take comment and listen this evening to see what thoughts that
you have and some of the residents might have on the type of facilities
they want. I think you need to ask some questions of both them and
yourselves as to how formalized you make this beach area and how formalized
you leave this beach area and what resposibilities you might have for the
life guards and so forth and how that fits in the programming and determine
the level of use that you see for each of those actually becoming in the
future.
Schroers: I have a question for you Mark. That area that you said would
lend itself to a wall and being regraded. Would there be room there for a
couple of picnic tables and just a viewing area where you could just sit
and look at the lake? Possibly a mini-picnic area thing.
Koegler: I think there certainly is room on either side for some little
picnic spaces that would sit in amongst the trees pretty nicely. There's
~lso potential there with a little grading to accommodate a very small play
pparatus of some sort and I would emphasize very small because with 4~
~eet of depth, that's about the normal area you put down for one of those
so there may be an option for a couple of swings or something to just keep
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 3~
the kids busy as they're adjacent to the beach or whatever. Again, some of
that gets back to how much use you want to promote at that site versus how
much you want to promote down at the little bit bigger, maybe more
organized beach on the south end or vice versa.
--'
Sietsema: Mike Wegler is here. He's one of the resident who lives in the
area of Carver Beach and he's prepared the drawing that was handed out to
you showing some of his ideas and the neighborhoods. He's gotten together
with the people in the neighborhood and he would like to present some of
their ideas as well.
Mike Wegler: My name is Mike Wegler. I live at 6630 Mohawk Drive. We had
talked about this at an earlier meeting, I don't remember when the date
was. We drew this one up to try to give us a better idea. I don't know,
the retaining up against the road like that is going to be about 5 feet of
wood retaining wall I'm sure. We'd rather keep it as natural as possible.
We don't want, just very simple. Keep really looking natural and my idea
was rocks or even...very minimum cost. Just about virtually nothing out of
the City's pocket as far as...put it in. I know it's not here. Maybe a
swing set for the smaller kids. People have asked about that down there.
We get a little, where the sandy beach is marked on here, that would be the
rock retaining wall and then just kind of naturally sand down.
Schroers: Which sandy beach?
3ietsema: Mini-beach.
\.....",
Mike Wegler: Where the raft is. You see on the map where there's some
boulders, just enough to hold it back and get it up closer to the level of
the street. I think you could put a picnic table up there or something so
you're not sitting on a hill. The small area there and then to the right,
there's some rocks on the shoreline there that I placed just recently. We
need a little fill in there to level that off a little bit and make it more
useable and mow it and put a couple picnic tables in there would be very
nice. This is all minimum construction. It wouldn't be very much at all.
The canoe racks, over the years many people have asked about that and I
think it's about time we put something in there for them.
Schroers: We discussed a canoe rack quite a bit and I think that is
something that we would like to have but we haven't really decided how to
make it fair to everyone who wanted. How many we would put up and how do
you decide who gets to use them so that's something that we need to work on
a little bit but we would like to see a few in.
Mike Wegler: You could maybe check around Deephaven and stuff. They have
all that and they've had it for years...but these canoe racks where they're
marked on this, they would be hidden totally from the lake. There are
trees in this area where nobody would see them from the lake. We would
walk and wrap around a little bit, take your canoe up and carry it back
around. Each one of these spots is marked. Even in the existing beach on
the south end, there could possibly be another canoes to the left of that
would be very nice too. I didn't mark that one on there. The dock for the
kids, lots of kids down there fishing all the time.
-"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 31
,.....
Boyt: They have to swim out to the raft?
Mike Wegler: They do that and nobody's been hooked too badly.
Schroers: Now is this dock approximately where the old access used to be?
Mike Wegler: Yes. There's a drainageway right in there and it would
probably be a little bit to the right of that. There isn't very much
funding whatsoever as far as money so it would just make it a lot nicer.
Schroers: I think it looks tremendous.
Sietsema: I think we have a real unique opportunity given that Mike's
willing to do a lot of labor and we can get a lot of nice things done for
next to nothing and he does good work.
Boyt: That's a real pretty raft that's out there.
Sietsema: He built that.
Schroers: And we can make things easier for Mike by approving this.
Robinson: Are you proposing any changes to that walking path? We walked
~hat a year ago and I didn't see anything wrong with that.
Mike Wegler: No. I know my kids run back and forth there. We talked
about putting in a gravel walkway or something maybe in the future. It's a
lot of money and maybe you should just let it rest for now. I know if we
do this beach, a major concern of a lot of people is poison ivy and if we
do the swing set in this area, we clear this just a little bit out in here
on that left side where it says swing set. That would be able to knock it
all out of there because that's where it is. It's just a mass of poison
ivy right in that area.
Schroers: We definitely have Boy Scouts looking for projects to do and
that is something that they could do would be just to clear the trail, just
widened it and get some of the weeds out of there and keep it open for
walking without having to put down aggregate.
Mike Wegler: It's getting traveled pretty regularly and it's very defined
now.
Mady: Mike, last time you were in here, we were talking about the city
providing the dumpster and the neighborhood getting together and doing some
clean-up down there. Has that taken place?
Mike Wegler: It hasn't. I wouldn't recommend it until next spring.
Spring is the only time to go through there.
"""Jyt: Is there a reason why the swimming area isn't buoyed?
Sietsema: The mini-beach?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 32
.....,
Boyt: Yes. The mini-beach. It says on our plan here to have buoys.
Koegler: That again is reflective of the problem you've had for useage.
If you emphasize that and you improve that as a beach, you change that
designation. People know the separation.
Mike Wegler: You put a little parking area on here. I know you shrunk the
size of the parking area on the other one last year down to about 4. It
sounded like to keep it as minimum as possible down there of course but 2
to 4 cars I think is sufficient. Satelite, we need it. That's about all
that I have. Like I say, a little bit of the grading. I talked to Lori. I
would like to, if you can do it, lid like to be able to get some sod right
away to put on and we'll keep it watered and established.
Boyt: Do we have funding this year?
Sietsema: Yes, $3,000.00.
Schroers: How much sod are we talking about Mike?
Mike Wegler: Not too much. Probably 40 x 40.
Schroers: 100 yards of sod?
~ike Wegler: Yes. It would be very minimal. Probably in the swing area, -'
no not in the swing area at all. Put it over by the rocks is about the
best spot we can put some sod in because we need some fill in there and
some black dirt.
Sietsema: That would help minimize the erosion in that area too.
Mike Wegler: That's the main thing.
Sietsema: I did get some plans for canoe racks from Burnsville. They
built canoe racks and Dale indicated that he'd be able over the winter be
able to work on building those if we wanted to go ahead and put those in.
I also called a number of cities regarding how they allocate their canoe
rack space and what they do is they go in on a lottery system where anybody
who wants to rent a canoe space, they apply for that and then as long as
they are a resident and they have their canoe, they get to keep that space.
If they move or if they sell their canoe or whatever, then that space
becomes open and that goes open to the lottery again.
Schroers: It's not an annual thing?
Sietsema: No, because if you apply and you get it and you go out and buy
the canoe, then the next year you might not get it and you've got a canoe
with nowhere to put it.
Boyt: It is pretty portable.
-'
Sietsema: More so than other boats but that seems to be the way that they
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 33
,.....
nave been doing it in the other cities and that's pretty consistent
actually.
Boyt: Our neighborhood does a yearly thing. Whoever gets there first.
Lash:
up and
signed
shot.
If you have where people could sign up, let's say 20 people signed
we could provide 20, there wouldn't be a problem but if 150 people
up, I think it would be only fair to do it yearly to give others a
Schroers: Or maybe 2 years or something. Alright, let's continue on.
Mike Schroeder: Mike Schroeder, 6600 Lotus Trail. I live at the north end
of the park there. I just have a couple of comments regarding the layout
here that we've seen. First of all, it shows in the diagram there a tar
path and I guess my comments I would recommend that it not be tar but
rather gravel or something like rock in that area because I would like to
keep the amount of bicycles going through there at 20-30 mph to a minimum
and I think there's a lot of kids in that area that might use a long path
like that along the lake for a bike trail. Also, in the idea of canoe
racks, I think it's a good idea but I think you would have to consider one
other thing about that area and that is that it's heavily used for water
skiing so it's not too many people, I know we have a canoe and there's not
too many weekends that we would dare go out too far in the lake with a
~noe. So you might run into a problem with canoe racks and people
Jtarting to use canoes and then you're going to create another issue of how
are we going to slow down the boats and what not.
