Loading...
PRC 1989 07025 3 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 1989 ",....... Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Curt Robinson, Ed Hasek, Dawne Erhart, ~im Mady, Janet Lash and Larry Schroers STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Schroers seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated July 11, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion has carried. "...., Sietsema: Just one note on your comment that you thought we should do something different than what we're doing. The secretarial staff has looked into a lot of different things. I haven't checked into that lap top computer you were talking about but they feel that this is the best thing we can do and what I'm doing is I'm going to get a timer because it is 30 minutes and that way it will beep and remind me to turn it over so we will avoid some of those lapses. Also, when there are lapses it's because there are more than one person talking or you're not speaking up. If she can't hear you or can't understand 4 people at once, then she can't type it in there so then she'll either write lapse in the tape or something. Break in the tape or something. So this is the best that we can do is what they've told me. For now anyway. SITE PLAN REVIEW, NEAR MOUNTAIN. Sietsema: The Near Mountain subdivision PUD is up in the northeast corner of the city. It's also considered called Chestnut Ridge, Near Mountain and ...that it's referred to but anyway. This map shows the entire PUD with TH 101 being along the east side of it. The portion that's being considered right now would be 3rd or 4th phase. Originally what was approved in the PUD was condominiums in this area. It's got heavy topography and it's very heavily wooded. What they're proposing is to amend the PUD to put single family houses up in that area rather than the condominiums. That would be 45 single family lots as opposed to 114 condominiums. In looking at this as strictly a park and open space issue, staff has looked at that piece of property and seen the number of tree houses and the way it's being used by the neighborhood in that area and the open space being used for recreational purposes and meeting some of the needs that an open field like the park that's in the area may not, it's different. It's a whole different kind of an open space. Therefore, given that that open space is getting such heavy use right now, it would be staff's recommendation to deny the amendment because the condominiums" as you can see on here, require less development. Less grading and less roads of the area and preserves more of the open space. Granted it does mean more units but the open space is more preserved. So again the recommendation is to recommend that the amendment be denied and we stay with the condominiums. ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 2 -' Mady: Lori, if we were to, the Park and Recreation Commission were to deny the PUD change, it still goes onto Council of course and they have the option of approving it. Would we have a second chance to review it or should we make comments today? Sietsema: You should probably make comments regarding the single family in case it does. If it should be approved as the amendment is proposed, then you should address park and trail issues as well at this time. Schroers: Would you have an idea of how we would come out better, meaning the city parks as far as dedication fees and single family versus the condominiums? Robinson: There's be more condominiums. How many acres are we talking about? Sietsema: We'd bring in $42,500.00 if the single family went through and roughly $35,000.00 in condominiums. Schroers: Do we do end up with less dedication? Sietsema: Right. It depends on how much they paid for the property but they've had ownership of the property for some time so I'm assuming that it is less than $12,500.00. -' Mady: Lori, is that topo map... Sietsema: No. This is Mike Pflaum and he's with the development. Do you have a board there that has topo? Mike Pflaum: I've got some clear films that have topo. Sietsema: Basically all I've done Mike is gone through what's the recommendation on the staff report so I don't know if you want to let Mike make his comments at this time. Mady: It may be appropriate. Mike Pflaum: Let me find the topo first. This has got topo on it. Erhart: How many acres... Sietsema: I want to say 18 but let me check. off 4 or 5 of those so it leaves 18 remaining. you wanted to make? 23 acres but then we divided Did you have comments that Mike Pflaum: I've got a number of comments. This is an informal meeting I believe. I'm not as structured in my presentation as I probably should be but I certainly am willing and hopefully able to respond to questions. I don't know how familiar you all are with the Near Mountain proj - commenced from the standpoint of planning and contacting the City -,. I don't believe it was until actually 1984 that any dirt was mOVE ,..... ,...., ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 3 property because of the housing recession and some other things such as that. In the initial planning design of the planned unit development, we had a total of I think it was 300 units, living units. Again, I'm going to have to fudge a little bit. I think on 113 acres total. The mix was 120 condominiums, 36 quad units and the rest were single family houses of what we'll call a Type B and a Type A lot configuration. Two different lot sizes. Since 1979 we've been back to the City of Chanhassen, I think this is our fourth time for amendments to the PUD. Amendments were principally market driven or trying to improve some neighborhood transitions as property developed. The first thing we did was we determined fairly early on that quadominiums which had looked to be such an attractive housing type in 1978-79 when we were doing our planning, wasn't really catching on all that great. We saw good reason for it. It was turning out to be a non-competitive in terms of price with the small lot and single family home. Given the choice between the two, there wasn't too much question what we wanted to go for. So our first amendment was to seek to substitute what at that time was pretty much the new housing type for this area. Small lot single family homes. Lots that ranged from about 10,000 square feet for the quadominiums and we did that. The quadominiums originally were on the eastern portion of the site along TH 101. The next amendment we planned was to add the American Lutheran Church property which is at the intersection of Pleasant View Road and TH 101. Add that as a single family subdivision to the PUD when that property became available. After that, there were I believe there was only one amendment to the plan and that was to adjust the mix of lot sizes to provide a greater number of Type A which were the larger custom sized single family lots and reduce the number of Type B which were kind of an intermediate size which we were using for a country home product line which was what evolved from the small lot housing type. At the time that we first looked at the property in Chanhassen and in Shorewood, the site in Shorewood is I think even bigger than it is in Chanhassen, there was very little development in this area and there was none in Shorewood because there was no municipal water. We did what most developers do and that is we sought to protect ourselves from the uncertainities to the housing market by incorporating as much density as we thought the City would tolerate on the second. When I say as much as density I'm referring to the mix of houses. The quadominiums, condominiums and predominantly single family but the 120 condominiums units was a selling job that we had to do on the City in 1979. The City was not interested in condominium housing in this area which was primarily rural and all of the surrounding land uses were agricultural or intended for single family. I think we were successful because we pointed out how that kind of clustering approach could be sensitive to the hilltop and how it also would provide an adequate perhaps larger than expected buffer zone between itself as a higher intensity use and the single family housing that would be constructed around the hill. What we didn't know in 1979 whether there would be any demand for it or not. All we knew was that it's almost impossible to go back to a municipality and get more density. It makes sense and generally the public at large feels comfortable with reduction in density so we did what everybody else does. Good, bad or indifferent, we went for what we thought was a reasonable amount of density on the site which would protect us if in fact we needed that kind of density to develop the property and the housing trends indicated that would be needed. In 1988-89, there aren't any condominiums being built either. I checked with Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 4 your building department several weeks ago to find out how many attached ~ housing starts you had in 1988 and I can't recall the exact figure. I was looking for it at my house before coming over here but there we~e no condominiums built in Chanhassen last year. I don't think there were any townhouses. There were some duplexes. A few duplexes and one apartment complex. Thus far this year, we can theorize all we wish about what the reason for this is but the facts speak for themselves. People aren't building them. In fact I don't know if you have occasion to drive up TH 101 in Minnetonka towards 7 Hi but you'll see a sign on the Cherry Hill site in Minnetonka. 45 townhouse lots for sale from Centurion. Centurion was a developer of Che~ry Hill. Apparently they've come to the conclusion that they've got a problem on the site. So what we have done is we have progressively worked toward down zoning of the site. It wasn't by design. It was by response. In seeking the best use that we can think of for the mountain top, we have to go where our experience and the market tells us we should be going and the single family use we feel is the proper use. We feel that the neighbors who we've spoken with already would approve it and prefer it for a number of reasons. We think that the single family development of the mountain top can be done in a sensitive fashion. I've got graphics here that are again on clear film and it's kind of hard for you to see these. You never know if clear films are going to show up but the area that is disturbed with the single family use of the mountain top and the area which is disturbed with a condominium type use of the mountain top, it is not that vastly different. What happens is, the condominium use is centralized on the top. It pretty much occupies the entire top. WhaJ it does do which the single family application can't quite claim to is i~ p~eserves a wider belt on the north side and the east side than the single family use would but the single family use would still permit the preservation...on the north and east sides. To characterize the mountian top site, I think let me kind of run my finger over it to give you an idea where the tree line is right now. Do you have a pointer or anything like that? Sietsema: He~e it is. Mike Pflaum: I'm just going to start tracing. This side of this line right here is second or third rows of reforestation. Mostly smaller trees. The heavier growth is to my right and following the tree line going like th s. This is heavily wooded in here. This area is all woods. Most of this area up here is heavily wooded. This is heavily wooded here. This is semi-open in this area down here. When I put another clean film on here, I'll put one of the condominium area giving an indication of probably how it will be developed in that use for 114 units as such...approved. What we are showing he~e, and I'll describe the board since you can't see it, is the streets rise rapidly here. We cut in a retaining wall to minimize the amount of disruption to trees and topography. There's some grading outside of the right-of-way here because as I say, it's predominantly new growth and it is not getting in to a real heavily forested mature trees. Again there's retaining walls in here. This is matching grade down slope on this slope. Retaining walls through here. Retaining walls through here. Retaining walls through here. The area of concern obviously is the area where the houses are developed. How much construction are you going to d~ in those areas? I don't know if you folks have visited the project in ",...... ",..... ,-..