PRC 1988 03 08
2.;4
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
~. REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 8, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Carol Watson, Curt Robinson, Jim Mady and
Ed Hasek
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Schroers and Mike Lynch
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd
Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Mady seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meetings dated January 26,
1988 and February 2, 1988. All voted in favor and motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS.
~
Sietsema: This is the site plan for Minnewashta Meadows. TH 7 is down
here. This is Church Road. This is Cathcart Park. Basically, because
the park is right next door, it's not park deficient and none of these
streets were identified on the trail plan for trails so I just went with
the recommendation to accept fees in lieu of parkland and trail
easements.
Hasek: Did I understand we're not going to take an easement?
Mady: She didn't ask for it.
Sietsema: I didn't recommend it because it wasn't on the trail plan.
Hasek: I think we ought to connect this sucker to Minnewashta Parkway
right now. I'm sorry, to TH 7 and ultimately to Minnewashta Parkway. I
think we ought to take an easement along right to the westwern edge and
also across that little corner down there so if we want to come straight
across into that corner of the fire property there, we can do it.
Sietsema: To get up to that park?
Hasek: Yes.
Watson: Is that park still used by kids in that neighborhood?
Hasek: The reason why it's not used by anybody in Chanhassen is because
it's so difficult to get to. It's a city owned, Chanhassen owned park
that's operated by Shorewood.
~ Sietsema: The church owns the property. Minnewashta Church owned the
property and they gave it to the City of Shorewood if they used it for
park purposes because they didn't want development on it so the City of
Shorewood, and I think there were some other stipulations as far as what
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 2
.....",
kind of activities it could be or that the church would be able to use
it or whatever. I'm not really sure but anyway, they gave it to the
City of Shorewood because they felt they were closer or more akin to the
City of Shorewood than the City of Chanhassen so the City of Shorewood
maintains the park but it's within Chanhassen. So we really have
nothing to do with it.
Hasek moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recomend acquiring a trail easement along the west side of Church Road)
along the east side of Minnewashta Meadow~ and accept park fees in lieu
of parkland. All voted in favor and motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - MCGLYNN BAKERIES.
Sietsema: This is the McGlynn Bakeries' proposal. This is TH 5 along
the north and Audubon Road along the east side of the proposal. It's
only 18.5 acre site and it's about the bottom half that they're
proposing to develop. With this intersection right in here and future
expansion over here. Eventually they plan to sell off the northern
piece. Lake Ann Park is right here to the north. This is not a
residential area and this is part of the business park which is somewhat
served by Lake Susan as well as Lake Ann. We did not recommend for park
acquisition. Our trail plan goes to about here. It stops here. The
park road that goes through the business park and then it stays on the
street there and goes off to the east. What I'm recommending is that we~
revise our trail plan to go all the way up to TH 5 because we will have
a trail along TH 5 and connect to that. Just so we make sure we have
loops so we're not just ending in the middle of nowhere. I think that's
what that would look like. We don't need an easement on the south side
of the proposal because the trail's going to be on the north side of
TH 5. What I am proposing is to accept park dedication fees and trail
dedication fees and request a 20 foot trail easement. I talked to Gary
and he said as this area develops, Audubon Road is going to need to be
upgraded and at that time they will put the trail in but the
right-of-way that we have right now will probably not accomodate a trail
so he thought we should get additional right-of-way.
Boyt: He's talking off-street trail right?
Sietsema: Right. What I'm recommending again is a trail easement along
Audubon Road and full park and trail fees.
Mady: Have we gotten any easements along TH 5 anywhere or do we need
easements along TH 5?
Sietsema: I just had a meeting with MnDot who will be doing the
upgrading of TH 5. They are trying to get it done sooner. In fact, the
City just put $50,000.00 toward the process to get that process moving
sooner. They have said they are going to need an additional 100 feet of
right-of-way to develop that into four lanes. They were thinking they ~
were going to do it on the north side but that would take 100 feet of
Lake Ann Park which we probably would have gone ahead and said that's
.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 3
,...
fine because we want it that bad but because we use LAWCON funds, it's a
two year process just to convert that land so they said forget it. We
want to have it done by then. They're going to try and go with the
southern route. In that meeting we talked about trails and they are
very trail happy. They are willing to construct the trails within the
right-of-way and they'll do the construction.
Mady: If they're going to upgrade it to four, that means they're going
to use the two that are there as probably the westbound lane. They're
taking the other to the south then. Does that leave enough room north
of even the existing right-of-way on the north side of the easement to
put a trail in?
Sietsema: Yes, because the trail that goes out to Lake Ann now is
within the right-of-way.
Hasek: The right-of-way obviously isn't on top of the ditches.
Sietsema: No, I don't think so.
Mady: As long as they know that's where we want to stick the trail.
,...
Sietsema: They know that's where we want it. In fact I just wrote them
a letter to tell them exactly where we want other trails to intersect.
They're talking about putting in an underpass where the creek goes
through so our Bluff Creek Trail can go right under the road. They're
working with us very nicely. I was impressed.
Hasek: How far is TH 5 going to be upgraded?
Sietsema: To TH 41.
Mady: The other question I had was, since TH 5 is such a busy street,
would it make sense for them to put a trail on both sides of TH 5 at
some point in time? Maybe not in Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the trail plan.
Sietsema: The problem is going to be, if there's going to be enough
room because they are going to be like this close to Paisley'Park's
parking lot. They're going to be real close if they go the southern
route and there's a mini-storage that's going in down there. That's why
they wanted to do it on the north side because it's going to be so close
to developments that already exist. Yes, it would probably be a smart
thing to do but it's going to be tough. If you wanted to get an
additional easement here so we had this.
Hasek: Is there any way the City can give an easement across the park
until the process is completed in two years? Or can't they build on an
easement?
,...... Sietsema: It's like federal and state funds used to purchase that
property in the first place so we can't do anything but recreate on it.
It's a real long drawn out process and if you do it just step by step
right on time, get everything done, it takes a minimum of a year and a
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 4
-'
half. You run into red tape and you can spread that out into two years.
I've gone through it twice with the Lake Ann boat access and with the
Lotus Lake boat access and believe me, it takes at least two years to do
it because you have to find property to swap that's of equal or greater
value, of equal or greater use, of equal or greater acreage and you have
to prove and justify all this stuff and then you have to have the State
approve it. When they say okay, we believe you, then you have to send
it down to the National Park Service and they have to approve it. Then
it comes back and you have to, it's just unbelieveable. The list is
this long of what you have to do and you can't do it before that
conversion process is completed because there are so many chances that
the National Park Service might not approve it. If there's any chance
it can go to the south, they won't approve it because you have to
investigate all other alternatives like not doing it at all.
Mady: If this piece of property, if they do sell of the top half for
further development, I would think that we would be seeing it back.
Sietsema: Yes.
Watson moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend approval to require a 20 foot trail easement along the west
side of Audubon Road, accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland
and trail dedication fees. All voted in favor and motion carried.
......"
SITE PLAN REVIEW - LAKE RILEY WOODS SOUTH.
Sietsema: this is pioneer Trail
right here and TH 101 would be over here. It's difficult to get your
bearings but if you look at the bigger location map that I put in your
packet, this is the boundary line right here that doesn't include~ these
houses. These are existing houses right here. The closest parkland to
this is the Bluff Creek Park. It's a linear park, our trail system and
also the next closest would be Bandimere Heights. This is in the rural
area so it's outside the MUSA line and the trail plan calls for trails
along pioneer Trail. We determined with the Vogel
property that that trail would be going on the north side so it doesn't
affect this plat at all.
Mady: Has there been any discussion on the railroad? Is that going to
be an active rail line?
Sietsema: Yes. It's my recommendation then to accept park and trail
dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction. This was
looked at, if you recall, way back about a year ago when we were talking
about the 15 acre parcel parkland down in this area and we determined
this to be too far to the east. It wasn't centrally located. It was
this one we reviewed so this one is even further to the east. For the
same reason...
.."
Hasek: We also looked at the Gagne property and on that piece of
property did we not recommend an on-street trail along the roadway?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 5
I"""
Sietsema: Yes. So again, my recommendation is to accept the park and
trail fees in lieu of construction and easements.
Hasek: How wide is that road?
Sietsema: I'd say it's 60 feet for a rural section.
Hasek: Would they be blacktopping it?
Sietsema: I would assume so but I don't know the details.
Hasek: Doesn't the City require blacktopping?