Schroers: I think what we might do is just start kind of slow on the canoe
racks and maybe just have one rack that would accommodate 6 to 10 canoes,
something like that and kind of look at that for a few years.
Mike Schroeder: Yes, because I think you will create a safety issue and an
issue of the size of boat motors.
Mady: I want to caution the commission also that when we talk about canoe
racks on the lake, the City putting them in, we had better make the entire
area around the lake, all the neighbors aware of the fact that we're
addressing a public issue because there are going to be some people who
aren't going to be in favor... It's just a caution that you put racks up
down there, you're going to have to allow parking. At least enough parking
for the number of canoes that are down there. It just stands to reason.
If you're opening the canoe rack up to the entire city, not all the people
are going to be able to walk down to the beach so there's going to have to
be parking available to them. It's a larger issue than just putting...
Mike Schroeder: It's also possible I think and I don't know how well this
might be received but if the average useage on the weekend is the larger
boats, maybe the concept of some mooring or some docking of boats along
~ere might be possible since there are other public parks in other cities
Jat have that and that might match better with maybe what the people in
that area have in terms of boats and also what's going on on the lake.
Then of course it doesn't show there but it does on Mike's, the fishing
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 34
dock.
shore
get a
Lash:
I think that is a very good idea." A lot of kids try fishing on
and you can be fairly successful but they aren't too large. If you
little further out on a little dock, I think that would be very good.
Would that docking be something that Dale could put in?
-"
Sietsema: Well we'd have to buy it and then it could go in anytime as soon
as we buy it.
Lash: They're not very expensive?
Sietsema: They're very expensive. Just a residential type dock, a roller
dock type thing is a couple thousand dollars and we would want something
that was more durable than what's used in the private sector. It's
surprising but they are expensive.
Schroers: Is there any other resident comments in regards to Carver Beach
Park?
Darlene: I'm Darlene...and I know the residents who live down there.
We're willing to do whatever it takes to get it cleaned up and get some
things down there for the kids. Mainly what we need is just the money to
buy the supplies to do it because everybody down there will do the work.
We're more than willing to do the work but we just need the okay to do it.
Boyt: Well like Mike said, you can't do a lot of that clean-up unless it's
~pring because you can't see to get through it. Lori and I talked about, I.~
think I talked to you about a spring clean-up day for all parks and getting
people involved in each park.
Darlene: I would really love to see a Satelite down there.
Mike Wegler: Just a little bit on that fishing pier. It's probably what
we would like to see more than anything right now for the kids. That's the
main thing. A couple of picnic tables are down there. Maybe a garbage can
up there by the dock area, in that area if that comes about before too long
because it's nice down there.
Schroers: Thanks. Did Mark get a copy of your plan also Mike? Do you see
anything on there Mark that is a problem compared to yours?
Koegler: No. I think they are very consistent and you brought out a lot
of discussion items I think you needed to address tonight an example of
which is the surfacing of the trail. When we had taken this position for
discussion purposes, this is a major trail link on the City's plan. It
will see quite a bit of use but again as with some other things you talked
about tonight, when you start low intensity and you find erosion and you
have to do something else, you always have that option.
Schroers: Yes, that's just what came to my mind that because of where that
trail lies, I've got to believe that you'd have washout problems with just
Ibout anything you put there. Bituminous would probably be the most
permanent but unless we accommodate it for the drainage, we could be having
problems with that but like woodchips wouldn't work out I don't believe at
......"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 35
,....
all. So we're almost looking at either aggregate or bituminous or just
leaving it natural as it is. That way, I don't know, most bicycles would
have a problem negotiating that if was wet.
Boyt: We can start with aggregate like on some of the other trails.
Schroers: Yes, because aggregate is the base for bituminous anyway.
Mike Wegler: The other thing on that trail, you show it going right up to
the north edge of the park. That does not continue beyond that. That's
private property. There is a right-of-way that goes up that side straight
off of the lake from there so until you have plans for what you're going to
do with that hill going down to the lake, if you put a bituminous trail
going back into... Either going across people's private property because
they don't know that it's not or...
Sietsema: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear what he said.
Mady: From the north edge from the base of Napa Avenue further north.
Sietsema: Yes but he's saying where it ends is where it ends. The rest we
don't know.
Mike Wegler: North of Napa.
,....
ady: I was always under the impression you owned that.
Sietsema: We own to this point here and then this is Fox Chase. The
easement that we have there goes up this hill and then in between two lots
here to a cul-de-sac and then runs along the street within that
development.
Mike Wegler: So if you don't have plans for going up that hill, we just
have fancy trail that ends there and people are going to naturally assume
they can keep going around the lake there. It looks like a trail but it is
private property.
Schroers: I think we had talked about that previously in regards to trying
to deed an easement to continue it up to the Pleasant View. Is that the
road there? Along the north end of the lake.
Sietsema: Along the lake?
Schroers: Yes. That's Pleasant View Road that goes down along the north
side of Lotus Lake and I think at one time we had talked about checking
into the possibility of getting an easement to continue the trail out to
that road to link up with to that area.
Sietsema: We could get along the lake within Fox Chase. The only thing
~hat we could get was along that property line up to the cul-de-sac and
~at cul-de-sac runs up, it follows the street and goes up to Pleasant View
~ut along the lake we can't get that.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 36
Schroers: But anyway this actually from that cul-de-sac we could connect
the link.
-'
Sietsema: Right.
Mike Schroeder: The way the people are going now is from that cul-de-sac
right straight down to Mohawk and Napa and then you walk down the street.
Schroers: Are they cutting across private property?
Mike Schroeder: No. Not at this time and it's working out just fine.
I think what Mike is talking about mainly is don't put a bituminous trail
in where there's nice grass. Don't tear up the grass and put in a rock,
we've got nice grass down there. We've only got 30 feet of grass. Pumping
in 6 feet of rock, people can walk on the grass just as well as rock. We
don't want it torn up and making a nice straight line through it. Through
the woods there where it's not seen and it's all muddy, yes. Wherever the
dock is marked on here, that's a nice strip of grass in here too. We don't
want a 6 foot rock path through there. These people can sure walk on that
as well as anything else. I think that's the main thing on that.
Mary Farrick: My name is Mary Farrick and I live at 651 Camero Road which
is just up and over from this. As far as the trail is concerned, the one
that's already through the woods seems to work just fine except for the
ooison ivy so I guess as far as I'm concerned, you don't have to do
~nything to the trail. I'd like to see the beach and stuff developed the -'
way Mike has shown on the plan. I've got 3 boys that love to fish and how
they're trying to make their way out to the raft and if nobody's swimming,
they can fish but if there's anybody swimming there, they can't and if they
had a fishing dock, it would be absolutely wonderful.
Erhart: How much can you do with $3,000.00?
Mady: Can I ask a question on that? I think the City staff, on the city
time...how does that impact us. The neighbors are offering to do this
stuff and they're not allowed to use city materials. Where does the
liability come in and all those things?
Sietsema: I'm not really certain. I'd have to check with Gary for the
details but I think because he is a staff person, he can use the equipment
for a city project on his own time.
Schroers: I don't even know why it would be unreasonable to do it on city
time.
Sietsema: No, I don't think so either except that he's not a park
maintenance person though. He's street maintenance.
Mady: Because Mike lives there, all of a sudden he's got priority over the
other 4 or 5 or 6...
Boyt: That's what we decided.
..."",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 37
"""'"
Lash: It can be done now?
Sietsema: Yes.
Schroers: If Mike knows how to do it without conflict.
Mady: I'm just looking at, we've got a lot of parks that haven't been
addressed this year and something we're going to talk about at Commission
presentation tonight...
Boyt: Well we have the opportunity to do this and it's on the budget for
this year and it sounds like Mike will have the time.
Schroers: And it looks like a good plan.
Robinson: How do we prioritize the $3,000.00? Let the residents determine
that?
Schroers: Well it sounds like the dock is the top priority and I think who
would know better than the people that live there and use it.
Boyt: And we could talk to Mark and see if that could be one of the first
things done.
~egler: Yes, ultimately you need to prioritize and basically just almost
....of this park. Certainly from what I've heard the dock would be
probably number 1. It's the biggest cost item you're dealing with outside
of some of the labor and what the materials cost.
Boyt: We could do the dock...
Mady: It must cost two grand at least and then we've got sod has to be in.
...swingsets.
Boyt: The dock and the retaining wall, if Mike does the grading for the
retaining wall, would $3,000.00 be enough or does that cover the retaining
wall? Grass is going to cost a couple hundred dollars.