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 5 Shorewood, the Sweetwater development or the later stages of Trapper's Pass in Chanhassen but we've been...for some time...trees for a long time... preservation policy and we know how to do it. That doesn't mean that you can save all the trees but if you're sensitive to it, recognize the value of the trees to the people who want to live there. The areas here, these are tremendously large lots...straight and narrow all the way back down the slope. Very steep slopes here as well. The houses on 'these lots would not extend back any further than about here. The rest of the slope will remain as is. The same thing is true when you look over here. These are the... with mature trees on it. I'm going to take this down and show you what a reasonable condominium development of that same area would entail. The property a little bit different from what you might expect but it is not distorted. The area of disruption is the area within these hard dashed lines. It's the area within this perimeter. I see one thing that possibly is a little bit deceiving and that is, the same retaining walls that we're constructing in here could just as easily be constructed with this approach as with the single family approach so the area of disruption could be sucked in closer to the street but basically what we're showing here are two structures and each one them will have 57 housing units. It would be 3 stories high and we've got a fire lane around the building would be required and we're showing 50% underground parking that you can't see is the 50% out of doors parking that you can see which is also reasonable. I think that it would probably actually be a little bit more parking than that given the higher concentration of building. These buildings would have a footprint, each building would have a footprint of about 30,000 square feet. As I say, they would be 3 stories high, about 40 feet high but it's true that once the disruption has been dealt with, there shouldn't be any more destruction out there but we're not really here to argue condominiums versus single family. I think what I'd like to point out is that there's going to be considerable destruction in either case and the amount of destruction there would be with the single family approach is not that much greater than it would be with the condominium approach because I think one of the points that ,Lori made is that the condominium approach would be gentler on the environment. While perhaps that may be true, the degree of the truth is perhaps not as great. One of the other considerations that we have and particularly in talking with the neighbors because we had the misfortune of talking to many of the same people in 1989 as we talked in 1979. In 1979 they didn't want condominiums and we convinced them that condominiums were a good idea. Now in 1989 we're back talking to them again trying to convince them why they really shouldn't want condominiums, they ought to want single family homes. To do that one of the things we did was to create a profile through the site that would give a sense of how the single family homes would layout on the site and how the condominium buildings would mass up on the site because we think it's important that people realize that you're putting pretty good size buildings on top of a mountain. If I can find that I will. This section through the site is roughly from the southeast to the northwest running across the mountain and diagonally across towards the end of Silver Lake. This is pretty much the slice that we've got that we're showing up there. To say the same thing that's on this board, the board shows it a little bit. All that we're showing again here is that because single family homes are built on the mountain does not necessarily mean you're going to lose all the trees here. What happens is the single family home is built lower Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 6 on the slope than the condominium buildings. It means that the single -' family home is probably closer to the people across the way but the same kind of housing as there is across the way so the people across the way certainly shouldn't be disturbed by that. The condominium is set back a little bit farther. It's pretty close to the crest of the hill. It does preserve some trees but there should still be a belt of trees all the way around with single family homes. The other thing I guess that I would point out is something that I think is probably self evident and that is, we're talking about substitution of 45 living units for 114 living units. About 3/8ths as many homes as would be the condominium use. The recreational needs should be reduced somewhat immeasurably and at no time was it contemplated that the mountain would be a general access imagined for the entire planned use development. In the 1979 public hearing and Council meetings it was very clearly represented that the mountain was to be, in conjunction with condominium use, was to be private open space... and lot size would average out to 3/4ths of an acres. We feel that the recreational needs for the most part of the single family home on the mountain would be adequately met with their own individual lots. Mady: What I'd like to do now is open it up for commission discussion and questions. Let's start with Larry. Schroers: One of the questions that I have I guess is, what is the type of trees in this area? The mature trees. Are they predominantly oak? Mike Pflaum: I think they're maple. -' Schroers: Do you have any figures as far as how many trees you have to take out? Mike Pflaum: We haven't and that would be fairly a monumental sort of analysis to do. I'm thinking along the lines in comparison with one approach versus the other approach? Schroers: Yes. Mike Pflaum: No, we don't have that information. Schroers: I'm just thinking that the single family homes fit into the skyline and it'd be nicer but each one of them is going to require driveways and accesses and I've got to believe we're going to lose a lot more trees that way. Mike Pflaum: I won't deny that there are trees in the front particularly of the homes that will be lost. I'm thinking more along the line of the trees behind the homes. To be perfectly honest, a home is constructed it is possible with great effort to say specimen trees in the front yard but you can't realistically say all the trees and what frequently happens is you try to do it and 3 or 4 years later the tree dies because of construction traffic and things like that so the best thing you can do is selectively pick the trees in the front yard that are most likely to survive. The specimen of trees and do something like the snow fencing -' around it to keep the construction traffic over the roots. That's probably Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 7 ,-.., the biggest killer is just the traffic over the roots and fill around the trunk but no, you can't save them all. Schroers: Well I do understand your position and then you have to d~al with the current marketing trends. That's only good business for you. Our situation here is to consider the park and open space issues. Our past rule is to try to preserve as much park and open space and save the mature hardwood trees as we can. Hasek: I have a question relating to that if I can interrupt. Does the City have a tree policy right now? Tree preservation policy? Sietsema: I don't think there's anything on the books although they're working on something. Mady: They're not in a moratorium right now in existence. Mike Pflaum: There is something. I don't know exactly what it is. All I know is what is being required of us. Hasek: I guess that's the question I'm asking. Is there something? Sietsema: There's something but I don't know what that is. ,..... Hasek: Maybe it's a good idea if we're going to talk about preserving trees, that we understand what it is that we're supposed to be doing. Sietsema: That's generally done at the planning level. Hasek: Then maybe we shouldn't be talking about trees here at all. Mady: We can mention them I guess. Our recommendation shouldn't be based upon trees. Hasek: I agree. We talked about trees in the past and if there isn't a policy in place, I think this is one body that's really probably more in turn with what's going on with the trees out there than any other and it should be part of our job to suggest pOlicy that we'd like to see implemented regarding trees. I think if we're going to talk about the preservation of trees, I think we ought to understand what it is that the City has a policy before we go ahead and just start rambling on about it. It's not our job. It's not our comission to do that. Maybe that's where we should start by just saying this is an opportunity here and we'd like to see a policy put in place that addresses the preservation of the nature of the woodlands for recreational use or however you want. Boyt: Do you know who's working on that right now? Sietsema: Jo Ann. ~ Boyt: Maybe this should be tabled? Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 8 Sietsema: They're addressing it at the Planning Commission next Wednesd~ Their packet is going out this week so next Wednesday. Boyt: Is there going to be...recommendation to Council on this? Sietsema: No. This site plan is going to Planning Commission next Wednesday. ~ Boyt: Is Jo Ann working on a tree pOlicy? Sietsema: I understand that something is being done. I'm not up to date as far as what it is. What the schedule is. Hasek: Is it just a matter of staff recommendation to Councilor was she given direction? Sietsema: It's directive from Council to come up with something. Boyt: There's a moratorium right now. Hasek: On? Boyt: On a project that we've been looking at because of the mature trees there. Hasek: Which one is that? ~. Boyt: That's... I don't know where they are on that but I think that's information we need. Hasek: Absolutely. The reason I ask the question is because I just got done spending about 6 months putting together a wetland preservation ordinance for the City of Burnsville. It's on the books out there right now and I don't know if you're familiar with that but it was kind of a compromise between what Eden prairie had which was really, really restrictive. Between that and what a lot of other communities have which is virtually nothing. The object of that particular ordinance was to not only preserve the trees but all of the habitat that goes along with it. In the process of doing that, we went through developments based upon their impact on the environment. Residential for example. I think low density residential, we decided that if we were going to as a city zone a piece of land for that particular use, then we had to understand that in the process of letting that happen, a certain number of trees were going to have to be lost We set a limit within the contractor when he came in would have to agre~ to and he wasn't required like in Eden prairie to go out and survei the trees over 6 inches or whatever but there was a boundary that was se up and everything beyond that boundary had to be preserved no matter Wh~t. For each caliper inch of tree that w~s lost beyond that, there was a se fee and everything that has to be paid. Boyt: Right now we have some sort of replacement policy. """" Hasek: The replacement policy is ridiculous. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 9 ,....... Boyt: ...1 think that's what we have right now. Hasek: If you just think about it. If you take out a 50 inch oak tree and you replace it with 50 inches of 3 inch which a lot of cities have as their minimum, trees and try and jam those same trees into the area where that first tree was, it's ludicrous to do that. That's what a lot of policies try and do so it doesn't make any sense. If you really want to preserve the woodlands and the trees, then that should be the object of the ordinance or policy or whatever you have in place and then you have to write, maybe at that point, if those are destroyed, the trees go someplace else. But on the graphic that you've got there, you show trees in front of the front yard on the one but you've also shown a regrading of the property and that's, basically you're right. When you regrade you can't expect to save those trees. It just won't happen so the logical thing to do when you go into it is to assume they're gone and make every effort to save the rest of them but we're getting off on trees here. Robinson: Yes. I don't think that trees are a park and rec issue. ".-.. Hasek: I think they should be part of our job and that's one thing I've noted down here. I'd like to see topography and vegetation on the development...so we can really see what's going on. It's open space and if it's open space related and if...might be part of the policy, then I'd like to see those items on the graphics that we get because typically we just get something that's got a bunch of lines on it and it really doesn't tell us a lot about the site or anything. Boyt: If we're going to make two recommendations tonight, one in case it goes through as condominiums and one if it goes through with the single family, maybe we c~uld head in that direction. What those recommendations would be. Mady: There's a lot of area to cover besides trees on this site. Boyt: Is North Lotus Lake considered adequate for all of this area? Because first off again, I'd ask for some acreage for a neighborhood park in this development. Sietsema: I haven't calculated how many people are in the total subdivision and how many acres of parkland we have in that area. How many people are being served but it is an 18 acre park which is similar to what we have at Meadow Green and the density there is similar if not higher. Robinson: What happen 10 years ago with the condominiums? Was there park dedication fees? Sietsema: They would have been if they would have been built. We would have col17cted fees. We've collected fees throughout this development. They've glven no parkland. ,....., Mady: I'd be concerned with this site in that Fox Hollow is fairly built up. That's using the North Lotus Lake Park. All of Pleasant View has in Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 10 existence is using this park. Trapper's Pass. This whole development it using that one park. At 18 acres at 75 people per acre, we're handling ~ roughly 1,400 people. That's a lot of people but that's a big area. You have to go on the other side of the lake before you come to another park. The nearest one would be Carver Beach and then. you go across CR 17 to Curry Farms so we're covering a big area over here. Boyt: Well we know that each little neighborhood wants their own little space that's real accessible. Mady: A couple areas when I look at this site just on paper. Not only the topo really needs a lot but Near Mountain I was always told but I don't know if it is or not, is the highest point in Carver County I guess. It's a unique area anyway in that it is the high spot. I'd like to see somehow or another that preserved as open space and worked into the plan. The outlot goes down into Silver Lake. It's a steep hill. There's wetlands in there. This is a unique opportunity for open sp~ce either through conservation easement, outright deed or what have you. We could do there what we did with Chan Pond. Make this a nice wildlife area. I don't know if we need an active play type area here. I don't think that's necessary but I really do think the natural amenities that are presented in this site will be preserved with being heavily wooded and being such a high natural point that there's some opportunities here. I've got to believe that of all the residents had their choice of it being residential single family and condominium, they're not going to want a 3 story high building out in the middle of their neighborhood. Proper planning tells me you put high density close to areas that aren't quite as desirable for your ~ condominiums. This should be a highly desirable area. I can understand why they want single family now. It would make a whole lot of sense but I would like to see us still working with 3/4 acre lots roughly. There's a lot of space there that we could pick up, I would like to see us be able to pick up some parkland. Open space parkland. Not active space parkland. Hasek: Have you any suggestion where and how that might tie into something that's useable by the public? Mady: The third page of the handout shows, it looks like there are 3 trails that are bringing into the circular street. I believe they're there for pedestrian traffic. Sietsema: They are. Mady: I was thinking, they are leading people in and people out. Boyt: 3 1/2 acres adajcent to those. Mady: Where the word "lots" is is roughly the high point of the whole area. Boyt: That's where it's heavily wooded. Down where it says Near, that's more brush and it might be more conducive to a play area. -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 11 I"""'" Hasek: That's on the edge of the wetland. What are those slopes? Those slopes have to be 3:l? Mike pflaum: They're very steep. is. I can't tell you what the percentage Hasek: Let's measure it real quick. 