Sietsema: I'm sure they do. I don't know of any other. It wouldn't be
curb and gutter. It would be a rural section with 2 1/2 acre or more
lots but I don't know of any other subdivision that's gone through
except for Sunset Trail that they had gravel roads on. I think it's
safe to say that it will be blacktop.
Hasek: One thing I'd like to
to keep the Gagne piece open.
bluffs on this side. It would
somehow would go to the lake,
discuss maybe just very briefly, I'd like
The Gagne parcel that's north of the
be a real sweet deal if that 15 acres
which I know is almost impossible.
"
Sietsema: I think we signed off on it. We signed off on it a while
back.
Hasek: Because it is too far to the east?
Sietsema: Right. We determined at that time. I don't know if we
recall the map that Mark brought in with the yellow areas highlighted
and that was one of them.
Mady: I'm still a little concerned that we be consistent with this
particular parcel versus the one across pioneer Trail. VernIs parcel.
We requested on-street trail didn't we?
Hasek: I guess you're right there. What was the configuration of the
road in the piece that you brought to us across the street?
Boyt: On Kerber's property, it was on-street. That was one that maybe
we should have asked for off-street.
Watson: There's an interior street that goes like this, in a big
horseshoe.
Hasek: But does it cul-de-sac?
~ Boyt: No, but the Vogel property did and that's where at first we were
going to ask for off-street and then we decided, isn't that the
property?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 6
..""",
Watson: Because with Vogel, remember he had those trees and we were
practically going to be running...
Hasek: That was on.
Watson: That's right.
Hasek: I guess I'd like to be consistent too but it seems to me like I
remember that one reason why we decided maybe a trail was appropriate in
there was because the cul-de-sac that was in there ran almost all the
way, if not all the way over to the property line. We thought there was
a possibility that that road might go through at some future time.
Sietsema: Right, and it won't.
Hasek: This one is never going to go anywhere and it serves 15-16 lots.
Watson: How long is that cul-de-sac?
Hasek: I have a quick question. What's the 1-2 that's on here? Oh,
septic system sites.
Watson: That's one heck of a long cul-de-sac.
How long is it?
Hoffman: About 20.
"OIfIIIIIiI.
Boyt: It's longer than that.
Watson: You have to count the curves because that's a one way in and
one way out.
Hoffman: It's almost a half mile.
Boyt: I surprised that the City Council approved that.
Sietsema: They haven't gotten it yet.
Watson: I have one or two questions regarding your cul-de-sac requests.
Mady: Since we don't know and we probably won't be seeing this corne back
to us, if the Council determines that the road is too short, too long,
whatever, I'd like to see us get an off-street easement.
Sietsema: Off-street? Okay.
Boyt: We heard from the Fire Department before that this is not the
safe way to plan a development.
Hasek: I just can't believe that the City is looking at these long
cul-de-sacs like this and accepting them. There's no reason in the world~
why that thing couldn't generally do exactly what it does and dead end
over here against this other property.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 7
,....
Boyt: This is a waste of our time too. Staff should say, the City
doesn't allow half mile long cul-de-sacs. It shouldn't come to us.
Watson: This proposal is not going to be in this configuration by the
time.. .
Sietsema: It will change probably a couple of times before... The
developer can hear that from staff and still submit whatever they want.
Watson: Do we still have a thing in the ordinance that says lots can't
be, the length can't be more than twice the width because he's got some
awful long, skinny lots here too so there might be more than one reason
for this configuration.
Robinson: Even so, for us, if it gets shot down and we go along with
something tonight and the long road gets shot down, do we get to see it
again?
Sietsema: It depends on if it's denied at the Council level, then they
have to start allover again, as I recall.
Watson: Don't we have the perogative to request to see something again?
,..... Sietsema: Sure.
Hasek: Can we make that recommendation?
Sietsema: Sure.
Hasek: If this in fact does go into a cul-de-sac, maybe we don't need
to but that would just be an amendment to the motion. If the
configuration of the roadway changes, we'd like to take one more look at
it.
Hasek moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland
and trail construction with the proviso that if the road plan changes
from a cul-de-sac, the Park and Recreation Commission would like to
review the new plan. All voted in favor and motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR TH 7/41 - HSZ DEVELOPMENT.
,......
Sietsema: This one is kind of exciting because it brings us back to
Herman Field and our original plan and maybe we can do what we said all
along. The property lies within the service area of Herman Field and
the road configurations, because of abandoning a right-of-way here, the
purpose of what they want to do is to limit the commercial traffic
through the neighborhood. What that may involve then, this would be the
right-of-way that they're abandoning. This is the project proposal.
Oriole Lane comes down here. This is the area that we had talked about
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 8
.....",.
extending Oriole Lane. We had the feasibility study done to get down to
Herman park which is down here. If this proposal goes through, it would
bring Oriole Lane over here and down again. We could get an access-off
of this curve here. If Oriole Lane is brought straight down, which
would be this configuration, we could get access just straight into the
park. That would allow us to keep our original plan, Herman Field plan
and we wouldn't have to move the parking and we wouldn't have to acquire
the additional easement off of Forest Avenue to bring the access in
there.
Mady: So what they're looking at is extending Forest Avenue?
Sietsema: No. Forest Avenue, the alignment comes here, the road
right-of-way but it actually ends right here. What they're saying is
Oriole Lane which is into this point, they may extend it all the way
straight down and then curve it over to TH 41 so they have a second
access into this neighborhood via TH 41.
Boyt: Should we make a recommendation on which of these Park and Rec
would prefer or is that something?
Sietsema: Yes, we could. That definitely would be in order. As far as
this proposal, as I understand it, these two out10ts are reserved for
future development. They may sell off or just for future, this company
may use for future development. I'm not sure. It involves 31,920 -,.
square foot retail center which would be located right here and face
towards the corner. The Comp Plan doesn't identify this as a park
deficient area and the trail plan doesn't identify trails going all the
way up to TH 7. Again, I think that's something that we may have
overlooked and I think we may want to make that connection up to TH 7,
off-street.
Hasek: ...There is some discussion as to whether this is going to be,
if the alignment of Forest Avenue right-of-way is going to hit TH 41
where we've shown it or there may be some discussion. We talked to this
one that's labeled existing home down here, which I think is the
nursery, about aligning that road and going right out to the school.
Either way it doesn't really change. Forest Avenue, instead of hitting
TH 41 where it does, we're thinking that maybe we'd like to see it come
out to the school and control that intersection.
Sietsema: Wasn't there some discussion about moving the school
entrance?
Hasek: That's a possibility too. I know that there's been a lot of
things talked about but I don't know exactly how they're going to turn
out.
Mady: The point I was getting at, the West 64th Street, vacating that
right-of-way, I feel we need a trail off of TH 41 that gets to Herman
Field somehow or another.
--'
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 9
,.....
Sietsema: I think when the street goes in, we should probably put a
trail along that street.
Boyt: We don't see streets though do we?
Sietsema: I do. I can work with Gary on that.
Mady: Since the City already owns the West 64th Street right-of-way, I
would hate to see us give that up and then not get something else
because that would easily go to Herman Field from there.
Sietsema: It stops right at this point.
Hasek: I think the trade-off that they're looking at is that, well
there are two things. There's an issue of if you vacate the right-of-
way or that you don't use the right-of-way anymore then it's not serving
the purpose for which it was taken and it has to eventually, at some
point get back to the property owners. Second of all, the owner who
owns this corner up here is looking at either working with purchasing
the rest of the property, including everything down all the way to the
bottom of this graphic. He's working with everybody down to this next
line which is actually the bottom of Herman Field. In working with the
purchasing of those parcels so they can all go together. They realize
,...... if they cut off 64th Street, that there's going to have to be something
done to the south and really this whole project up here kind of hinges
on acceptance of the whole plan at some point.
Sietsema: I know the soils to the south of where Oriole Lane exists,
the soils in here are poor. That was brought out with the feasibility
study we had done so we're almost wondering if this isn't a better
alignment and get access from here. Either one.
Boyt: What do the residents want?
Sietsema: Either one. They're still working with them.
Hasek: They have a meeting set up Wednesday night.
Sietsema: I'll tell you right now, these people that live right here
don't want Oriole Lane extended.
Watson: I know this will be very rough.
Sietsema: I think it's the Zieglers that don't want Oriole Lane
extended at all if it involves assessments.
Hasek: How do they feel about Forest Avenue?
,.....