Mike Schroeder: The retaining wall won't cost any money. I know where I
can get ties.
Mary Farrick: And we can get sod.
Lash: Okay, so we can get a dock, retaining wall, put the sod in.
Boyt: picnic tables. A list like that.
Lash: Make a list and see how far we can get with $3,000.00.
~chroers: Do we need to make a motion?
ciietsema: Yes. If what Mike's come up with is, that's the plan you want
to go with, I need you to recommend approval of the master plan for that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 38
and then to prioritize what you want done this year with the $3,000.00.
-'
Lash: Do we have any Boy Scouts that are just itching for a project?
Sietsema: No, I've mentioned it to four of them and they've all turned up
their noses.
Mike Wegler: Most of that will be knocked out of there.
Lash: When you do the grading?
Schroers: Is there any conflict between Mike's plan and Mark's plan?
Boyt: The dock.
Schroers: I mean as far as entering it in a motion. Do you just want to
call it master plan with the dock?
Sietsema: Yes.
Schroers: Alright if there isn't any other comments, I'll try to put
together a motion for this.
Mike Wegler: Excuse me, if you motion that in, that master plan and
something happens later to say that retaining wall wasn't the way it was on
;he master plan, is there going to be a conflict? ~
Sietsema: Well they're talking about adopting your plan. The plan with
the dock.
Schroers moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommended approval of the master plan that includes the fishing dock,
rock retaining wall and to merge the two plans that are shown. Also, to
prioritize 1989 expenditures for a dock, the retaining wall, sod, clearing
the trail and swingsets. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF PARK IMPROVEMENTS, CENVESCO SITE, OAK VIEW HEIGHTS.
Sietsema: At our last meeting we had reviewed the Oak View Heights
proposal and asked the developer to come back with a revised plan that
would show how the recreation facilities that are being required could fit
onto this site. I believe Mr. Johnson has a plan that he can present to
you showing those recreational facilities. I'll just have you go through
it if you want to outline where they are and then talk about one and then
the other.
Dean Johnson: Let's look at the plan first with two smaller cul-de-sacs.
A little bit of background to why we have two plans instead of one. When
we went in front of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission and
:he planning staff came up with an issue of the fact that these two -'
cul-de-sacs are a loop road at one time. The road went all the way around
and the East Jenny Circle and West Jenny Circle were connected. It became
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 39
"
~ double frontage lot which they didn't want to deal with. It was kind of
a technical problem because the double frontage lot is really in theory for
single family homes. Since the townhome doesn't really have, or this type
of townhome doesn't have a front or back, it was kind of a technical
whether it did or it didn't but they asked us to work with it. Ladd Conrad
suggested working with this and that's why you see this one plan here with
the two cul-de-sacs. This is one method of getting rid of the double
frontage lots so that didn't present an ordinance problem and the Planning
Commission wouldn't have a problem. So what we've done is we've taken and
split the areas through the project. We didn't want to pack them all in
one area so that you would have balls flying from one area into the other
and people possibly running into each other depending upon the activity
they were doing. The first one we were putting the half court basketball
court in the center island off of one circle and the volleyball court and
the recreational facilities, the swingsets and slides and what not, up in
the northeast corner. The next one was an idea that my engineer came up
with to redesign it to try to get rid of some of the double frontage lots
again. We feel that this is a little better concept for getting rid of the
double frontage lot and it's something we're going to propose to the
Planning Commission when we come back. This one we were able to rearrange
the units a little bit. We could get say the adult activities or say more
of the adult activities together with the volleyball and basketball court
in one spot and then we took and put the swingset, playground thing to the
northeast corner. That's why you see two of them here. We are going to be
~shing for the single cul-de-sac or our recommendation. Obviously it's
~ether they will take it or not is up to them. We are going to go over
this and we think we have a more interesting plan by doing it and we figure
by having two small cul-de-sacs is kind of an unnecessary type of a thing
so one would serve better and be less maintenance and be less for emergency
vehicles to have to deal with.
Robinson: What's adjacent to that totlot outside of your property there in
the upper right hand corner?
Dean Johnson: On the eastern border is the West Village townhouse,
I believe is the name.
Sietsema: West Village Heights Apartments.
Dean Johnson: They're townhouse apartments and to the north you're going
to be hitting land that is owned by Builder's Development. Financed is
actually the people who own the land but that actually is the part along
the ravine there so what you have is this little slope going down.
Schroers: Do we have our conservation easement back in that ravine so it
won't be built?
Sietsema: I'm not sure if there's a conservation easement through there or
not but there was a trail, like a natural type trail planned to go through
Ahere.
Jean Johnson: I believe the trail is on the north side of that ravine. At
least that's what I was told. I've not seen a map of it but I was told...
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 40
Schroers: But anyway, what you're getting at is there a busy street or a
road or something right next to the totlot there?
Dean Johnson: No. Not at all. The people of Builder's Development
Finance contacted me because I... They've contacted me because they'~e
tried to sell me their land and in looking at the grades on their land,
they have very little useable, so to speak land to build on and it's all
along the northern border of the rental townhouses. According to the
topo's I've seen on it, it's not along my land at all and the reasons that
I was not interested is because I no ability to tie. I would be right out
in the slope by the time I let my northeast corner...
Lash: Would it be possible to exchange these two locations and put the
totlot where you have the other things?
.....".
Dean Johnson: Yes.
Lash: I guess I would maybe lean towards that because the playground stuff
would be more centrally located for kids and it would also be right off
Jenny Lane which is having a sidewalk.
Dean Johnson: Sidewalk, I guess there was some confusion. We thought the
sidewalk was going to go on the north side. It actually came through on
the south side and came up in Planning. until that time we didn't even
~ealize that the sidewalk was on the other. Something that we would like,
AS we'd rather see the sidewalk on the north side of the street. It really ~
makes no difference for grading but we figure it's going to give better
access to the playground equipment.
Sietsema: I think that we had originally said south side because there
were fewer streets to cross but now if you take out the two cul-de-sacs,
then that doesn't make a big deal.
Dean Johnson: I was also in the townhomes, I believe the townhome rental
units they were talking about. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the sidewalk
is on the north side there. Now I realize it only comes into their
driveways and the street that's going to go from where they turn to go into
their driveways is going to be extended through their property to the
border between us and then through my property is Jenny Lane here so I
think it can be an easy connection.
Sietsema: If it's on the north side, on the rest of the street, we want to
continue it on the north side. That makes sense.
Dean Johnson: I guess that's right but I believe it is on the north side.
Schroers: Lori, does staff have any concerns about the amenities that are
in here or is that something that we don't even have a choice on? The
volleyball court and the half court basketball.
jietsema: Those facilities are what was required of the Park and
Recreation Commission at the last meeting and so part of the recommendation -'
was that he was to bring back a plan showing how those facilities would fit
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 41
,....
with the buildings and the parking and future development and to see that
things weren't too crowded and the balls wouldn't be bouncing on totlot
people's heads and basketballs going through windows and that kind of
thing. Either plan looks like a reasonable plan to me. I don't think that
all 3 recreational facilities have to be in the same spot and if you put
the totlot up in the corner, it's further away from the street so kids
don't have the chance of running in the street as much but if you put it in
the middle it's more accessible to all of them so I think it's a horse
apiece. I think it looks reasonable.
Mady: My preference would be to have a totlot along Jenny Lane with the
sidewalk rotating. That's just my preference. You'd keep it away from the
traffic.
Sietsema: And as long as that doesn't matter to you, I don't see that
that's a problem.
Dean Johnson: It's something that can be worked in. There's enough room
in both areas.
Sietsema: Given that, if either plan looks okay to the Park and Recreation
Commission, since he's going to be presenting both to the Planning
Commission, what he would like would be a recommendation from the
~ommission to accept either of the configurations, whichever is accepted by
:1e Planni.ng Commission.
Schroers: Okay, how do you want us to refer to the plans, as Plan A or
Plan B?
Sietsema: He's got one marked Alternate A.
Dean Johnson: Yes, the Alternate A should be the twin cul-de-sacs.
Alternate B is the single cul-de-sac.
Schroers: Okay, would anyone care to make a motion to that affect?
Sietsema: Staff's recommendation would be to recommend that the site plans
be approved as shown on Alternate A or B with the configurations of the
recreational facilities as shown.
Schroers: Okay, I will make that recommendation. That we vote to approve
either Site Plan A or Site Plan B and we would also like to see the totlot
area be in the more centrally located position.
Mady: Also the question, before we second it, we already addressed the
trail issue so that doesn't have to be readdressed?