23 to 50 feet. That's 40%. really, really steep. Erhart: A great sliding hill? That's Hasek: Yes, into somebody else's back yard. It seems to me if we're intent on taking land, we've only got one option. It doesn't make sense to take it in the top of this hill. That's the most developable part of this particular project. Yes, it's in the middle of the woods but they're going to be able to save more trees there with less grading than they are anyplace on the peripherim. How about lots in there, 8 and 9? Over off of Pleasant View Road. Lash: Those are already there? Hasek: Are they existing? Lash: They're not in the shaded area. ~ Hasek: What is the shaded area? Mady: We don't have numbers on this thing. Hasek: 8 and 9 are right here. There's a little knob there. It's steep down to the street but it's high. It's got some trees on it. It's fairly flat. From there I'm sure you've got a view across Lotus Lake and across Silver Lake. A perfect spot for a house but a nice spot for a park too. The question I have I guess is do we need parkland in this area? If we've got a park that's within the service area. Schroers: That park is already to the point where we're at our limit with numbers and use. It's basically an active area and what we'd like to see with this park is more of a passive natural area and park development will be a way of preserving some of the environment that's left. Hasek: How much land in this area Lori would you say is still up for development in the service area of North Lotus Park? Sietsema: Hardly anything. Hasek: This is the last piece by the graphic I put together last week. Sietsema: Yes, there's nothing significant aside from lots. ,....., Hasek: So we're at the limit for a reason. we've got what we need in the area. We're at the limit because Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 12 Sietsema: There may be some lot splits or some small pieces. --' Boyt: One of the things, Pleasant View Road would be an access road for people to get to the park and I have friends that live in Fox Chase and there's no way they would let their children on Pleasant View Road. It's windy. It's narrow. It makes that park less accessible to children. Hasek: Where do they live? Boyt: Fox Chase. Hasek: Which is? Boyt: Which is right up here. There nearest park is over here and they can't get to it. It's another small neighborhood, if we don't ask for this property now, there's nothing left. Schroers: The next question is, is there anything else in the area? Hasek: Can you tell us about how big 8 and 9 are if they include that long tail that goes up there? Mike Pflaum: I can give you the approximatley square footages of the two lots and you can figure it out. Lot 9 is approximately 104,000 square feet. Lot 8 is 40,000 square feet so that's 144,000 square feet approximately. --' Mady: Just over 3 acres. Hasek: 3 1/2 acres, yes. 3 1/2 acres with those two lots plus the trail easements. Schroers: What's the total acreage? Mike Pflaum: The total acreage of this portion that we're looking at amending, I think it's about 45 acres. 43. Hasek: Personally I think this area should be developed single family and not high density residential. It's a nice location if you look at the topography and you look at the amenities for high density residential but the location and the neighborhood just doesn't make any sense. That's not our job here but all that traffic is going to have to funnel back through those single family residential neighborhoods and I don't know. I think from the standpoint of the topography and the trees, it's going to layout a lot better as single family. If it's generally felt that we need parkland, I think Lots 8 and 9 are the most attractive chunks down there with the exception of the top of the hill and again, I submit that the top of the hill is probably be the easiest for the developer to develop and retain the most vegetation. Mady: It'd be the easiest thing for the developer but it's also probably the most unique piece of land. It represents something that we don't ~ really have. . Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 13 JI""" Hasek: That we don't have? You mean the top of that hill? Well that's exactly true but I mean when we started this whole thing we were talking about saving trees and now we're going to take the piece that's easiest to save the trees on. That doesn't make any sense at all to me. Mady: My concern is not of saving the trees. The City is in the process of working the ordinance up on that. Hasek: I guess what I was feeding off of was Larry's comment about open space. ,..... Mady: I believe the City's ordinance is going to have to be followed no matter whether you build it on the side of the hill or the top of the hill. I don't know what the ordinance is for sure...slight average versus a specific tree average or something of that nature. My concern is, there's some unique, very unique areas here that could be addressed. I agree with you. I don't think, there's no way I'd like to see this as condominiums up there. The one reason it did it as condominiums was because it preserved as much space as possible...continuous open space but I don't think that's what we're trying to do. I think what we're trying to do is provide good development and a recreational opportunity. Right now I don't see in the plan that was presented today, there was nothing really presented that would provide recreational opportunity for any of the people who existed now or people that would be coming in. What we're saying is we're going to throw all of them into North Lotus Lake Park and although we don't have numbers to support it at this point in time, I've got the feeling that North Lotus Lake Park is already being utilized to it's fullest extent. As soon as that park has grass in it, it's going to be full. Schroers: Lori, it was also stated that so far we have had no parkland whatsoever from this development. Sietsema: That's right. We've got fees from all the homes so far. We've collected the fees all along. ,..... Lash: I drove up and looked at this area and I would have to say, I would have to commend this developer on, I think that's a beautiful development. I went back in that area and from what I could see, it looks like they did a wonderful job of preserving the trees. A lot of the homes up there have very heavily wooded back yards so I wouldn't have a problem with single family homes going in there but I would too, I would like to see us try to preserve some spot. Not necessarily for an active park but to have an open space because everyone on this side of Pleasant View is going to have to cross Pleasant View to get to a park and I don't necessarily support that so I would like to see, if this went into single family, that we would try to get the maximum acreage that we could. Erha~t: Initially the PUD agreement was to protect existing open spaces or prov1de for that and I guess I would like to see some preservation of open spaces. ,I also w7nt and took a look at your development. It's beautiful and,I ~h1nk the slngle family dwellings would fit in with the development as 1t 1S but I would be in favor of preserving some open spaces. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 14 ....", Hasek: You don't want me to talk anymore. Boyt: You've talked. Curt hasn't talked a lot yet. Robinson: The more I look at it, the more I like Lots 8 and 9. They are close to Fox Chase which has no open space. It's the furthest point away from the city park already, North Lotus Lake Park. It's about 3 1/2 acres...42 acres and that should be some space for a park in this development. Mady: One other thing we didn't talk about was sidewalks/trailways. If it is going to be...Pleasant View Road current as it exists and probably will exist in the future, is the only place to put people outside of the protective custody of your steel cars. You'd have to be insane to allow your children to be on the street in anything other than a childseat, inside your car so I guess I'd like to see provisions made for a trailway that connects those. Obviously there's some connecting points with the other developments. It appears the City may be heading towards a sidewalk policy in the Planning Commission. I would like to see us move in that direction. I'd like to see us have an off-street sidewalk pOlicy for all new developments. Does anyone else wish to address this? Hasek: Yes, I think you're right Jim. I think the trails obviously need to get some way to get these people into this thing. --' Sietsema: A trail where? I'm not understanding what you're talking about. Hasek: That's the problem. Minnewashta Parkway as far to a friend's house and if drive. Pleasant View Road is no better than I'm concerned. I drive it once in a while over you have a little Audi, it's a nice road to Robinson: But if you've got the three outlots A, Band C? Hasek: Well my question to the developer was going to be, are those utility outlots in the previous subdivision? Over here onto Trapline Lane. It says on our other one that it's a utility easement. Mike Pflaum: No. That's a trail outlot. Outlot A is a trail outlot and the new Outlot A would also be a trail outlot. Sietsema: Our comprehensive trail plan called for a trail that wo ld go through this portion. It considers the streets adequ~te for ped7strian purposes and then have these outlots to connect the d1fferent ne1ghborhoods where the streets didn't go through. If you recall the last amendment that the...was not approved. Mike Pflaum: Outlot C is a different purpose. Outlot C down here is an emergency access that the engineer a lon~ time ago ~equested when we had condominiums up here as, this was and st111 really 1S, a cul-de-sac. , Before it was a more obvious cul-de-sac but in the event that there shoul~ be blockage here, a tornado or something like that tore the trees down here Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 15 ,... and there's an emergency...there'd be a break away gate up here... Hasek: Did you say there were sidewalks through the previous condition were not approved by Council? Sietsema: That's right. There were no sidewalks whatsoever in the rest of this PUD. Hasek: How long has this been developing? How many years? Sietsema: Since 1979 was the PUD approval. Was it '79? Hasek: And there are easements in place is that right? Sietsema: No, there are not. Schroers: Lori, has any of the discussion here changed staff's feeling about their recommendation? Sietsema: Staff doesn't feel real strongly one way or the other to tell you the truth. It is purely to preserve as much as you can sense. The condominium proposal did that. If we go with the single family, I definitely would support acquiring some open space for this area. ,..... Mady: Unless somebody else has some other ideas, I'll give a motion a shot here and then we can see if anybody else can add to it. Boyt: If you ask for park, would you ask for a percentage or would you ask for the lots? Mady: Being this is a PUD, first off that means the developer gives more. Is expected to provide more than the normal subdivision process to the City. Because of that, I would ask the developer to provide the City first off, Lots 8 and 9 as parkland. Passive parkland. Hasek: I would qualify that just as a comment. Passive. I'd just leave it as park. Mady: I'd like to see us preserve as much area as possible. I'd like to see us do what we did in the Chan Pond Park with a conservation easement along the slopes and also along Silver Lake. I'd also like to see an off- street constructed trail along the mountain top and adjoining to the outlots to the other developments. Sietsema: Say that again? The last part. You wanted a conservation easement along the north side and along the slope on the north side and what else? Mady: The present outlot, I guess it's the north side. It's towards Silver Lake. I feel comfortable but I don't know exactly where that is but ,.... we need, like we did at Chan Pond Park. We determined what the topo, what line. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 16 Sietsema: comment. Right but what was the last thing in your motion. I got the easement. The last """'" Boyt: The trail? Sietsema: Yes, what was that? Mady: Construction of an off-street sidewalk on the street. Adjoining all three outlots. Be they trail outlets or emergency exits. Hasek: Did you want a trail along those or a sidewalk? Mady: The same difference for us. Sietsema: You want a sidewalk along this whole looped street? Am I understanding that right Jim? I didn't get it. Is that a yes? Okay. Mady: That's what I got for a motion. Boyt: I'll second it. Hasek: You've got 2 trails going down 40% slopes here. We're talking about accessbility. 