Sietsema: Forest Avenue wouldn't be extended that far.
park access?
You mean for a
Hasek: Really, I guess Forest Avenue is the one the that goes across
but if they don't want Oriole Lane going through, is it the park access
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 10
....,."
and people going past their homes?
Sietsema: No, they don't want to be assessed.
Watson: They don't need it. They say they have no use for it.
Hasek: But are the Zieglers the one with the cockeyed driveway right
there or the ones to the south of that?
Sietsema: I'm talking about the people west of Oriole Lane right-of-
way.
Hasek: But they'd get assessed before them anyway.
Sietsema: They were against Forest Avenue being put that far through
too. They said as long as you only bring it to here and it doesn't
affect us, fine. .,.,
Hasek: But isn't that already platted?
Sietsema: The right-of-way is, yes. But putting in the streets, the
assessments.
Watson: When we did the park thing, remember they sat there. It was ...""
fine going back as far as the park but...
Hasek: It has nothing really to do with this project. I've just got to
chuckle at people who take that attitude. You can't do anything on your
property because it affects me and the question I would ask them is,
fine buy that piece of property. If you don't want me to do something
on my piece of property.
Watson: It's a much more complicated issue than that. Believe me, you
don't want to vote on this and I don't want to get into it. It's far
more complicated than you are making it out to be. To be critical of
these people because of Oriole isn't taking into consideration the
entire issue.
Sietsema: I would suggest two different motions. One on the street
alignment and one on just this proposal regarding park fees and trails.
...It would probably be easier to get in if Oriole Lane went straight
through but it's going to cost the City probably more money because the
soils are poor. Maybe you just want to make a recommendation that you
want one of them to go through.
Mady: I don't see the benefits to the park with either one. I can see
some potential problems if you come straight out to TH 41 with people
outside getting into TH 41.
Sietsema: From a very strictly park aspect, this is a neighborhood
park. If it's Oriole Lane that's extended, it gives more direct access
from that neighborhood. Whereas if it comes off of TH 41, it's not
.."",
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 11
,....
serving that neighborhood as directly.
benefitting if either street alignment
recommend that you just recommend that
area goes through. Either one.
But again, I think we will be
goes through and I guess I would
some street alignment in that
Watson: But it has to be either one of these? Not the Forest Avenue
one that we approved of before?
Sietsema: What I was saying is I put that whole thing on hold until
this is decided. We won't do the other one if this goes through
because there's no sense. We don't need both park accesses on both
sides of that park.
Mady: That's the one where we've got in this year's budget, isn't it?
Sietsema: That money is on reserve, yes. We got $30,000.00 when they
gave us the park.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland
and trail construction and to require a 20 foot trail easement along
TH 41 if trails cannot be constructed within the right-of-way. All
voted in favor except Hasek who abstained and motion carried.
,....
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that a second access to the neighborhood be accomplished in
this area with the vacation of West 64th Street. All voted in favor
except Hasek who abstained and motion carried.
APPROVE CONTRACTS FOR JULY 4TH FIREWORKS AND BAND.
Hoffman: What's most interesting about these bids is in an attempt to
get a more competitive bid from some of the other companies we've
approached in the past years, instead of asking them for a show of
$3,000.00 or less, we asked them for a show comparable to what we had
last year and I sent them a list of the show we had last year. As you
can see it's interesting what we got back. Our quotes anywhere from
twice as much to another 1 1/2 times as much.
Mady: A comment on the 4th of July show. My dentist who used to be an
Edina resident to a Bloomington resident and now a Chaska resident. He
attended the 4th of July celebration last year in Chanhassen along with
some friends of his from Edina and they were distressed when it first
started because he thought oh yes, sure, his friends...yes, sure we go
to some small hick town and we get a small hick town fireworks display.
Roughly 3 minutes after me made that comment, the show actually started.
He then said that this was probably the best show he had seen and
~ probably better than anything you would see at the State Fairgrounds.
They routinely do an excellent job and there's no reason to even
entertain discussing any of the other people.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 12
"""'"
Robinson moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept Banner Fireworks Display Company for the 4th of July
fireworks show. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Boyt: Can we afford the White Sidewalls?
Hoffman: No.
Hasek: I tell you what. They do a fun job but if you've seen them
once, it's the same show every time and a lot of people have seen them
around. They perform at Medina almost weekly.
Hoffman: St. Hubert's and the Firemen have them now for their.
Boyt: Let's just not turn the PA up quite so high.
Mady: I think you have that with any group performing outdoors.
Boyt: No, it doesn't have to be that loud.
Hoffman: Any of those other bands, the Back Behind the Barn Boys, Alive
and Kickin...
Sietsema: If you listen to them and you want Back Behind the Barn Boys,
you can request that Ed reconsider his motion at the next meeting. """'"
Hasek moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept the bid of $1,200.00 for a performance by the
Hi-Topps for the 4th of July celebration. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
APPROVE CORE APPLICATION FOR FISHING PIER AT LAKE ANN PARK.
Hoffman: This application, Lori handed out some information from the
Department of Natural Resources. CORE project which stands for
Cooperative Opportunity for Resource Enhancement. I thought Lake Ann
was optimal location for a fishing pier. The fishing resource out there
is excellent. It doesn't get used enough. One of the reasons is that
it's a non-motorized lake and a lot of people don't like to have to take
or is there, to take their big boat. The landing there, we're trying to
get it improved so you can launch your big bass boat there without
dragging bottom. Last year Dale tried to push some of the gravel
further out with a front-end loader. He got it so there's a big hole
but then it still rises to about a foot and a half of water so we've got
to clear that out somewhat more so the local fishermen around here get
to know that that is indeed an access that they can take their larger
boats. Then we've got to clear up the notion on whether you can take a
boat with an outboard motor mounted and just out of the water on that -'
lake. The Bait Store says there has been people who have called back or
stopped in and said that Chan Public Safety or the Carver County
Deputies have stopped them and said they would ticket them if they
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 13
,....
indeed go in Lake Ann with a motor on their boat but I believe in City
Code it says if your motor is in the up position, you're still legal in
Lake Ann.
Mady: As long as your gas line is disconnected.
Hasek: I was just going to say, the only thing I would have against it
is the City of Minneapolis requires you to disconnect your gas line.
Prior to getting into the water hopefully.
Hoffman: In that location, as I've indicated on there, you are familiar
with that, there is the 36 foot dock that is used there. We used it
last year for the kids fishing tournament. A lot of people try to fish
off of it but it's inadequate because as you can see, the water depth at
80 feet from shore is only 5 feet deep so that thing is sitting in about
3 feet of water. But if we can get this fishing pier that will extend
out 80 to 100 feet, then you're in the 9 to 12 feet of water which would
be good fishing.
Watson: What does a fishing pier look like exactly?
Hoffman: There's quite a few of them throughout the metropolitan area.
It's made out of 2 x 6 treated lumber. 10 feet wide. A railing all the
.,..... way down. It's a permanent structure. It's got handicap accessibility
is one of their requirements so you have to have a trail connection to
the parking area. It's got handicap places for the railing where it is
down lower so a person in a wheelchair can cast over the railing. They
are manufactured at Stillwater Prison and they are bought by the DNR for
approximately $22,000.00 for one of the models and then $5,000.00 more
for the other one. The only thing the Park and Rec Department has to
cooperate with on this is in some sort of enhancement which we could do
in creating an easy trail easement. Right now where the trail goes, it
runs straight into the boat landing. It doesn't really connect with the
parking as such. We could connect it with the parking lot. Do some
shoreline enhancement there to make it a real nice place to go fish off
that fishing pier and that would be our end of the project. Other than
that, the DNR would install it. They would still own the pier. It
wouldn't become city property. It would just stay there. If they
indeed pass this, they see no reason to move it at any later date. We
had to get this in for their consideration by the end of March.
Watson: Then why are acting on it?
Sietsema: Because we can ask them to withdraw.
Mady moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation
accept the application to the DNR for a fishing pier as
staff and pass it onto City Council for their approval.
favor and motion carried.
Commission
presented by
All voted in
ifili""-
Mady: Can we do the same thing at Lotus Lake by the boat access there?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 14
--'
Hoffman: The problem in reading through there, what they want to see,
they want to see a lot of other recreation going on in the area but not
real adjacent to it. They don't want to be right next to the boat .
access with a minimum amount of property that we own down there. At the
boat access, we could not put it there. We could look for another site.
Hasek: How about north of there. Is there any chance we could get it
there?