Sietsema: Right. All the rest of it's been done. We just want to approve
where the facilities go.
,...,
ady: I'll second Larry's motion.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 42
Boyt: I will again vote against it because this number of people requires -,'
5 acres of land and we're not near that and are we going to get them coming
in here in 2 years saying our kids don't have room to play out here and why
didn't you look to our future. We're allowing them to provide less than
what we require so I will vote no on this one.
Mady: I don't know if we're asking for less direction or getting more
because we're not asking for now a decrease in park dedication fees
correct?
Sietsema: Right.
Boyt: We know. We've seen developments in other parts of Chanhassen where
there...they're not allowed to put in swing sets. Their kids play in the
roads. If you drive through there you know where the kids are and you know
where you have to be and now is our chance to ask for something different
than that. But you all vote the way you want to vote and the Council looks
at how we vote and they're the people making the decision.
Sietsema: I guess what I would say then is if this motion, since there is
a second, should fail and whoever made the motion last time, reconsider
their motion, then we could readdress that if you so choose.
Boyt: We discussed it last time but it was 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 so the
~ajority feels that this is right.
....",'
Sietsema: But the option is still there to reconsider.
Schroers: Is there any other discussion.
Lash: They are within the service area of the City Center Park correct?
Boyt: They're in the service area. That park is used fully right now.
They're used fully right now and this is not what's in 2 years.
Schroers: Yes, I understand what you're saying.
Lash: I understand what you're saying too. I really do but I have a real
hard time trying to require 5 acres from him when he's only got 13 acres to
start with. That's going to cut it almost in half.
Mady: I guess the question Sue's been asking is where are you going to get
5 acres that we're going to be needing.
Boyt: 5 years from now. Where will we have for these children to go? Our
chance is now.
Sietsema: Eckankar.
Boyt: We can ask and they can say no way. You're asking too much.
:on't ask, then we've lost our chance.
If we
.....".
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 43
,,.....
Lash: How much space is up in this area where you have the future
apartment building?
Dean Johnson: The future apartment building site is approximately 6 acres
including all the Class B wetland. City staff and the Planning Commission
so far want the 980 contour to be unuseable so the trees above the hill, we
save those. It's on the side of the hill and we want the trees also...
Sietsema: What he's saying is that portion is pretty much unbuildable
because they're making that easement.
Dean Johnson: You could bring the apartment building down a little farther
in but if we can get the apartment down, which is how we tried to design
the site in the first place was to keep the apartment building out of the
trees so we have trees for aesthetics for the project, we were able to do
it and there's no reason not to.
Lash: How many units are going to be in this apartment building?
Bo yt : 112 .
Lash: In the apartment?
~ean Johnson: In the apartment building there's going to be, depending
pon which plan here because what happens is the impervious surface
Jrdinance does not corne into play because apartment buildings are so low in
impervious surface that you're going to just strictly to the density which
is going to be somewhere around 70 to 73 units.
Schroers: Is there any way that you can see that we could get a 5 acre
parcel to fit into your plan in any way?
Dean Johnson: It probably comes in in the ordinance of Chanhassen that as
much as parks still or the acreage that you take still can work into the
density calculations. You take 5 acres of land and you pull that out of
the project and you still have the 35% impervious surface which in a sense
what you've done is you've dropped the density of the project. And in a
case like this, there is well would you want to take the Class B wetlands?
That probably wouldn't be something that you people would want to consider.
You want to buildable acreage so what you're effectively doing is taking
the 19 acres, taking the road easements out so you get done with that
acreage and it's now 17.3 acres and then you take another 5 acres of that
so you've got 12.3 acres and then with the impervious surface calculation,
you're probably cutting another one-third of my density out of the project
which would blow the project right out of the water. You would not be
R-12. You would not be even R-8 at that point. You'd probably be R-6
because right now with the present ordinance I can't get R-12 with the
present ordinances. I can't get even to R-10. My density, if I remember
right at this point is 9.8.
,....
chroers: I think looking at this, we are getting park dedication fees?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 44
Mady: Looking at this and thinking it through now, I'm inclined to look
for a large space. I don't know if 5 acres is necessarily magic although
we usually like to have 5 acres for a neighborhood park. We have been a
little bit under that. I understand the density is going to suffer from it
but I believe a calculation can be done where there can a balance struck
between allowing for some open space because we are maxed out in the City
Center Park. There will be a lot of kids coming out of these units and
those units, the existing ones just to the east of you does have a number
of children currently as well as young adults so we do need to make sure
that as we...that we've done something for those people. The option will
always be the future. If the calculation was wrong, for whatever reason,
...but once the apartments are up and townhouses are up, the chances are
nil to tear them down to put in additional parkland where it's needed so I
don't know if 5 acres is necessarily the magic number here but I think we
need something.
.....",
Lash: How large is this area right in the middle where you have the 14
unit?
Boyt: If we want to recommend that he look for more property, we'd let
them do it. We'd say we think we need more property and then that's up to
he and his designers to work out. We don't work on that. We just make
recommendations on what we want.
Schroers: Okay, what we have to do right now is vote on the motion. I made
~t. Jim seconded it so what we have to do is vote on it. If you have -'
reservations or whatever, you'll have to vote accordingly and if it comes
back, then we'll have to relook at it and make another motion.
Dean Johnson: Can I make one statement here? The history of this project
has been in front of you, this will be the fourth time you've voted on this
issue. Three times you've voted only to take park dedication fees. The
project density has gone down each time it's been in front of you. To sit
there now and try to take land would be an unfair thing being the fact that
at all times and everything considered to come up with this project and
whether you want us to go ahead with this project has look at what you've
done in the past and look to what you did at the time and again now the
third time... It seems to me that now to sit there after spent an awful
lot of money in purchasing the land and also in designing this project and
with all the consequences involved, all the times that I've been in front
of staff with this thing and meetings I've had with them as well as all the
times I've been in front of Planning and the time I have been in front of
the Council with this thing, it seems quite unfair to now at this point
decide that you want land because what happens is if you decide you want
land and you decide for anything more than cutting out the corner say where
the totlot is so you take that portion and maybe somebody's portion, say
the people like I say, Builder's Development Finance, you're going to
throw, the project will be...
Sietsema: Why don't we call for the question and then we'll know if we
lave to deal wi th that or not.
.....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 45
'"'
Schroers moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve either Alternate A or Alternate B with the facilities
placed as shown with the totlot equipment in the center. Dawne Erhart,
Curt Robinson and Larry Schroers voted in faovr. Jan Lash, Jim Mady and
Sue Boyt voted in opposition. The motion failed with a tie vote of 3 to 3.
Sietsema: The motion is defeated in a tie.
Robinson: Did you seciond the motion and then vote against it?
Mady: Aga inst.
Sietsema: Can you do that?
Mady: Larry's the one who had to vote for it.
Schroers: Can we just discuss this a little further. I don't think that
we can gain enough property from his development there to make an adequate
park. I think all we're doing is creating a hardship for his development
and I think that we're going to have to look to like the additions that
we're doing to Lake Ann Park which is reasonably close and hope that...
~oyt: I think the developer, I think it's up to him. If we want more
3nd, he can look for it. We don't need to do that and we're not creating
~ hardship for him. We're creating a hardship for the people with families
that move in here who let it pass as is.
Schroers: How much acreage is in these 2 park parcels now?
Dean Johnson: I don't know.
Schroers: Is it roughly like 2 acres?
Dean Johnson: My guess is you're going to be somewhere around an acre and
3/4 to 2 acres just judging by the size of this.
Schroers: Lori, how does this plan compare with our statistics as far as
the number of people in an area?
Sietsema: Well it's a lot more dense than what a typical, we don't see a
whole lot of high density developments in Chanhassen. You haven't
experienced reviewing these kind of site plans very often because there
simply aren't that many high density developments out there. This is much
more dense than what we typically look at.
Schroers: So I'm wondering if we have to, do we need to come up with new
standards to accommodate the high density?
~ietsema: NO, we have standards. 1 acre per 75 people is our standards
nd that's a valid standard.
Schroers: And how does this compare to that?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 46
-'
Sietsema: There's 500.
Boyt: 112 units at 2.8 people per unit which might be a little high but"
we'd need over 6 acres so going below that.
Sietsema: But it also is within the service area of parkland.
Schroers: But the other parkland is currently running at capacity pretty
much? I mean is it totally at capacity the adjacent City Center?
Sietsema: It is at standard times of use. The after dinner hour, it's
booked through the summer.
Schroers: For organized events?
