The URL can be used to link to this page

PRC 1988 08 09 ~ If1""'" PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 1988 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Jim Mady, Curt Robinson, Mike Lynch, and Larry Schroers MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson and Ed Hasek STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Lynch seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated July 26, 1988 as amended. All voted in favor except Boyt who abstained and the motion carried. REQUEST TO PURCHASE AND DEVELOP PARKLAND IN THE PHEASANT HILLS SUBDIVISION AREA. Sietsema: We recently received petitions from the residents of Pheasant Hills area to provide parkland in the area. They had three requests. ~. That parkland be provided in the area. That the outlots that are there be improved as parkland and the undeveloped lots be cleaned up. I did forward the third petition to Scott Harr to take care of that one so that leaves us with looking at the first two petitions. We were just out at the site to see what the three outlots were like. Basically they're wet. They have water standing on them and they have a lot of topography. What I would suggest is we ask the residents in the area that are here what kind of parkland, what kind of facilities they're looking for and start off that way. Mady: We just toured your subdivision and looked at the three outlots. It was the general consensus of all of us that given the steep grades existing, the standing water, the City's ordinance against using wetlands in any way, shape or form, we just can't see a way of making them into an active playground type of arrangement. They are fantastic wetlands and natural areas waiting to be preserved so what we're looking for is some ideas from the residents. What your thoughts are on developing possibly an active play area because it is a park deficient area. The nearest parkland to you, to my knowledge, is the Curry Farms park that is being developed as a part of the Centex Homes development off of CR 17 and Lake Lucy Road. That's it. The best you can get there, it looks like it's at least three-quarters of a mile away so we're looking for some ideas. Tom Klingelhutz, Tiqua Circle: I'm the developer of Pheasant Hills. I'd like the record to show that I did not receive a letter or notification of this meeting either by written letter or verbally. I wonder why. I think I'm the most involved in this thing. Why wasn't I sent a letter on it? ~ Sietsema: l'm sorry, I did not perceive this as your responsibility. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 2 """'" Tom Klingelhutz: Then contrary to the wordage in the letter that was sent to some of the residents in Pheasant Hills, the Park Commission did, in 1984 on January 19th, review this planOo You were at that meeting, right? Sietsema: No. Tom Klingelhutz: They did review this and I have the Minutes here. I'll give you that as Exhibit I and here's the outline of the Minutes. They decided they would sooner have the money than the land at that point. Now I'd be more than willing to give them land at that point. Now I can't give you land. It's platted. You can buy it from me but it's costly. Sewer and water is all in. The streets are in. There's nothing I can do but at that point, at that time and you were here, they were land rich and dollar poor, right? You probably still are. So it was determined that we would pay at that time $415.00 a permit. I have Exhibit 2 which is some more of the recommendations from the City. On outlots, we have been trying for a year to give these outlots to the City. The County Assessor had put a valuation ridiculous on them and taxed us for them. One of them is at $32,000.00. There was no sense in us paying that. We had to go through all the motions of getting abatement from the County which took a long time. We finally have it. The City has the warranty deed laying up here someplace. Sietsema: It's not recorded though. ...." Tom Klingelhutz: But they're not recorded. We know that. We checked at the courthouse. The warranty deeds are up here someplace. If they can find them, I don't know. If they can't, we'll find another one. We have a letter from Barb Dacy dated May 11th. The city maintained outlot 0 as a skating rink last year. They scrapped the snow. They flooded it which was fine. My insurance company found out about it and I had to put a 3 million dollar liability insurance policy on it. It cost me over $2,000.00 so don't think I want to get rid of it. I don't want it. Outlot C, there's something in your minutes here about the size of a totlot. Bob Waibel said I understand...is 2,000 square foot was sufficient for a totlot. Outlot 2, I could get at least 3 walkout lots in here. All the way over to here before you even get to the wetlands. There's a lot of flat land up here. I wish I would have known that you guys were going over here, I'd come over and showed you the lines of the property lines. Again, I should have been notified. I know exactly where they are. Recently I mowed the lots because I seeded them last fall and we haven't had much rain this year. I'm trying to get that grass that's planted in there to grow. Now I have contracted a guy to mow it but he hasn't mowed them yet. I have restrictive covenants in here, many of these people that signed this petition, and I see the petition, have violated the restrictive covenants in my area. They are also going to be getting letters. One from me and the City so this thing works both ways. Grass clippings, brush, old dead trees, all these things thrown on my property, I don't appreciate that. It ain't just the developer that's having problems. The City, the developer has plenty of problems with people. That's you. There is no problem, only people. I've lived in this town all my life. I built here for over 30 years. It used to be fun to build here. ..." Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 3 I""'" Mady: Is Outlot C, is that here? Tom Kl ingelhut z: is right here... There's a house being built right here and the property There's quite a large area that's planted. Boyt: Do you know how many feet it is from the road to the marsh there? Tom Klingelhutz: Right here at this point, over by the lamp post, it's 131 feet to the back corner and the marsh starts at approximately in there but there's a slope at about 110, 112, 115 feet back and the slope goes down. I had to fill part of that with the idea that possibly it would be an area that could be used. Boyt: Is that pretty consistent around the curve, about 100 feet before? Tom Klingelhutz: It comes over to a point about where the...and then it drops pretty fast. Boyt: So this is the area? Tom Klingelhutz: Well over 10,000 feet. ,...... Boyt: We're not making you use it... Tom Klingelhutz: Well, from the restrictions I've got. I've done everything you asked for right down the line. I have for 30 years. That's what I've been developing in town, for over 30 years. I've done everything according to what the City has asked. Boyt: We don't find you at fault for anything here. We're just looking at a way to get some parkland for the people who live in this area. It's not your fault that Park and Rec didn't ask for land 4 years ago. That's no reflection on you. Tom Klingelhutz: This just kind of excited me you know because I didn't know about it. I hear about it from some of my friends and some of my other friends are sneaking around trying to stab me in the back you know and it's kind of a sneaky way of doing things. Lynch: I have a couple of questions for you Tom. On that small outlot A on the 4th Addition. Tom Klingelhutz: Yes, that drops off. That's a street right-of-way for future access to this property. I didn't make a street but I left a 50 foot right-of-way in there for either possible or road right-of-way out to Lake Lucy Road or... ~ Lynch: Frankly I don't care...but as compared to this here. Tom Klingelhutz: The wetlands are...and I think this, there's really no water in this lot. There's a lot of water in back of houses here but that's about... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 4 ..", Mady: It's 80 feet from that garden on that outlot. Boyt: Could I ask again how much, approximately how many square feet there is along this area? Tom Klingelhutz: In this area probably, I don't have the footage here, 160 feet from that point... It would be 412 feet all the way along to this point so 412, we're talking about 139 up to this point... Mady: Would anybody like to make a comment now? The Commission recognizes the need for a playground, an active area. By looking at the topo, it looks like we can probably make maybe a totlot, maybe a play area there. I'm not sure how much else we can do at this point in time. We'd like to hear at least some of you. Tom Steinkamp, 1771 Pheasant Circle: First of all I'd like to say Tom, we don't have a problem with you. We realize that it isn't your problem. That you went by what the City wanted at the time the land was platted. There's been some conversation with you. You talked about this portion of Outlot C that would be available as a totlot. Personally, I don't know. I have some pluses and minuses about that but I can understand that. Some of the people in Pheasant Hills went to the City and asked them what's going on because it's been our understanding that those outlots have been turned over to the City. I think you told me that. You told some of the-, people in the neighborhood that. I think that process has tried to happen but maybe there's been something wrong with it. I think a lot of people at the City think they own it because that's why they agreed to flood and maintain the ice rink. Had the guys at the Park and Rec Department known that it wasn't their property, I don't think they would have done that so I think there's some confusion here at the City, it's safe to say. Our problem is that, I think everybody here agrees that Pheasant Hills is parkland deficient and we went to the City and said, what do we got to do about developing some of this land into parkland or getting it up to parkland standards now that the City owns it. We were told that the first thing you've got to do is get a petition going to get some action rolling. I didn't think that it really needed to be any of your business and I don't think anybody else here thought it either to be your business because I don't think you have to do anything about it. you've done your share. We don't have any problems with Tom Klingelhutz or the development itself. I think there were some things done wrong on the City's behalf. Back in maybe 1984, some of you should have said well, no those lots can't be considered parkland because at one time those lots were talked about being parkland. It says that in the letter that we got but that decision was made in 1984 and now it's 1988 and now we've got to live with it so what can we do about it. Personally I don't really like the idea of that as a parkland. It's pretty close to water. You know what kids and water do and I don't know what liability that puts the City in if there's a park within rock throwing distance of water. I think the City ought to buy some lots from Tom and put a new park in. That's what I think ought to happen. I don't think it's Tom's problem. I think it's the City's ~ problem. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 5 ,...., Boyt: Can I just say that a lot of our parks are on water. Lake Ann. Lake Susan. Lotus Lake. Tom Steinkamp: You staff a lifeguard though don't you? But there's a lot more property and how many square feet we're talking about. This is a pretty small area. Although I think it could be graded to make it larger and not ruin much or any of the wetland. There's some area there where it drops off before it gets to actual wetland so it probably could be made even bigger than if you went out there right now and looked at it. It probably could be made a little bit bigger. As citizens of Pheasant Hills, we want the 3.6 acres that you said in the letter and I think we all should realize that that's probably unrealistic too but I think we should meet at some compromise between the two. Boyt: Is your neighborhood a neighborhood of very little children or older kids? Tom Steinkamp: Very young. Boyt: Are you interested in totlots? Tom Steinkamp: Of the people that signed the petition, there's about 60 kids represented there. There's probably another 10 homes that didn't ,...., have the opportunity to sign the petition that had kids. There's probably 70 to 75 kids in the neighborhood. I would bet you all but 15 of them are under 10. Is that safe to say? They are all zero through 8-9 years old. Personally I don't need full sized ballfields and tennis courts. I want someplace to get the kids out of the street but some of the other people have to make their feelings known too. I hope you're not mad at the people in Pheasant Hills Tom because that wasn't the intent at all. If we had a problem with you, we would have come to you. We didn't have a problem with Tom Klingelhutz. We want the City to do something and we realize that it isn't really Tom's fault at this point. Maybe it never was Tom's fault. He did what he had to do for the City back in 1984 and now we want to do what we have to do with the City in 1988. Mady: Tom, let me ask you a question. What's the cost of a lot? Tom Klingelhutz: Somewhere around $34,000.00 to $35,000.00 now. Average. Boyt: Is that a third of an acre? ~ Tom Klingelhutz: They vary in size from 14,000 square feet on up to I think the biggest one in there is 22,000 square foot. Maybe there are some smaller than 14,000. I don't remember the sizes exactly. I know I had some smaller ones. The 4th Addition basically has an average of probably better than 15,000 square feet on each of the 22 lots that are in the 4th Addition. Some of the lots in the 2nd Addition were smaller because of the road situation at the time. Lake Lucy Road was in there and we made them smaller along there based on the fact that probably that road would be there forever and you wouldn't be able to build as nice a house on it. It ends up Lake Lucy Road has nice houses on smaller lots but it works out fine. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 6 -' Tom Steinkamp: I'd like you to clear up a question I have. How does the Park and Rec determine whether a developer like Tom K1inge1hutz has to put land aside for parkland or not or like this money deal that happened? How does that work? Lynch: There's a standard formulation that we look at plus the property itself. Now oftentimes a piece of property is too small. 5 or 6 or 7 lots. It's not on the plan there. In other cases, if Tom really did his home marketing, he had the meeting which I sat in on back in 1984, it would be worth reading in the Minutes. The City Manager noted that staff had discussed park meeting dates with Mr. K1inge1hutz. This area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a park deficient area, even then on our 5 year plan it was and it has continued to be. However, Mr. K1inge1hutz' property has severe terrain differentials. It may be feasible to secure enough land for a tot10t activities however finding sufficient land area for ba11fie1ds, skating rinks, etc. does not appear possible. Active sports areas are located at Minnetonka Jr. High. Now, the thing that I wanted to point out, we're really dealing with two issues here. You're immediate needs obviously would be served well with a tot10t and there's probably a place there somewhere that we can squeeze a tot10t in. A tot10t is just not that large. The second question was answered somewhere, in the subsequent...was a letter from Bob Waibel, City Planner, about the same piece of property at that time. He said the recreation element of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the majority of the property is in a park deficient area and states that as development -' occurs, the City will try to obtain a 5 to 10 acre parcel for future neighborhood park. We're still striving to do that. Unfortunately, the property, as it's developed up there, it has almost been a house by house operation other than Pheasant Hills and the Curry Farms development which we were able to get an actual park in Curry Farms but there hasn't been enough 1arge...in that area. Tom Steinkamp: That has less of a terrain differential than Pheasant Hills? Lynch: Well, yes because they made it so. The developer said I will do this for you. I will grade this and there are always some trade-offs. There are always some property in every development which is undevelopable. The developer would always like to give that to the City. The City doesn't always want to take it. There was, I'm sure Tom remembers this, before around 1984 the philosophy of the park board was to set aside nature areas and since then it's become let's have active play facilities for the folks youth so it was about that time when we were trying to change our focus and say we need a flat area that we can put a ballfield and a tennis court and skating rink and a picnic area. I never realized what a development costs of just bulldozing a few hills flat was until I got on this board and found out and looked at bids. It's inconceivable at this time in the City development that we could take a 5 to 10 acre lot that was hilly and out of the City pocket, bulldoze it to accomodate an active park because you're talking a couple hundred of ~ thousand dollars in earth moving. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 7 1"". Tom Steinkamp: You're spending a couple hundred thousand dollars here and a couple hundred thousand dollars there, why don't you spend it in our neighborhood. Boyt: We're not. Tom Steinkamp: The City is. Somebody is. There's construction going on allover around here. Mady: ...that's not available to us. Tom Steinkamp: So at that time it was decided that let's take the money instead of the land. Lynch: Right. The land not being suitable, we felt... Torn Steinkamp: Now does that money go into the general park fund or does that go into a fund specifically for Pheasant Hills? Mady: It's a capital improvement fund for the entire City. Sietsema: But it has to be spent in your area. The money that we collect from your area has to be spent in your area. ,..... Boyt: How many homes are in the development? About 90? Tom Klingelhutz: The original plat was around 89 I think and I think we have 26 lots left. Something like that. The original fee was $415.00. Not it's $425.00 so half I would say, it doesn't amount to much. Lynch: Anyway, my point is that we'd like to do something. I think we can do something on a totlot. We don't have any idea where a 5 to 10 acre park is going to go in that area. Now, we didn't in 1984 because of the development pattern. We don't now. Tom Steinkamp: Who owns the property, maybe Torn can answer this, south of the last house? Tom Klingelhutz: Carrico. Tom Steinkamp: Wasn't that property for sale. Tom Klingelhutz: it to me once. I believe he was trying to sell it. He tried to sell Torn Steinkamp: Didn't he try to sell it to you but that's outside of the sewered deal? ,..... Boyt: Do you know what he's asking for it? Tom Klingelhutz: If it's unsewered, I won't build on it. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 8 Tom Steinkamp: And it can't be worth that much because the only way he can sell it is in 2 1/2 acre increments, is that correct? ...,; Tom Klingelhutz: Now it's 10 acres. Tom Steinkamp: If it's for sale, obviously he doesn't want to hold it. Mady: Every developer always has their land for sale for a price. Tom Steinkamp: Maybe I would suggest that you people look into that. It's a flat piece of property. Mady: You have to realize that our budget doesn't allow us to do much. We are attempting to develop a large parcel for a community park in the southern area. We had to go to a referendum to get $300,000.00 to do that. The City is very limited in referendum abilities. Tom Steinkamp: What's the population density where you're putting that park? Mady: That's a community park, not a neighborhood park. It's a very different concept. Sietsema: into that. I think that's a good suggestion and we can definitely look I certainly wouldn't throw that alternative out the window. ....,; Tom Steinkamp: In the meantime, I think myself and I think some of these other people have to get up and say what they feel too but myself, I would be happy with a totlot...but I think in the future I'd like to see something larger than a totlot in that area of Chanhassen because the closest thing I know of in size is Chaparral. I don't know what Curry Farms. Mady: Curry Farms is a 5 acre in that area that will have, probably when it's developed it will have a ballfield, basketball court, skating rinks, totlot equipment. The way the Park Commission always has tried to work is to provide active park area through development. Have it deeded through the development process rather than to go out and buy it because we certainly don't have the budget to buy it. Your development looks like it's generating about $25,000.00 so far. That will probably develop into between $35,000.00 to $40,000.00 when it's all said and done. That would not buy us a whole lot of land and development costs are astronomical. We'll try to work the best we can to find some kind of solution. Staff will investigate the Carrico property to see what is available there and we will pursue the Outlot C option. Once we have some information on all this, we'll bring it back on the agenda and that's when we'll be contacting you again concerning that. Is tpere any other comments, suggestions, ideas from the homeowners? Pat Johnson: I'm not in the Pheasant Hills area. I'm in the Lake Lucy Highlands area but we have the same problem. Although I understand --' because our lots are larger lots that maybe they don't come under the same requisites for parkland as the pheasant Hills area does. Maybe they do, I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 9 ~ don't know but we're just south on this map of pheasant Hills just across Lake Lucy Lane and we have, as far as I know, no parks or no parks scheduled for development in Lake Lucy Highlands which is an area of slightly a bit larger lots. I guess they are 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 acres so although I do know that there are lots available, I'm not real wild about having a park in front of my house but there is a lot at the corner of Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane that's relatively flat. About 2 1/2 acres. It's technically in Lake Lucy Highlands. This gentleman, did you develop Lake Lucy Highlands? Tom Klingelhutz: No. ,....., Pat Johnson: On the corner there and it's relatively flat and it slopes upwards. I don't think you have to do a whole lot of grading. Personally my feeling is, I have two young children too and I'd like to see a totlot in the area but more importantly I'd like to see some ballfields and a football field. Coming from the City of Minneapolis where I lived originally, I prefer the City's idea of where they would develop the park, maybe not for a ballfield or some swings, every 2 to 3 blocks whereas here, I think in the suburbs, the idea has always been in the past let's develop these massive, huge parks, regional parks almost at the expense of the neighborhoods and the neighborhoods I believe are the ones, the neighborhood parks are the most important. It gets the kids hanging out with sort of a common need. Maybe you could kill two birds with one stone and develop a park for both Lake Lucy Highlands, which in area has got to be the size of pheasant Hills, although not as developed and also for the Pheasant Hills people. The suggestion I have, I know the lot is available for sale as I understand it from the neighbor who knows the fella who owns it so that might be an option. I don't know what the price would be. I think originally he paid about $28,~~~.~~, maybe $3~,~~~.0~ for the lot. Mady: We will look at that. Our standard for an active playfield is 5 acre minimum. We can probably fit a small softball field on there. It's darn tough. Pat Johnson: I think the comments about the water on the outlot, they are important too because as parents, we're kind of concerned particularly when you've got a little pond or a swamp or something and you have a steep grade, there's some concerns about kids falling down a hill into that and playing in that. Especially when you've got murky water, what have you. The totlot situation and water, I agree don't go together. I don't know if that particular lot has water or not. I agree we need something there. ,..... Mady: Just about all of our, a lot of property anyway is adjacent to either a natural area or a ponding area or a lake. Chaparral is and there are methods to work with that without jeopardizing safety beyond an acceptable level. We always do that. We make sure we're developing a park that's safe. Are there any other comments? Otherwise, I think staff has,all your comme~ts ~nd ideas that have been brought forth and we will reVlew them some tlme ln the future and if you signed up the sheet in the bac~ of the room, you will be notified as that comes available. I don't belleve we make another general mailing. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 10 ....." Sietsema: I will mail to everybody who signed the petition again. Mady: If you're on the petition, and if you signed up in the back... Sietsema: If you're not on the petition, you should definitely sign it. Mady: And check the paper because hopefully our agenda is published in the paper every time. Thank you for coming. Resident: What kind of a time line are you looking at as far as determining this outlot is appropriate? Whether it will be developed and investigating other lots. What is your timeline for that? Mady: I guess I don't know. Staff's got a better idea. I can't give you a time line. We've got a lot of development going on right now. A lot of heavy park items going on probably the next 6 months so I can't give you a good definition but we will look at it as quickly as we can. Sietsema: There won't be anything done, development this year because we obviously haven't put anything in the budget. We have a lot of projects going on. I would say that we would look at this towards the winter and be prepared to do something next spring. Lynch: If there's something there that is easily developable as a totlot, what Lori is saying, we would not be able to put in this year. Our budge . is already put forward and approved... As regards to acquisition of land~ you could realistically look at 2 to 3 years. If we found something next week that we felt we could acquire and we felt we could afford and we started the wheels rolling, you're talking 2 or 3 years. Tom Steinkamp: Can I ask that you get those outlots in your possession so we can have a hockey rink this year? Sietsema: We're working on it. Tom Steinkamp: Number one and number two, is there any plans by the City to do anything with any of those other outlots? Particularly Outlot B, the one where the ice rink is I believe. The mailboxes are there and it's 6 inches of mud to get your mail. Resident: Protecting a wetland is different. A wetland is...and stuff but this is in the middle of the three additions. Something needs to be done with that. Mady' One we can't do anything until we have ownership. . , h h'll? you mean right down to the water? Down tel s. Resident: I would like it all the way down. Mady: All the way down to the water? 'd Y I don't know how everbody else feels about it. ReSl ent: es. As to mow it, ....., Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 11 ,..... Mady: It's hard to consider open spaces and I'll speak for myself, an open natural area like that, I would never recommend cutting it. I would guess if we have mailboxes on the outlot, that they're probably going to have to be removed. If that's going to be city property, they're going to have to be moved. The only comment I'd wanted to make and I know it's...is neighborhood trails. If we put a totlot or a park in your development, how are we going to get those kids to that totlot? Are they going to walk on the street or what? Tom Steinkamp: That's what they're playing in now. You've got to cross streets to get to it. Resident: No matter where you put it, they're going to have to go... Boyt: Some people would prefer their kids on sidewalks and some would prefer... Resident: We want a totlot... ,..... Tom Steinkamp: I don't have a problem with my kids going, the neighborhood isn't that terribly busy of a neighborhood to have kids going back and forth on the road. He's quite right, they're playing in the streets now and that is my biggest concern about getting hit by cars in the streets. My biggest concern is just get them off the streets and get them to someplace that's more natural for them to be playing in. Resident: Long range and that's a valid question. If we develop a park somewhere that right now there aren't a lot of cars, what's going to happen several years down the road when those streets are used and those kids have to get there? Are you still going to say the same thing or are we then going to be coming to the Council and saying, we now decided we want sidewalks? Resident: My opinion would be, it's safe to say that Pheasant Hills is not goihg to get that busy. There's only 25 more homes to put in there, it won't get more busy... Mady: As the entire area develops, one of our ideas is we'll have to open the street right-of-way in the Carrico property and if we put a park in, a large active park in, we will put parking in with it. Although it's a neighborhood park, it also has to be open to the general public. That's how we tend to develop so I just want to make sure you understand. There was one item here on what your thoughts are on trails. It doesn't sound like you're real excited about trails. Tom Steinkamp: Do you have any kind of estimation as far as what totlots cost? ~ Sietsema: $10,000.00. Tom Steinkamp: Will that come directly out of the fund? Sietsema: Yes. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 12 Resident: See, now isn't that totlot today when we've got 60 satisfied with just a totlot. can play ball. Mady: $38,000.00 probably won't buy a field where you can play ball. ...., short sighted for us to take care of a kids that in a few years from now won't be They're going to want a field where they Resident: Just so we aren't short sighted and put our funds. Maybe what this other gentleman suggested, maybe we're going to have to combine funds and be satisfied with a centrally located area. Tom Steinkamp: Did the people in Lake Lucy Highlands pay park dedication fees when they bought permits? Sietsema: Yes, they did. Tom Steinkamp: Where is that fund going? Sietsema: That goes in your same area. Tom Steinkamp: So then we actually have got more than $40,000.00, whatever it is. Tom Klingelhutz: Is there going to be a park in Lake Lucy Highlands? far as I know, there's not going to be a park in Lake Lucy Highlands. As """" Sietsema: The park dedication funds are earmarked for your area but we haven't acquire a park yet. Tom Steinkamp: Do you know how much those funds, those revenues will be eventually? From both neighborhoods. Sietsema: I don't know how many lots are in Lake Lucy Highlands. Pat Johnson: I would say Lake Lucy Highlands has in the area of 25, 20 to 25 but you must collect a bigger fee. Sietsema: No. It's $425.00 per unit regardless of size of the lots. Boyt: So that's another $10,000.00 and when Tom's development is all through, what's that? $38,000.00 to $40,000.00. But we don't have to deal with those exact numbers. Your area is a range. It's a circle drawn around your area. It's not just Lake Lucy Highlands and Pheasant Hills. Pat Johnson: But we could pullout of that, if we pulled 10 grand on the totlot tomorrow and not build... Boyt: We're not going to ignore you, acting to give you a totlot. We're going to continue to look at the needs of your neighborhood as it grows and changes. As children grow, you need a tennis court. You come to ~s and say no, the kids are growing, we'd like a basketball court or tennlS ~ court. If the property is there, we're going to look at what we can do to Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 13 I""'" meet the needs of the neighborhood. Tom Steinkamp: ...the $30,000.00 today, 5 years when we want the tennis courts, he's going to want 60 grand for it. Resident: The area west of Galpin Lake Road that was mentioned in the letter, is that considered part of our neighborhood? Sietsema: Yes. Unless it's outside the MUSA line. These are diagrams that we go by. If we have land that's in your area that becomes available, yes we'll go for it. We'll buy it and it will serve that whole area. It might not be right next door to your house. It might have to be a half a mile away but it will be in your area and the funds that you paid will go to developing and acquiring that land. Resident: I would just like to say that for my needs, the area west of Galpin Lake does not meet my needs at all because I believe that road is much too busy for my kids to cross and that would not be serving my needs at all until about 8 years from now. Tom Steinkamp: In a letter that was sent out for this meeting seemed to suggest that maybe a park would be developed west of Galpin Lake Road. ~ Sietsema: The reason I put that in...undeveloped land right now. If we're going to go through the development process, that would be the logical place to look for additional parkland because it's undeveloped so we could probably get a big chunk of land in that area because it's not developed there. Now to get a big chunk of land and buy up three lots that are close together, the price is really high. Where we can get it and waive the park dedication fee, we haven't spent any money. We're not going to get any money for development but we can use the money in surrounding areas to develop or other monies. We can budget for it. It doesn't mean that you've only got $40,000.00 that we're ever going to spend in your area because we've got areas that are developed that never paid park dedication fees. They developed the ordinance went into effect and yet we've provided them with park. Chan Estates is a perfect example. They have a park down there that we got from their developer that they dedicated but that was even before the park dedication ordinance. Mady: A couple things you've got to really work down here. One is we do provide community services, community parkland so some of that is bound to come from there. Also, we do not get any of your property tax dollars for our park development. Unless we go through the referendum process... Tom Steinkamp: Does the County? Mady: Does the County? ",,-... Tom Steinkamp: Does any of our tax dollars for park go to the County? Mady: I don't know. I can't speak for the County. Tom Steinkamp: What supports Lake Ann Park? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 14 ..",,; Sietsema: Tax dollars pay for the maintenance and upkeep but for development in that position, we generally... Mady: To buy land or to put a swingset or basketball court or anything like that, that does not come from your tax dollars. Tom Steinkamp: How can they put that building on Lake Ann Park? Sietsema: Lake Ann Park is a community park so that is a totally different category than what you're talking about in a neighborhood park. The community park is developed and is acquired through tax dollars but most of the neighborhood parks are funded through the park dedication fund which comes from the money that it put into the pot from the building permits. That's what we use plus the grant money that we get from State and Federal grants. That's what we use to develop the neighborhood parks and acquire. We try to acquire through the development process because then it doesn't cost us any money up front. In one sense, there's development going in and they're going to dedicate 37 acres of parkland, we're giving them 50% credit on their park dedication fees so that we have half of that money to go in and develop those 37 acres of parkland. It's unfortunate that we didn't have the foresight to acquire park property in your neighborhood but the personality of staff changes. The personality of commissions changes. The needs for sections changes. People maybe didn't even have any idea we were going to grow to the extent that we did or that people were going to have those kinds of needs. It's personalities. It's perceptions and now looking back, we have to live with the decisions that were made. Hopefully we're making wiser decisions in things that are coming up now and I have to agree, I think that we have to look farther into the future than just a little piece of property for totlots. If that can meet your needs for right now while we're looking at a bigger piece, I don't think it will have gone to waste because there's going to be a need for totlots 10 years from now too because those houses are going to turn over and new families are going to be moving in. So just because we put a totlot there doesn't mean we can't still acquire some property. ...." Mady: To answer your question on the building at Lake Ann, the American Legion is building that building. That was through their pulltab game. That's where that's coming from. A generous donation by the Legion. I think we've answered most of your questions hopefully. We will be getting more additional information and coming back to you in the future but at this time we can't tell you when that's going to be. We will give our best effort in providing the parkland. We thank you for coming and remind you to please sign the sheet at the back of the room so we can contact you in the future. CONSIDER DELAYING TRAIL EASEMENT ACQUISITION, TIM ERHART. Sietsema: I pretty much explained everything in the memo. We review7d Tim Erhart's subdivision plan at the last meeting and our recommendation --' was to require trail easements along the east side of the property and the ,-... ."'" I"'" Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 15 south and across the corner of the northwest side. Since that time Tim has contacted me and asked that, he doesn't want to completely be exempt from providing trail dedication easements but he would like it to be postponed, the actual dedication to be postponed until development actually occurs. Tim is here. He may want to add more to that. Tim Erhart: I didn't quite understand, let me go through. There's a lot of thoughts that are running through this, the report that was made because Lori and I worked together on trails for a long time here and I'm on the Planning Commission and how I really got involved in the trails was it kind of goes back to when we lived in Eden prairie and they had a pedestrian trail system there. They had one around one of the wetland areas there where the ducks and geese hatched and everything and really enjoyed living in that part of the City for that reason. We became concerned about two years ago at the Planning Commission when the Bluff Creek Greens subdivision came in and it's pretty close to where I live and in fact I think that got approved before I was on the Planning Commission and it had gotten approved without any trails on Bluff Creek itself going down to the rivers. So I started looking into it, talking to Lori about it. Don't we have, we need to have a good plan for a trail system in the south part of Chanhassen so when those developments come in, that the Planning Commission would have a plan that we can get you the easements as these areas develop so we all work together and on the weekends walk around and walk up and down the creek east and west and north and south in Chanhassen and we came up with a pretty good long term plan I think for trails in the southern part of the City. I think as you all know, I think the south part of the City isn't going to develop, it kind of develops in spurts. We've seen a big one here because of the change in ordinance. Now we've learned there...subdivisions in any great degree so I don't think we're going to see a lot of development but at least we do have a trail plan and those areas that have developed, we do have the trail easments along TH 101 and pioneer Trail at this time. So the intent as I've been working on this thing was to make sure, from a Planning Commission standpoint, that trail easements were provided in there with development. Now the reason that my wife and I are going through this land split right now, we are in kind of an unfortunate situation in that 1986 the State of Minnesota passed a foreclosure law basically led to this situation where basically the banks will not provide mortgages on a piece of land unless the land with the house is less than 10 acres because they can't foreclose, according to the new Minnesota law. We bought this land down there 8 years ago and the balloon is up so it comes the time we have to apply for a mortgage and the banker says no way unless you want to split it. Make it 70 acres and 10, then we'll give you a mortgage on the 10 and the house. Okay, so we started the process with the application to split the 10 so we could get a mortgage on the house otherwj~e jt'~ y~Jnw t~ ~~ back to the contracter on April 25th so we're really not doin development. ,We're not planning on selling any land at this ~o~~~ We're really not dOlng anything with it. Just continue to live out ther; and so although I was one of the biggest proponents of trails as the City ~ev~loPs'dI guess my feeling is, at this time is not the appropriate time o drYt~n get eas7ments on this particular parcel. It is in agricultural pro uc lon~ ,In gOlng through some of the trails that were shown on this plan, speclflcally the south property line which is a half mile long, Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 16 currently acts as a field road for this field here. Quite frankly, right now what I've done, what I do now is I allow people to use this trail and-' it works real nice that way. There are 40 some households between the group of houses here and here and the surrounding area, it's 40 households that use that trail and it's real nice for them. It can be nice. That's another comment I'll make later but it's nice because they walk back and forth and they have access. Allow them free access to the wooded area which is to the west and they have two daycare centers down here and they take the kids up and down and it's nice. The fact is, for me it is still part of, it is an agricultural production and that provides use for the farmers to run their tractors and so forth. Regarding this area over here, our plan, we're considering building a house right in the middle of that trail perhaps in 5 years or so, so that I guess would be, again if they're allowed to use it today until development back there, it would really put a clamp in our plans. Of course, this one up here goes right through essentially our pasture up here. Actually it goes on the highway but we currently use it. I don't know if it's necessary to respond specifically to the plan but I think overall, our plan is to move in the back someday. Some day, maybe 10 years or 20 years and the ordinance changes and perhaps somebody the rest of the area develops, I'll be the first one, I want to have the trails there so I can walk and use them for winter skiing but right now I just think is not the correct time to try to put formal trails on here at this time. It is currently being used for trails. The people who walk on it enjoy it. I guess that's my reasoning for asking at this point not to look at those easements. I think you have to have an area that's continuous farmland and the only area that I can think of that really is would be the one mile between CR 17 and 1 mile -' east. There is no subdivisions in there. In other words, where the TH 212 freeway is going. There's really no homes that can get up to Lyman Blvd. so we're talking about a 2 mile square where there wouldn't be any pedestrians. Schroers: We have residents from that part of town coming into the Commission meeting and they say you have trails for pedestrians. You have trails for bicycles. You have trails for cross country skiing and trails for snowmobiles. Where are ours? Tim Erhart: The snowmobile people, they've organized those trails. They go out and contact the farmers and get that land and pay the insurance and all this. That's all well organized... Lynch: ...talked about horses. Where the Renaissance Fair, that area is designated horse area. Basically about four old German farmhouse stuck together fiUa nothin~ around it before anybody can ride. Tim Erhart. I'm glad you asked that and maybe you can help me., on~ of '1 the ro os~lS I have on the Planning Commission and I went to City ouncl withPte~tative approval is to take that whole Minnes~ta River Val~ey from essentially the Bluff on and stop development. I thln~ the land is too sensitive. The land is too sensitive because of the ~ll1s. W7 currently have that area around TH 101 and TH 212 zoned commercla~ when in fact we offer no commercial services and the speed of the traffic along TH 212 -' there really doesn't allow stops. It's really a very, very dangerous Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 17 ,...., situation. In addition too, I think it's a unique area of the City that I think we should preserve. Eden prairie has preserved it. They essentially converted it to all ag and did not allow any commercial . development within there. I think we ought to do the same. There's an area where it would be totally appropriate for horse trails to be put in. I'm thinking about your question. Schroers: I would tend to agree with you and I also think that you would probably get a lot of support from the Commission, at least from my personal point of view on restricting development in that area. I would definitely be in favor of that and I agree that I think that that probably would be also be a good area for a horse trail that probably is reasonably accessable to the residents of southern Chanhassen who have horses. They could get to those areas possibly without having to trailer their horses. Tim Erhart: Yes, and where we could find that, we want to make sure we set aside a corridor. The horses that are there, there's not that many of them concentrated right there. Schroers: I like that idea. ,...., Lynch: The folks that have been used to getting on their horse and riding through your property or just getting on their horse and riding it. There are a lot of short if all of a sudden the area develops and it's not appropriate anymore. They won't understand that it's not appropriate because they were there first and they rode their horses and the world's not treating them properly but in the next 20 years, there probably won't be a horse. Tim Erhart: The thing that I'd like to do on this particular matter, I'd like to set an agenda, get this subject on the agenda. I'd like to make my presentation to this committee regarding the Minnesota Valley and get your support as a body because I've got the Planning Commission support. Secondly, just to get your input. We're taking it up on August 17th at the Planning Commission. It would be a great recreational area and addition to the green preserve in the City. The long term. I'm talking 30 years. Mady: In our Comp Plan process for Park and Recreation, we did specify Moon Valley as an area we definitely want to keep some of it but the idea of keeping the entire bluff to that boundary of Chanhassen makes a lot of sense. ,-.. Tim Erhart: until such time as the City can do whatever it can do for additional finances or whatever it is conceivable someday. The other thing is, of course the Federal government and they came in and purchased everything south of that both ways but you have the north part up to the top o~ the bluff preserved, you'd have a much greater opportunity to sornetlm~ get ~unds tO,do,the rest of it where the City would be involved. What we,re dOIng not IS Just, we're precluding that and promoting commercIal development. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 18 Schroers: Probably one of the most successful ways to deter development -' in that area is to designate it as park. Tim Erhart: I just thought ag because I know what that does but park is an alternative. Mady: The problem is, if we designate it as park, we have to be able to purchase it. Once the owner says I want to get rid of it, and the Comp Plan says that's going to be looked at as park first, then we have first right but if we don't have the money, he then has the option to go to whatever it's zoned and I think Tim's right. Agricultural zoning is probably our best bet. Tim Erhart: There is some economic value to it. They don't have to, you don't have to buy, the City doesn't have to buy it because the value is in ag. Mady: What we need to do on this item then is to discuss whether or not we want the easements. Sietsema: Do you want the easements now or later? That's what you have to decide. Now with this subdivision or later with development. Because as I understand what Tim's saying is that he's still going to allow the people in the area or whoever wants to, using his footpath but he doesn't want to give them over to the public because he doesn't know how it's going to develop. It may be premature to plan now not knowing how it's going to split. -' Lynch: anyway. I don't think we've ever asked for an easement before development Not that I remember. Sietsema: Well, we record it when we record the plat so if he subdivides now and we require the easements now, we would get the easements. If he resubdivides later and develops later, we'd have an opportunity again to get those easements at that time then we would know how the lot lines... Schroers: You don't see any problem on obtaining the easements in the future along with development? Tim Erhart: Not as long as it's on the Comp Plan. Any area now, the way we've got it, any developer that comes in, if he's got economic gain in that subdivision, we get the easements every time and I think we have a very reasonable plan in our Comp Plan. I'm on the wrong committee. I asked for coffee one time, it's probably still in the Minutes. It's as far as it got. Sietsema: Barb, doesn't buy you guys pop? I personally buy these people pop. Tim Erhart: I would prefer not to have anything at this time. Just to continue allowing use of the south area. In fact, we're workin~ on getting some signs and to put up signs and we'll have our own llttle ~ signs...and we're working on that. "" "" ,-... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 19 Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission reconsider the motion of the prior meeting concerning Tim Erhart's property concerning trail easements and recognize that he has no reason at this time to put in a trail easement along his property as it's not being developed at this time and hold that off until development occurs on the property to review trail easements at that time. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF LAKE ANN PARK EXPANSION PLAN. Sietsema: Laurie McRostie is here to present the revised concept plan. This is the first step before we get into grading and construction plans for the Lake Ann Park expansion. Some of you might remember Laurie from, she used to work with VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings and she did the Herman Field plan. Remember that? Laurie McRostie: Seeing I've had an opportunity to work in Chanhassen before and I'm certainly glad to be back and have a chance to do it again. My folks live in Chanhassen so I get out here once in a while to visit them. I would say maybe this process started a little over a month ago, maybe a month and a half ago where the City contact my firm and asked if we could come out and provide a proposal for looking at a redesign and expanding the master plan for Lake Ann and then doing the engineering services and grading plan and the things that you need to do to have the park built. I got involved then in looking at the park and just going out and doing a site visit, talking to Lori and seeing what kind of things you wanted to have there and looking at the plan that you had done previously and trying to put all those impressions together. This diagram came out of it. Where I'd like to start with that is just to, I feel like there are a lot of things going on out at Lake Ann. It's a large park, a little over 9 acres all together and there are lots of opportunities that have already been developed. I see the park kind of working in, I'm thinking about it almost in terms of rooms. You've got like your existing play fields in this area where the room starts to get to be really defined by the strong edges that you've got all the way around the fields with the berms and the vegetation and I think that that's something that is, I like it a lot. It'a a lot different that most athletic community parks where everything is just flat and there are no trees and no shade and no comfortable places for people to sit and look at things. You've also got a picnic area up in this high spot where you've got the volleyball court and horseshoes are up there and there are some picnic tables and that kind of thing. What's going on there though is it's got real steep access. It's not accessible to maybe all people in the community. The elderly and the handicap. You can get up there but it's not as easily as other places could be. You've got another area which is your beach area. It starts to meander down here along the lake. Also, then your boat access starts to form another area. The picnic things that go on there, with the acquisition that's happened with this whole addition to the park, I see an oppo~tunity to establish new rooms. New uses maybe. Expanding old uses. PartIcularly your play fields. You've got a whole area over on this side where we're going to hopefully add as many fields as possible. Ultimately three ball fields and two soccer fields. You also have the need then to Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 20 add parking in that general area. When I got on the site and started to -' walk it, I really saw that this is probably the highest spot in the park right here and you can see, you stand up here and even getting over to the edge, floating over this way. You don't necessarily have to be way out over on the actually the 1010 contour. You've got incredible views. You can see both back to the Lake and then you can see almost to the river so it really gets to be, I think a prominent point. At one point I know it was also thinking about it being as a place for the carousel building and this diagram was prepared, since I heard that the carousel building is definitely out but maybe there's an opportunity for something else to happen there that wouldn't necessarily be the carousel building. I also saw then, where you've got your play10t and the picnic shelter that the Legion is building, it gets to be, and a lot of the high area, it gets to be a real center for Lake Ann Park. I think the...areas focus around it. You can see the woods from there. There's this picnic area here. You can see the beach. Maybe there's an opportunity here to pull some things together right in this area and kind of have a center that goes along with your picnic shelter and that kind of thing. What else is happening here is that, I looked at the entry to the park now because there's been a lot of discussion about the existing entry as well as an alternative or a new access off of, who knows what this road will be called but off TH 5 basically. Where it will line up with the road right across the street. Hopefully it will improved the entrancing and exiting into the park so it will be easier to get out onto TH 5 here. Someday this might be signaled or at least there may be stop signs that would stop traffic on TH 5 or something like that. ..." Schroers: Would you be thinking of having two way traffic both ways or would you be thinking of having an entrance maybe where it is now and then running it around in a loop and having an exit out of the other side? Basically one way. Laurie McRostie: Probably not, would be my suggestion. When I get to the plan I think I can develop a rationale that's coming out of this. What I liked about the entries, you get a real strong impression about the park. You immediately leave TH 5 behind and that's because I think of the hills that are there right at the edge. They make a real strong buffer right now. It just adds to the character of the park. I think that's something we should try to enhance and maybe improve or at least do try to duplicate if the entrance gets changed to somewhere along this road which would give easier access out to TH 5. I think that would be the main reason to change the entrance to the park. I can't see from looking at what's going on out there, any other reason to do that. Because this would be something that was supposed to be with the expansion, maybe you could improve this entryway with minimal costs to accerelation and turn lanes or something like that on TH 5. After looking then at the park in that light, to develop a concept that would be able to use the entry as it is and to answer your question now, this is still suggesting a two way system that moves through the park and you can get to all the facilities that way but you have to come back out the same way. I think that that gives you the advantage of being able to control the entrance and exiting from the park and that kind of thing. You don't have too many entrances or two -,. gates that you have to staff and watch as long as you charge fees to use Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 21 .1""'. I""'" the park. You want to control that as much as you can. This plan then is keeping the existing ball fields where they are, in using the system that you've already got in place and I think that there are a lot of advantages to that. There has been a lot of talk about expanding fields, moving fields, changing orientation and that kind of thing and I guess I would recommend to leave them the way they are. First of all you don't want to take them out of commission and not be able to play on them. Secondly, you've got an awful lot of plant material that's really old and established there and it would be costly to move. I guess my feeling is, I think you've got something...and actually we should try to duplicate it and repeat it. I think there's a concept out there that is strong and it gives Lake Ann Park something that's unique that a lot of other community parks don't have and so that we could arrange the ball fields in the manner that you see here, and these are all drawings so you would be able to have regulation 300 foot fence lines on these fields. Thr design will take all three of them so it's a little bit bigger than thesE. Then also to lay over a soccer field over one of the ballfields and then there would be room in this area to actually have an independent soccer field. What that starts to accomplish then is to have larger soccer fields in one area so you can have group playings and that kind of thing so they're not spread out or put in a different place. And then it also keeps all of the ballfields basically in the same area. The circulation system then that I looked at was to basically keep the existing road system the way it is. At this point to take out a new segment of it and come up into this area of the park and start to use some of this vacant land for parking. In addition to that, I would also like to suggest that we keep these hills down by the boat and to not flatten them for parking or to not flatten them into fields but to use them as they are now and to enhance the screening that you've got there. To punch in a road at this point and create another 78 spaces for cars. Maybe come through nere, turn around and come back out. If at some point it is decided that you do want to have access into the park off this new future road, you'd be able to do it this way and extend about 700 to 800 feet of road right through here and connect into this system and just have this duplicated through here and not have to change anything at all down here except this segment of road would be gone and you'd have that segment. Schroers: Did you say 78 parking spaces in that lower area? Laurie McRostie: Right down here. There are 50 in this space and then 28 in that space. Overall I've expanded, there are 382 parking spaces on this plan. You have existing 180. That's in this area serving the ball fields. You've got a few additional parking spaces up here but I didn't inlcude those in my totals because I don't think that they serve the ballfields. People aren't parking down here to walk up to play on the fields. Another part of this plan that you're showing is, your concern for two entrances or an exit to the park, it may work here to actually just have one small road that would come off this parking lot. It could be a controlled secured access. Maintenance people, once this road is ~ built, could use this as a back door. Any kind of emergency that we have to come down here, somebody could get in through here and use that as a backdoor. It might be quicker to going down this road than coming up into the park than it would be to come through that way. Another consideration Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 22 turns a loop road is that you've got really a lot of topography up here. -' It's going to be tough I think to grade this area. It can be done and I think it can be done in duplicating the same concept that you've got in your existing fields with higher slopes around the edges that can be used for viewing or planting and that kind of thing but it's going to get real steep and crowded to try and bring a little road through here. I don't know that it really gains much more than expense. That's why at least this plan has not indicated a loop road. I guess my recommendation would be that you don't put a loop road. Schroers: By a loop, do you mean just going around so it connects back to the entrance road? What I was wondering about was a horseshoe type where you would enter off of TH 5 possibly where it exists now and then come back out to TH 5 as an exit only of one way traffic so you would still only have one gate facility to control. There's no need really to control the exit. If you can handle larger traffic, say on like the 4th of July weekend when you had a lot of people in there, that would be smoother. Lynch: We talked about this on and off for years as the upgrade to TH 5 has been discussed and the ability to have a stop light at this point opposite of the industrial park. My general opinion over the years is that the park goes to waste for large activities. We can't use it for 4th of July. We don't have the parking. We don't have the entrance. Egress. It just can not be used. Two of the things we need to do that would be have, and this is the last time for this, four years ago the consensus war that the present entrance would stay an entrance and would have a -' horseshoe affair and in this area there would be an outlet only. As Laurie mentioned earlier, you would only have to have the one gate then because you only have one entrance. Also, this would be, if that intersection had a stoplight, you could have magnetic, on demand signal controls there so the stop light would only affect turnouts from here if somebody was there. It's not going to be one of these things where you pull up and wait for 15 minutes at the light and there's nobody there. The other item is we have insufficient parking community events there and I think we'd probably all like to see more done with the parking on a community basis. We were talking several years ago about additional strip parking in this area, opening that up, bringing this down and here's our hilltop here. Since this is gone in, we were talking about some additional parking right in here before it drops off into a hole because really now, just the firemen's tournament overwhelms the parking. It presents a heck of an enforcement problem because we have no parking there and they're supposed to get a ticket and then we give the Fire Department a permit to have a tournament where we know there's not enough parking so then we have to tell the police, tag everybody but these guys. Don't ticket these guys this weekend. Ticket the other people next weekend. It's a problem and it's tough on the maintenance folks. It's wet and they leave ruts so we do need some concentrated parking right along the ball fields and of course we put new ones on this side. We need more parking for ba1lfie1ds than exists on that side. We need to increase this site I think. Schroers: Mike, I don't know if you or Lori knows but right now at our -' 7:15 game or 7:00, our middle game, the existing parking that we have for .1""" ,..... ,..... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 23 those three fields is maxed out. Just your normal league play. We're not even talking special events. Lynch: What I've noticed, I coached ball out there a lot, if you're playing on this field, if there's no parking at this lot, they'll park on the grass there. There could be parking in that lot but they won't go there. They won't go to the parking for the next so it almost has to be based on per site. How many people is this field going to take? How many places do we need there and not look at it as a total. I'd sure like to have 4th of July celebrations and other types of things out there. We lose a lot of the use of the facility because of that. Laurie McRostie: Maybe just to finish up the plan and then we can go on but you're right, this is absolutely a space. You've got space to expand these parking areas and I guess part of what has to be decided tonight is what this commission wants to spend money on. One of the last page on here is a very preliminary cost estimate of what this plan has described. You'll see that things get just to be expensive so that is something that has to be decided is where do you want to spend your money expanding these parking areas? Only build these parking areas and just the ballfield? There are lots of combinations of things that can be done. This plan, what these four additional parking lots is adding about 212 parking spaces. I do think that we need to have it possible to expand in this area so we can be directly related to those ballfields. It always amazing that people that go to play athletics don't walk to the fields but that's the way it is. Two other things that this plan is suggesting is that this area up here, you expand your picnic area. Then there's an opportunity I think to, at sometime in the future to put a large shelter in here. Something where you can have those 4th of July activities and there's just a covered area where you can picnic. It's not necessarily like the concession stand that's planned out here or this park shelter. There will just maybe be lights. Maybe water. Not other facilities in there but just a great big shelter that would take advantage of those views each way and start to connect the area. Then I also saw the opportunity along with this more community passive area as a natural ampitheater with the landform already going there. So you have shelter here and an ampitheater going here where you could have pageants or plays that could go in combination with those other activities that would happen all summer long actually. So I think it's a pretty simple plan. ...it comes with electric with the one, the field lighting and I talked with them today and found out what the situation was because I've been hearing a lot of different things about where the power was and all that and there's conduits out to these lights but it's empty. The power is still back at the entrance gate. The man that I had talked to said that maybe a year and a half ago he did prepare a cost estimate to get power out here so that's something the City has got in their file although, like everything has gone up. To get power out here, we can't just run wires. It's not so simple. There has to be a transformer and a new panel box put in and I think that's what got so expensive when we were looking at it before and it's probably why you didn't do it at that time but that has not changed. That figure is not included with this preliminary cost estimate. So I don't know if you want to just quickly look at costs and maybe we can talk about phasing it in or how the Commission sees it happening or what they'd Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 24 ....; like to see happen here. What I did was the cost of the roads and parking lots and have left out, this is a separate item, this future entry road. To get just the parking lots and the road built, and then that area restored and seeded, in these preliminary estimates was about $142,300.00. Going down onto the three softball fields with the one soccer overlay and then the soccer field independently, those fields, and that includes the rough and final grading which is, I estimate in those road excavation numbers. The backstop and the seeding and then also the ballfields have about 1,100 lineal feet around the whole ballfields with a 7 foot high chainlink fence. The soccer field then again would be the rough and final grading with...and seeding that whole area so with just the ballfields, the playing fields themselves carne to about $80,500.00 so putting both the parking and fields, that alone carne out to, this preliminary estimate is $225,864.00. We could maybe at this time, I'm not sure where you would want to put the future entry road into your budget. Maybe that's something that should not corne out of the referendum that's been passed to make improvements at Lake Ann. That should be something that's not really included because that gives us another $13,000.00 to play with. There may be things that may be far more beneficial and to save it or to plan for this segment of road or a segment some other place in the park. I've only put a preliminary landscaping number in there of $30,000.00 and there is not a plan yet for that but until the grading plan is developed, there would really not be a landscaping plan. The concept would be to duplicate or replicate what you've already done. I like it. I think you've got something really good going out there. I don't see any reasons -' necessarily to change that. The engineering fees are listed in here and that was based on that final construction cost. 7% of that is a standard engineering contract fee that we have with the City of Chanhassen. Then there's been a planning fee that's been added to that. You see the fees corne up to about $29,000.00. Mady: The referendum was $300,000.00 and that included bonding costs. I believe we have to cover bonding costs. Two, in the Lake Ann capital budget, we do have money at the present time. We have about $100,000.00 in the Lake Ann budget. Sietsema: It's matching funds. It's reserved for matching grant funds so if the shelter down by the lake is approved, that would go towards that. Boyt: How much have we got then? Sietsema: I would say, I don't know. He was talking about $30,000.00 but I don't know how much that would be. Robinson: Is any of the rest of this subject to matching funds? Sietsema: Not this park, no. Mady: We can apply for grants but they're not granting grants for this type of development. Right? ....", Sietsema: We actually got a grant for this and we turned it down. It was for $12,000.00 and at that point we didn't know if the referendum was Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 25 ""'" going to pass or not. We had to say yea or nay right then and there was no way we could afford the rest of the $300,000.00 just because we got $12,000.00 to develop but to go ahead and apply for grant money to help us on this project, we just submitted applications in May so they're not accepting applications again until next Mayor June and then they don't let you know until the following December so it would be 1991 before we would be able to start construction on grants, if that got approved, and you don't know if it's going to be approved again. Mady: A couple comments. What's your guess. If we were to spend, I know the way Lake Ann exists right now and I'm taking in some of Ed's comments too on the fact that some of the fields, Fields 2 and 3 are short and it's conceivable we'd want to use Little League for 3 but number 2...1 think it's possible for us to expand that field to 269 feet from home plate out to the fences. It would be nice if we could expand that out to a minimum of 285 with a 7 foot fence I think is the ASA approved. We can also expand those parking spaces out there. Schroers: I thought it was 275. Mady: But that's one of the thoughts I had was expanding that one field so then we do have legitimate softball complex they can use the State Tournament or anything. with the regulations right now, it can't be. Three fields is nice but for a tournament, they like four. ,.... Boyt: So where would you cut the one in? What area would you take it because right now with these numbers we'd have to cut out the future entry road and then you might have enough to get...so you're going to have to cut a line from someplace else. Mady: We might be able to just, city maintenance staff, street department to expand the parking lot. Fairly minimal. Boyt: But it's not included in these numbers though. Mady: We can expand that area. Laurie McRostie: You just practically have to run a blade and pave it at this stage. Boyt: What I'm saying is if you want to change that field, you'd have to take something from this sheet. Mady: I'd like to find out how much it costs to build. Schroers: What you're talking about, we have 269 feet now and we need 275 so we're talking about just lengthening or moving the fence back 6 feet but if we have to move all the trees that are planted along the outside of the fence to move the fence back 6 feet, we're going to be spending a lot of money to gain 6 feet of field space. ,.... Mady: I've been looking out there. The trees, the way they're growing right now with the fields, are touching each other and they're..but should Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 26 ....." grow. We should probably be thinking of taking every other tree out right now anyway and utilizing a lot of the smaller ones that can still be easily moved. Schroers: Transplanting them and using them... Boyt: I think we should talk to a specialist about that. Mady: They're transplantable. I'm even buying...trees that size. Ed mentioned before that... Schroers: They're actually getting the point where they're faily borderline. I do tree transplantings in my job and I have transplanted trees that size. However, you would rather transplant smaller... Mady: What happens in the future as they grow larger? Schroers: Large trees grow real close to each other in a woods. It's just how aesthetically pleasing do you want it? Do you want it to be a real manicured look or do you have a problem with the trees growing together? Sietsema: If I could add something about moving the fence. Number one, J think State Tournaments, don't they just need four fields and we'd have 300 foot fences on Field I and the three new fields. That would leave th~ other two for practices which would be awful nice. If we needed that other field and that was a problem, we could make the fence higher rather than moving it out to accomodate and they would probably allow it if we were in a bind. Personally, I don't know if it's going to be worth the expense to move it for 6 feet. I think we need to look into other alternatives before we go and decide whether to move it. Schroers: The grade drops immediately behind the fence too so if we're going to move the fence back 6 feet, we would also have to fill and grade back. Lynch: Wouldn't it be a lot easier, if you're talking 6 feet... Hoffman: You would actually want to move it more than that. Lynch: Why not move the backstop 6 feet? Mady: Because you have a hill up there. Lynch: We've got a hill there but that's a heck of a lot easier than moving a fence. Hoffman: We have no room. The out of bound areas there are so minimal now that even the out of bound lines are a problem on Field 2. ....", Lynch: Because of the hill? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - page 27 ,..... Hoffman: Yes. Because of the hill. The angle of what the grade is at there now. How they graded at that angle is not exactly 90 degrees and again, if you wanted to move it back to 275, you'd almost want to move it back somewhere between 285 and 300 right now for a State or a national tournament right now they require a 300 foot field distance which we would have on the three new fields and Field 1. Boyt: For a State Tournament you're required to have four fields which we would have. Hoffman: Not required but in order to go ahead and schedule. Laurie McRostie: It would be worth it to put your money in. Mady: That's what we wanted to find out. That was a question that I had wanted to raise. I know Ed had that question previously. Laurie McRostie: I think it's a good question and maybe the expansion occurs in the park. Mady: Maybe they don't do it for 15 years. Schroers: To address your plan there, I like it. I like what you're saying. I like the idea of keeping the aesthetics. I think if you talk to anyone who actively uses Lake Ann, especially the ball players, we feel ,..... real good about the facilities that we have there. We think that Lake Ann is as good as anyplace around and a lot better than most. We've all played on a lot worse fields than Lake Ann and we also like the berm and the hill effect with the shade and keeping the aesthetics intact would certainly be what we would like to do. I think what we really want to achieve, along with having more fields is an emphasize on the parking and being able to get people in and out. It seems to me the horseshoe effect and the one way traffic makes a lot of sense because you can have two lanes entering and you can have two lanes leaving and you have parking lots on both sides of the road so one lane can go off one way and the other lane can go off the other way and it seems like a smooth, constant uncomplicated flow. It's just all one way. It's just in and it's just out and making something easily accessible and exitable, I think that's a good idea. Mady: I think you can accomplish that in the future with the, once the new road goes in, Eckankar property develops, that is very easily done with moving the entrance over so it's right across from Chanhassen Lakes Drive or whatever. Sietsema: It's Park Drive. Mady: Right now the park entrance l'S on TH 5 'h ld rIg t there, moved in. If you wou exit high up on the right-of-way up' h perfectly. In t at area, it works JI"'" Laurie McRostie: I think that's a really good idea. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 28 -' Sietsema: Something else that we have to consider is that I doubt very much, I really have strong doubts that MnDot will allow us to keep our existing access once they extend Park Drive. When they put in that new road. They won't allow us to have that second access because they don't want that many accesses onto TH 5. Especially after it goes to 4 lanes which is supposed to happen in the next year or so. When Park Drive is put in, that will be a neighborhood or some kind of development which I would think they could either come down to TH 5 or else shoot up and go out and end up on Powers Blvd. somewhere. If it's a development, like a single family, they'd be going through neighborhood streets and going out somewhere and maybe we wouldn't want that open all the time and that would just be for heavy use or security or maintenance access. We could close that off during normal park use and just use the one access that would come off of TH 5 because obviously we don't want an entrance coming into a park through a neighborhood but for a special event or for a large tournament or something, that would provide us with a second access to get the traffic out more efficiently. But I seriously have my doubts that MnDot will allow us to have both Park Drive and an access to Lake Ann off TH 5 so if you want the horseshoe effect, I think it's going to have to go off of Park Drive. Mady: The future entry road, the $13,000.00 for that, that will be used for the gravel and bituminous, is that what you're thinking there? So in the grading plan you would actually grade it, not necessarily flat so in the future... ....., Laurie McRostie: Right. You'd seed it. Mady: So at a future date we would just go through there and layoff blacktop and black dirt and put in gravel? Robinson: Laurie, I think I missed something. On your first chart you had the focus high point and you said that was the highest point for the park. On the second one it looked like you've got that parking lot of 50 spaces. . . Laurie McRostie: That's true. I guess what I was trying to talk about in the presentation is that this is the high point. Topographically but I don't know that we turn to get anything over there in terms of park facilities. You've got to keep bringing them into the park it would be better and it still is high here and you still have the views off this I think this would be trussed anywhere or be brou~ht ~own a ~ittle way. k' I don't know if your questlon lS leadlng to bit with that par lng area. , , t' the park. the fact that we have parking on the hlghest pOln ln Robinson: There would have to be some grading there? Laurie McRostie: Right and facility, the useable, what Mady: I was looking at that area as an archery range. that could be. as much screening as we can but to get the you think, the useable parts into the... . -' Maybe that's what Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 29 ,...., Schroers: That's kind of an in-house... Hoffman: Some discussion on the soccer fields. As they indicated, it's used now and in future use, the one that's indicated as the lying there over the present Field 1, it's currently not being used to any great. extent or not being used at all because of the scheduling of the softball fields so there's really not an opportunity for that to be used as a soccer field. Then again, the new soccer field overlay would really not be useable if indeed you put your fence in there. Right there's your obstruction. That would not be useable as a soccer field and really, the only useable soccer field would be the totally separate indicated soccer field in the new development. Mady: One thing we could do though is, until the south park goes in, not put a fence on that field and then you just play it as an open field until we have other soccer fields available. I would think that once we have. the 6 fields in here for fall league, if we have the need for soccer, I would like to see us restrict the fall softball league to allow for soccer for the kids in the City because we don't have anyplace for soccer and we can get by with four softball fields in the fall anyway. Hoffman: The big use right now for soccer is the summer soccer. Summer soccer leagues during the summer. The summer is the younger kids up here and then the fall is the high school. ,...., Mady: We may have to restrict Field 1 to the soccer and Babe Ruth baseball and juggle scheduling for that and take softball completely out of that. I don't think it's a problem with that because if we're providing 4 to 6 softball fields out there and we can juggle one to have at least 2 soccer fields available to the kids, that's a pretty good trade-off at least until the south park develops. Sietsema: But you can't have soccer and baseball going on the same field in the same season. Mady: If soccer is Tuesdays and Thursday and baseball is Mondays and Wednesdays, that's fine. Sietsema: In the same season you can't do that because that means you've got goals in the middle of your baseball field. Boyt: They have to line fields for soccer. Sietsema: The lining isn't a problem because they can play baseball over the lines but you'd have your goals... Mady: The goals wouldn't have to be fastened down do they? Hoffman: They're fairly heavy. J1""'" Sietsema: thing. They're fairly heavy and you're talking, it's a maintenance Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 30 ...", Mady: We have maintenance people out there dragging the fields daily. They could hook up their tracter to it and pull it off. I guess I don't see it as more than a 10 minute task. It looks like we have enough space for the new areas and we've got to expand what we've got. If we're ever going to be able to enforce our parking and get that park the way it's supposed to be, we've got to expand the one right next to Field 2. Laurie McRostie: The landscaping number is one that could be easily explained a little bit in terms of that parking as well as the entry road. Future entry road. The grading cost have already been included in the engineering and maybe that might be... Mady: One of the thoughts I had was spading those trees that exist down there to be utilized them, if we want to take the chance because they are filling out to where they are touching each other now. That would save us a considerable amount of money. We do have the tree farm but it won't be very big for a lot of years. Sietsema: It's empty. Mady: Well, there's quite a bit of trees in the back park there. Boyt: I think road in there. MnDot is going responsible. we need to, unfortunately we need to keep the future entry If we have the information from staff that looks like -'. to want us to do that, we can't ignore that and be Mady: If we put parking in where the 28 spaces. ...it would probably be $30,000.00. If I remember Don's discussion previously... Boyt: Didn't we take in record monies this year at Lake Ann? Couldn't we use that for some of the expansion of parking? Is that designated? Sietsema: It goes in the general fund so you could make the recommendation to start a new policy to put that back into the park. Mady: We were over $17,000.00 last time we heard. Robinson: That's what it was last year, $17,000.00. Mady: This year already. Boyt: We've over what our total was last year. That would be enough to expand the parking. Mady: I'm sure the road maintenance staff could expand that parking. Sietsema: It's paying the lifeguards right now. being used for the park. It's not like it's not ..."" Mady: We paid those lifeguards out of general. What we're saying, we're bringing in more money that we anticipated during the end, let us use that for development of the park. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 31 " Sietsema: That's fine. You can make that recommendation. Boyt: How is it to run the entry right next to a parking lot? If the future entry road were moved up, that 28 space parking. Laurie McRostie: What I would recommend that you do with that is to repeat this concept. The same thing that you've got on the edge. Basically that's what this does I guess except for this blank and this blank. You're right that might save a couple thousand dollars. Boyt: Would it make a big difference in the size? ,...., Laurie McRostie: One thing and you'll have to decide this and I think it gets to be a matter of aesthetics, that's what you've got going here is a really nice sense of entry into this park. You really feel like you've corne someplace and it's nice. Where this entry road is put, this suggestion is it's kind of corning between two hills and it's starting to do the same thing. You don't see parking until maybe you get around here and then you can see parking lots. It depends on, you have to weigh that I guess. Costs, what kind of impression you want people when they're corning there because you dump one parking lot in their way if you wanted to. There are ways you can, you can heavily landscape that. You can maybe push it not too much farther this way but so there's a little bit more room there for landscaping, that sort of thing but that is an option that would maybe start to save you some money. It's not going to save it up front though. Sietsema: I don't think we should get too hung up on the costs because these are estimates. I think what we really need now is your sense of the concept plan so we can proceed from here. Unless there's something major that you want to add or delete that would affect the costs, those things we can work out. Boyt: ...coming up $30,000.00 short, that's not going to be a big deal? Sietsema: I can corne back to you with what those costs are going to be. They're not going to do just for the park. It will be for a major part of the Fire Station and the truck and other things too so that money will be split between the different projects. The bonding costs so that's not just our, I'll have to corne to you and let you know what our share of that bonding costs is. If it's just a third of it, then it's only $10,000.00. Schroers: I have a couple of questions as to the specific use of the new fields. The two fields, are they regulation softball fields? Laurie McRostie: This is the same size but we wouldn't be able to have it fenced and that kind of thing. I"'" Schroers: Now in that plan we're not incorporating anything to accomodate Little League, Babe Ruth? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 32 ..." Sietsema: It would be converting Field 3 to Little League is what we were talking about and then continue the Babe Ruth use of Field 3. Mady: All we need to do on really on 3 is to add a mound. Reset the bases, I would think until... Boyt: They have to have dugouts. Mady: To my knowledge, they don't play regulation Little League in this area yet. We can still play non-sanctioned Little League so we can get away with it. Schroers: Is there proposed lighting on any of the new fields? Laurie McRostie: Not in this contract. I don't think you can afford it. Sietsema: No, that was never in the plan when we took it to the voters, no. Mady: I like the plan with the exception I'd like to see a little more parking on 2, if that's feasible on the plan. Since you're going to have equipment out there, I think that can be done at the same time but I think that has to be addressed in this next year. We've got to get going. Schroers: I agree that parking is essential. ....", Mady: It causes problems every year and we won't be able to have a major city function out there until we can provide better parking. Sietsema: I agree. We have to have better parking but we're not going to be able to provide parking to accomodate a major city event. You don't plan for your ultimate but I agree, there does have to be more parking. That's a major consideration. Robinson: This seems like, we've talked about this a number of times and I think what you're showing us here is just about what we've hashed through a number of times so, I really like it. Plus you have the little natural ampitheater in there. The picnic area. Schroers: I think you've done a good job and presented it well. Mady: Do you need a motion Lori? Sietsema: Yes. To recommend approval of the concept plan for the Lake Ann Park expansion. Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to approve the concept plan for the Lake Ann Park expansion as presented with the things that have been addressed by the Commission -' concerning the parking. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 33 ~ Schroers: The reason that I hesitated was on that, I guess I'm not real clear on what's going to happen with the entrance and exit road yet. Hoffman: I guess we just don't know that. Mady: In your concept it's in the budget. Sietsema: The way it will be developed right now is we'll leave the entry where it is right now and as things progress with TH 5 and they get more clear direction and things develop, we can't move our entrance road until the Eckankar property develops. Unless MnDot is willing to put in that entrance and up 100 feet so we can get access off of Lake Drive Road. If they're willing to do that... Schroers: My question is, I'm not in favor of moving our entrance. I like our entrance where it is. I think it's a good place. My question is, are we going to be able to do the loop or horseshoe effect where we can enter in one spot and exit in another? Sietsema: It won't be immediate... Schroers: I'm familiar with a situation that's very similar to that right now and what people do, they come to the park and they follow the road until it gets to the end and then they turn around and come back out. On a busy holiday weekend or whatever where you've got a lot of people coming ~ in, you've got all kinds of traffic flowing into a little area where it all has to slow down and turn around and then go back to whichever parking lot they decided to use or if they're going to go back out or whatever and it gets to be pretty congested and it slows down the movement and the flow. That, in my opinion, is something that we would want to consider provided it fits in with the development and the expansion of TH 5 and whatever. If it was feasible, it would be a nice thing to do. Hoffman: But again, if you just had an exit point and you call it an exit, that doesn't necessarily mean you're not going to have people that try to enter too. If we still have the gatehouse, we still have the fee, you're going to get people who constantly try to drive through that exit and get into the park. Mady: We can handle that. Hoffman: You just have to hire another guard and put up another gatehouse. ".-.... Laurie McRostie: Something you said kind of, just jogged a part in my mind that these people would come all the way through and then go back to stop where they want to which, if you don't have a two way system, they aren'~ going to be able to do that. Because you do, sometimes you want an overVIew. Just check the whole place out and then decide where you want to stop and if you're going to force everybody back out and then back in, maybe you've just created another situation that gets congested. Sietsema: I think we're not closing any doors with this plan. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 34 ...." Schroers: I just wanted to have that option open. Sietsema: Until something definitely happens with the Eckankar property, all those doors are open all the way along that east side of what we can get off of and get out to Park Drive but until that happens, we don't know what we're talking about. Schroers: Okay, I understand. Mady: One other item to bring up concerning Lake Ann. Laurie mentioned the carousel building. The carousel building is no longer available to us. It was determined that the cost to move that structure, set it up and get it ready would be well in excess of $100,000.00 so the City decided that wasn't a feasible option to us given the budget constraints at this time. DISCUSSION OF 1989 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Mady: Before we go on Lori, a question. On our current budget, any items we had to approve that don't get built this year or any monies we have in the budget that we don't utilize this year, do we carry that over to next year? ~ Sietsema: Yes. Mady: We keep going with it? We've got like Laredo Drive trail approved. If we spend that money next year on that, we don't have to resubmit? Sietsema: It will rollover. The way I understand it, we can roll it over but we have to specify that that's what we're doing. Mady: Now or specify when we do it? Sietsema: Before the books are closed. I think I can just do that in house when I do the estimated 1988 expenditures because if we budget for $100,000.00 and I estimate we're only going to spend $75,000.00, they'll close the books on $75,000.00 and put that other money somewhere else. I'll make a note of that. I went over the 1988 Capital Improvement Program with Gary and there were very few things that we wouldn't be able to get done. Depending on, and I'm sorry I don't have an answer on the Laredo and Carver Beach trail thing. I'm still not certain what kind of public hearings we're going to have to hold and what kind of a process that's going to be but as soon as we have the go ahead to give engineering the go ahead, they can get out and do it and it's only like a 2 to 3 week project because it's not going to take that much. They can do it in house so he anticipates that if we get to him within a reasonable amount of time, he can do that yet this year. When I say this year, I say it's before the snow flies. I'll try to have an update on that for you. In -' fact, I may have a public hearing scheduled for the first meeting in September on that. There are a couple of things that I needed to add to 1989 that I would suggest that we add. One was that, there's some work Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 35 ,.... that needs to be done on South Lotus Lake boat access that we didn't anticipate in the beginning. Some of the runoff and with the grass having not grown there yet, every time it rains, it fills in those swales and those holding ponds and we're having to dredge them out every time. What Gary would like to do is to do some storm water work and he'd like us to budget about $5,000.00 to take care of those problems so we take care of that park once and for all and get it corrected. Robinson: How does he propose to do that? What kind of work? Sietsema: It would have to do with stormwater work and I'm not really sure what he would do but it would involve rerouting the storm water. It's filling up the holding pond and it's running out faster before it has the time to settle out. That's causing silt to get into the lake and runoff into areas that we don't want it to be and it's also filling up those holding ponds much faster than we anticipated so there are some flaws. It just runs down that hill so fast. Robinson: I noticed on the side, the west side of the driveway there, I was just there yesterday, there are weeds in there and consequently nothing is growing but weeds and that really washes... Sietsema: They reseeded again this year and the contracter had to reseed because it didn't grow last year but having no rain, all that grows is the weeds. The weeds have just an unbelieveable ability to grow with no water. ,.... Robinson: But that's running off and that's going down into the lake. Boyt: We have, do I understand this for Lake Ann, $100,000.00 in reserve... Sietsema: The $100,000.00 is in reserve and that's to match the grant if we get it for the shelter. The fishing pier, we thought we were getting a grant for the fishing pier and as it turns out, we found out this week that we're not getting that so that was a grant, not a reserve. Boyt: Cross this out? Sietsema: Yes, you can cross that $30,000.00 off. Boyt: Is that the same with all these astericks? Sietsema: I can explain them. It's confusing. The astericks on Lake Susan Park, that's the cost for the grant application that we submitted for the project at Lake Susan. The boat access and the fields and the access road and all of that development. This is what the total costs would be and that would come partially from a reserve. We have $50,000.00 on reserve for Lake Susan and some of that would be out of grant money and then some of it would be out of the Lake Drive East. 1""'. Boyt: What is... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 36 """'" Sietsema: That's the ballfields and tennis courts and the basketball and the vita course. Boyt: In Meadow Green, did we get the bleachers put in? Sietsema: Bleachers put in, no. If you recall, when Gary Meister came in and requested, we said when we got additional money we would look at it, from the Chaska Lions, we would consider it at that time. Boyt: Did we get any yet? Sietsema: Yes, we did. Boyt: How much? Sietsema: $4,700.00. Boyt: So we have enough to pay for these bleachers? Sietsema: Yes, I would need your direction to go ahead and purchase those. Boyt: Yes, I think so since it's in the budget. I guess I had some questions, North Lotus Lake, did we buy a boardwalk this year? -'. Sietsema: I'm not sure if I ordered it. I know it's not in yet but I believe I ordered it. Schroers: What is currently in that park right now? Sietsema: Totlot equipment is in and the volleyball is staked but it's not completed. The ballfield is in. The parking lot is in and the tennis courts are completed and the parking lot over by the tennis courts is completed. Mady: Are they going to be blacktopping that parking lot this year or is that something that we can budget later? Sietsema: Blacktopping the North Lotus Lake, the one by the totlot? Mady: Yes. Sietsema: That would be a future project. Schroers: The wind screens... Sietsema: The wind screens aren't up but they're ordered. Boyt: Looking at Greenwood Shores, we need to direct that that money be ~ used someplace else? Mady: Carry it over to next year. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 37 ,-... Boyt: $7,000.00. Not carry it over for that. Do we need to direct it anywhere or just carry it over? Sietsema: Are you talking about the totlot? Boyt: The totlot and off-street parking, $7,000.00. Sietsema: The totlot equipment was already purchased and we have to decide tonight where we want to put it as an alternate. If you recall, we were waiting to see what the outcome was and then we decided, let's order it and we can put it someplace else so we need to discuss that. Hoffman: pheasant Hills. Schroers: I was just going to say, why don't we use that for Pheasant Hills because they're someone, they want it and all we have to do is corne up with a place to put it there. Boyt: That outlot near the water could be fenced. We have the Carver Beach playground that's fenced. We could put a fence around two sides of the triangle and put the totlot in the middle. Schroers: Why don't we do that. Why don't we earmark that totlot equipment for Pheasant Hills. ,...... Mady: I'm not comfortable with doing that tonight until we find out that we can do it on that property. That property, Torn had said it was flat property but it's still may be wetland. It may be Class B wetland and we can't even do it. We need to find that out. Sietsema: Which outlot was that, C? Boyt: Did we get the basketball court in at Carver Beach? Sietsema: That's not done yet. They're going to be a lot of paving work later in the season and they'll be replacing the one at Meadow Green Park and paving that parking lot at Bandimere and at Chan Estates and also the basketball court at Carver Beach. Boyt: ...the Carver Beach playground basketball court, $3,000.00 in 1988 and 1989. Is that what that is? Sietsema: Yes. It shouldn't be in the 1989. Schroers: They change the total down at the bottom, it looks to me like there's supposed to be $3,000.00 spent in 1988 and ~J,000,00 ~pent ~n 1989. Sietsema: I know. I think I was moving it over to 1989 but I believe we ~ have the funds to do it in 1988 and we may as well do it h' , . than roll it over. t 1S year rather Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 38 ..."" Mady: The question on basketball courts, where we have tennis courts already existing, would it make sense to put a basketball pole along the fence of the tennis court since you already have a hard surface there and all the kids to shoot baskets there also? Sietsema: We discussed that and felt that it would be conflict in uses. Mady: As long as the rules are up that show that tennis has the... Schroers: That would be hard to enforce and you know that the only time the kids are going to want to shoot baskets is when the neighborhood ladies get together to play tennis. Mady: It's the situation where we don't have the funds to do a basketball court right away, we could put a post up. Sietsema: We do though. It's in the budget to do it. There was a reason why because we had talked about that when we did the tennis court and... Hoffman: Basically just because of the conflict of use. Boyt: We talked about, what's that park where they have a tennis court, basketball court, all together. Running together with fences. It probably saves in the grading or something. """ Sietsema: We wouldn't be able to that at Meadow Green because there wouldn't the room without running into the ballfield area but there is room out there to replace that basketball court and I would like to keep that into the 1988 budget because the people there did donate money to put that in in the first place and we promised them that we would replace it. Boyt: At Chan Pond Park, are we going to be hearing from Mark? Sietsema: Yes, he was going to be on this agenda and in talking to Bill Engelhardt, he got additional information that he wanted to include in the plan and come back with something more complete. Boyt: Are we going to spend this money this year? The master park plan? Sietsema: The master park plan, yes. Boyt: Landsacping plan. Off street parking. Should we roll that? Sietsema: The off street parking should probably be rolled over a~d beefed up. It's going to be, when we budgeted for off street,parklng~ we were talking about four parking spaces off of Laredo. Now we re talklng about off of Kerber. Mady: We were also having that done as a part of the Kerber improvement --' but let's handle that discussion when we have Mark's master plan. Sietsema: If we're talking about putting money in the 1989 budget. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 39 ,..... Mady: My understanding was that was going to be done as part of the road improvement. Sietsema: They're going to grade as part of the road improvement but I don't know if they're going to pave. Boyt: Why don't we hear this stuff? Mady: Were you out at the site when Bill was talking? Boyt: No. Mady: That's when it was discussed. Boyt: Bill who? Mady: Bill Engelhardt. We have to decide what's reasonable within our budget. Boyt: ...the master park plan for Rice Marsh Lake this year? Sietsema: Yes. I just recently talked to Mark and he's going to be working on the Curry Farms and the Rice Marsh and Chan Hills and all of ~ them all at the same time and corne up with some plan. Robinson: Bandimere Heights also? Sietsema: Yes. Boyt: And we still have the money for Herman Field? Sietsema: Yes. That's reserved and that we can't spend anywhere else. Boyt: Did we have fencing put in at City Center court? Sietsema: No and I talked to Gary this morning about that when we were talking about it. He's going to go out there and look and recommend exactly would be the best thing to do. Boyt: Where do we want it? Mady: The hockey rinks. My recommendation at this point, not to spend any money at City Center Park pending the next three months what happens with the Task Force on the Community Center concept because if that goes through, we'd be stupid to spend a lot of money to do something and then tear it all out 2 years later. Boyt: Should we roll it over to the next year? .,-.... Mady: I don't feel comfortable rolling it over either right now. My gut feeling is that the community center concept is going to go through and we're just going to be moving that. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 40 ....", Sietsema: Better safe than sorry. Boyt: Even though we don't spend it next but if it's not there at all. Robinson: Do we have to determine that now? Do you have to determine if you roll it over? Sietsema: I need to know a rough estimate of what we're going to be requiring because it's going, the preliminey budget is going to go to Council on Monday for budget discussion so they want a ballpark figure of what we're going to be asking for. Not necessarily items. They're not going to be getting our park by park item but they are going to be getting, Park and Rec is asking for this much. Engineering is asking for this much so I do need to have a really good idea of what dollar figure we're looking at. If it's $50,000.00 or $100,000.00 or $150,000.00. Boyt: If we don't do this now, I don't understand what that, we haven't talked about this. Mady: I don't see any reason to talk about the rollovers right now. We're talking about next year's budget. We're not talking about rollovers. Let's talk about the rollovers later because that doesn't have any affect on next year. If we've got it in this year's budget and we don't get the work done, we're going to roll it. I don't see any reason ....", not to. Robinson: And that has no bearing on what we spend next year. Sietsema: Well, it does. It's added into the total. You're actually rebudgeting. You're using money from last year that wasn't spent because you're adding. Mady: But we're not stealing anything. Sietsema: But you're adding it to the new total so we should discuss it now so we know what the total is going to be. Mady: We don't even know what we're not going to get done this year. Boyt: I don't think there's a lot of this year left. Realistically with the history of what they've gotten done this year. Schroers: I agree with that. Boyt: We have September left. Schroers: Even taken into consideration the fact that we have had ideal and perfect weather, much better than you could ever expect for a normal year, things have progressed rather slowly from the Park and Rec point of~ view. I guess that's just my personal observation. Mady: The City doesn't do any paving until they do it all at once. All the blacktopping at once. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 41 '" Schroers: And then it will seem like a lot more. Boyt: Bandimere Heights has got their tot10ts in. Hoffman: Lake Ann is done. North Lotus Lake is done. Mady: Can we go to the back page? That's where I got all my comments. Boyt: Have we seen the Curry Farms Park master plan? Sietsema: No, that's being worked on at the same time. Mady: At Lake Ann, it looks like we have $10,000.00 at Lake Ann for sewer and water connection and $5,000.00 for totlot replacement. Is that supposed to be for sewer and water and totlot equipment? Sietsema: The $10,000.00, I think that is on the wrong line. Mady: That's why I was wondering, if that's supposed to be sewer and water connection and then totlot replacement is $5,000.00. '" Schroers: Is that what's currently started? The framework? The timbers laying on the ground down at the beach at Lake Ann. Is that for the totlot? Hoffman: That's all completed. Mady: That was the totlot we did this year. This is for next year. Hoffman: This replacement would be up by the ballfield Larry where the old one is. Schroers: But there is a bunch of timbers laying on the ground in the area around that... Hoffman: It's all in. The timbers were a border for it with the pea gravel inside and the totlot equipment is all in place. Schroers: You're telling that that's clean? Hoffman: That's finished. Schroers: When did that get finished? Hoffman: I believe Friday or else Monday. Mady: Okay, down to South Lotus Lake, we've got $10,000.00 for general improvement and then $15,000.00 for ballfield and $10,000.00 for totlot. "'" Sietsema: That should pretty much cover what Gary is talking about and doing some landscaping and planting and getting the ball fields in there and in place. There's going to have to be some grading done to do the Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 42 -' ballfields. The big pile of dirt is gone but it's going to need to be graded and fine graded and fences and infields and seeding and everything. Mady: What kind of fence? Sietsema: Backstop. Robinson: Tennis courts...1988. Sietsema: The 1988 column shows the original budget. Mady: Carver Beach, $3,000.00 for a basketball court. Sietsema: Did you want to move the tennis courts back into 1989 on South Lotus? Mady: No. I don't see a need for tennis courts. I've taken my own little study. I don't see anybody playing tennis anywhere ever. I've never seen anybody on North Lotus Lake. Sietsema: I get a lot of comment on the Lotus Lake ones and the school ones. Mady: I'm looking at...use $130,000.00 plus dollars and I know the City -' Council isn't going to want to spend that kind of money. If you can walk 6 blocks to the school to play tennis, you're within the service area. When we've got pressing needs at other places, I have a tough time asking for another $25,000.00 for a tennis court. Boyt: I don't think they would take it out because one person... Mady: I've got the floor and I want to go through this whole list right now and somebody else can make their adds and divisions. Carver Beach $3,000.00 for off street parking is fine. Minnewashta Heights, $20,000.00 for a park shelter. There has got to be a better way. $20,000.00 for a park shelter out there. We've got to do some serious thinking about finding something else. At one time we were talking about the bus shelters that the MTC uses. I can't imagine they pay $20,000.00 a piece for those things. Sietsema: They are an awful lot of money. Mady: We've got to find a better alternative than to spend $20,000.00 because if we're going to spend $20,000.00, let's put a small parking lot and provide a wind shelter and wind break. We're going to run out of park development fees real fast. That's my gut feeling. If we can't do it for $5,000.00 for basically a wind break, $20,000.00 is a lot of money for something that's going to be used 2 months out of the year, 3 months out of the year. .....", Sietsema: So you want me to cut that down? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 43 ,-... Mady: That's my comment. City Center Park, hockey improvements, play surface. I'm not sure what play surface is. sietsema: It's the pea gravel. Mady: The pea gravel for the totlot? $2,500.00 for a warming house, there again, we've got $2,500.00 there versus $20,000.00 at Minnewashta. Sietsema: It's existing though. This is upgrading the existing warming house. Mady: We were talking about doing something totally different there. I'd rather, instead of spending $2,500.00 to fix that one, maybe use that one at Minnewashta and do something nice at City Center where it's going to service a lot larger service area. Sietsema: So do you want me to do anything to change that? Mady: No. I guess the City Center Park, I have some real serious concerns on making any improvements to that park without having a master plan done. Robinson: Plus I think your point is good on that community center... ""'" Sietsema: We can take out anything. We can not spend anything but you can't spend $40,000.00 next year on totlot equipment if you don't budget for it. Robinson: Okay, but didn't you say you need a number for that? Sietsema: Right. Mady: If we go to Bluff Creek, the access road for $10,000.00, where are we going to put that? Sietsema: A good question. Mady: Why are we even putting it in the budget? We don't even know what we're going to do with it. Sietsema: That's part of what the $10,000.00 would do is find out how we can get access to it. ,...... Mady: Here again, we're putting in a self parking, that's where it's going to go. I don't like the idea of budgeting for something when we don't even have an idea of what we're going to do. If we need to fund the study, then let's fund the study. Let's not fund the whole thing. My last comment is on North Lotus Lake Park. We've got that ballfield in there. Next year we should have grass growing in hopefully. We have no place for kids to play Little League in this city right now. That field is big enough to accomodate that. It's on a major street so we have no traffic problems coming from a neighborhood park. I would like to see us put a mound in there for Little League so those kids at least have a place Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 44 ...."" to practice when they can't use the Legion field, the American Legion field or Lake Ann. We have a very big need for Little League in this city. Those kids don't have a place to play and if we don't put them out on this one, they still don't and they won't next year and the year after because we can't afford it. I think if we upgrade that park with a couple hundred bucks or whatever it takes to do it, so at least they have a place to practice. Hoffman: Specifically a Little League or Babe Ruth? Mady: Little League. Babe Ruth can be handled at Lake Ann but they can't. Hoffman: Presently Babe Ruth does not use Lake Ann at all. The only field they use in the city is the Legion. Mady: And they have first preference at the Legion. Hoffman: And they had two teams this year. They're looking to hopefully three next year where at present we combine with South Tonka on the Little League. Boyt: But we don't want to combine. Hoffman: No, we don't want to. ...."" Mady: If there's a way of doing it at North Lotus Lake since it's on a major street right now, we shouldn't have the neighborhood problems with traffic. Hoffman: Just to clarify what exactly you and Sue were looking for. Mady: I think it's short term. That's definitely short term. Maybe 2 to 3 years. Schroers: I agree too. I think we owe it to the kids to try and give them someplace. Sietsema: So you want me to add $500.00? Mady: We've already got everthing in there with the exception of putting a mound in. Boyt: Do we need a fence? Mady: No. For a non-sanctioned Little League, they can get away without a fence. Hoffman: I think probably you could get a snow fence. Mady: Get by for this year without them. I think right now those kids would just be happy to have a place to play and we have an opportunity. Those are my comments. ...." Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 45 ".,..., Boyt: Did we put an archery range in anywhere? I see it down here. Sietsema: No we didn't. Schroers: We're talking about it going in somewhere at Lake Susan. We haven't picked a site. Sietsema: It was put into the Lake Susan plan that went for the grant. In fact I should bring that plan to you. Schroers: What was actually put in was $1,000.00 allocated for the range. Sietsema: No, we had to come up with like a master plan, a concept plan to submit to LAWCON when we made our application and I believe that the archery range was included in that. Schroers: Okay, so there was actually a location? It was plotted in. Sietsema: Right, and that won't happen that way without your approval of the concept plan but because of time constraints, there wasn't the time to bring a concept plan back to the Park and Recreation Commission before application. ,..... Schroers: The only problem I have with that is how we're going to get to it. Sietsema: That's included in the plan too. Schroers: The access road... Sietsema: It's a $229,000.00 project. Mady: And the City does have, I think it's two developments right now looking at going into that area. I talked to one of the councilmembers here about a week or so ago. This fund comes out of our capital improvement program. The City estimates that we'll have 400 building permits next year. That's going to raise $170,000.00. Now we just told people from Pheasant Hills that their money that they put in goes in specifically to their development. Boyt: Their area. Mady: Their area. That's exactly it. We just told them we won't spend it any other place but yet we're spending $170,000.00 here, we've got a policy problem. Sietsema: We'll spend that money in their area. I don't think that we ~ lied to them at all. I don't think we misled them. I think we've spent money where the population has been. Mady: I know we do but when we tell them we're going to spend that $38,000.00 there, where do we get the extra money because we don't get any Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 46 .......", money from the City. My tax dollars don't support any development so that means if we do an improvement in a neighborhood park like Greenwood Shores that didn't pay any development fees, we're getting that money from somebody else for a neighborhood park. Sietsema: That's true. Some areas we've gotten the land. We didn't need to acquire it so we had more money than we needed to develop that area. Mady: When we tell a neighborhood that we've got $40,000.00 coming in from there, we're going to spend that there, that's not a legitimate statement because we're spending money almost every year in areas that we never picked up a dime. Schroers: I think it's a legitimate statement. What we're telling them is that when we come up with a suitable plan, that we will put that amount of money back into their area. Not specifically maybe the same $38,000.00 that we originally got from them but we are willing to put that amount of money back into their area. Mady: We told them that money was already earmarked and what we're doing here is we're stealing future money to pay a present need someplace else. Boyt: Remember when we went through that with Don a couple years ago. I never really understood what he said but we're supposed to have funds going into 5 or 6 different areas but there's really no account that keeps-' money, your Section A in Section A. We just have to eventually spend money on that area. Schroers: That's the same thing that I was saying. We don't take their money and put it in an account marked Pheasant Hills. Mady: But we told them it's earmarked. Their money has already been earmarked. Schroers: I think we told them that a number, an amount has been earmarked. Mady: What happens 20 years from now when the City's full? We're basically fully developed and the last house comes in with $425.00 or whatever it is then, and now we're spending it someplace else? We're not going to spend it in this development. I think we have to be careful when we tell a neighborhood that we've got that money earmarked because we really don't. We atempt to earmark or we attempt to utilize the funds in the neighborhood but that's all. That's the best job we can ever do is attempt. We can't...that we're going to spend $40,000.00 in your neighborhood because in that neighborhood that $40,000.00 wouldn't buy anything. They want ballfields. They want this. They want that. They want 300,000.00 worth of stuff there. There's no way we're going to fund it out of our capital improvement program that I can see. ...", Robinson: And if they really went out and did some work to come up with, here's how we want our $40,000.00 spent tomorrow. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 47 "'" Boyt: They can give us recommendations but they can't come in and say... Robinson: But my point is... Sietsema: I understand what you're saying. Boyt: That was my question to Don too. We, as commissioners were told that money was set aside and I think Don thinks it is. Sietsema: It's collected. It's real weird. The money comes in and when it's receipted in the finance department it goes into a receipt that tallies up how much we collect in each area so we know how much we've collected in each area. At the end of the year it's all dumped into the major park fund. So we know how much we took, how much we got from their area and it's all put into the major park fund and then we start over the next year tallying up how much we got in each area. Mady: But we don't save it. Sietsema: It's not like we're only going to spend $40,000.00 in this area because that's all you contributed to and we're not spending any in your area because you haven't. We do rob Peter to pay Paul. """ Mady: So we can't...that they've got $40,000.00 to spend because that's just not a fact. Sietsema: I hope that that's not the way that it came across but I think it's a true statement that they'll get $40,000.00 worth of park services. Mady: I'm sure they will but I know that one lady stood there and said, if we've only got $40,000.00 to spend, maybe we're being short sighted to spend $10,000.00 on a piece of totlot equipment now because then we'll only have $30,000.00 to spend. Sietsema: I think I explained it to her that it didn't work that tightly. It wasn't that... Mady: We need to go further on the budget. Boyt: On the budget, do you know out of the 400 permits, how many paid a park fee this year? Mady: All of them. Boyt: No, because if they're in like Lake Susan, they may have paid only 50%. How many paid the full $425.00? I think that would be good information to take to the Council saying look, we brought in $170,000.00 here and our budget is $139,000.00 so there should be no problem with ~ giving us this money. Can you get that number? Sietsema: I'll check. I don't know if they have it recorded that way. I can more than likely tell you how much actually I took in than to tell you who didn't pay. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 48 ....."" Boyt: Don't you think that would be a good number to have when youlre presenting the budget? Sietsema: Yes. I can get that for you before we finalize this. Robinson: Did we put in 1989 anything for pheasant Hills? Do you think we should? Schroers: I think we should put in about $38,131313.1313. Robinson: Welve got that though. Thatls in the reserve money. Mady: I guess I have a problem right now with pheasant Hills to do anything until we know what welve got out there. Looking at the parcel that Tom was talking about, I didnlt look that closely at the parcel on the right side but it sure all looked like wetland. If he filled in a portion, I would still consider that it must be a wetland because there is water in the main portion of it now. Robinson: Maybe weld better go buy the Carrico property. I think we should have something in the 1989 budget for Pheasant Hills. Mady: $5,13013.00 buys a small play structure. ....."" Schroers: Yes, plug in the amount for a totlot. Sietsema: To buy a totlot and the border, the first phase is about $6,000.00. Schroers: Or else designate the totlot that welve already purchased for Greenwood Shores to Pheasant Hills. That even makes more sense I think. Sietsema: I can do that. Mady: Thatls fine. I have no problem with that. Greenwood Shores because they don't want it anyway. Where else do we have a totlot? Boyt: Shores. We've also got $2,131313.1313 from off street parking in Greenwood We need a park development plan. Mady: lId like to roll that for next year. Sietsema: I donlt know what you told me to do on this. You ideas and nobody made a motion. If we could just go park by $15,13013.1313 for Lake Ann Park. Nothing for Greenwood Shores. North Lotus. $35,131313.1313 for South Lotus. had some park. $51313.1313 for Robinson: Plus the $25,131313.1313 for the tennis court from 1988. ...."" Sietsema: Okay, 1111 put that in and you can decide in your motion if that passes or not. I donlt know how to do this any other way. $6,3513.1313 in Carver Beach. $3,131313.1313 for general improvement at Carver Beach along Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 49 ,..... Lotus Trail. Nothing at Meadow Green. Off street parking, $2,000.00 for Rice Marsh Lake. Mady: Do we have a sign there? I don't even know where the place exists. Sietsema: Yes. Basketball and off street parking for Bandimere. The off street parking should be done this year so we could take that out. $20,000.00 for Minnewashta Heights? Mady: I'd like to see us review that. Sietsema: Should we leave it in for now? $300.00 for Chan Pond. $45,000.00 for City Center. $11,000.00 for Bluff Creek. $3,000.00 for the tree farm and $5,000.00 for miscellaneous. Boyt: So moved. Robinson: Second. Mady: The total then is, $139,150.00. Robinson: The basketball court at Carver Beach is this year? ,..... Sietsema: Yes. Mady: We're at almost $160,000.00. Robinson: It fits right in with the $170,000.00. Boyt moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to approve the 1989 Capital Improvement Program as presented by staff with the noted changes for a total of $139,150.00. All voted in favor except Mady who opposed and the motion carried. Mady: The problem I have with this is the tennis courts at South Lotus Lake. I'm not seeing good useage and $20,000.00 is a lot of money for something that doesn't get a lot of useage. Robinson: I disagree with not a lot of useage Jim. I was up here with my kid one night and it was full that whole night there. The next night, it was getting close to dark. Boyt: During the day the cars are lined up... Mady: At Lake Ann Park, in the 3 years I've been here, this year I saw 2 kids out there once this year. ".... Boyt: It's unadvertised. Mady: That's the extent of people I've ever seen out there. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 50 --' Hoffman: That's by far the least used tennis court. Schroers: That's not as accessible as a neighborhood tennis court so you would maybe expect that you would get maybe a little less use. However, that is right on that jogging path and I've seen people there from time to time. It's not like they're lined up and waiting but it does get used. Mady: Just be prepared when the Council comes back and cuts this. SITE PLAN REVIEW - SHOREWOOD OAKS. Mady: I think we've all looked at it hopefully. The comment I had was the new street, as near as I can tell it's heading south off of that circle and then it deadends. That's going to go into another development at some point in time. I think we should be getting easements along that also. Boyt: Doesn't this look a little bit like Pheasant Hills? Do you think they need one of these lots taken out for a totlot? We normally take 5 acres. In fact normally we don't take less than 5 acres but... Sietsema: It may be something you want to consider. ....", Mady: We have a totlot at Minnewashta Heights though and that's just down the street. Sietsema: No, it's quite a ways. It's quite a ways and it's secluded. You have to go along TH 7 to get to it. Mady: Our Comp Plan talks about putting a park, a major park around Lake St. Joe. Boyt: Yes, but I think we're hearing from these people that they would like it within walking distance. We can always request that and the Council can turn it down but we would could request that he donate two lots, 30,000 square feet for a small neighborhood totlot. Mady: You mean give up all our park dedication fees? Boyt: We could take a percentage. Mady: We've got how many homes? Boyt: 27. Mady: piece. That's $100,000.00. They'll probably get around $30,000.00 a That's what they're going for so maybe a two-thirds reduction. Schroers: I don't think it would hurt to run that by them. --' Mady: It may not hurt but then toe park maintenance staff to have to run around to every half acre lot in the City to try to mow the grass every Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 51 "'" week. That's something we talked about before. That's not what we want to be doing. We have a problem now with getting things done. If we have to mow 30,000 acres at 25 different sites around the City, we're not going to get anything else done but grass mowing ever. It's a philosophical thing. We talked about it before. We're not going to do it. ~gR~g~~~i ~~~~ely~~ltfi~e~~oBIgPf?6mi~h~~~ant Hills tonight. What are we going to give them? Mady: The people at pheasant Hills bought their property full aware there was no park in their area. Boyt: But it doesn't mean that we can't look to the needs of the people in this whole neighborhood are going to be. This is an amenity they're going to want. That their developer is not providing for. Schroers: I think that's why they were here tonight. They were telling us that at that point in time the Park Commission was short sighted and now they want something done with it and we're stuck with their problem so I think we should learn from previous mistakes or short comings or whatever and try to avoid a situation like that in the future because that Pheasant Hills situation could end up costing us a lot of money before we get that straighten out. ,..... Boyt: We've looked at a lot of these small developments and we say they're too small to take anything so we're getting block after block of too small to take anything when maybe we should look at something smaller than 5 acres once in a while. Mady: The area straight south of there,...developed. Sietsema: No. Mady: We looked at one in there someplace. Sietsema: The one that this leads to is undeveloped. Schroers: We talked about going up into the area just to the north or as you're driving up to the right of King's Point Road and looking at acquiring future parkland in that area because it's an open space that is undeveloped but the situation is that we would probably have to purchase it. Then we talked about a trail and possible park with a nature area around St. Joe but other than that and the trail, I don't remember talking about anything else in there~ Robinson: Why do you say Lori, in your recommendation, however, requesting a minimum of 5 acres for park purposes. ,...... Boyt: That's what we normally... " Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 52 Robinson: But couldn't we have, even one lot for a totlot? Is that one lot... -'" Sietsema: I was just reiterating what the policy has been in the past. It's not to say we can't change our policy. The 27 lots will generate the park needs and our formula for 1 acre for 75 people, that will generate the need for 1 acre of parkland. Generally you'd need about 2 1/2 to 3 acres to put a totlot and half court basketball and tennis courts on. You need at least that. That would be pretty compact. If you wanted just a piece of property that would accomodate just a totlot, a lot would do it. Schroers: Breaking the ratio down between the number of units, the size of the development and the land that we ask for, would these 27 units in this development, how would that ratio work out for 2 1/2 acres or 2 1/2 lots? Would we be pretty much on target there? Sietsema: 2 1/2 lots? 2 1/2 acres would be too much. It works out to be about 10% of the total acreage is what the 1 acre per 75 people works out, generally in the urban area and that's exactly what it works out to. 27 lots equals 1 acre of parkland. The need for 1 area of parkland, which in this case is 10% and I don't believe that the courts would argue that that would be a taking if you took 10%. Schroers: And in 1 acre we could put a totlot, maybe a half court basketball court and a picnic table or two. Sietsema: That's about all you'd get. an acre. That's about what you could get oy ....." Mady: So we're talking we're going to get away from our policy. Schroers: We're not talking we're going to get away from our policy. We're just boring some new thinking. New ideas. Boyt: 10% is the policy. Mady: What are we going from now on? The next time a guy comes in with 15 acre parcel with 15 houses, are we going to take a lot from him? Sietsema: I think something you might want to consider then is that getting it along the south boundary line, that you could hook up into, if it develops to the south, you could require that they dedicate another couple acres so then it would eventually equal to... Mady: My problem here is, because we heard a group complain that they don't have a park we're now looking at this development and we're changing. We do the same thing with the trail plan on the south when we looked at the Gagne property. We said also we want a trail here and we want a trail there and that wasn't totally with anything we had done in the past. We're not being consistent at all and I've got a problem with that. The City should develop a plan on consistent basis. Boyt: The plan used to be no trails at all. ....."I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 53 ,...... Sietsema: But as you go along and you find flaws in your plan and your policies, then you change accordingly if you feel that that's a flaw. I guess that would be a matter of opinion. Schroers: I'm not suggesting that we change our policy. I'm not suggesting that we look for a new way of avoiding a situation like we ran into tonight because I think once we get to the point where everything's developed, once we get to the point where pheasant Hills is now, we're in a bind. It's much more difficult and much more expensive to provide what we provide for them now rather than to do a little bit of creative thinking and come up with a plan that we can plan something now and... future complications and problems like this. I'm not suggesting that we change any policy. I'm suggesting that we look at an alternative here and see what we can turn around. Mady: I guess my problem is I see us, we do this for this 27 housing development, we're going to have to do it for everyone. We have to make sure we get a totlot in every... 11""" Sietsema: The thought that you have to have consistency and you have to have policies but when you're dealing with some situations where it's a small development and it's a very remote area where there isn't anything else available and the opportunity of getting Lake St. Joe when it becomes available, what is it going to cost us if that's not a sure thing so you may want to deviate from your policy. It's not written in granite that we can not accept anything under 5 acres but when you're in an area that has a small development among an area with a lot of bigger parcels in the future that are going to be developed, and you can see that's going to be a bigger development and we can acquire that then and they will use their fees to help develop that and that area will serve them. Everything is not, you're not comparing apples to apples all the way along. Boyt: North of TH 5 there's a lot of little pieces of property and I think we're going to miss out on acquiring any land because everything is so small... I don't want those people to miss out on having an area for kids. Schroers: If we can go back maybe to what Lori suggested about asking for something along the southern boundary. Is there something proposed there Lori? Do you see this, do you know should it be something that legitimately will happen in the conceivable future? Sietsema: I have no idea. Schroers: If we were to ask for our 5 acres along the south border that we really don't know when or if that will be available? Sietsema: I have no idea about it. When it will come up for development. I would not even venture a guess. ~ Schroers: There's nothing proposed at this time? ~arK ana Kecrea~~on ~omm~55~on Mee~~ng August 9, 1988 - Page 54 Sietsema: Not that I know of. Robinson: Which lots would be, are we fussy which ones? ..."" Sietsema: Here's a bigger site plan of the area. Mady: Do you want a lot that's on the south side so it can be expanded? Robinson: We want it flat. Schroers: That's pretty much all high ground up there. I just drove past there yesterday and that's, on the west side of the Parkway and it's all fairly high ground up in there. Sietsema: ...the least amount of grading up in this area. Schroers: You need a motion on this tonight right? Sietsema: Yes, and what you could do is just direct staff to let the developer know that we're looking for roughly an acre or whatever amount of land that you wanted to, a half acre to an acre of land along the southern boundary that would accomodate active uses. Then I could meet with the developer or with the Planning Department actually and go out to the site and look at what the topo looks like and what the land is like. Schroers: I guess I would like to know how you feel about that. you rather pursue it from that point of view or would you rather stick with the policy and say, let's just stick with our 5 acres that something becomes available? Would just and hope -' Sietsema: Strictly from an administrative standpoint, having to deal with questions and concerns down the road, I'd like to see us get something. From a maintenance standpoint, I'd like to see us stick with 5 acres. If I was buying a house in this, I would want us to go with an acre of parkland so it's hard for me to say. Given the situation that we're dealing with the west side of Lake Minnewashta where there isn't any other park in the area, the chance of it developing to the south I think are fairly good. Schroers: I agree. Sietsema: I think it might be a good idea to try and pursue getting parkland. That doesn't mean that we have to throw Lake St. Joe out the window. I think that's still an option. I think that's still a viable future acquisition. Schroers: I think that could be a real hot spot if we didn't acquire parkland there ~nd none became available in the future. In that area, I think you're gOIng to get the kind of people that are going to want parkland and I think it would be... Sietsema: Or else ask that they provide some kind of an association lot in the area. Open space that an association would take care of. That -' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 55 I""" would remain under their ownership. That might be an option too. Then it wouldn't become public property but it would provide them with their open space and that would take the maintenance responsibility off of the City too. We wouldn't be responsible for maintaining that then. Schroers: That way we also wouldn't be changing our policy either. Robinson: Ready for a motion? Schroers: Have you got one? Robinson: I'll take a stab at one. That stab, work with the developer and suggest either, like you said Lori, to designate some open area for the dwellings or dedicate a couple lots on the south side for park use. That an off-street trail be constructed along the through street. Sietsema: Did you want that to go along the street that goes to the south that looks like it will be a through street? Robinson: Yes. Schroers: Do we need to add in there that we want the results brought back before this Commission? ,...., Sietsema: No. I would bring that back to you. Boyt: Second. Mady: I have some comments. One, I think we have to study this thing. Every time before we can start looking at 27 housing developments that's looking for more parkland in a park deficient area that's fine. When we got a concept, the neighborhood didn't have a park, we're using that to base that on when they developed and now they're coming to us, we have neighborhoods throughout the City that don't have parks within close immediate walking distance to them and if we're basing this judgment on that, we're going to be having people in here all the time telling us they want to have a totlot next to, within a couple of blocks of them. I guess I have a problem with that. I don't think the people in Pheasant Hills necessarily have a lot to ask for in a totlot. ...there was a conscience decision made there not putting park in. We need a park in that area. I don't know if a totlot there is the answer. I think we need to study the overall question. Robinson: Are you questioning what we told Pheasant Hills people tonight? Mady: Partly that too. I have a problem, if we're going to do this then we're probably going to be looking at every developer doing this or we're sending a message out and I want to make sure you understand we're sending that message out that we're going to be looking at this. We have to think this through because this isn't anything we're doing on the Comp Plan. ~ The Comp Plan, we talk about 5 acre parks and now we're going to a 1 arce park and hoping we can pick up some more on the south. It's a small lot and I have a problem with it. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 56 Hoffman: Something you have to back this up with is that that is clearly a park deficient area where some of the other neighborhoods that don't ~. have, they have something at least somewhat closer by. Sietsema: I guess what I would compare it to is when the people that live in the Chaparral area that's adjacent to the Carver Beach area and they wanted the City to purchase the vacant lot for a totlot area because it was too far for their kids to walk to the park. Well, they have a park within four blocks that serves that area. They wanted one that was closer. They had a couple daycares in that area and they wanted something that was closer. I could see where that isn't, you can justifiably say that you are not a park deficient area and therefore, we would not deviate from our policy of 5 acres. Mady: I'm just saying, we're going to have this problem throughout the City. This is not the first time nor will it be even close to being the last time. We're going to have a lot of real small parks throughout the City if we do this. We're talking about going to a totlot concept. Robinson moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to direct staff to work with the developer to suggest open space under Homeowners Association control or dedicate two lots on the south side of the development for park use. Also, to recommend trail construction along the through street within the development. All voted in favor except Mady who opposed and the motion carried. ..."", REVIEW ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: MOORING BOATS AND RAFTS AND PETS IN PARKS AND ON TRAILS. Sietsema: It's going to City Council. I just brought it more or less in case you had any comments. Mady: The only problem I have is two things. Two comments. One has to do with dogs in parks. It says under restraint. I want to make sure that under restraint means physical restraint. Some people consider that their dogs get restraint when they can use a whistle or hand and speech commands and I want to make sure that that legally restricts them to on a leash. The other comment was, I talked to Scott Harr, at least on ordinances, it sounds like an ordinance, if there's a boat moored off the shore illegally, they get 30 days to move the sucker before we can remove it. I want to know how we get this thing changed so that it's like parking illegally in a parking spot. If it's illegal, the City has a right to tow immediately so we don't have to wait 30 days to get it done. Do we need a motion on these? Sietsema: Not if you want to but you could put your support behind it. Mady: Was there anything in the staff updates that we needed to talk about? ..."", Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page 57 ,IfI""'-- Sietsema: One item on the memos that were sent to City Council. They didn't appreciate it. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and Councilman Horn, I wasn't at the meeting last night but I understood that they didn't feel that it was appropriate that this Commission send them a memo and other councilpeople responded saying that they did think it was appropriate to get feedback from the Commissions. Mady: I hope the councilmembers who responded that realize that we are commission members but we are also taxpayers and we have a right to voice our opinion. As making recommendations, if the Council doesn't seem to go along with their previous recommendation or previous direction, they should have to stand there. We don't appreciate receiving direction and then all of a sudden they flip flopping back and forth just to get... Sietsema: The way I understood it, they didn't feel that that was their direction. Mady: ...that's my opinion and I'm a taxpayer so let me voice it. Robinson: Put that sucker to bed once and for all and be done with it. I'd rather not hear about it again. Sietsema: I got some surveys in the mail that include maps that the Met Council would like you to fill out. ~ Mady: One brief comment on when we have public hearings, and we'll be having one probably in August, I attended the public hearing at the Planning Commission. It went very smoothly even though it was a very vocal and emotional issue, they're probably very vocal. Ladd did an excellent job of controlling it. The way he did that was the Commission sits up here. They do not make comments, share comments with the audience back and forth. They may ask the audience a question but they do not respond to a question and then answer it right away. They wait until Commission time and then they respond. They take total comments first. That's what it is is public comment and then it's forwarded it that way. You don't have all this back and forth. Boyt: But it is a time to discuss. With us it's a time to answer their questions. Mady: But when you have a vocal issue, it's very difficult to get anything accomplished. ,...., Boyt: It's also very frustrating to sit on the other side and ask a question and not be able to get an answer. Not be allowed to talk. The City Council runs it more that way. We're the point before they get to the council where they can get those things answered, Mad~: But we don't have the ability to do anything. I'm looking at trYlng to run an organized m7eting and an orderly meeting. The ones with Gree~wood Shores, Pheasant Hllls, it was back and forth and people keep talk~ng allover the place. That's just not organized. We're not doing serVlce to them or to ourselves. If they have a question after they can Park and Recreation Commission Meeting August 9, 1988 - Page ~ sg "-- raise it but the best time for public comment, and that's what they're there for, we're not to comment. We take public comment and then we respond with our comments. -~ Mady moved, Robinson 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 '-1111" ....",