Sietsema: It's marshy all the way out to the water. My guesstimate
would be 100 feet. 200 feet?
Mady: Otherwise, do we own the land along Carver Beach Road? There's
one heck of a drop-off just, I believe it's west of the beach. It goes
from about roughly 6 to 8 feet of water to 24 feet of water right around
a 10 foot span. It is one hell of a fishing spot. It's hard to get on
that spot. Look into that possibility.
Hasek: Is there anything along there now?
Mady: We've got something.
Hoffman: You need a trail. You need parking adjacent to it and grades
that will allow you to get handicap people there and back.
...""
Sietsema: How close is it to the beach?
Mady: It's not very far. It's just south of the beach.
Sietsema: Because there is a foot path.
Mady: I can show Todd where it is.
Hasek: You can get the handicap down anyplace. It's getting them back
up again.
LAKE ANN PARK ENTRANCE FEE SCHEDULE.
Sietsema: I really anticipated this meeting to go really long because
as the week got towards the end, I started taking things off the agenda
because I didn't have enough infomration to put it all one so the reason
this is such a short and somewhat incomplete memo on the Lake Ann Park
fees is because I wanted you to start thinking about it and if you
wanted to do something else than what I was going to be recommending,
than I would ask you put it on a future agenda. I know there are some
thoughts that there maybe shouldn't be park entrance fees at Lake Ann
and there is also some schools of thought that think that that fee
should be raised. I anticipated that there might be a lot of discussion
on this item but my standpoint is that we're at a pretty decent level. I...""
wouldn't mind seeing the daily fee even go down a dollar but I think
where we're at might be a good compromise. I'm not sure now what the
feeling of everybody is but I know that in the past I've disagreed with
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 15
JIll"'"
what the Park and Recreation Commission wanted to do with the park fees
at Lake Ann. I finally got the Council to lower it a dollar. It used
to be $4.00 and now it's $3.00. This is going to be my recommendation
and if you want to discuss it further now, that's fine because we're
definitely not running out of time or if you want more information, you
can table it and I can bring it back next time.
Mady: I'd like to have each one of the commissioners give their
thoughts on the Lake Ann fees just as a poll and then go into a little
discussion.
Boyt: I'd like to see no fee. The fee charged to the softball teams
should cover the use of the park for non-residents. I think that's the
major group of non-residents that use the park so if we need these funds
for upkeep, that's where the funding should come from.
Watson: I would just as soon see it free provided we had adequate funds
to continue to maintain it as we'd like to. Continue to provide new
facilities. We haven't always been successful in getting LAWCON grants.
The last few we applied for were down the list a ways and there's got to
be enough money so we can do the things we want to do out there but that
issue by itself, I'd rather see the fee be free.
~ Sietsema: So you're saying no fee if we can afford it?
Watson: Right.
Robinson: Does the City pay for the person at the gate out there?
Sietsema: Yes. Some years we've been able to get a CETA person or kids
through the CETA program and then the County or the Governor's program
pays for their wage but in the last, I know for sure last year we didn't
have anybody on that program so we paid them all and the year before I
think we only had one. They have sent me information again this year so
we may be able to get somebody this year. You never know until school
is out.
Robinson: Is that a big expense? What do we pay them?
Sietsema: It's about $3,000.00 to $5,000.00 a summer.
Robinson: High school graduates?
Sietsema: No. 14 to 18 except for Mae who is 68 or something.
Robinson: If you made it a free park, we could do away with that
expense.
~ Sietsema: I have to say, I was really surprised at how much we had
taken in last year because I remember 3 to 4 years ago we didn't even
take in $7,000.00 and last year we took in $17,000.00 and that's when
the fee was higher.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 16
...."
Robinson: What was it last year?
Sietsema: Last year it was $17,239.00 and when the fee was $4.00 a day,
and $4.00 for a season ticket, they took in between $7,000.00 and
$8,000.00.
Robinson: I'd like to see it remain the same as last year.
Mady: I wrestled with this one a little bit. When I found out it was
$17,000.00 last year, that became a significant number. When it was
$7,000.00 to $8,000.00 and I knew that you were using at least $4,000.00
in fees, that's just ridiculous for using, we're actually preventing
people from going in the park which is the stupidiest thing I've ever
heard in my life. It's a public park. People are paying for it in
their taxes already. I'm not sure how far $10,000.00 goes toward
maintaining the park. There's a lot of grass out there and I have a
feeling it's not covered anyway but I'm of the opinion that Lake Ann is
a community park. It's already being paid for by the entire residents
and this is just another little way of getting a little bit more money
and preventing people from going out there. ...increasing the City
revenues so actually the fee is more of just another tax on people and
it's not really doing anything for the parks. The way I'm looking at
it, let's not called it a park because it's basically something else
because it's not going for use for the parks. It's not being given to
Lake Ann specifically. It's going directly to the City's general
budget.
-'
Robinson: Is that true?
Sietsema: It does go into the general fund but maintenance is paid out
of the general fund.
Mady: That's where I'm heading.
Sietsema: So you're saying no fee?
Mady: No fee.
Hasek: I have a couple of quick questions. The year before we came,
what did you say about $7,000.00?
Sietsema: This was like 3 or 4 years ago. When I first came on.
Hasek: It went up last year was the first year?
Sietsema: No, it went down the year before last. The daily fee. In
like 1985 it was $4.00 per person per day.
Hasek: And what were the revenues in 1985? Just roughly.
......,
Sietsema: I was going to say $7,000.00 to $8,000.00.
Hasek: Then in 1986 it went to $5.00, everything else being equal?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 17
,...,
Sietsema: It went down to $3.00 a day.
Hasek: The daily fee is what you're talking about. Okay, the daily fee
went down to $3.00 and in 1986 we got how much?
Sietsema: About $13,000.00.
Hasek: And last year it stayed at $3.00?
Sietsema: And we got $17,000.00.
Hasek: That right there I guess indicates to me that if everything else
remains equal as in 1986 and 1987, that even though there is a fee, the
fee is so moderate that people don't mind paying it. I like the idea
that people who use the park...I played baIlout there but some of the
mai~tenance that happens on that particular park, from the standpoint of
the ballfields, is less than what you see in some of the other cities
around the area. The ballfield type park is going to be expanded as a
ballfield type park, at some point in the future I anticipate that
there's going to be a request for lights on some of the other fields and
I think if the revenues are expected to come out of the ball teams, what
you're going to do is kill the softball teams, if they're expected to
carry the burden by themselves and ultimately you're going to use up the
~ park... If that's the case, maybe we should have put it before the
people to purchase the acres of land so I'm in favor of keeping them
where they're at. I think that it's a very moderate fee. The one thing
I would like to work at is the possibility, and I know it would be a
hard thing to administer out there. If we're charging $5.00 for the
residents, that should get them into the park whether they've got 1 car
or 5 cars. What you're actually doing is asking them to pay $5.00 for
each vehicle that they take in and I don't know how that could possibly
work. If you could print double tags for two cars. I can see people
coming before you saying they own two cars and letting somebody else in.
Sietsema: What we could do there is get like a piece of plexiglass or
whatever and put the sticker on that and hang it on their rearview
mirror. Then they can trade it.
Hasek: Yes, except that can get passed around too and I guess I don't
want, there will be a few of those people who will do that. They will
say, oh heck just use my pass and give it to someone else.
Robinson: You're right, that really is annoying.
"....
Hasek: What I do is just shuffle them back and forth and I just never
attach it to the vehicle but it stays in my cars. My wife's car is
going and I put it in hers.
Sietsema: I just wonder how much people would really go to the trouble
of finding somebody who has already bought a pass so they don't have to.
I think if they're regular park users, they're just going to go pay the
$5.00 to get their own sticker and then shuffle them between their own
2-3 cars.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 18
...",.,
Mady: What you can do, we are all required to carry the stub off of our
license plat on our vehicle. It's State Law. You're supposed to carry
it with you. You could require them, if they want two different cars,
present that up at the City Hall.
Hasek: To me it doesn't really matter. It was just a little bit
annoying. I would like to see them remain where they're at.