Sietsema: With organized events. The totlot equipment and that kind of
thing isn't or the tennis courts aren't necessarily but the open space
field area is.
Lash: And that isn't necessarily what the kids would be using anyway.
Boyt: These kids will create the need for more...
Sietsema: They'll be joining the T-ball and Little League and putting
~dditional pressure on this park facilities. -'
Boyt: We can just ask the developer to look at this again.
Sietsema: What I would suggest then is if you're going to ask for more
land, if you don't know an acreage, is to outline the facilities you want
to accommodate so he knows what types of land uses we're shooting for. You
want ballfields.
Boyt: I think there needs to be an open space that would accommodate
ball fields in here.
Mady: Not necessarily a lined ballfield but an open space, wide open space
for pick-up games and what have you. Touch football, soccer.
Boyt: Isn't that what everyone comes in here asking for? They need an
open field for kids to play in.
Schroers: Yes, they do. Time after time we hear them.
Boyt: They need a totlot. They need new tennis courts. They need
basketball. They ask for the same things over and over again in every
development. They ask for ice skating. Not this time of year but they
will this winter.
\ady: I guess what I'm looking at is...we made a recommendation on it and ...,;'
It wasn't good enough to pass...we want more. I don't know that it's up to
us to design this plan to accommodate that.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 47
"
Sietsema: It's up to you to decide how much acreage you want and how much
credit you want to give him for that acreage.
Mady: We've usually done that though before a developer comes, he usually
comes in with something that was at least almost close.
Schroers: This isn't typical.
Sietsema: Well, yes you usually do. We usually say we're going to need
this much parkland and show us where we can accommodate...
Mady: We've done that with our standard though.
Boyt: Say 4 acres minimum of useable park space. An open area large
enough to accommodate a ballfield, a children's ballfield.
Schroers: Is that a motion?
Boyt: Sure.
Schroers: Is there a second?
~dy: Yes.
.{obinson: What was the motion?
Boyt: 4 acres minimum. It doesn't have to all be together but there
should be in one are a space large enough to accommodate a ballfield and
we've already talked about the other things. There should be tennis
courts, volleyball, basketball, totlot.
Lash: I guess I would rather see them all together. Have one big open
space.
Boyt: I'd rather leave him some room to work it in but the active space,
have a space large enough for a ballfield.
Lash: I'm not good at judging.
Boyt: There's about 26 acres here and this is a out 6 acres. The corner
that's not developed.
Dean Johnson: No. There's 17.3 acres that I have to work with.
Boyt: Okay. I thought you told us 19.3 last time.
Dean Johnson: 18.9 gross perhaps with the roadway.
~)yt: Okay, we're interested in the gross.
Dean Johnson: But I can't choose the gross figure for my calculations.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 48
....""
Boyt: I think that's what we normally use.
Lash: Just for my own trying to picture something, can you tell me what
one of these average sized places where there's a unit, about how big is
that? Would that be about an acre?
Dean Johnson: Yes.
Schroers: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Any further
discussion?
Boyt moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission require 4
acres minimum that will accommodate an open space large enough for a
children's ballfield, tennis, totlot, volleyball and basketball, (typical
neighborhood park facilities). All voted in favor except Schroers and
Robinson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
PRESENTATION OF SOUTHERN PARKLAND STUDY, MARK KOEGLER AND AL KLINGELHUTZ.
Mark Koegler: Given the hour, I'll be brief. There's a fair amount of
information in there. The site we looked at, I think is the one you're all
familiar with and I believe we walked at least most of them if not all of
them. They're labeled on this as Exhibit A, B, C and D. TH 212 is shown
)n here. I don't know that that's the exact official alignment. That's ~
the last alignment basically that we had record of. You had gone through
some time ago and identified some criteria that you were going to use for
selection of park and in trying to evaluate each of these sites in line
with that criteria, I think the main thing that's noteable is that we did
not in any way attempt to weight those which obviously you probably will
do. As I say, you didn't do that but I'm going to try and tell you that we
kind of did in the conclusion because basically what we got down to was
looking at southern Chanhassen which is what this park is supposed to serve
and how do you define southern Chanhassen. Is it below TH 5? Is it below
Lyman? Is it below TH 212? At this point in time, it's basically anything
below TH 5. But as Chan Hills and Lake Susan West develop and more urban
development goes down, I'm sure in everybody's mind it's going to be south
of Lyman. As TH 212 goes in it becomes really a major barrier with the
only crossing points being TH 101 and then probably over at the southerly
extension of CR 17 at this point. You really have a corridor through there
that doesn't allow cross movement and at that point in time I think it's
fair to say that southern Chanhassen almost becomes south of TH 212. One
of the central objectives that you had was to have a park south of TH 212
or what was called the southern portion of Chanhassen and centrally
located. Obviously we've got two sites that really remain in the south of
TH 212 are Band D. B is the Bandimere piece and D is the piece that's
owned by Bluff Creek Investment Company. First of all running through very
quickly, Site A it think is 40 acres. Site B is about 33 or 35 depending
on which number you use. Site C is shown in the cross hatched section is
:0 acres. There's an additional 40 acres on this side which is part of -,.
the TH 212 alignment. Again, at least is portrayed, and then Site D is
about 109 acres and Site D also is heavily impacted by TH 212. Another
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 49
If1"'"
item that we've interjected is the City of Chaska at the present time is
developing a 29.5 acre park in this location which they've identified as a
community park playfield. That will be approved by their City Council on
July 10th. That site contains four Little League diamonds, 3 adult
diamonds, soccer, tennis, normal range of active facilities. I think some
consideration should be given to the proximity of those sites to one
another. Certainly both I'm sure will be utilized fully but just for
geographical dispersal of all the people in the southern portion of Chan
going on in Chaska, and do you really want those sites almost adjacent to
one another or do you want to spread that out.
Schroers: Is there a lot of topography on 0 also?
Koegler: 0, yes. Of the two sites, let me just briefly run through. B I
think you're very familiar with. The biggest constraint is the obvious.
The William Brothers Pipeline. I can't stand here tonight and tell you
that we can overcome that. Hopefully we can overcome that if that
ultimately is the site that earmark for the park. We have made contact
with the William's Pipeline people and given probably the liability
climates and everything else these days, they won't commit to anything at
all. They won't even really give us much of guide as to how much fill we
can place on top of their pipeline. We will not need, I don't think to
excavate but we may need to fill. The only way to ascertain the answer to
~hat is pending your action this evening, we will get them out there in the
, ~eld to locate and provide some depth information on the pipe and they
~ill do that very quickly. Within literally a couple days time period.
What we need to do then is sketch up a grade plan as quickly as we can and
get it into their engineer for review and that's the only way we're going
to get any formal review status from them. So that's a constraint that we
hope can be worked about but I can't tell you as a matter of fact that it
can be. Parcel 0, the other one that we looked at, again being south of TH
212.
Schroers: Can I interrupt you?
Koegler: Sure.
Schroers: Hypothetically if that all got approved and all of a sudden they
develop a problem in the pipeline, can they come in and tear up our new
park for their pipeline?
Koegler: Yes. They're concerned though with putting fill on the pipe is
how quickly they can get to the pipeline. They consider it a safety
situation if they've got a leak there, they want to be able to get into it
real fast so if they have 3 or 4 feet of cover on it which is what they
like, it doesn't take very long to expose the pipe. If they've got 30 feet
of cover, it's a different situation and they've got to open the trench up
and have appropriate side slopes and so forth. So that's their concern and
that's the evaluation criteria they used is from a public safety point.
.,-...
offman: That same pipeline goes right through Victoria and right through
the Lion's park and right underneath the tennis court and right underneath
the ballfield.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 50
......,
Koegler: It's not uncommon to have recreational development on top of
these pipelines. Roads cross them. They will even in some cases allow for
parking to be constructed but you do run the risk if something happens and
they need to be dug up. Site 0 has almost as much topography as any piece
of ground I've ever seen in Chanhassen. There literally are some in excess
of 80% slopes on this site. That's 80, not 8. They're virtual cliffs when
you get back up into some of this area. Beautiful property. I don't know
ultimately how much of that is really going to be useable. They're also
along particularly along the south side in this area is land that's
currently tilled and that's certainly suitable for active facilities. Now
again we've got TH 212 that comes through and has the potential to impact a
substantial portion of the western side of the site so we've indicated that
the eastern side of the site is a potential option. If you do not either
choose Bandimere or Bandimere becomes infeasible due to the pipeline issue.