10% is the greatest we can go for a short distance. For anybody that's in a wheelchair, are we talking accessibility here or aren't we? 40% is... ...." Boyt: Do you have any suggestions? Hasek: I think maybe what we should do is take an outlot on a trail as opposed to suggesting that a trail goes down to the outlot. Take an outlot down a trail. You have a lot of trail for us and put the outlot, put the outlot over the trail as opposed to us trying to ask him to put a trail in the outlot. It will take a little bit more in cost perhaps of the sewer going through this one that he's got here. It's a storm sewer but... Sietsema: Are you talking like a switchback trail or something? Hasek: Switchback or something. Yes. If you're... Robinson: Jim, I've got to understand your motion. a sidewalk around this? Is that really practical? homes there. Did it say you wanted There's not that many Mady: There's a lot of homes. There's 45 of them. Lash: Basically the only people driving in there will be the people who live there. It's not a through street. Boyt: But you know, that's what they say in every neighborhood that goes in. In reality, that's not what happens. Mady: Where are the kids supposed to ride their bikes? Rollerskate? In-' the street? Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 17 I""" Robinson: Yes. Lash: Yes. If you know your kids are there and you know your neighbor kids are there, are you going to go through at 60 mph. Even if there weren't kids there,. are you going to drive through there at 60 mph? Hasek: I've been on this soapbox once before. I lived in a neighborhood that's got 3 cul-de-sacs and it goes nowhere and we get people from outside the neighborhood and people from inside the neighborhood because we do have several rental units in the neighborhood, driving way too fast down those streets and we do not have any sidewalks. I haven't got a single neighbor that wouldn't like to have a sidewalk in those cul-de-sac streets. Not one. I don't think that the opinion that sidewalks aren't necessary is the public opinion out there at all. Lash: I don't know. When the trail referendum was defeated twice, to me that says it's not the popular decision. Hasek: No. Mady: We're looking at the referendum. That's off the subject here. That wasn't part of it. ~ Erhart: I was just going to say, we've also been through this before. Can we just take a vote? Schroers: One other thing that I wanted to mention about your motion was that Lots 8 and 9 amount to the maximum... Boyt: No. Less than. If it's 45 acres. Mady: We could get 4 1/2. Boyt: It's less than the maximum. Schroers: Well I would like to ask for the maximum. Hasek: Would you like to ask for the maximum adjacent to Lot 8 and 9 and have them perhaps reconfigure Lots 1 and 7 or something to accommodate that? Boyt: Ask for 10%. Hasek: I would agree with that. Mady: Even to the point of letting the developer work with staff to find a suitable location. ,..... Hasek: Sure. I guess I'd like to call for a question. Mady: That means I have to amend my motion which I will . your second? do If you amend Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 18 ...."" Boyt: Yes. Sietsema: You moved to recommend that we require Lots 8 and 9 for parkland. Require conservation easement along the north side to a certain topo line along the outlot and construction of off-street sidewalk along the looped street. Mady: Do we need to name that topo? Robinson: It's about 919-912. Hasek: Are you just picking one out? Robinson: Well it's 999 right here at the lake so 919. Mady: I'd like to see it above that. If it's a steep grade. Hasek: 999 is the total of the slope. Mady: I guess what I'm trying to do with the conservation easement is keep all development out of it. Landscape timbers, any of that kind of stuff. Hasek: It's not going to be down in there. It's impractical to assume that they're going to build that far down into that thing. Boyt: You know what? They've done it in our conservation easement in Chan Pond Park. They've built retaining walls. . ....."" Hasek: In the easement? Boyt: Yes. There's no one to watch it and no one cared. Robinson: 921? Hasek: I would be in favor of that. Mady: It's difficult without talking to... Hasek: Yes. 919's the bottom of the slope. It's probably also the actual tree. . . MadYe Consetvation easement means they can't do anything on the bottom part of this. Hasek: I'd like to go above 939. Mady: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Sietsema: Did you change your motion? ......", Mady: We did. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 25, 1989 - Page 19 " Sietsema: I didn't hear the amendment. I only read it. Mady: It was Larry's comment as to... Schroers: 10% in the area of Lots 8 and 9. Mady: Leaving it up to staff to work with the developer to find the appropriate area and then the switchback, his comment on trails. Mike Pflaum: What is the maximum slope that is functioning adequately for a trail? Hasek: The City's got a standard. Don't they? I thought there was one. I thought we were working with one out by the golf course down there. Sietsema: I don't know of a standard but engineering might have something. Hasek: They should have something in there. I don't know that you necessarily have to go down to a handicap accessible standard but it should be something that's closer to that than 40%. Mike Pflaum: Excuse me, it's not 40%. I've checked with the grade of those two areas and it's about 20%. " Schroers: I'm not even sure we need to be all that concerned with the handicap accessibility. We're just trying to more or less preserve this as an open space and passive use and to that end, I don't think we're required to offer handicap accessibility. Sietsema: These are trail alignments within your overall trail plan though and our trail plan should be handicap accessible whenever possible. As much as possible. So did you make any changes on trails? The sidewalks? The trails? Boyt: It's still this outlots. Mady: The outlots should be conducive to the trails I think is how it gets changed. Okay, any further discussion? Erhart: So we're not asking for trails throughout the whole thing? Boyt: Yes we are. Mady: Yes. A sidewalk system. Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to require 10% parkland in the area of Lots 8 and 9 for parkland, require a conservation easement along the north side, out10ts should be conducive to trails and construction of off-street sidewalk along the looped street. All voted in favor except Lash, Erhart and Robinson who voted in opposition and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. "..... Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 20 ..""" Hasek: I'd like to give the three nay's an opportunity to express their concerns about what the motion was, just for the record. Robinson: I liked it all except for the trail around the center streets. I see nothing wrong with using the street. Walk the street as sidewalk in that area. Erhart: I go along with that. I have no problems with it being...trail around what we have. That was to a sidewalk or an off-street trail. Lash: That was my exact feelings too. I would get the fees in a place where it is more necessary. PUD SITE PLAN REVIEW, MARKET SQUARE. Sietsema: This site lies just across Market Blvd. from the Bowling Center. It's a commercial development. It's within the service area of City Center Park. Sidewalks are currently in place along Market Blvd.. The recommendation of this office is to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction and to recommend approval. Boyt: Has this plan been accepted by the Planning Commission? Sietsema: It's not been to the Planning Commission. We always get it first. ..."" Mady: A sidewalk on Market Blvd.. That's on the east side? Sietsema: It's on both sides and it is in place. Schroers: We're only talking about 1.2 acres? Sietsema: 1.2 acres, right. Mady: There is a walk along West 78th Street on the south side? Sietsema: No there isn't. There isn't through the whole downtown. There's not a sidewalk on the south side. Mady: They will be connecting with the Bloomberg development or whatever we call this Dinner Theater complex now, there is an extensive...that will get you from basically either through covered or through sidewalk from the railroad tracks all the way through to Market Blvd a~d there it ends so I really think... Sietsema: It wouldn't be unreasonable to require a sidewalk along the south side from Market Blvd. out to Powers Blvd.. I think that would be a reasonable. Mady: It's a busy street. I think we've been remiss in the past on ~ requiring pieces. People use both sides of that road and when you get to developments through here, retail developments through here, there's going Pa~k and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 21 '" to be even more use of the sidewalk. Schroers: I'd be ready to move on this. Mady: Any other discussion? Hasek: What was the recommendation? Sietsema: Are you making a recommendation to accept park fees and require trail along the south side of West 78th? Schroers: Yes that was going to be my ~ecommendation. Boyt: Second. Sietsema: The motion on the table then is to recommend that the City accept pa~k dedication fees in lieu of parkland and require an off street sidewalk along the south side of West 78th Street. That would be a 6 foot wide sidewalk on the south side in lieu of trail dedication fees. Schroers: That would extend to Powers Blvd. right? ~ Sietsema: Just the length of this development. have to pick up the rest. The next development would Lash: Would all of ou~ trails be... Sietsema: I will figure it out and if it isn't, I will make the staff recommendation that something be adjusted. I didn't calculate what the cost of that would be. It's usually $7.00 a foot. $7.00-$10.00 a foot and I'm not sure what the length of that is. The trail 'dedication fee is $400.00 an acre so it's about $600.00. $500.00. It would probably be totally waived. Mady: Is this part of the HRA area? Sietsema: Yes. I believe it's in the tax increment district. Mady: If we have p~oblems getting it done through the developer, would it be our recommendation for the HRA to review potentially putting those in wi th HRA funds. Boyt: The developer put in... Mady: If the trail fee doesn't cover it or we can't get it done. Boyt: We don't pay for it. The developer just puts it in when the development goes in. ~, Sietsema: And we waive their fee. Mady: It might be too much. I want to make sure it gets in one way or the other. If we have to do it with HRA doing it with tax increment... Any Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 22 '-' other comments? Lori, do you want to review the motion? Sietsema: Larry has recommended to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and require 6 foot wide sidewalk to be constructed along the south side of West 78th Street in lieu of trail dedication fees. Sue seconded. Schroers moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and require a 6 foot wide sidewalk to be constructed along the south side of West 78th Street in lieu of trail dedication fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried. WORK SESSION ON LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES. Sietsema: Basically this item has been placed on the agenda for discussion purposes. I can go through just what's in the memorandum and then I would suggest putting some kind of a time limit on the amount of time you spend in discussion this so we don't get off on tangents. As a result of our joint meeting with the City Council, I think they were open to the idea of pursuing or find ways to pursue and preserve open space for future community parks as they become needed in the long term future. Some of the ways that we can do that is through identifying the property now. Going through referendum or putting it on the land use plan and when it comes, for development, to purchase it at that time. Things that we need to -' discuss in particular, specific areas that may service future parkland. Funding methods and timing of the future acquisitions. I'm sure that it's not anyone's intention to run out right now and buy 18~ acres of community parkland now so we'll have it when we reach a population of 36,~~~ people because that may not happen within the next 3~ years or our lifetime for that matter but we want to have ways to give the people who are going to be in your positions 3~ years from now, the tools to be able to get it when it becomes a need. So I don't know if you want to go section by section of the City. We know through Mark's study that the west side of Chanhassen is void of community parkland. That the southern part of Chanhassen, even though we're getting the 35 acres with Bandimere but additional community parkland to meet the natural open space needs is going to be needed of about acreage, 3~-5~ acres. And that there may potentially be the need for additional community parkland in the center part of the City. Whether that be attached to Lake Ann on one side or the other or maybe it be a separate piece all together that might be along Galpin Blvd.. There's some open spaces in there that are beautiful. I don't know if they're conducive. I haven't looked at them or walked on them but they're beautiful pieces from the street and I'm not sure if they'd meet active needs but there sure pretty to look at and would be nice. So I think if we,mayb7 would want to form some subcommittees that would want to go out and ldentify parkland and potential parkland. We also need to talk again about the different funding methods. The referendum. About budgeting it out of the general fund. Through land dedication process and through the grant proce~s. Thos7 art the ones that are most often thought of. Larry's come up with some idea~ about acquisition through foundations. Getting some money through foundations and different programs that should be checked into as well to Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 23 .,..., see if city's can qualify for those. Then to look at the timing and put that in the Comprehensive Plan when that comes around. To either amend it or put it in the next time that we amend or update that so when we plan on making some purchase, when the population hits x number or when the MUSA line moves or at what time do we want to gear up for that so we're