Hoffman: Some input on the sticker. It is difficult to administer out
there. Trying to get the attendants that are on-duty there to, they get
so many stories from so many people on where their stickers are or
they're husbands are playing ball or the wife is playing ball and they
want to get in. As it is written, I believe it is a parking permit so
each car that parks there, that's how they originally got around to
putting that permit there. It's a parking permit. Each car that's
parked there needs to have a permit. So if you have two cars there,
each one needs a permit. That's what it's called in the City Code is a
parking permit. Trying to get around from doing that, your $5.00 pays
for more than one sticker. It's difficult. I don't know of any State
or County park system that allows that. We're under a different
situation. It's a city park that we're charging our users for but just
trying to get people to stick that thing in their windshield is hard
enough and trying to tell the attendant what his job is there, I've
tried to say you should stick that thing on. When you sell that, have
them stick it on their windshield. That's where it is. It's in that
car and you're going to hear all these other stories so I would like to
see through this discussion tonight, either create some more discussion
at a later time and a decision being made or some sort of motion being
made at this meeting, that we do in fact charge $5.00 per vehicle or we
look further into finding a solution to the problem.
....."
Robinson: That is a good point. I guess I've never gone and looked at
it as a parking fee.
Watson: I thought it was park useage and not as a parking permit. I
didn't think about that.
Robinson: But when you saw Lake Ann Park fee schedule...
Mady:
cars.
I didn't put it on my car because I was going in two different
It does say parking permit on it.
Sietsema: I know at the schools they have parking permits for different
parking lots, when I was going to school and they put the thing on a
piece of plastic and put it on a little string and you put it on your
windshield. That way if you carpooled, you could change it from one car
to the other.
Boyt: My mother who is a professor would give me her special tag, that
me as a student could park in the teachers lot. ~
Sietsema: There's always going to be those who do that. Who are going
to say, I'm not going to the park today, here neighbor you can use my
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 19
,...
deal but again, I just wonder how much, if you're a regular park user,
how much you're going to do that. Because then you've got to go back
and get it.
Hasek: I guess that is really true. I guess it's annoying for those
couple of times that...
Sietsema: And if you want to take both cars, then you have to get two
stickers.
Mady: Do we require any motion at this time?
Sietsema: Not if you want to table it.
Watson: It says the revenue generated from Lake Ann Park is put into
the general fund and used towards it's upkeep along with being used for
a lot of other things. Why oh why are park things, things associated
with parks, not put into a park budget instead of the general fund?
Sietsema: Because there's no way that $17,000.00 is going to pay for
the beach and the maintenance and the gate keepers at Lake Ann Park so
why set up another fund? Just throw it in the regular fund and take
everything out of that fund. It goes there indirectly anyway.
'"
Watson: But our park fund wouldn't be just Lake Ann Park. It would be
the park dedication fees from various properties and all kinds of
stuff.
Sietsema: That's a different fund. That is a separate park fund.
Mady: That's a capital improvement. This is an expense.
Watson: So maintenance of all the parks, Meadow Green Park and all
those things come out of the general fund?
Sietsema: The park dedication fee is not used for maintenance at all.
Watson: I understand that. I just don't know why some of this goes
into the general fund.
Boyt: Could you bring us the budget next time?
Sietsema: Sure. The capital improvement program or the whole city
budget?
Boyt: Just the budget that pertains to park and rec things.
,.....
Hasek moved, Mady seconded to table the Lake Ann Park Entrance Fee
Schedule so the other two Park and Recreation Commissioners could
present to voice their opinion on the matter at the next meeting.
voted in favor and motion carried.
be
All
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 20
,.."",
REVIEW TRAIL ALIGNMENT - PLEASANT HILL SUBDIVISION.
Sietsema: I have to admit that this is a real odd deal. Pleasant Hill
was given final plat approval in 1983 and as a condition of approval, the
developer was required to give a trail easement that went this alignment
right here. This is the school property. This is 65th Street. For that
trail easement he was given 50% credit on his park dedication fees. That
trail easement was never recorded and the document was never finalized.
All of these lots now have houses on them and have been sold. This one
has a house on it, it's a new house but the developer still owns it.
This was brought to my attention quite a while after Bill Monk left and
he left me a memo outlining some things that he hadn't followed through
on. This is one of the things that he said that he had talked to the
developer and the developer was interested in an easement that would go
through these two lots and then run up here and go to the top of this lot
here and that's what I got so when I'm talking to Curt Ostrom, the
developer, this guy contacted me, that lives on Lot 5. He's got a fence
right along the property line. He has no interest in having a trail
going along his property line and although he's indicated that he
probably would give this one, he would rather see it go a different way.
So I talked to Curt again and we discussed this alignment. This is over
many months. At that time, the school called me and said they would like
to see some trail go through this because they can eliminate part of the
bus route if there is trail access to the school property. So Curt said
why don't we go along this lot and this line because I still own Lot 6. -'
It happens that the city watertower is right here on this property and we
can put that trail right on the city property so we don't need an extra
easement from this guy. There is a gate so they can get through. So
what is before you tonight is do you want to go with the original
easement or would you like to go with the new proposed easement? We did
get as far as the Attorney's office with the red easement, the one
outlined in the red, and Mr. Ostrom's attorney got back to us and said
yes, they would give us this easement but it couldn't be wider than 6
feet and it had to be this and it had to be that. A whole list of
conditions to which I said, no, sorry.
Robinson: Why the conditions:
Sietsema: Because he wanted us to put a fence along the trail so people
wouldn't go shooting across his backyard and he didn't want it be wider
than 6 feet which in the development contract it says the pavement can't
go wider than 6 feet but the easement itself needs to be wider than that
in case we need to meander around anything. He didn't want us to take
out any trees which we probably wouldn't do anyway if we could work
around them. I can't remember the whole list but he had a whole bunch of
them and I got back to him and said, no. You have to give us an easement
somewhere. This all came to a head when the City proposed putting an
access road into their water tower property and all these people in this
neighborhood are up in arms because they don't want truck traffic going
to the watertower. Now they're not sure if they want a trail going -'
through there anyway. I also got a letter from someone else in this
neighborhood that wanted to remain anonymous, saying that he didn't
prefer this alignment because it doesn't give anybody within the
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 21
,.....
Pleasant Hill Subdivision access to the school. If you live on Lot 6,
you can't get to the school. You can't get to that trail easement. It
only gives access to these people so he was suggesting that we go with
the northern route.
Hasek: Is the guy that owns this orange dot the guy that put the plat
together?
Sietsema: Yes.
Hasek: And he failed to register the easement?
Sietsema: Right.
Hasek: Could that be litigated? Is it worth it to litigate that or not?
Sietsema: We could still put pressure on him to get the easement but
he's going to have to go back to each one of these homeowners and get
them to sign off on it and that is really his problem and not ours
because he failed to do it in the first place but they'll come back to us
and say, how come you're doing this to us? We didn't know. The
developer never told us. The realtor never told us that we were going to
have to do this. Whether they did or not, no one will ever know.
,.....
Hasek: Is the developer in good stead in that neighborhood still?
I know at one point they all thought he was God. Is he still?
Sietsema: I don't know.
Hasek: It seems to me, if I were to own that piece of property, that it
would make the most sense to put that purple line. I wouldn't want to
get 10 feet off the back of the lots simply because it really restricts
what you can do with that lot. The purple line that's on there between
Lots 6 and 5, seems to make a little more sense.
Sietsema: One of the other things is that his house is built...
Hasek: Close to that line I'm sure.
Sietsema: His driveway is right up against this line so it would require
the trail going right over his driveway and Boudrie has a fence right up
against the property line so that means we'd have to give the 10 feet all
on Lot 6.
Hasek: It seems to me like he hung himself and we ought to just take the
10 feet around the edge of that property and that's the way it's going to
go.
~ Mady: Who owns Lots 4 and 20 on this thing?
Sietsema: I don't know.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 22
.....,
Mady: Because we're impacting on that person now. We're impacting on
whoever owns that Lot 20 also because the developer who owns number 6
didn't do what he was supposed to do a long time ago. To me, the most
natural place to put this trail is between 5 and 6 because that's where
the kids are going to walk. I don't care what anybody says. They're not
going to go around that guy's yard, they're going to go through his yard.
Watson: But are they now?
Mady: I don't know if they do now or not.
Watson: The gate has existed, the kids have walked through there for
years now. What is the present track to go through there?
Sietsema: I think they're going down to this gate here.
Watson: The kids have been doing this for ages and when 65th didn't go
all the way through and those people were so thrilled, the one thing was
that that end of 65th Street, that those kids could continue to come
through there and there would be access to the back of the school. In
spite of the fact that 65th didn't end up going through and connecting to
Ostrum's there, to that cul-de-sac. That was the original proposal.
That was when 65th was going to go all the way through.
Hasek: That's the way it should have been done.
....."
Watson: So when they didn't extend 65th Street they said, well at the
end of 65th they will continue, people can use that as a walk through and
they can continue on through so they've been walking through for a long
time. So whatever the traffic pattern is now, probably wouldn't be a bad
way to go because the kids are doing it.
Mady: The school could stop that simply by closing off the gate. If the
trail goes through to the large gate, the kids will move to the large
gate if they close off the small gate.
Sietsema: Right, and the school building itself is down here so it's
going to be out of their way to come up here and then go there. I'm sure
that their traffic pattern is to go this way through this gate but again,
they're not doing it on an easement right now. They're just going there
and by closing the gate, it would force them to change their traffic
pattern.
Mady: An easement means it goes through the city watertower property and
somewhere around Lot 6. To me the most natural thing to do would be to
take a diaganol line through Lots 5 and 6 into the city watertower
property. If the small gate remains open, the kids aren't going to use
it anyway.
Watson: They're going to go the way they've always gone.
Mady: The developer has a real problem here. I don't have a problem
going anyway. As long as it goes there. I think it's the developer's
....."
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 23
,....
problem to solve it since he is required in his development contract.
Sietsema: But I need your recommendation if it's going to be different
than what the development contract says.
Watson: And we're going to pave it?
Boyt: A 6 foot wide trail?
Sietsema: Yes, it could be.
Boyt: That will encourage the kids to use it wherever it goes.
Sietsema: If they're going to pave it, it should be done this summer.
Robinson: Going straight to the back of Lot 6 there, your red line, he
didn't like that because his lawyer said...
Sietsema: He was just going to put a bunch of stipulations on it but I
don't think he's going to...
,....
Robinson: But I think that's back to his problem again. You either go
north there or if you want to put all those stipulations, then you get
that bottom solid line fixed down by the small gate. It's his problem.
I think we can get that.
Sietsema: What I'm saying is if you'll accept the red line, I need that
in a motion because it's different. I need a recommendation to amend the
development contract.
Hasek: Can we do it like we recommend to take the original alignment if
at all possible. If not, in lieu of that, we would accept the red line?
Sietsema: What's not possible?
Hasek: If it is possible, than maybe we should just stick with the
original one if that's what we want. There is certainly less impact on
the whole development by going the red line.
Boyt: If you go the red line, all the kids in the development can get to
it too.
Mady: My problem with the red line is the corner there. Going around
Lot 6. You're impacting two lot land owners who have been there forever
that don't need the impact.
Sietsema: This guy here, his house is up in here by this corner.
,.... Mady: He still might not want people going across his property.
Watson: The guy on 65th there, they're accustomed to this foot traffic.
Mady: Not going through their yard like this.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 2~
....".
Watson: No, but they knew that was a trade-off when they didn't have
their road go through. Believe me, they were doing everything but
dancing in the streets when 65th didn't go through.
Mady: I can believe that but what I'm looking at here is there is no
reason to put the trail up there when we can just do it in the diagonal.
Sietsema: I guess what I would say Jim, looking long range, Curt Ostrum
isn't going to own that house. He's going to sell it and somebody is
going to have kids trapsing by their bedroom window only a foot away and
across their driveway. Do we want it to go a foot away from their house
and over their driveway or around their backyard? That's the options and
if it were my house, I would rather have them going around my backyard
than right next to my window. I wish I had a picture of where they built
the house on this lot but as I recall, there's only a 10 foot or
something setback and he's right on the setback line.
Hasek: Boudrie's have a lot of room on this side that he's on. I
certainly wouldn't want somebody, he's got a pool in his backyard, I
wouldn't want somebody running across. I think he would probably be
willing to give it back simply because it's so far in the back, he's got
a kind of natural area back there anyway.
Sietsema: He's got it fenced regardless.
....".
Mady: His whole property?
Sietsema: Yes.
Mady: He did put a fence up.
Sietsema: He's got a fence right on the property line between 5 and 6.
Mady: He must have done that when he built that house because it wasn't
there last summer.
Sietsema: He called me within the last 6 months and let me know there
was a fence up.
Watson moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the trail route go along the edge of Lot 6, cross the
street and go across the watertower property to the larger gate in lieu
of the original trail plan. Along with that recommendation, that the
school effectively close off the small gate. Also, that the trail would
be done unconditionally. All voted in favor except Jim Mady who opposed
and motion carried.
Sietsema: We leave it back up to Ostrum. He either give it to us -'
unconditionally or he has to go back to those homeowners and get the
easement from them.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 25
,....
Watson: And that access along the back of that lot has to be the regular
width and everything has to be standard. No conditions because he's
already effectively paid for this. Lori, when things like this happen,
exactly how does it happen? Who's responsibility is it to see to it that
these things are filed? On all these various developments we look at and
we pick out trail easements and we do all these things, who follows
through to see they are in fact.
Sietsema: They're done as a condition of approval at the final plat time
so what Barbara does, Barb now is the one who goes through all the
conditions to see that they are all met and then she takes the plat in to
be signed by Don and Tom. But at that point in time I believe it was
Bill's responsibility to do that because this happened before, or maybe
it was Weibel's because this was before Barb and I were here. This was
at the time of Scott and Weibel and Bill so I don't know who's
responsibility it was at that point in time.
Boyt: We've had conditions recently too where our easements have been
abused because certain people didn't know that we had the easement there
and they couldn't do whatever they wanted to do. Who follows up on
that? Who watches our easements? Like at Chan Pond Park where they
decided to dump dirt and you can't just do that.
,.... Sietsema: Who follows up on the easements? The whole thing about the
easements, it's really a difficult thing because legally they can not
show up on the plat.
Mady: They can't?
Sietsema: No, they can't. It's not up to just you, it's up to us too
but if we don't catch it, it's helpful to have other people bring it to
our attention.
Mady: That landowner has to be notified that he's in violation of an
easement.
Sietsema: What part of Chan Hills?
Boyt: It's old.
Sietsema: The original development over there?
Boyt: Yes.
Sietsema: They don't have an easement there.
Boyt: No, it's not on their property.
It's a very steep hill down to the pond
foot strip. The very southern half but
trees on parkland.
It's on Chan Pond's property.
where they've cleared maybe a 10
still, they should not clear
IfII"'"
Hoffman: We'll fine them for a tree. Hennepin Parks does. That guy was
cutting firewood in one of Hennepin Parks and they took him right to
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 26
""'"
court and he got $1,200.00 per tree and he had to pay and he had to do
public service.
UPDATE: CONDITION OF THE INDOOR ICE ARENA CEILING.
Hoffman: That was a while ago we talked about that and I was concerned
about it because of the condensation that occurs in there. I didn't see
how the condensation, why it would stop once we got up inside the ceiling
but indeed it does. It goes back about 3 feet where the insulation is
matted down with a lot of that moisture dripping down and there is ice
formed up there and past that the insulation is still looking in fairly
good condition. The roof was in there. The ceiling material there which
is outlined here, what it consists of, steel mesh material that is
attached to the lower ceiling members and covered with a lightweight
sprayed plaster which then was sprayed with a K-13, a cellulous fiber
insulation. That's in real good condition so the existing ceiling there
shouldn't be a problem but as noted in here, if any further development
does occur in that building, it should be looked at to replace the entire
ceiling material. How it's built there.
Mady: A little update, I talked to Clayton Johnson one day because he
represents the Bloomberg Companies and they own the piece of property.
Bloomberg Properties, as far as they're concerned, they don't care
anything about that building. They're not interested in doing anything
with it. If they could get the proper zoning, they would just as soon
see both stores get placed in the winter...so just a point of reference.
We aren't going to see them doing anything over and above the call of
duty for that building.
....",
Sietsema: Except out of the goodness of their hearts.
Watson: But it was reassuring it wasn't in as bad a shape. At one time
you were talking the ceiling was going to fall in. It was nice to
realize that it really isn't going to fall in.
Mady: This white cellulose, it hangs down a little bit and over the
years it's gotten really dirty and it just looks terrible but it does
function.
Watson: But it isn't dangerous and that's the only thing everybody was
concerned about.
UPDATE: REFERENDUM RESULTS.
Mady: The Dominoes Pizza people once again did a bang up job for the
City like they've done in the past. Any other pats on the backs we could
pass onto those two businesses.
Hasek: Precinct 4 is where?
....",
Hoffman: Minnewashta.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 27
,....,
Hasek: Is that the whole Minnewashta?
Hoffman: West of TH 41.
Hasek: I found out some very disheartening things about some of the
votes out there. It seems to me like they're fairly decent...but it's
just unfortunate that two of us couldn't have gotten to one more person
or two more people and gotten it done...I also found out that the people
who were voting against the trail out in that area based on publication
that they had looked at and I believe it was one of the Minneapolis
papers, and don't quote me because I don't know exactly the
conversation... What happened was that it was not clear to these people
out there that Minnewashta trails, either wasn't on the first phase or
wasn't one of the first trails that was going to be done and because of
that, they made that vote against the trails which was not good and very
unfortunate. I think we need to address that with just a little better
public information. I certainly, being a resident out there, have
no...the trail system because I know that there's problems out there but
apparently none of those people feel...
Boyt: At the public meetings we had, when I was there and we said
Minnewashta Parkway was in the top three to go in.
,....
Mady: At the public meeting held at the Minnetonka West Intermediate
School, there were maybe 22 people there. I believe 20 of those people
were from Chanhassen proper, right downtown. There were two people there
that I talked to who lived in that area. They did not come to the
meetings. They just don't participate. That's just the way it is.
Watson: They don't feel attached to Chanhassen. No matter what we do
out there, they're Excelsior residents. They're Excelsior Post Office
and sometimes you have to tell people that they live in the City of
Chanhassen. Some of them don't seem to know. If you talk Carver County
or Chanhassen, they give you a blank look.
Hasek: In defense of living out there, there are reasons for that. One
is, not having your road plowed out until 2:00 in the afternoon and then
having the plow go only as wide as the blade coming through the middle of
it. Then having it plowed two days later out to the curbs so you
actually have it shoveled three times. That's part of what contributes
to that and why the Post Office failed out there was part of the reason.
They feel that they're getting the best Post Office that they can. If
they change to Chanhassen, what's it going to be like... 4:00 in the
afternoon because we're still on the outside of town.
Watson: But Ed you're telling me that their attachments to this City are
associated with their snowplowing?
II""-
Hasek: ...we paid for it. Some of the highest taxes in the city occur
on the other side of that lake.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 28
....",
Boyt: I hear that no matter where people live in Chanhassen, we pay the
highest taxes. Whether it's southern Chanhassen, Lotus Lake,
Minnewashta. It's we pay the highest taxes in Chanhassen and we deserve
the best services available. I hear it from people in Hesse Farms.
People who live on Lotus Lake.
Mady: Face it, we all pay the same taxes. It's just that some have a
little better houses so they pay a little higher tax.
Hasek: Anyway, I think there's an attitude that has to b~ adjusted out
there and I think it's the same frustration that the rest of you've got.
Sietsema: I was just going to say, any suggestions. Because we made
phone calls and when I got to that area, some of them didn't even know
there was a referendum coming up.
Hasek: Do you recall when you first talked to Greg potilla?
Sietsema: He did phone calling. I gave him lists.
Hasek: He said that he had talked to people who were against it because
it wasn't the first trail... But there's a difference between top three
and number one.
Sietsema: Not much.
.....,;
Hasek: But that's the way they feel out there and I don't even know how
to begin to address that. I felt very good that we were a part of Phase
1 knowing the trouble there was going to be getting that thing in and how
expensive it's going to be to put it down there. I just don't consider
it as important enough to be in Phase 1 let alone be number 1. It's
like, perhaps what I'm reading is that we brought the issue up for the
City and it was because of the issue that we brought before the City,
that they took a look at their trail plan, now we're not number 1, what's
the deal with that. I guess the answer to that is, yes you are a portion
of number one and you are important and how much more can you do?
Mady: This comes up in a new referendum and you start voting on what
goes first and when, unless there's a referendum, that precinct
demonstrates a desire to have trails, they drop from number 3 on my
priorities down to 4 or 5. Number one, they don't want them.
Hasek: This is embarrassing for me, no question about it but it's the
attitude behind how it got to where it's at that's even worse. I want to
be number one or I don't want to be at all and that to me is just
unfortunate. Again yes, they do want a trail. There's no question they
want the trail. It's the attitude behind their desire I think that needs
to be somewhat higher addressed.
Boyt: I had a neighbor call me and say Sue, I really want the trails, ~
what can we do to get them? This was the day after the referendum. I
said, we need a community action group, a pro trail group. We need to be
vocal in the Minnewashta area to organize. To go out and educate the
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 29
IfI"""
public. We can help a little bit but we need some people besides us that
will get there and work the trails and if they would do that.
Hasek: I was hoping that the precinct, when you said everyone west of TH
41, I was hoping it was more definitive than that to really tie it down.
There were a lot of people on the north side of the lake who voted and
there were a lot of people on the west side.
Sietsema: There's not that many people on the west side. West of that
west side if park.
Hasek: The north side is kind of a different issue out there. It's not
the same.
Sietsema: Those people up in the Manor and the Heights and up there,
they didn't have much to gain by the trails because they're really right
on street trails and that's what they're using their streets for anyway.
Hasek: And you can get all the way from Smith's greenhouse property all
the way over to the shopping center, the school, TH 41, without going on
the freeway. I take that back. There's that one small piece where you
have to go but eventually that will be closed off too.
Watson: But they're going to be much more interested in what Shorewood
If!"" does with their trails because they see themselves oriented in that
direction. Not back in to Chanhassen but towards Excelsior and that way.
Shorewood trails would probably gain more excitement in that part of
Chanhassen than our own because they see themselves oriented towards
their school which is out of our city. Everything they go out of
Chanhassen.
Mady: Get out of that precinct to the other one, Precinct 2, which was
even worse.
Hasek: Where's that one at?
Mady: That's the north Lotus Lake area. I sat in this room the night
before the referendum talking to a neighborhood group and they wanted to
know what guarantees I could give them that we not put a trail through
Lotus Lake Estates even though the property's not proposed and I looked
them square in the eye and I said, look we've only got $800,000.00.
That's going to do what we have on the map. We don't have anymore money
than that. I can't do it any other place. There's no reason to run
through your property. There's nothing we want to get to. Then they
started talking about the City has an easement along the lake there, they
want that abandoned. They were so anti-trails.
.~
Hasek: Until we said TH 41 and then they were kind of excited about
having it on TH 41 although I don't think anybody believes that.
Watson: The only thing that made it was the Fire Station. Apparently the
only they're interested in is not burning down.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 30
--'
Mady: And that didn't make it by much. So we've got some very negative
comments out there and the only thing good that can be said about having
a small referendum is that the bulk of the voters will come out there,
the people that live in this town in the central of Chanhassen, they
approved everything. They were in favor of everything and we seem to get
a little bit more information to those people.
Sietsema: Trails were fourth.
Mady: That one amazed me, the south park.
Hasek: That was confusing to me too. That they were willing to buy a
piece of land, undeveloped, with no connections to anything.
Robinson: A guy told me that lives out north, it must be Precinct 4,
that he got down to the number 5 and it only said $300,000.00, he said
why not.
Sietsema: I think both Lake Ann and the park were such low dollar
amounts.
Watson: Most people can identify, a bigger portion of people can
identify with Lake Ann. They play softball there. The kids take
sWlmming lessons. Something relates to Lake Ann Park so we probably
don't have any problem with that and the little amount of money we ask ~
for for parkland maybe they thought, well gee, maybe I better say yes to
something. They saw number 5 and they thought, oh what the heck, let
them buy some property now.
Mady: Isn't it safe for us to make a recommendation to the Council now
on this thing?
Sietsema: I don't think it would hurt to make a recommendation. To put
it back on the November.
Mady: The discussion I want to have come out concerning some of the
items, I want to make sure that the Council has at least my input on and
hopefully everybody elses, concerning when these things take place
because we still have the trails and the community center coming back.
In some way, shape or form there's going to be another referendum this
year and I think we need all this stuff still and still save some money.
We don't necessarily have to go and spend $600,000.00 this year. There
are ways of doing this without spending the money and I want to make sure
that the Council understands that. I think some of them do but I'm not
sure all of them do.
Watson: How soon will we know what the Community Center Task Force is
going to do on this?
Mady: I hope it's going to happen soon. We have to wait for the Counci
to get a new Task Force and they're supposed to be meeting next Monday. ~
"'"
"'"
,.....,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 31
Watson: I got a chuckle out of some of the suggestions of pieces of land
to put the community center on.