The report also points out that yes we're a little skeptical that Bandimere
can meet your objective of having the nature areas. There are some wooded
areas, small wooded area that's down around the old farmstead site.
Certainly that's an attractive feature but it's not a significant feature
in and of itself. The Site 0, depending upon final official mapping and
what ultimately happens with TH 212 may end up with some pieces due to
frontage roads and so forth that the City might be able to acquire that
would just be beautiful for nature areas. Running trails going through or
just nature observation or whatever it might be. So we would advocate that
if you select the Bandimere site, keep this one kind of in your back pocket
~or possible future acquisition. Some remnant pieces either through the ~
owner or through MnOot, whatever, that's a possible nature area. The
Bandimere site does have expansion potential to the north in through these
areas that probably could come close to adding another 40 acres or so
should that ever be your desire to note. Potential expansion was another
of the objectives that were outlined in the report and one thing that you
identified originally. We went through and ranked all four of the sites in
conformance with your criteria. Did not assign any weighting and ran
through two different numerical sequences if you will, attaching some kind
of point...to if they come within a few points of one another. One has
strength if it's north of TH 212. One has strength if it's south. One has
strength because the topography is a little better. They really to a
certain degree counter balance one another. I think all of the sites have
potential to serve the southern park access. It's just the location
factors that really become more the prime determent. So the recommendation
is that you pursue Site B and get an answer as quickly as we can on the
pipeline impact and if that becomes not feasible, then we'll take a look at
Site o.
Schroers: Did we not already look at all these sites and kind of rule out
both the 0 and C because of cost?
Sietsema: We looked at them as far as availability but we didn't do a
formal study at looking at the land. The topography and potential land
uses and comparing them, all of the objectives.
Schroers: I thought that Al had given us some rough price estimates before ......,
on these properties and we felt that we wouldn't be able to come up with
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 51
,...
the funding for D and C. C was that 80 acre parcel.
Sietsema: Do you have prices on those?
Al Klingelhutz: I have a little more information on C. He would possibly
sell you 40 acres of that and he's looking at around $6,500.00 an acre for
that plus he definitely wants an access to the back fourth. What type of
access, it's going to have to be a permanent road or just an easement, I
think he's more looking for a permanent type road to his back property.
Schroers: Would his homesite be back there? Is he looking for a driveway
going in and out?
Al Klingelhutz: Actually he's got about 70 acres of that 80 acres lying
north of pioneer Trail. Part of that 70 acres, or that 40 acres in front
will have some involvement with TH 212 because pioneer Trail is going to be
changed and I don't know if you saw that part of the map Mark or not but we
do have it down at the County, which will take property up to the house, if
you're familiar with the property at all, to make that new service road to
get around TH 212.
Schroers: My question then is, now you said that was $6,500.00 an acre and
wasn't Bandimere property about $5,500.00?
""1 Klingelhutz:
.Jcres. The tax
they listed it.
No. The Bandimere property was $200,000.00 for 33 or 35
statement says 35 acres. They quoted it as 33 acres when
Sietsema: So it's about $6,000.00.
Al Klingelhutz: That's a firm price on that. He originally was asking
$220,000.00. The offer was $200,000.00.
Lash: Now Sever Peterson said he was open but he came up with the
$6,500.00.
Al Klingelhutz: He was open as far as selling the 40 acres except that we
wanted access to the rear of the property. He didn't want to landlock.
I sort of felt that he wanted to be on the public street back there.
Lash:
price.
I understood when talking he's also somewhat negotiable on the
He wasn't real firm but maybe he's changed his mind since then.
Al Klingelhutz: Well I talked to him on the phone for about an half hour.
He's up on vacation. I don't know. We'd have to talk to him if he was
more negotiable on that. I have nothing on paper from him saying, it's
just word of mouth. Originally he was asking $7,000.00 but he did quote me
a figure of $6,500.00 on the phone. He was on vacation up at Lake
Washington I think it was up near Litchfield.
,,....,
ady: AI, pioneer Trail. Do you have any information for us as to what
they're going to do as far as straightening it out or moving it south at
all?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 52
...,,;
A1 K1inge1hutz: Pioneer Trail actually when TH 212 goes in, I believe ~i11
be moved north somewhat. If I can remember the map that we had down on the
wall at the County. It'd be quite a change. Where it curves around right
in this area here. It makes quite a turn there and it seems to me it's
going to be a lot straighter coming up here. There'd be a bridge under TH
212 here and it kind went straight up where the four way stop sign is on
CR 17. Instead of swinging south like this.
Koegler: Jim, I know where it... We're doing the park in Chaska right now
and it comes, MnDot will hit this intersection and shift it just slightly
east but they'll hit that existing intersection and then it will proceed.
Generally it will be kind of on a slant on a diagonal through there.
Mady: Okay, I was wondering further east but it's not going to be moved
much further east.
A1 Klingelhutz: From over here on out, from TH 101, that's going to be
straightened out. It's supposed to be built this summer.
Mady: I was thinking towards the...Hil1s area.
Koegler: That was an earlier concept.
~ady: They're still proposing CR 17 coming straight through?
Al K1ingelhutz: Actually the proposal right now is CR 17 will be coming
along an angle something like this. The interchange where TH 212 would be
right in here. There would an entrance road coming off of TH 212 onto CR
17 in this area someplace.
..."
Mady: Okay, I was thinking further south of CR 17.
A1 K1ingelhutz: The proposal sometime in the future is deeming CR 17 on
down to pioneer Trail.
Mady: My thinking there was the parcel straight west of the Homeward Hills
subdivision, is a nice really flat piece. It's got a Bluff Creek running
through it. That might be an optimum location but with future CR 17 coming
through there, I think...
Al K1inge1hutz: Actually the proposal is pretty much on the property line
because I can remember when pioneer Hills was developed, they did have to
get a certain amount of easement along this cartway.
Mady: I drove that this weekend just to look at the parcel further back
in.
Al Klingelhutz: That used to be a public street.
-'
lady: But outside of one hill right basically in the middle of the major
trail on the east side of the property, it's a fairly flat parcel. I was
trying to remember from earlier discussions with you what was the reason
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 53
11""'-
why we discounted it. I couldn't remember. I thought it had to do with
the fact that he was thinking of holding the property to sell once the MUSA
line changed.
Al Klingelhutz: No, actually I think if I remember right, I contacted all
these people and I believe he's in the process of subdividing in 2 1/2 acre
lots and that's why he didn't want to sell it.
Sietsema: He's got the grandfathered 2 1/2 acre.
Al Klingelhutz: It seems to me he told me was going to go ahead with the
plan now. I could talk to him again on that but.
Mady: I was trying to locate some nice pieces. Option B is fine with me.
I have no problem with it, I'm just looking for other things.
Robinson: Mark, how many acres does the Chaska park have?
Al Klingelhutz: 29.
Schroers: How many ballfields are on that? Did you say 4?
Koegler: There are going to be 7. It's going to be packed.
~obinson: C is awful close to that.
Schroers: What I would like to see, what I think would work out fine is
what our immediate need is for a youth active area and B would seem to lend
itself well to that if we don't have any extra problems with the pipeline.
We're looking for up to l~~ acres of parkland in south Chanhassen but we
never said that it all had to be in one spot. We could come up with a nice
active facility on area B and then look to Area D strictly for a nature
area, passive area and that would seem reasonable.
Al Klingelhutz: Looking at Area B, if it ever came in for development, I
think there is about 4~ acres there so you aren't going to be able to put a
house someday.
Boyt: Should we just wait for that?
Sietsema: In the subdivision process.
Al Klingelhutz: That would make up part of the land back up to TH l~l
where the houses are and the proposed site and the strip of land down in
there where nobody's ever going to be able to build.
Sietsema: It will be one giant conservation easement.
Al Klingelhutz: This is kind of the way I look at it, that parcel. You're
~oing to get a lot there without buying it.
~chroers: Now there's no action required on the presentation here tonight.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 54
Boyt: Whether to pursue B?
....."
Koegler: I guess we're on course to pursue B unless you see any reason not
to proceed.
Schroers: I don't. Does anyone? In that case I would represent the
Commission and say go for it.
Al Klingelhutz: Part of the purchase agreement it was stated that the
seller would...the property. Now they haven't taken any action on that. I
told Lori I would give them a call and tell them to get going on that
because I think that would be helpful, very helpful for you.
Schroers: ...for staff to continue working with Al and Mark for the
purchase of B. What did you say Sue about putting it in the Comp Plan?
Boyt: Put it in the Comp Plan that we'd like to acquire that land as a
nature area. That was in Mark's plan.