prepared and developers and the City and everybody is prepared to be looking at those acquisitions at those certain times. Where do you want to start? Erhart: You used up all our time. Schroers: Can I make a suggestion that each person gets like 2 minutes and maybe...the official time keeper. Mady: Fine. ,..... Schroers: Some of the things that we had talked about at the joint council meeting, that we felt were valid was we would like to see implemented is number one, have the developers install the neighborhood parks right along with the development so that it's done at the time of the development and that we don't have to come back later and try to dig up funds for getting it developed. So I think that we need to make a motion to Council in that regard to require the developers to install neighborhood parks at the time of the development. The development of the development. The second one, for the City to establish a general fund for maintenance of the parks. That would free up some more of our money. Sietsema: A general fund for maintenance? Schroers: Yes. Sietsema: We have that. That's what Dale works out of. Schroers: That was fast. That was good. Also we wanted to establish a fund for acquisition and we wanted to research the possibilities of State, Federal and institutional type funding and then earmark key areas that we would like to see for parkland in the future. The research on the State, Federal and institutional funding is ongoing at the moment. Hoffman: And Jan you're on. Lash: I wasn't nearly as prepared as Larry. I didn't know we were going to be on the spot here but I lean towards the idea of the developers having to contribute much more than they are now in the neighborhood parks since they're using it as a selling tool and charging people more money for their homes and their lots and not provide us with anything but the property and I'd like to push for the developers to do more and I also think that would tend to weed out some developers and we may end up with the cream of the crop as far as developers coming to town. The ones who are willing to go ,..... the extra mile to make sure that their development is nice and the parks are nice. I also would like to see a fee put on with the building permits that would be then for a community park to help us start a fund because I feel that the new people coming to town will be the ones creating the need Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 24 ...", for the new community park and all the rest of us shouldn't necessarily have to pay for it. I don't necessarily support the idea of a referendum. Taking any of this to referendum for a long period of time because I think there's going to be a lot of referendums coming up in the near future and I can't see that they're all going to pass. I don't really have any strong feelings on the timing of future acquisitions and I guess that's something that we need, I think Lori pretty well covered it for me as much as looking at earmarking some things that we think would be our first choices and seeing as how we...at the time we might need them and if that would be the procedure that you explained, I guess that would be the method that I would go for. Mady: Some of the my comments and thoughts on this. I believe right now we have a fairly good handle on what our community park needs are going into the future of Chanhassen. There are some good numbers we come to... We also have a fairly good idea of general locations for where they should be situation. I think there's a couple things we do need though and someone's going to have to come to the Planning Commission before we can start assigning land we need to know what land use is. What zonings are so we can be prepared to site parks where people are going to be. We're also going to need to know what the traffic patterns are going to be established. Where the City's going to be looking to put roads and what type of roadways. Those will have a direct impact. When we get into the funding methods, I think our number one concern for this body is going to have to be are 1 acre/75. What we need to do then is start utilizing. potentially develop an ordinance for utilization to get something done. ...",. That means we're not funding. We're not attempting to fund community parkland with our new people coming in. They're not paying anything. The people already paid for something who already exist in the City are paying for these new people coming in and that's not rjght. I don't care. If you look at it, a lot of what can be done. I think the subcommittee idea may be the best way or... Erhart: I'd go along with the developer buying the parks in the neighborhood. Under funding, the only new thing that I can bring up, I haven't heard anybody address but I would like to see the City petition the Met Council to open up some more space and to bring in some more commercial businesses. They provide a nice tax base for us and that's one way that we could generate some tax dollars to go in and purchase land or develop it. As far as the timing, I have no ideas on that. If we grow and there's a need, then we'll have to see us provide that but I don't know how to address that because I don't know where our population is going. That's it. Hasek: The whole impetus for new parkland should lie within the Comprehensive Plan. That's what we're supposed to be using to make our decisions to guide our direction on this as is the Planning Commission and City Council. The first item is to get that changed and that change has got to be based upon some future plan for development like...so we need to understand what the City's future plans are for those areas that are undeveloped. I think generally we know that there's a lot of residentia~ going to be occurring in the outland areas and if there's any commercial or industrial land that's going to be developed, it's going to be adjacent to Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 25 ,....., the major roadway system that we have in place right now and it isn't going to go into the middle of major undeveloped areas. I would like to see us put together some sort of a task force or a group to work closely with staff and our consul tants to identify areas once we understand once -is going on with the future land use plan. To identify areas for future and major parklands for the City. I think that we've got some excellent staff in place. I think we've got some excellent consultants on board and I think pulling together some topography and aerial photographs and perhaps some members from the community know what's out there and in certain areas where we haven't marked or haven't been and I think we can probably do that job very well. Robinson: I have nothing new to add that hasn't been said already. Boyt: One thing we've discussed before that I'd like to see us start doing is collect fees up front when development is approved rather than piecemeal as the house are built. I guess we need to make a recommendation to Counicl that that happen. I'd like us to use the excess money from the referendum to look at the property north of the Bandimere property and work out a deal on that piece. I would volunteer to be on the committee or task force to look for land for future development and I want either the Council to give us numbers on how much they will give us each year for park purchase or put it in our budget and that will be completely separate from park development and it will be comparable to the amount we spend on park development. 11"" sietsema: For park acquisition? Boyt: For park acquisition. We either need numbers from the Councilor we need to make up those numbers and put them in our budget. Mady: ...ask for the... Sietsema: What do you want me to do? Boyt: Set up a meeting time. Sietsema: Who wants to be on the task force? The subcommittee. Ed, Dawne, Jan and Sue. Mady: Is it something we need to have Council approve and maybe advertise. Sietsema: You want general public on there or do you want it to be just a work session of this group? Hasek: need. Let's get started with a work session of this group and see wh~t W@ ""' Sietsema: I think there's probably a 1 t f o 0 homework probably that needs to be done before we go out. Boyt: You know how those task forces work when you get everyone. Pa~k and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 26 Hasek: I don't mind it being a task force at all but I think there needs~' to be some clear direction for that task force and if we're going to do that, what I think is the job of this group to orchestrate how that happens. Sietsema: And this task force, what I think we need is a motion to appoint these people to a subcommittee to study blank. What do you want the subcommittee to do? Hasek: I'll make that motion. Study the identification of future parkland sites to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan for future acquisition. Sietsema: And to appoint Ed, Jan, Dawne and Sue to that subcommittee? Hasek: Sure. Boyt: Funding might be a separate issue because funding, that is so different than their zoning issues. Hasek: I think that might be a separate group. I think the important thing is to get it onto the Comprehensive Plan before things start changing and we lose the opportunity to identify potential areas so that's primary. Sietsema: The funding things I think that staff can work with, do some research and b~ing back what's out there and available to us and work wit-, this anonymous person. Mady: Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Hasek moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission create a subcommittee made up of Ed Hasek, Janet Lash, Dawne Erhart and Sue Boyt to study the identification of future parkland sites to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan for future acquisition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Boyt: Any other motions out of all our stuff? Schroers: Yes. I would like to make another motion. Since we are all unanimously in favor, I'd like to move that we recommend to Council to ~equi~e develope~s to install neighborhood parks along with their development and ask for park dedication fees ~p f~ont at t~e ~ime of . issuing, .park and trail fees, at the time of issuing of bUilding permits. Boyt: No. That's when they do it now. Mady: Approve the plan. Phase 1 of the development. Boyt: Yes. You might want to put in Phase 1 for the park development because they've been leaving park development to the last phase of the development. .....", Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 27 ,.... Schroers: Okay, phase 1. Hasek: Second. Lash: Do you need any specifics about that? Mady: No. That's part of the process. Schroers: Is everybody clear on that? Lori, will read it back. Sietsema: The motion is that you're recommending that the City require developers to install neighborhood parks at the time their development is developed and require park and trail fees at the time the development contract is executed. Boyt: It was amended to say the parks be put in during the first phase. Sietsema: Require developers to install parks at the first phase. Okay. And to require park and trail fees at the time the development contract is executed. Schroers moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission ~ recommend that the City require developers to install neighborhood parks at the first phase of development and require park and trail dedication fees be paid at the time the development contract is executed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: Boyt: Can you get us some information on the piece of property north of Bandimere? Sietsema: Yes. What do you want to know? Boyt: I want to know if we can work out a deal with the funding we have left to purchase it. Hasek: Purchase what? Boyt: The piece of property north of Bandimere. We've got funding left over from the referendum and we know we want that piece of property. ,..... Sietsema: Well, just be aware though that in the bUQget IeCOmmenaQtivn that you se~t.t~ Council, you've recommended that we use $100,000.00 for ~uture acqulsltlon o~ other places in the park. We took that $100,000.00 ut that .money went l~t~ ~he reserve fund for Carrico purchase or Lake Lucy access or future acqulsltlon. What we did is we have the whole reserve and ~henhwe subtracte~ ~100,000.00 because there was $100 000 00 worth of money In t ere for acqulsltion. ' . Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 28 Boyt: ...this can't be for that acquisition? Sietsema: All I'm saying is that you've already allocated $190,090.00 for other projects so if you go to put it towards property next to Bandimere, you have to take it out of the fund for either Carrico or Lake Lucy access or future acquisition funds. ...., Erhart: I thought we talked about that. I thought you said that we... Sietsema: Remember I said you either had to reduce the fund, the amount in your fund by $15,990.00 or $115,900.00 because the $190,900.90 was subtracted out of that and you only reduced it by the $15,900.00 so you've allocated that $199,900.90 for future acquisition in other areas in the southern part of Chanhassen. Hasek: In the southern part of Chanhassen? Sietsema: Other areas than the southern part of Chanhassen. Mady: We haven't actually spent it yet. It's just in reserve. Sietsema: Right. So if you want to do that, then it will be taking it, next year it would require a budget amendment to take it out of someplace else. We can do that. That's not a problem. I just wanted you, I wasn't sure after our joint meeting, I wasn't sure that you understood that you had allocated that money so I just want to make sure that you know that. -' Hasek: A related question to that. Other areas of Chanhassen that that money could be spent in. Did you have an opportunity to take a look at that 38.2 acres of land that's for sale? Sietsema: I didn't. You called me on Wednesday and then I was out on Thursday, Friday and Monday and I didn't get a chance to go out there. Hasek: Minnewashta. It's not 8 acres. It's 39 some acres over there with 180 feet of 1akeshore and a piece of property... Sietsema: Do you know how much they're asking? Hasek: No. The piece of property that abuts on Little St. Joe. Lash: Lakeshore property you say Ed? Hasek: 180 feet of lakeshore. It's not very deep but it's lakesho~e. sietsema: That's got to include that house with the round silo thing. Hasek: I think it does. I'm not positive but I think it does. h ld Right next to Leach's. Sietsema: So it's right next to t e 0 access. Adjacent to Leaches north of that. -' Hasek: Yes. In fact it abuts the south piece of property that abuts the Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 29 ,.... lake abuts the old street extension that used to be next to Leach's. Sietsema: Okay. I'll make sure I go out there and look at that tomorrow. Mady: We're in Commission presentations obviously. I have an item. Other than wanting to be updated on the Minnewashta land, Lori has the City done anything to contact the Army Corps of Engineer Reserve group to get the southern parkland on their grading schedule for 2 years from now? Sietsema: No. We don't have the property yet. Mady: We need to check with them so we don't end up 3 years down the road or 4 years down the road as to what time it needs to be. Sietsema: As soon as we go through closing, I plan to contact them. Closing is the 15th of August. I can send something out but it just is cleaner if we have ownership of the property so when they do their research on it, then you're not confused. Mady: A phone call might be wise at this point in time. Just to maybe protect ourselves and get them thinking that we're looking at it. Do we need a recommendation? Hasek: What's happened with the pipeline going through there? J!""'" Sietsema: They're having it surveyed with the property, the current owners have to have it surveyed and we're having the pipeline people out there to stake where the pipeline is so they can have that included on the survey and then we'll have a better idea if it's going to have an impact or not. We still haven't been able to get information from the pipeline people. They're not very, they don't communicate very well as to how much dirt we can put on there. They're telling us yes, you can develop parkland over it. That's not a problem but they may have some stipulations as far as you can't put more than 4 feet of earth on top of the pipeline. Hasek: Or remove. Sietsema: Or remove so much and if that's the case, we need to know that before we can see how that would implicate. From.a thumbnail sketch and everything that Mark's done so far, it doesn't look like it's going to be a problem unless those depth levels are really, really restrictive. Hasek: Are they giving you a depth height? Sietsema: They will, yes. They'll have to. Hasek: That's part of what they're doing? Sietsema: Yes. I"'*" . Hasek: Okay because we've had trouble in the past getting them to do that for us. They told us what it was 4 years ago but you've in a cornfield there that's been cultivated and every time you go across that ground, it Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 30 changes the topography. Sometimes it's not as deep as they think it is. -' The other concern that I had I think, and I expressed it to you, is William's Pipeline typically has almost all the rights that go with their easement and if something happens to that pipeline and they go out there and dig it up, a lot of times they'll dig it up and just leave it in that condition. They've done it out at the zoo already. That could really devastate a ballfield for years if they just decided one year that they had to dig it up or something and then left a mess there. Sietsema: I'll find out about that too. Hasek: Their easements are usually pretty restrictive. Mady: Any other commission presentations? Boyt: Yes. I'd like the chains taken off the gates at the tennis courts so a wheelchair can get in. Sietsema: I have a little note to that effect. Boyt: And I was approached by the family the other night that's... City Hall. Talked to someone about he's willing to start Little League in Chanhassen and was told that there weren't any fields so he shouldn't bother. Bruce Granowski. I told I'd work with him in getting it started for next year so if you can reserve space for 6 teams. Hoffman: Who did he talk to? ...."" Boyt: I don't know. Becky was telling me about it. Hoffman: I don't know who would tell him that. Sietsema: I don't ei ther . Boyt: And has the HRA turned over Heritage Square to us as a park? Sietsema: No. I don't know if they formally do that either. Boyt: Okay. There's the use of the buildings up there that I don't know who has control of that church. I've heard it's Todd Gerhardt and that place is a mess and if it's under our jurisdiction, maybe we could do something about it. Sietsema: I don't know if that one will come under our jurisdicti.on as it being part of the downtown but I can check on that. What's a mess? The area around there? Boyt: No, it's just the church. The church inside. I~'S a historic~l building and it needs some work on it. There's a quest10n as ~o who 1S responsible for it. The City is and appare~tl~ Todd Gerhar~t 1S but some people think Heritage Square is a park and 1f 1t'S a park, 1S th~t part c it and if it's a park, are we responsible for it? And the old C1ty Hall -' too. Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 31 ,..... Hasek: Quick question. The last time we were here and the time before last, we talked a little bit about...information. Were you going to get something on that? Sietsema: About what information? Hasek: Accessibility. Sietsema: Handicap accessibility? Hasek: Related to parkla~ds. I thought we had talked about. Boyt: We talked about we needed to discuss it. Sietsema: That's on the list for future discussion. Robinson: Lori, can something be done at the dock down at South Lotus Lake access? . Boyt: All it needs is a concrete block... It's really junky and it's been like that all summer.. Sietsema: The dock is under water? "",...... Robinson: Yes. Boyt: Yes. Schroers: ...they could remove those chains from the bike trail gates from Greenwood Shores and Lake Ann. Mady: Amen. Lash: There needs to be something there to keep cars... Schroers: I want to go to a ballgame in the dark some night... Lash: Somebody went down and put that yellow reflective tape on there. I don't know who did that. Schroers: The other thing is, it's wearing trails around it. Mady: Yes. It's not going to prevent anything because you're just going to go around it. If we're trying to prevent someone from going through then we should do it properly... ,..... Lash: But I saw a maintenance guy down there on a lawnmower and he went from there through on the trail over to Lake Ann Park so how would he then be able to do that because he had the gate open so he could drive through? Sietsema: I think what they're planning to do and they just maybe haven't gotten to it is if you've noticed, the way they have the barrier that goes Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 32 to the beach, they have the pole that slips, there's a sleeve in the -' pavement and then it locks and when they need to get through there, they unlock it and let the pole out and they can drive through and I think they're planning to do that same thing on that trail and they maybe just haven't gotten to it. Dale is getting caught up with his projects so I can give him this list. Mady: The next time the guy cuts the grass, if he could just knock it off the chain. Sietsema: The problem with that is, is that the way those were designed, someone pushed them and they just flop. They don't do anything and then we have motorized vehicles. Schroers: It just takes the top part of the gate to turn off there. Sietsema: Right but then you have the vehicles that go through there and that's the problem. Hoffman: A vehicle can still go through there. I just think they're just going to remove them and put the new one in when they get a chance. Sietsema: I'll put it on the list. Mady: We're talking about a couple hours work here for anybody...and wher they put in the rest of it it's fine. -' Lash: The other end is blocked off. That's basically where a vehicle or a car would come from is down at Lake Ann from the parking lot there and then you jump on the trail and come over. It's not going to come from the other direction. As long as it's blocked off at Lake Ann, I don't think it's a problem. Mady: One other commission presentation, I had a discussion with the new assistant city engineer. Hoffman: Dave Hemphill? Mady: Yes. I didn't catch his name but I talked to him about the sewer breaks along Laredo. If any of you have ridden your bikes along there, and you're not careful, they happen to be going the same direction as traffic and the opening is just wide enough for your tire, if you have narrow tire bikes, it will conveniently slip down in there. I...riding my bike and talking with my neighbor who was walking on the sidewalk and it just so happened that I was walking it along and it just kind of gently slid in there. I thought this is real handy so the City is investigating that and if anybody else notices that you're supposed to talk to Dave because they'll fix them. Hasek: Are they rectilinear ones? Mady: Yes. ...."., Pa~k and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 33 ~ Hasek: Yes, that's old. It's either old or it was really an oversight. That's something that hasn't happened since they started making the Minneapolis park system had a lawsuit I think involving one of those and that's when they really started to change them. A guy got killed. Mady: Anyway, that was brought to their attention. I also talked to Scott Harr concerning Chan Pond Park. There was a structure down in the woods in the Pond Park and from what I had looked at it, there was a sleeping bag in there and a fire circle and a few other things. It appeared it might have a transient. One of the public safety CSO's went down there and took it apart and he felt it was probably kids because he found some skateboard magazines when he tore it down and they're requesting the park maintenance pull it out of there. Boyt: Todd had information about that place too. Hoffman: Oh, concerning Chan Pond? Yes. I've been in contact or a Cub Scout leader has been in contact with me and we've made arrangements to plant 1,000 seedling trees in there towards the beginning of September. They're a potted tree. They cost 18 cents a piece and they'll be planted down in there in September. Schroers: What kind of trees? ~ Hoffman: Maple, birch, and blue and white spruce. Robinson: Where can you buy them? cents a piece? Can a private party buy them for 18 Hoffman: You bet. It's a private nursery and UPS'ed out here and delivered direct for $30.00 and 1,000 trees, we'll probably get more than 10% survival rate down the line for 2 years and should have some fairly nice trees sometime. Mady: As long as they're not planted in the conservation easement. Do we have a problem with that? Boyt: Where else would they put it? Sietsema: That's where they're going. Mady: Doesn't that conservation easement prevent any plantings? Sietsema: Not from the City. Mady: I just want to make sure. Hoffman: Lori questioned me on that and I said it's fairly ludicrous to say you can't plant a tree in a conservation easement in my opinion. ~ Mady: No but we were real specific when we talked about it. Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 34 Sietsema: But we also talked about the City doing a planting plan in -' there. Mady: That's right. Boyt: ...trees and bushes that would attract wildlife. Sietsema: What we didn't want, was hedges and fences. Boyt: And someone has a big wall... Mady: Those should be provided, information to our Public Safety Department so they can check on that. Boyt: And nothing will be done. The reality of it is, they've spent lots of money to put a wall in there... Mady: If they're in violation of the City Ordinance, can the Council not be sued then for not following our ordinance? Any other Commission presentations? Boyt: So moved. Lash: I have one. About a month ago at one of our meetings I mentioned this to Lori after our last meeting and I've done a little checking on this. I sort of got the feeling from John Speiss from Curry Farms that -' there's soon to be some uneasy feelings out in Curry Farms regarding the sidewalk that's supposed to be going in there. I did a little checking just to see when he mentioned that if it was just one person that was having a problem or what was the general feeling and what was going on. I went up there and talked with all the people on the street that this involves and I found out this is not just one person. It was everyone except one home and they did not wish to be identified. They said it's not going in my yard so I don't have a problem with it. If it was in my yard, I wouldn't want it but as long as it's across the street, I don't care. Otherwise everyone else, half of them were vehemently opposed. Two of them have already contacted lawyers and they're ready to start suits against Centex. I think they are just really upset about it. Really upset. So I said okay, do you have little kids? Yes. A lot of little kids and you don't feel like you have the need or the desire for this for your children? No and I said what would make you happy and they said, we'd like, we just don't want them. We just don't want them. They said that they had called and talked with you Lori several times and were told it was basically, there was just nothing that could be done about it. They had talked to the developer and he had said basically the sa~e. It'~ tying his hands. He couldn't get out of it. He had made the commitment With the City so. They suggested I talk with him which I did and ~ sai~ ther7's a lot of unhappy people here, what do yo~ t~ink are our op~lons,ln,trYing to make some people happy? He said I'm Willing to do anything within reason to get everybody happy. He said I don't care what goes i~. ~ made the agreement with the City. If the City wants to change their min~ or whatever they want, he said within reason ~'m willing,to work w~th -' everyone. Do whatever is possible. I said would thiS be a maJor hassle Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 35 ,..... if we changed this? I mean would it scrub all of your documents and deeds and all of this and he said no. I'd be more than happy to just give you the money if that's what you want or if you want me to do something else, I'd do that. If it's a comparable thing. So when I talked, a lot of the people I said what would you rather see happen with the money? Of course the majority of them said they would rather see the money go into their park. I said I could check on that but I really doubted that that could happen. It would be a separate fund seeing it was park and trail money and they seemed to understand that. I said what would you like to see done with it and they said, if you've got trail money, I'd rather see the trail money go someplace where people are going to use it. They seemed to feel that people were just not going to use that in that area. It's a quiet street. That basically just serves the people who live on that street so I told them I would bring it up tonight. They offered to come here and voice their sentiments and I told them I would just try and relay them myself and be...and that I would bring it back to them or someone to contact about it. I guess I'd like to open it to discussion to see how you people feel. ,..... Schroers: I have a point of interest or a comment in response. It's a little bit different situation when we have a brand new trail, sidewalk on Carver Beach Road and I took the opportunity to ride up and down it on my bicycle and ask the neighbors along it how they felt about the trail. There was one that wasn't happy about it because the construction people did not replace his plants and flowers exactly the way he had them. He's a gardener and he is fussy. Everyone else that had kids, loves it. It looks nice. They did a good job. They're using it like crazy and the most important thing is, the kids like it. When I'm just out working in my yard I'm hearing from across the street and from next door, mommy can we go on the sidewalk with our bike? Yes, it's just fine. Stay on the sidewalk. They think it's a real good thing. On the other hand, if you have all these neighbors over here and they're all unanimous in the fact that they don't want that trail there, I say fine. Let's take the money and put a new trail someplace else where someone does want it. If they want their kids to play in the street, I guess that's their business. Boyt: But that affects other people besides those people and their children. I live next to a development that does not have trails and the roads are not major roads but I have to dr i ve on it, once in a while. They're loaded ith kids. Apparently the parents don't care if the kids are playing in the road. 4 year olds. 3 year olds. 2 year olds. They're all over the place. I have to sit and honk my horn to get them to move. They look at me like, what's the problem. They don't care if their kids are playing in the road. I care if kids are playing in the road in different parts of Chanhassen. It's not safe. "....., Schroers: Well I do too. I agree with you on that. I just cannot ima~ine :ire~:~:~t ~a~;~~gt~~:ifs~!dS to plaY,in the street rather than on a know, I think if that artit even l~glCal as far as I'm concerned but you it that they're going ~o 90c~~~r n~lg~~OrhOod want~ to be sO,adamant about deal, I think we should take thege a ~rneys and,Just turn lt into a big somewhere else. money or that sldewalk and spend it Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 36 Hasek: There's a couple of options. One, we would keep the trail easeme~ in place for the next group of people who want it because they realize how bad and desparately it's needed. The other thing is that it's our job, it's our responsibility, it's part of the reason why we're on this commission, why the Planning Commission is there, why the City Council is there is to be watchdogs for the public health, safety and welfare. A lot of times the public does not understand that particular issue until something drastic happens. I think we'd really be remiss in not doing, we've got a trail plan in place and Jan, I tend to disagree with you. It wasn't the trail plan that failed at all. It was funding for the trail plan. We've always had a trail plan. It continues to be there and we're going to continue to put trails in. It was the funding that failed in the referendum. The trail plan is there and I think that it's our job to continue to do that. I think if we do have a neighborhood like you say Larry that absolutely, positively does not want a trail, that's fine but I will not give up that easement. Lash: I'm not saying that either and I don't think that that's what they want. Because they said, well the City owns that property. I said a City owns an easement on everybody's property. That's just a given so that's not a big deal and several of them said, well I have a problem maintaining it. We just sodded it. We've got flowers. We've got all this stuff out there. I don't have a problem maintaining it but they said if they put a sidewalk in that I don't want, I'm not going to maintain it. One said that she had called and talked to Lori and had been told that the City would maintain it and she's talking about shoveling. She's talking about shoveling. I said, I can't imagine that the City'S going to be going around shoveling everybody's sidewalk. ..""" Sietsema: I didn't say that we would maintain it as far as snow removal. Lash: Well that's what she was talking about for maintenance. She was talking about maintenance. She was talking about shoveling. Sietsema: She did talk about shoveling. I said at this point in time there's no ordinance on the books that requires you to remove the snow on a sidewalk that goes in front of your house. That's not saying that that will never happen but I did not tell her that we would remove the snow on her sidewalk. Schroers: The other thing. If it was a major connection in our trail plan, then I would say no way, we want it but I don't see that as being the case here either. 'f f the extension that goes from Lash"" I thl'nk most people were in avor 0 h th ht that made sense because the back of the park up to Teton. T ey oug there's nothing there for people to walk on but they jUsto~o~';o~~e~hat there's a need and they would rather see the money spent more traffic. k d look at it but I think Hasek: If that's the case, we can t~ e ~ s~~O~eton I think it has to there's more to it than just connlelc~~ni71t That wili happen through one connected all the way out to, we . has b-..l way Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 37 ,..... or another. If we got out to Lake Lucy Road, then it will connect to CR 17. I think the connection has to be made to CR 17. That isn't that particular neighborhood's park and their park alone. It belongs to an area and we have to provide for everybody to get to that park so maybe th~re's a compromise in here someplace and I'd certainly be willing to look at it but I'd like to see it specifically from the neighborhood somehow. You said you talke to everyone so we ought to be able to almost fill this place with people who don't want a trail. Lash: I have all their signatures of the people I talked to. I talked to all of the people on the street that that affected. I didn't go, initially I was going to go and talk to the people on the one side that it was going to be on and I thought to be fair I should really talk to the people on the other side because it's not in their yard and maybe not being in their yard they would like to have it across the street. Those people too thought it was...said I'm jus so glad it's not going in my yard but I think it is stupid to have it across the street too. Hasek: But there's lots of other people in that neighborhood that have to be contacted too. I mean yes it directly affects a certain number of them directly but indirectly it affects everyone. Lash: Right. The developer did say that. He said he thought what he would have to do would be to just double check but the consensus with most ~ the people is that no one knew it was there to start with. Sietsema: And that's not our fault. Hasek: That's where the lawsuit comes in is with lack of information and they're not suing us because... Lash: No. They're not talking about suing us although they did say that they think the developers, they don't know if they just forgot about it or what but I noticed that all the fire hydrants and the street lights and the utility posts and everything are right where the sidewalk is suppose to go... Sietsema: That's his problem. The bottom line is though what can we do about it. Even if this whole commission agreed that that sidewalk should be removed, it's in the development contract. It was a condition of approval for that development. It's in the development contract. A requirement of their development. The only way, and I'm not even sure that legally that that all can be changed but this commission couldn't say no, you don't need to do it. I would have to check with the Attorney. Hasek: My guess is that I could but see the developer's agreement becomes, is that a PUD? Sietsema: No. ,..... ~~S:k~hr~~_~~~~t~:s~:,w~~~~::~ ~~eah:~~p~~ ~:jor~~rs t~~~ tak7s ~ two~th~rds that can reverse a decision like that because.it is...butaIs~~~,~ ~~~~~lty Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 38 __IIii Sietsema: I'd have to check with the Attorney to see if the Council can overturn something, change something that was done, that's a legal contract now. I'm not sure what the implications of that are. I don't think that we can. We can't make that decision but I could check with the City Attorney and then it would take the residents there to petition the City Council to have that part of the contract amended or something. I can check with that. Mady: They have to go before the Council and a visitor presentation they can request it. Sietsema: If they make that request, it will corne back to us and we'll make a recommendation as to whether you think, if this group thinks that it should be approved or not. The amendment should be approved but I wouldn't even suggest them getting together unless it's something that legally can be changed and again, I'll have to check with the Attorney. Hasek: Lori, I don't think it's this body's direction to have you do that. I think it has to go through Council. I think they have to make their plea to Council and then Council will direct the Attorney to take a look at it and so forth and so on. We have nothing to say about it right now and the direction that they have to go is through Council's chambers. That's where it has to go. Schroers: To appease the...Jan just contacted some of the people that s1-, talked to and said that after we discussed it we decided that... Boyt: No, that it needs to go to Council. Mady: We can't do anything about it. Boyt: I'm concerned that maybe we're not, I don't think there's a consensus within this group as to what should happen. If those people feel strongly, they're already starting to do things. Just let the process continue. If they're contacting attorneys, the process has started. Robinson: I don't think that's right Sue. I mean Jan's spent a lot of time out there. They're saying hey we don't want it. It's been brought before us now. I think the majority would agree that we should, I'd just hate to rollover and say there's nothing we can do about it yet I don't know what steps have to be taken but I don't think we can just ignore it. I don't think we can just do it. Hasek. I don't think that we are ignoring it. I think what we've ~~ne, I think.Lori was r~ght. ,I think thd7 acti~n ha~liob~o~~ ~~~o~Y~u~~~n~~e;e for We've had some dlScusslon. Our lSCUSSlon w , h h Council to read and to review if they want to. They can do Wlt t e situation what they feel they morally and legally w~n; to do. What would you like this recommendation body to tell the Councll. Robinson: To pursue this with somebody. Lori or the legal beagles or something. -" Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 39 ,..... Boyt: No. I don't think we need to... Mady: We don't need to spend any money on this. Boyt: We already contracted with that developer to do A, Band C and he's doing it. The people who don't like it are the homeowners and they need to approach their developer and then the Council. We don't need to initiate changing the contract, they do. Mady: We can't change the contract. the contract, they need to change it. If the homeowners have a problem with Not us. Robinson: But we can save ourselves some money by not putting that trail in but nobody wants it. Mady: We're going to spend a lot of money because we've got to get the contract changed. I don't see it as a problem for us right now. If somebody wants to do something, they have to do it but we don't need to do something right here. Hasek: I think if anyone of you wants to do it on your own, that's your own perogative. ~ Boyt: But not as direction from the Park and Rec Commission. this is what the Commission said. Not saying Hasek: Because what that generally is doing is changing the policy statement and I certainly am not willing to begin to even consider doing that. Boyt: We've had, there are problems with, we have to make sure we're representing the Commission because if we say we're representing the Commission. It's fine to go out and say, how do you feel about this and this and Jan you probably want to call some of the people back and say these are the steps you need to take. Lash: They did ask me to do that. Although I do feel that it is this commission's responsibility to listen to people who have concerns and if it's something that was originated with the Park and Rec, which this was, then I would certainly think their first step would be to come where it was initiated to start with. ,..... Sietsma: Then I would just say then Jan is when you get back to them, tell them to formalize what they want. What they're talking about in a letter and send it to the City and then it enters into the process of the City. It will be channeled through. If it's a park and rec issue, it will come here. We'll review it and send it onto City Councilor if it's not, it will go straight to the City Councilor it will go to Planning or whatever but the initiation, before we can take it on this board and really make a recommendation on it anyway, we need something from them in writing. I rarely, I can't think of anything I've brought to you that's a request from a neighborhood that I don't have something from them in writing and that's Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 40 the appropriate steps but as far as when you ask me what my opInIon was a~ far as what could be done, it's a legal binding contract and I don't know that there's anything that can be done. If they write us a letter, I can contact the Attorney then and take it through the appropriate steps but I can't without something from them in writing. Erhart: The petition doesn't, you need something other than the petition then? You need a written letter from them. You don't need something signed. Lash: I don't really have a petition. Erhart: I thought you said... Lash: No. I took a notepad and it's just a thing I put support or oppose and I just said I would like your opinion on it. Sietsema: It doesn't need to be a petition. They can do a petition or they can just have a representative from them with that request. Hasek: Do they have a neighborhood association up there? Lash: They said they've had a lot of neighborhood meetings. Now whether they actually have an association, I can't say. Hasek: Then at least there would be some sort of a general consensus, i1-, they have one. Mady: They should also understand if they get rid of it, they... Let's move on to the Administrative unless there's more commission presentations. Any questions on that? I've got a couple. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Mady: Lori, what happened last night at the Council concerning the Lake Lucy access? Sietsema: It wasn't on the agenda. Mady: I thought they were supposed to make a decision by then. Wasn't that in their letter? Sietsema: Yes, it was in their letter but there's some, we need more information. There's been another proposal that's come through. Someone on the north side of Lake Lucy has come to me and offered his property for sale. His name is Christenson so we have to look into that and walk that site. Also we needed to get more informatiOn. Don Chmiel is going to be meeting with Joe Alexander who is, I don't know, I think he's the Grand Poupah of the DNR or something so we needed to get some information to pursue the liftover option further. Just make sure that it's a dead issl before we totally write it off. There was some more information regardin~ Greenwood Shores Park that we needed to get together to see what the impact Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 41 ~ was because DNR wanted us to pursue that further. Mady: So we got an extension from the Watershed? Sietsema: I've written them a letter since that time and indicated that we are planning to put it on the next City Council agenda and would be able to respond to them by the 15th of August. Erhart: So they haven't pulled out on us? Sietsema: No, and there was a letter, I don't know if the letter's in here, from the Watershed to the EPA indicating that they were still in support of the project and they knew that we were working on it so Conrad didn't think that it was going to be a problem. Schroers: Lori, are you going to be personally involved with the DNR and checking out to make sure that it is reasonably a dead issue with the lift across? Sietsema: No. No. That's a meeting between the Mayor and Mr. Alexander and I'm not invited. I mean I'm not involved in that meeting. I'm giving the Mayor all the background information that he needs but I will not be attending the meeting. JI""'. Schroers: Could you ask him maybe if he would care to ask Mr. Alexander why a portage would be an acceptable access up in the Boundary Waters area and why they can do things like put in campsites and whatever lake management they do up there and in that area that would be acceptable and here it wouldn't. Mady: I think it's real easy Larry. I don't know of anybody that's got a dock and a powerboat in the Boundary Water's canoe 40 or 50 feet from their house. That's the big difference is there... Another question I had was on the Lake Ann Park expansion. I'm glad to see that the developer's is also doing Audubon Road. The simple fact of the matter is, I think they're under contract to get our park done by early July and the last time I looked out there, they're not going to be seeding that thing until maybe September so we may be losing another year out there. Sietsema: We won't be losing a year. They're doing the infield work right now and they plan to have all the seed down and everything and be out of there at the latest August 15th. Mady: The roads will be blacktopped? Everything's going to be done? Sietsema: That's what Laurie told me. That they felt that they could have the entire project at the latest August 15th. If we don't get rain, if we put seed down now, it's dead seed and they're going to have to reseed it in the fall anyway. As long as it gets in and starts growing before the snow flies, we don't lose a year so I'm not concerned that the seed isn't down .~. yet because we've just planted seed at South Lotus and if we don't get rain within the next week, it's dead seed. Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 42 Mady: I guess my whole concern is, the initial time table this was all ~ going to be done by July 1st and we've had some rain earlier in the year. Sietsema: There's some major soil problems with Lake Ann in that when it does rain it takes a long time for it to dry out for them to get in there and to work so they take the machinery across the road and do the work over on Audubon Road. That way we're saving money on both of the projects because they have two projects within close proximity to each other. not a construction person. I can't tell you more details than that. know is that they indicated that they should have it done by the 15th August. I'm All I of Lash: Is there a late penalty? Sietsema: No. I don't think so unless it gets really late but they've had some extensions due to, they had so much rain at the beginning of their project it almost put them back a month before they could even start. Hasek: Is that what I saw on the TV the other night, they got the 10 working day extension or was that a different one? Sietsema: No. That wasn't Lake Ann but I don't think there's been any penalities for the lateness of the project and I honestly don't think that anything is going to alter whether the fields are ready any sooner. Robinson: So August 15th is now the magic number? -' Sietsema: Yes. Mady: It just seems like every time we do a project, it ends up a month and a half to 3 years later that what was initially told the people of the community and once again the City doesn't look like they know what they're doing again. It seems like every time we do a major project, it doesn't get done right. It doesn't get done on time and we just don't have a concept to follow. We have to start beating on these people saying, what they told us they were going to do, they've got to do it. Sietsema: They can't work in mud. They can't get those big machines and work in mud. There's just no way they can do it Jim. There's no way they could work in mud. Mady: But keep a time table. They know it rains in this state. They've got to start logging themselves. I think we've got to start holding developers to what they're going to do. If this City continually does, oh gee, well that's the poor developer. He's got to make a couple of bucks. Well hey, if he can't do we'll wait for the next guy to come down and do it right. That's just a general comment. Schroers: I deal with that on a first hand basis almost every day and thing that you can do about that is put that late clause on the end of What happens when you do that is that then they go out and work in the and you end up with a substandard product. the it. mt: -.IfIlI' ",.,.... ,....., ~,..... Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 43 Hasek: Or you write it into the contract and the... Right now you pay now or you pay later for something like that. It seems to me like they're moving along out there. I'm a little disappointed myself about how slow it's been going but I realized early this spring that if they didn't. have the grading and stuff done immediately, that they weren't going to get it seeded. I'd rather they didn't seed it until the end of September right now because we've got no water on there. No way of retaining it and the normal seeding season ends the end of May, early June and it doesn't pick up again until the end of September. They do not recommend seeding in the summertime. Sietsema: They may not seed it until November. Hasek: Jim, as far as I'm concerned, if they can bring in a good reason why and give us some better recommendations, I'd just as soon that it didn't get seeded until later. Schroers: contractor of that to would want There are also exceptions wants to do. If he wants get it going, then that's to do that. to that depending on what the to seed and irrigate and mulch and all a possibility but I doubt that they Mady: Item number H. Park and Recreation Commission future agenda items. I think something we need to discuss is trail, getting some major trails constructed along TH 101, pioneer Trail, Minnewashta Parkway. I don't see us needing to drop the ball on that. We may have lost the funding with the one referendum. Maybe we need to look through to another referendum process for those major trails. There seems to be the sentiment out there that TH 101 is needed. I believe everyone of the Council members has indicated that TH 101 is drastically needed. Maybe we need to go through and start doing this instead of trying to let every person out there play dodge em car every time they go walk, or run or drive their bike along that road. ...kill somebody to bring through a petition. Boyt: We can also put on that list, some night we can sit down and prioritize park development. That's something we talked about. Schroers: I think unless my memory is failing me, we already have something on the books in regards to Minnewashta Parkway for 1990 when State funding or State realignment or something like that becomes available. Boyt: Yes. Isn't there going to be some work done on TH 101 also? Sietsema: I don't know what the dates are. I don't know if they have dates yet but I don't know if they've got all the alignments together yet. Mady: That's the southern part of TH 101. Boyt: I thought there was going to be a hill taken out of the middle... Sietsema: They're going to realign as it comes through by the Meadows and comes through the City and then goes down south of TH 5. Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 44 ....", Mady: We should still have something in place for when it happens. We don't have to wait for it to happen and then say oh gee, maybe it's good planning. Anything else? Hasek: Just a quick question. There was a comment last time made about ommissions, errors and ommissions in the Minutes. Did you talk to the secretary at all about that or did she try next time to get everything in there? Sietsema: If you don't come in on time Ed then I'm not repeating myself. Hasek: What was the comment? Sietsema: Basically when there's breaks in the tape, I'm going to get a timer. I have one. I didn't bring it down this time so there aren't as many breaks in the tape. The other thing is that if there's more than one person talking, it's impossible for her to understand what both of them are saying and often, very often I noticed tonight, you guys sit back and...and you don't enunciate and you don't articulate and she can't that either. If she can't hear it, she can't type it. She does not edit as she hears it with the exception, she may have taken out some things that were not pertinent to anything. That were just inbetween items that had to do with how your kids got through Cub Scouts or something. She might take that kind of stuff out. Hasek: First I'd like to commend her on the job that she does. hard that is to do. ....." I know how Sietsema: Considering she's never met you people, I think she does a good job. Hasek: Exactly. I call on the telephone and she knows who I am just by voice. Erhart: Does she work here? Sietsema: No. Hasek: Anyway. I don't know where the need for verbatim Minutes came from. That was started I think after I started on this Commission within the last 2 to 3 years. Schroers: There must have been an event. Hasek: I know it came from Council but there must have been an event or something that happened that they needed the documentation. Sietsema: I can't put my finger on anyone event. I know that Bill's the one that instigated it. He wanted to get all of your discussion because I just summarized it. ....." Park and Rec Commission July 25, 1989 - Page 45 If!"'" Hasek: I wonder if the intent was to have every last piece of discussion. I wonder if they just needed a lot more than they were getting because the old system must have been similar to what a lot of cities do and it's simply a synopsis. A very quick synopsis. We just went through a project at work where we were trying to find information on the whole project and the entire file for 3 months of work and council meetings was 2 pages. Just 2 pages and it was basically... Sietsema: They discussed this. Hasek: They discussed this, this, this and this and that was all so what we've got is certainly a lot more than what a lot of cities get. Sietsema: And what it was before that was more than that. I would still tape the meetings and then I would dictate, Hasek had some concerns about this. Staff's response was such and such. The general consensus was this. The motion was made and I'd bring up individual concerns but not verbatim by any means. Robinson: What's your point? Hasek: I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that I think the woman who's doing this job is doing a very excellent job and I don't see the point in recommending being concerned about every... "'" (The tape ran out at this point in the meeting.) Mady moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim ,...., _ __ __-.---......J