Mady: Obviously we did not get the information out. There are just not
available pieces of property.
Watson: They want us to buy this piece of property right out for here
for example.
Mady: The Charlie James property. We need 5 acres of land and that
stuff's going for roughly $3.00 to $4.00 a square foot. That puts it
right at $150,000.00 an acre. Yes, we can buy it for $750,000.00.
Watson: That's what I say, maybe 5 years from now if we all save our
pennies we might be able to come up with it.
Mady: We also have a problem wi.th the Eckankar property in that if you
attempt to rezone that, which we would have to do, you open up the other
side which I don't believe people thought it through. There are other
problems.
Watson: Or they weren't the people who were here for that issue and saw
the hysteria that accompanied that.
Mady: We need to get that information out. The Task Force didn't
foresee that. Sue mentioned something about a Saturday session. I'd
like to see us, if there's something we need to do, the City just bought
the old train depot that sits out at Natural Green. That's a nice piece
of structure that maybe we have a use for. Initially I was thinking,
maybe that's our bath house down at Lake Ann but it's not big enough for
that unfortunately but we still should take a look at it and start
thinking about it because it should be used someplace in a city park.
There are other things that need to be looked at. Frank and Mel Kurver
made available their barn, it could be moved to a parkland. Now Lori
said the City thinks it might cost $18,000.00 to move the structure.
still would like to have us go look at it. It's a fairly small barn
there might be a way of doing it. Now if we could move that to Lake
there's a way of modifying it so that it would work very well for a
bathhouse, I don't want to just see that dropped. I think maybe we
need to look at that. I don't know if anybody has gone out to Lake
to look at the gazebo going up. It wouldn't be so bad to go take a
at that sucker too.
I
and
Ann,
all
Ann
look
Hasek: I've seen it from the road. It looks pretty small.
Mady: It sure is. It's not as big as it looks in the plans.
Boyt: We're also supposed to put together something about criteria for
future Park and Rec commissioners.
Hasek: I was listening to discussion by Council on the TV the other
night. Actually I kind of enjoy it. It's unfortunate that they're 3 to
4 days after they meet here but they were talking about attendance and
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 32
"""""
they were looking at some of the attendance records. I still take a
vehement issue with some of the things they were saying. To me, to
maintain 75%, those were the number of meetings that were talked about
when we were put on this commission, is ridiculous in lieu of the fact
that we realize that we have a heavier load than we agreed to. If you
look at it from the simpliest point of view, a person that gets onto a
volunteer committee knowing that they can make these meetings and the
week and the night that's there and realizing that they may be at 199%
over the course of a year based on 1 night a month, knowing that they
can't make another night similar to that in the whole month going into it
and the one night happens to fit, then you double the meetings, you've
got that person automatically back from 199% to 59%. The commitment is
still there by that particular person. The only thing that's changed is
the workload that's being put on those particular people and I would
submit that you would find it very difficult to find somebody willing to
sit on this commission knowing that it's two nights a month as opposed to
one night a month. As development comes down and perhaps gets heavier
and heavier and heavier and the meetings may have to be extended beyond
19:99 or 9:39 or whatever it's supposed to be, so I think if they want to
have a mandatory level, that they ought to adjust it according to the
number of meetings they're meeting right now being asked to attend and
change the asterick. The ones we volunteered to attend. I feel a lot of
us can maybe set the level for which we feel is appropriate rather than
them arbitrarily saying 75%. I would say if you're on the Planning
Commission or the Council, positions for which you were elected, you ~
ought to be there for every single one of them. That's my feeling and
I'm not looking at it only from my standpoint. I'm looking at it from
the standpoint of others...
Watson: I have to say, especially at the beginning because when we came
on and it was going to be one meeting a month, it took time to adjust to
the fact that it was only one meeting. I can look back at my attendance,
it was the first few months where I had trouble pulling in this item. Now
it doesn't matter anymore because everything is adjusted to meet that
expectation where originally that wasn't what we were told. At first it
seemed like I got screwed up on the second one.
Robinson: Has anybody ever gotten any crap? I
times to us, that you've got to have some kind
guideline just happens to be an arbitrary 75%.
any crap, I don't think, for hitting only 74%.
heard you say a couple
of a guideline. The
Nobody has ever gotten
Sietsema: Not in the last year but it has happened on this commission in
the past. I wasn't at the meeting that you watched but I got the
impression that the Council wants to hold a firm 75% and it's not just a
guideline. That it is a mandatory 75% because they feel there are people
within the community who would be able to put in more time. Not that
maybe your input isn't valued but maybe they should continue to look who
can be there more often. Do you want me to send a message to them or
just have gone on record with your opinion.
--'"
Hasek: I would just like to once again go on record that at some point
in the future, if I continue to hear some of the malarkey that I'm
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 33
II""'"
hearing out of those particular people, I think we'll end up going back
to one meeting a month and as long as we pass a motion to that effect
because I think it's a little bit unbalanced the way that the measure of
performance. I think there ought to be some other things that are
included in that. That question certainly does not ask that the meeting
when I began. I asked the question, oh by the way when are the meetings
and I was told, and I hope that doesn't give you have problems. Once a
month, I can arrange my schedule to be there that one time a month.
Twice a month, if I have to take, I haven't had a Thursday night off in 3
months, maybe 4 months now, where I haven't had a meeting. This week
I've got two meetings on Thursday night. I generally know, they know as
well as I do, that the Planning Commission and Council meetings aren't on
Friday night. If this thing was on a Friday night, we'd probably all be
here because there is no meeting and there would be any other obligation
but Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday are the big nights on everybody's
agenda.
Sietsema: I again will try to keep it to one night a month. That was
the original intent was to keep it to one night a month and then if it
went past our 10:00 time, then to put the rest of the items onto the next
agenda. Then we'd have two meetings a month. I already know that
I pulled off a few that have to be on within the next two weeks. This
time of year is our busiest time of year. Once we get into the summer,
it's not as busy either.
,....
Boyt: We have such a nice balance,I think,
problem is on March 22nd. We're going to be
things and Mike or Larry isn't aware of what
sure they have real legitimate reasons.
on the Commission. The
talking about one of these
we're talking about. I'm
Mady: What you're saying is if we make a legitimate effort, let the
people know, there's a lot of citizen input that's going to come forward
and we're just saying, if you give your best effort. If your best effort
doesn't meet the criteria, then we'll look for somebody else.
Watson: It has been a problem in the past. People who simply have never
shown up.
,.....,
Hasek: ...What's the problem. That's coming out of the mouth of a
person who's elected and he's missed. some meetings himself. I don't
understand. To me if you're elected to a position, your obligated. You
are hired to do a job for crying out loud. You should be there but you
also have the opportunity to fire.
Mady: Lori, follow up on that having a Saturday field trip type thing.
Sietsema: I'll put that on the next agenda for setting a date. I think
it would great to go out but I think we should wait until it dries up
just a tad if we're going to go hoofing through the mud.
Hoffman: I think we should go look at the dump at Bluff Creek. We can't
have a dump in a city park.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
March 8, 1988 - Page 34
-'
Mady: Is there one there now?
Hoffman: Sure.
Mady: Where? At the end?
Hoffman: Right where you drive to the golf course. At the clubhouse,
you look off to the left that's Bluff Creek Park and it's a dump. A lot
of garbage in there.
Mady: One final thing on the discussion on the referendum, put down on
the agenda for next time discussion of the Lake Ann and the south park.
We need to start talking about that so the Council knows we're aware of
it.
Boyt: That was something, if you were interested at all, Bill had wanted
to go through with us.
Mady: Yes, and we need to talk about that.
Boyt: It's a time commitment though. This is something that's like he
does for his job.
Sietsema: Didn't he say it was like a 3 hour deal?
Boyt: Yes, 3 to 4 hours.
.....,
Watson: I want to know well in advance because that's not an easy thing.
Sietsema: I will put it on the agenda for next time to decide when it
should be.
Boyt:
thing.
If not a Saturday morning, maybe an evening with dinner type of
Maybe from 6:00 to 9:00 or something.
Watson:
That would be better because Saturday mornings are real bad.
Mady: One of the things maybe we need to start doing, because it's
starting to get an hour early, into our busy time, and the more put off,
the worse it's going to get. I don't want to see, and I hope this goes
on record, I don't want to see the Council act on the referendum items
dealing with Park and Recreation needs prior to us having some discussion
on them.
Robinson moved, Hasek seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator ~
Prepared by Nann Opheim