Mady: Also maybe show in the Comp Plan the expansion of the B parcel.
Boyt: AI, thanks a lot for working with us.
Al Klingelhutz: I guess if, I'm just making a suggestion, expansion of the
~ parcel sometime in the future you might just want to look at something on
~he other side of TH 212. Another 30 or 40 acre parcel so you can help the ~
neighborhoods in each one of these areas a little bit more than having to
cross that freeway.
Mady: Mark's park study that he did for the city's community park study
that we have to locate another community park in Chanhassen.
Sietsema: I need a motion and if this is what you want to do, I would
recommend that given the results of the south parkland study, it is the
recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to continue the
pursuit the Bandimere property as for the south parkland.
Robinson moved, Boyt seconded that given the results of the south parkland
study, it is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to
continue the pursuit the Bandimere property for the south parkland. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Sietsema: Now did anyone want to make a motion to include Parcel D to
amend the Land Use Plan to include that? That's a separate motion. To
recommend that Parcel D be pursued for a nature park. Be designaged on the
Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan as potential parkland.
Robinson moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
"ecommend that Parcel D be designated on the Land Use Plan in the
Comprehensive Plan as potential parkland. All voted in favor and the .....".
motion carried.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 55
,....,
~EVIEW ZIMMERMAN FARMS TRAIL PROPOSAL.
Sietsema: If you remember last time, and I don't have the plan down here
with me. Last time we reviewed the Zimmerman Farm. It was the piece of
property that's on the west side of TH 41 just north of Crimson Bay by Lake
Minnewashta and we talked about eventually pursuing the purchase of the big
outlot for community parkland.
Koegler: I'm assisting Jo Ann on doing some Planning Commission reports
and by the luck of the draw this was one that I got. So what we've been
talking about, if this is the Foster's property. Actually it's 3 lots in
here. Lake Minnewashta is over here. Crimson Bay cul-de-sac sits here
with lots coming off of that. You've got an easement up to this point and
you required an easement around the south and clear over around the east
side of this property the last time around. What they're proposing now is
to take an easement just along the south end of Foster's property, the east
end of Foster's property, back to the north to Dogwood where it would
connect and go north. When they proposed that, we took a look at the trail
plan. What the trail plan actually shows is a trail link along TH 5 coming
up the Crimson Bay cul-de-sac, hitting this point, going over to Dogwood
and heading north over to Tanadoona and cutting over back east and then
going north up towards the Regional Park. I guess we can't, from our
perspective, this probably works just as well as the more circuitous route.
That 80 acre piece is represented by this land and is going to subdivide
~ome day and you'll have another crack at a possible trail linkage within
nat. Our suggestion would be to find this to be an acceptable alternative
for trail purposes.
Boyt: The only reason we went around the edge is because it's real hard to
go through the middle of this without being...
Koegler: The reason this is back before you tonight is because it was
tabled last Wednesday and we're trying to get it back onto the agenda next
week to move the item onto the Council.
Sietsema: I'd need a motion to reconsider your previous motion.
Schroers: But now it's been just slightly changed right?
Sietsema: And then I need a motion to change to what you want to do. You
have to reconsider your last motion.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded to reconsider the previous motion on the
Zimmerman Farm trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mady:
along
I'll make a motion to amend that trail proposal to place a trail
the. . .
~)egler: It's southeast and north boundaries of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and back
~o Dogwood.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 56
Erhart: And then continuing on Dogwood?
-,'
Schroers: I'll second it.
Boyt: Is it on the road?
Koegler: The plan called for it to be adjacent to the road. The whole
issue of road in there is unsettled right now. That's going to be a key
issue.
Mady moved, Schroers seconded to put the trail easement along the southeast
and north boundaries of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and back along to Dogwood for the
zimmerman Farms. All voted in favor except Lash who opposed and the motion
carried.
Lash: I would much rather hear from the people on Dogwood before we do
something like that. That's an established neighborhood and I think they
have the right to have their opinion heard before they put the trail
easement in.
Mady: They would. That's already part of the plan. What we're doing here
is just the portion south.
~ash: With the ultimate connection to Dogwood.
Mady: That's already part of it.
--'
Koegler: If I can put your mind to ease a little bit. They were well
represented at the Planning Commission and will be back again next week and
this recommendation will go to the Planning Commission so I think virtually
all the neighbors will see that. I'll make sure that they realize the full
connection.
CURRY FARMS.
Sietsema: ...1 need to get your clarification on this. Back when Curry
Farms, the site plan was reviewed, sidewalks trails were required as a part
of the development contract. There's some confusion in that the
development contract says it should go along a street called Stockbridge
Road and refers to the preliminary plan. The preliminary plan doesn't have
a Stockbridge Road but it shows a road along Teton Avenue. What I need to
do is get clarification from you as to what your intentions are. As long
as John's here, I'd like to do that now and let him go home. Maybe I'll
just put the plan up there.
John Speiss: This is all 1987. The actual development has changed
somewhat in the way it was laid out and the way it was platted. This is
Phase 1 and Phase 2 comes up this way. This is the park and the parking
lOU were talking about earlier. The question is and has become just a real
issue here. You've waited to the end so we won't put in a trail by -,'
construction. The people are upset about the trail itself. They don't
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 57
,.....
~nderstand why they have to have a trail. The plan calls for the trail
going along this way now and we've come up and we've talked with Gary and
Lori. The trail should stay on the same side of Devonshire Road basically.
It looks more like...
Boyt: That's not really the issue.
John Speiss: That's not the issue but it does have a bearing.
Sietsema: This street comes down and this one street and then comes off a
cul-de-sac.
Schroers: May I ask why the residents are upset about the trail?
Boyt: They weren't told about it. They told us when they came in
before...
John Speiss: It shows that it's in the public right-of-way. They don't
understand it's in the public right-of-way. It's their yard as far as
they're concerned.
Lash: It's off street.
John Speiss: It's called a trail. Our development agreement calls it a
~rail. The second issue is as it goes through Devonshire here, it's a
~ntinuous street that goes through the property. This trail, this is part
of Outlot A which is city owned. That's a trail we plan to put in. This
goes up to Teton Lane which is being barricaded.
Sietsema: But it is a street.
.
John Speiss: Well this is a rural section.
Boyt: This is the issue?
John Speiss: This is the issue.
Boyt: You don't want to put a trail in there?
John Speiss: The issue is, do you want to put a trail in?
Boyt: Yes. That's why we have it.
John Speiss: Do you want to put a trail in there that doesn't go through
the development?
Boyt: Yes. We're getting people to the park..
John Speiss: Yes, but there's no, see this is Lilac Lane and Teton Lane
~nd all of that, if you've been following this project. All the residents
r '~id we don't want a thru street and there's a few people up here who said
~ell we want to be able to drive over that street...so there was a
barricade planned in the development and the Teton feasibility study to
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 58
barricade this. Now there's no, the barricade is half up.
....."
Sietsema: If you look at the overall trail plan, there will eventually be
a sidewalk trail, actually a trail along CR 17. That brings you, you can
get anywhere, anybody who's in this service area down to this trail here.
Come down off street, say into the park. This is a rural section like he
said so it doesn't have curb and gutter. It's less traveled and you can
make a circular route and also if you wanted to come in and go down, then
you've got the trail along Lake Lucy Road.
Schroers: Does staff have a recommendation?
Sietsema: It seems clear to me that the attention of Park and Recreation
Commission and the City Council was that there is to be a sidewalk trail
along. . .
John Speiss: A trail, that's become the issue too.
Sietsema: Along this street to make all this connection.
Boyt: That's our intention.
Sietsema: But because of this Stockbridge Road that is, this is Teton...
~ady: I guess what happened is the name got, for whatever reason...
....",
Sietsema: Well I wanted to bring it to your attention and make sure that
your intention of your recommendation at the time that you made it was to
put a trail along the street. An off street trail along the street to make
that circular pattern.
John Speiss: But also for these people who are coming back and saying,
where is it recorded?
Boyt: You know what, that's a developer and a real estate seller's
problem.
John Speiss: It's not a problem, it's a benefit and that's what it ends up
being.
Boyt: It is and people are coming in here and saying, well they never told
us that there was going to be a park here. They never told us...
John Speiss: Well you never had signs up 529. Really the parking was part
of the plan all along. We never said. That's it you know. When you go to
these people and say, well we don't really have a plan for it and we don't
know what we're going to do about it but yet we're going to put this here,
it sounds like nobody has it together.
Schroers: The other part of that is they never came and asked us before
;hey bought their house either.
....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 59
,...
~ietsema: Yes they did and that man that was in here tonight inquiring
about it, he called me three times and asked me about the parking and how
much was going to be put in there. Before he bought his house and I told
him the parking pad was going to go there and it shows on the plan 6
spaces.
Erhart: And he still bought it?
Sietsema: He still bought it and he's still coming in bitching to me.
John Speiss: They'll do that all the time. It's just, if you show it on
your development that it's actually in the boulevard and it's not the tar
but the plan now is to have it 3 foot behind the curb and then the 6 foot
path and everybody says well who's going to maintain the... And you really
want to say, well it's recorded in the City. The City has it. You can
check it out. Whether it's shown on the sales plat. It is recorded in the
City and you can check it out. There are a lot of people who have tried to
find a reason not to...
Sietsema: The development contract is recorded against every lot so
they've got access to it.
Boyt: We know what the extension is. It was for the trail fee there.
~ohn Speiss: We don't really have a problem with that. We just want to
3Y that a lot of people have been bugging Lori and everybody else that
where is this? It's nowhere and it is somewhere and that's why I say, if
somebody comes up and says Stockbridge Road, wait a minute this is Teton.
It says Teton on this but then it says Stockbridge in here.
Boyt: There's some confusion.
John Speiss: Yes, and this has changed.
Schroers: But anyway that's part of our master trail plan so whatever you
want to name the road, the trails in there anyway.
John Speiss: Trail is what we've got in our development.
when you call it concrete, you're calling it a walk.
Just the fact
Schroers: At the Park and Rec we refer to it as a trail.
John Speiss: Because a lot of people are saying if it's a trail, it must
be bituminous and then it's a park trail. If they say if it's in the
street, is it concrete? Is that a trail anymore or is that a walk? The
stats say in 5-89 says city sidewalk. It doesn't say bike trail and that's
what it's called. That's got to be real clear to these people so they
understand.
Schroers: If we give an alignment and it connects up with our other
~(ails, we record them as a trail whether it's a sidewalk or if it's a
...Iituminous path.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 60
John Speiss: Well either or. So really at this point, in '87 it was trail
and then what you call a trail now is referring to, and that's an
engineering term or whatever you want to call it. Clarificati.on is it must
say what exactly it is so there is no more confusion all the way around
because if a developer waits 2 years to put the trails in so they don't get
damaged, then it should be either concrete or trail or bituminous. Not
just plain trail. It's too confusing.
~
Mady: Two years ago we weren't...
John Speiss: No, that's it.
Boyt: We didn't call them sidewalks because they scared people.
John Speiss: Yes, but here the advantage of having your children play on
something off the street far outweights this ugly thing in the front yard
which can be a real positive point for these people. Some people don't see
it that way either.
Schroers: You're right but I think most of us are in agreement on that
issue.
John Speiss: It's safety. We're all concerned about safety. They
requested that it be backed up against the back of the curb and back there
~nd really is in the public right-of-way... Thank you.
-"
REVIEW 4TH OF JULY EVENTS.
Hoffman: Just wanted to quickly go over the events which are taking place.
I'm sure you all looked through it and to formally invite you as
Commissioners to participate in any of the events.
Sietsema: Formally get a commitment from each of you.
Mady: Do you formally have commission t-shirts?
Lash: What do you need?
Hoffman: Sunday, family day we need some help and community picnic can
always use some more help.
Boyt: I'll do the community picnic.
Hoffman: Sunday, the family day. The family games from like noon to 4:00.
We have a lot of family games going on, organizing a lot of children.
Sietsema: And I need lots of help.
Boyt: I'd like to do the sand sculpture.
Mady: I will be out of town this year.
......,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 61
,.....
doffman: The street dance is Saturday night. Sunday is family day at Lake
Ann. Tuesday evening is the fireworks. If you want to help with parking,
yes. If you want to be a parking attendant.
Boyt: I have a question. Are we going to shuttle?
Hoffman: No. Shuttle's are more of a pain in the neck than they're worth.
Boyt: How are people going to get out there?
Mady: The same way they always do.
Hoffman: Walk and we'll drive. We've have Carver County Deputies on duty
parking cars and getting them back out onto TH 5. So that's my report on
the 4th of July. It's been a long road. There's a lot of work put into it
and I think it's going to be another good year.
Robinson: It keeps getting better each year.
Hoffman: The next time around I'll have a written report on how teen night
out went. It was a great success and look forward to it being more kids at
the July evening. The Chanhassen Lion's did a wonderful job on this one
this past Friday and we had about 75-8@ teenagers up there and they had a
great time.
,.....
ietsema: He's doing a great job isn't he?
Hoffman: We also did a clean-up of Lake Ann from the boundary of Lake Ann
Park all the way around to Greenwood Shores last Tuesday morning. Four
gate attendants and myself and cleaned up years and years and years worth
of garbage and plastics and paper.
Schroers: Do you see a need for a garbage can or two along that route?
Hoffman: Yes. Definitely.
Schroers: I think we asked for that and I haven't seen it there yet.
Hoffman: And snapping turtle breeding location as well.
Mady: Why don't we get this gate thing across the trail and this chain.
Hoffman: Yes, they'll put that out of there. Have you seen the new gate
at the beach? It will be something of that nature.
Schroers: Yes, let's get rid of those other things becaues they're just
junk.
Hoffman: Yes. That will be pulled out of there.
""""ash: I'm just waiting for somebody to come riding through there at dusk
~nd hit that chain on their bike.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 62
Hoffman: I'll mention it to Dale just to pull them out of there just to
get rid of them for now.
'--'
Schroers: Got anymore 4th of July Todd?
Hoffman: Fireworks over the lake on Tuesday. We're having a singer out
there to entertain. Jeff Brookes.
Mady: Do you need any help Tuesday night? I should be back in town by
6:99.
Hoffman: Good. Stop out at Lake Ann about 7:99. We'll go to work. We'll
stick a t-shirt on you.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
Boyt: Have you scheduled our meeting with Council yet?
Sietsema: July 19th. 6:99. Monday night before the City Council meeting.
Boyt: And I'd like to work on putting together that spring clean-up for
next Apr il .
~ady: Did they do the goose clean-up out here?
-"
Sietsema: They're doing them this week.
Mady: For next year, I want to ask the Commission to consider Lotus Lake.
Sietsema: They want to take the geese off Lotus Lake?
Mady: At least on our dock.
Hoffman: The north end is full of them.
Schroers: I don't know that we can cater to personal wants. It's got to
be good for the entire city. Now does the entire city get to use your
dock?
Mady: They do get to use North Lotus Lake Park and we do do it at
Minnewashta.
Boyt: The dock at South Lotus was under water.
Robinson: Yes, it's been that way for a long time.
Sietsema: I told Dale about it and he knew about it but I don't know if
he's going to do anything about it.
lady: Are we going to extend the trail in Chan Pond Park past the...
-'"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 27, 1989 - Page 63
,.....
Sietsema: Yes. The only thing is when they built the bridge they were
supposed to have that one end flushed so they only had to build the ramp up
on the one side. Well it didn't turn out that way so he has to get the
ramp on the other side so he can't get over there yet.
Mady: I was walking it this weekend. Got to the end...once you get to the
bridge. You only have the option of turning around or walking through.
Sietsema: Yes, he's going to mow the trail all the way around but he has
to get that ramp in first.
Mady: Have we mowed the trail? I didn't go across the smaller bridge up
to where the bituminous and the stairway. Have you mowed that? That thing
has gotten overgrown. It's maybe 2 feet wide in spots.
Sietsema: He indicated that he'd been out there and mowed it half way
around so I don't know if he did that or not.
Mady: It was really narrow.
Sietsema: Did you notice that the barbed wire is being removed out of Chan
Pond?
Mady: I was looking for it and I didn't see it. I saw the posts and I
~idn't see any barbed wire so that must mean it's gone.
Hoffman: Jay Johnson removed barbed wire out of Lake Ann Park as well.
Sietsema: Actually we have a person who has to do some community service
in the community and he's the one who's taking the barbed wire out.
Chan Pond. He's doing a good job.
Schroers: Any other commission presentations?
Erhart: Jan and I went to that workshop. However it is kind of late but
we have run off copies of information they passed out to us if anyone's
interested.
Boyt: We can review it and talk about it next time.
Erhart: I want each and everyone of you to take the test on the last
page.
Lash: I also wrote mine out. I thought I'd give it to Lori.
Mady moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the mee~ing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
~ubmitted by Lori Sietsema
ark and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim