PRC 1988 09 14
~
"....,
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt, Larry Schroers, Carol Watson and
Curt Robinson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Lynch and Ed Hasek
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Schroers seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated August 9, 1988
as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED TRAIL CONSTRUCTION-CARVER BEACH ROAD.
Public Present:
Name Address
Robin Nordby 6801 Redwing
I""'" Laura Bros 6771 Chaparral
Joy Jarnvek 6780 Redwi ng Lane
Cathy Clem 1011 Carver Beach Road
Paul Kreuter 1090 Carver Beach Road
Dave & Leneda Rahe 1021 Carver Beach Road
,......
Sietsema: This item, as you may recall, the 1988 Capital Improvement
Program, which is the park development fund includes funds to construct
off street trails or sidewalks along Carver Beach Road and Laredo Drive.
I'm going to treat these two separately and I'll go right to Carver Beach
Road. The proposed trail along Carver Beach Road is approximately 1,500
feet from Powers Blvd. to Carver Beach playground. The purpose of the
trail is to keep the pedestrians that move along that street safe as the
street is getting more and more busy as developments go in in that area.
You may recall that over a year ago we had a petition to put a trail along
that street by the people in that neighborhood. That petition was one of
the things that pre-empted our developing the whole trail plan. Because
we have seen that that is an unsafe area for children to be walking along
the street, we went ahead and put that into our Capital Improvement
Program for the 1988 year. I've gone out to the site with the City
Engineer and we looked at both sides of the street to see which would be
the best side of the street to put the trail on. Due to topography
mostly, we thought that if we're going to put it completely on one side,
that the north side would be the better side. There are fewer
obstructions there and the topo is flatter. Since that time I've talked
to some people in the area and the people that live on the south side of
Carver Beach Road would like it to be on their side of the street and
possibly cross at an intersection closer to the park. We can't have the
trail going right up to the park on the south side because there's some
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 2
topo right across the street from the park that goes straight down. We
would not be able to accomodate a trail. Because Carver Beach Road is the
frontage road for many of the homes that are along that street, I'm
proposing that we put in a sidewalk rather than a bituminous trail because
it looks nicer and it will add to the value of those homes rather than to
detract as some people would think that a bituminous may detract from a
home. It looks better and I don't think that the cost is going to be that
much higher although if it is, I can bring that back to you. So my
recommendation would be to put in a concrete sidewalk which would be 5
feet wide rather than the 6 foot bituminous. Some of the other things
that we wanted to talk about before getting into discussion is the types
of use that would be allowed on that trail and although we have a lot of
work to do on an ordinance that's going to outline exactly what can be
done, on this type of a trail pets would be allowed but on a leash only
and no motorized vehicles would be allowed on sidewalks. Unless somebody
else has some other concerns, I think that pretty much covers the things
that have come up so far. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation to
construct a 5 foot concrete sidewalk to be constructed along Carver Beach
Road and we can determine which side would be the best within the existing
40 foot right-of-way.
.......,;
Chairman Mady called the public hearing to order.
Robin Nordby, 6801 Redwing Lane: My daughter is 7 years old and rides the
bus and I would really like to have her go use that park because it's the
park that she's supposed to use. We proposed having a park in the -'
neighborhood and that was voted down or we didn't get enough support for a
small park in the neighborhood. They said to use the Carver Beach Park
but she's forbidden to ride a bike on Carver Beach because of the traffic.
It's just unreal. The cars just zoom through there and you practically
have to dive in the ditch so I think I can say that everybody in the
neighborhood is supporting this. Everybody is pushing for it heavily to
have something so the kids can get over to the park and there's just tons
of kids in the neighborhood. I think almost every house has small
children in that age group.
Laura Bros, 6771 Chaparral Lane: I was the originater of the petition to
get the trail made up to the park for a lot of the reasons that Robin just
stated because it's just very dangerous to walk on that road. It's very
narrow and with the hills and we do have lots of problems with speeding.
We've been in contact with the Public Safety Department and haven't gotten
a whole lot of satisfaction from them either with controlling speed on
that road so we definitely do not want our children on Carver Beach. One
of the things that Lori brought up and you talked about it before was,
instead of running it all the way up the north side, we'd like part of it
on the south side because we're feeding off of the neighborhood. The
neighborhoods are off on the south side so we would rather have it go part
of the way. The way I had set it up originally on the petition was to
have it cross at Redwing Lane with the use age of stop signs. I felt that
this would combat two problems with one stroke. By putting a stop sign ir
at Redwing at the base of the hill so the cars coming down over the hill ~
have to stop anyway so that will control the speed on Carver Beach Road
and provide the safe crossing for our children. Because of the lay of the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 3
,...,
land, that pretty much needs to go up the north side. I agree with Lori on
that but I'd like to see it from Powers Blvd. to Redwing Lane go on the
south side and then cross over with a crosswalk and stop signs.
Mady: One thing I'd like to address, if possible, is if you have a
comment on whether we should use concrete or bituminous blacktop, we'd
also like that brought up.
Paul Kreuter, 1090 Carver Beach Road: As much as a trail on the north
side of the road all the way to Powers would serve my family and I the
most, I agree with the consensus so far simply because the number of
children that live on the south side is so great and I think it would be a
serious safety problem for trying to get the kids from the south side of
Carver Beach over to the trail. Whatever will last is the best use as far
as material goes.
Laura Bros: I think we all support the sidewalk. I don't have a problem.
I think a sidewalk would look better, much better than tar.
Mady: The only concerns we would probably have would be cost and we can
work on that.
Laura Bros: How about the stop sign issue? Is that going to be a
,..... problem?
Mady: That's something we'll discuss. It's not something we have really
a whole lot of say on but that will handled by the City Council. We can
make a recommendation to them.
,.....
Sietsema: If I could just make a comment. I did talk to Jim Chaffee
about the request for the stop sign along Carver Beach Road and what he
has indicated is that he can't move on anything until he gets the request
in writing. I don't know if you've got written to him what the request
is, but he can't take the item to the Public Safety Commission until he
has the request in writing. So that's your first step. We can make a
recommendation that a crosswalk go at a certain spot where we're switching
sides and we can recommend that the sidewalk go in at that point too. But
whether there's a stop sign there is an engineering decision although
Public Safety will recommend on it too. The other thing is that, with the
crosswalk and the trail going in, we'll have a much greater chance of
getting the stop sign. If you just put a stop sign up to slow traffic,
MnDot will not let you. That's not the purpose of a stop sign to just
simply slow traffic. You're supposed to use other things to do that but
if there's a crosswalk there, it makes more sense. That would give a good
reason why there should be a stop sign there. With the trail and the
crosswalk, you might have a better chance of getting it.
Laura Bros: Another point I wanted to make too was that the bus stop for
that area is right on Redwing and Carver Beach Road. The children stand
on that corner for a bus stop so therefore, any children walking down, if
they should from the other side of the street, a couple of them might go
to another district but if they have to cross the street, they could cross
and they could walk down the sidewalk, cross at the crosswalk at Carver
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 4
.....,
Beach and then stand at the bus stop.
Boyt: We're going to run into this again out on Minnewashta with the
trail crossing sides of the street. I think stop signs are a good answer
to that problem.
Schroers: Currently there is a petition circulating in the neighborhood
right now for a stop sign on Redwing anyway. There are several signatures
on that petition.
Robin Norby: Also, we'd like a safety sign that says Children Playing.
Notifying that there is a park there so people that don't know.
Boyt moved, Robinson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Boyt: One of the things we haven't discussed is winter maintenance for
the tra ils. That was something we need to di scuss tonight.
Mady:
items.
I'd like to discuss winter maintenance once we get done with both
Boyt: I think most of the people know who's going to pay for the trail.
That the whole city pays for it and it's not assessed to each individual
homeowner. There have been questions about that with Laredo. The City
pays for it.
....",
Mady: To clarify that even further. The money that the Park and
Recreation Commission and Park and Recreation Department spends for
capital improvements and that's building totlot equipment, putting in ball
diamonds, land acquisition"minor amounts of land, comes directly out of
what is known as park dedication fees. Anytime a developer comes in and
builds a home in the City of Chanhassen, they are assessed a fee Of
$425.00 which goes directly into a park dedication fund. They have the
option, if it's a large development, I guess it's at our discretion,
requesting the land dedication instead of the dollars but it always works
out to equal. Either it's $425.00 for land or $425.00 so that's the only
money we use for building parks and building trails. That's where our
money comes from. We do not receive any money out of the City's operating
budget for building park items which is trails and ballfields and totlot
equipment.
Boyt: I'm in support of the sidewalk and I'd like to see the concrete
sidewalk switching sides of the road with stop signs.
Watson: ...because it doesn't really make any difference in the City here
specifically. If they want it on the south and going to the north and
they want a stop sign.
Robinson:
I agree.
....",
Schroers: I agree.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 5
,.....
Mady: We're all in agreement. We don't have a whole lot of discussion on
it. We're all in pretty much agreement that the trail needs to be placed
on the south side of Carver Beach Road from Powers to Redwing, have a
crosswalk installed and then the trail continue onto the park on the north
side of Carver Beach Road. I would guess they're going to make a
recommendation to the Public Safety Commission that we use a stop sign
situation be installed at that location. I think a motion's in order.
Boyt: So moved.
Watson: Second.
Mady: Just for the benefit of the public, the motion on the floor is to
build a trail along...
Boyt: A 5 foot concrete sidewalk constructed along the south side of
Carver Beach Road from Powers Blvd. to Redwing, a crosswalk and then the
sidewalk would continue on the north side to the park with stop signs.
Paul Kreuter: Could you add, with appropriate safety signs.
,....
Mady:
In addition to the Public Safety Commission to install those.
Boyt: Have you gone to the Public Safety Commission with this?
Laura Bros: We just started a petition for the south side for safety
signs.
Watson: I think it's well that the trail crossing and our engineer can...
especially the bus stop and the whole thing. ...should make a real good
case for putting a stop sign there.
Boyt moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to install a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along the south side of
Carver Beach Road from Powers Blvd. to Redwing Lane, a crosswalk and then
continue the sidewalk on the north side of Carver Beach Road to Carver
Beach Playground and to have safety crossing signs and stop signs. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mady: The motion now goes to the City Council with our recommendation and
they'll decide whether or not it will be built.
Sietsema: Actually, what will happen is that on the 26th I will hand this
recommendation over to the Engineer. It's been approved by the City
Council because it was approved in our budget so they will authorize
preparation of plans and specs on the 26th. Those plans and specs will
,..... corne back and they'll have to approve those and authorize advertisement of
bids. We'll have to advertise for bids for 21 days. They'll corne back in
November to accept the bid. It probably will not be, depending on what
kind of winter it is, if they can still do construction, they will start
it. Otherwise, it will be the first thing on the agenda next spring.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 6
Public Present:
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED TRAIL CONSTRUCTION LAREDO DRIVE.
....."
Name
Sarah Unger
Pat & Mona Kerber
Sunil Chojar
Richard Konerza
Bruce Gamun
Earl H. Mertz
Greg Eidam
Torn Kottke
Kathy Hagedorn
Ken Groen
Charles Littfin
Barb Edeskuty
Leah Lucas
David & Trudy Schranck
Larry Beck
Mary Lucas
Linda Mady
Address
7406 Laredo Drive
7489 Saratoga Circle
7480 Long view Circle
7461 Long View Circle
7405 Laredo Drive
7510 Laredo Drive
501 Laredo Lane
518 Laredo Lane
516 Laredo Lane
7329 Frontier Trail
7609 Laredo Drive
406 Cimarron Circle
410 Cimarron
506 Laredo Drive
7401 Laredo Drive
410 Cimarron Circle
7338 Frontier Trail
Sietsema: The proposed sidewalk, trail along Laredo Drive is roughly ......"
2,500 feet from Frontier Trail to the Chanhassen Elementary. The reason
it doesn't go, we're not proposing it to go all the way to West 78th
Street is because it's already in place to the Fire Station and HRA with
the redevelopment, part of downtown redevelopment will be putting it in
along the school and hooking into the trails that up by the school that
were just recently installed. The purpose of this trail is again to move
people along Laredo Drive in a safe manner. The trails will be for
pedestrians. For bicycles but not motorized vehicles. Staff is proposing
that we put in a 5 foot concrete sidewalk rather than the bituminous for
the same reasons as we had for the Carver Beach Road. The existing right-
of-way does allow for that type of construction. Again, City Engineer
Gary Warren and I went out to the site and looked at it and felt that the
west side of Laredo Drive would be the appropriate side to have the trail
on because we already have a section in place there and the topography and
obstructions were less on that side as well. Again, this is not an
assessed project. This is an already funded project that comes out of
already budgeted money. Therefore, it is my recommendation that a 5 foot
concrete sidewalk be constructed along the west side of Laredo Drive
within the existing 60 foot right-of-way.
Mady: To clarify right-of-way questions, Laredo has a 60 foot road
right-of-way and the street right now is 25 so we have approximately 16
feet on both sides of the street there. I think at this time we'll call
the public hearing to order on Laredo Drive trail and weIll handle this
basically the same as we handled the previous one. -'
,...
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 7
Sarah Unger, 7406 Laredo: I live right on the curve of Laredo. I see 100
people use that road walking and riding and doing all that. I'm amazed
that nobody's been hurt because that curve is so, you ~!~ w the peitions...
so I'm in support of the trail. I'm also in support that it's a 5 foot
cement whatever just because it will tie in the main residential
neighborhood with the City and I think it is real important to the value
of our homes as well as tying into the city. So I think it's real
important...
Leah Lucas: I live on Laredo and Cimarron Circle. I would be in support
of a trail because all those children are required to walk to school and
they walk in the road. It's dangerous for the children and it's hazardous
for the driver to have kids walking the streets. In the winter it's even
worst because the snow is banked up on each side. The kids are walking on
the banks, slipping in the road. I think we need the trail.
Boyt: You like the sidewalk on the west side?
Leah Lucas: The west side is appropriate because
,.....
Barb Edeskuty, 406 Cimarron Circle: I'm also in favor of the sidewalk
going on the west side. We've all got kids that have to walk to school
and I don't feel the road is a safe place to walk. Again, especially in
the winter time and the sidewalk as opposed to the tar trail just because
of the looks. It would be nice to blend into the city.
Bruce Gamun: I'm a 16 year resident of 7405 Laredo Drive. I have no
objections whatsoever to the sidewalk preferably being concrete. I just
have some questions. I understand it's funded. I do have the questions
of how that will be maintained because concrete obviously will stand up
better than the asphalt. The second question would be, what do you do
with the snow on it in the wintertime and who's responsible for it and how
can you use it in the wintertime? I think you said you're going to
address that in a vote but I would think they'd want to know, like Carver
Beach people, they didn't comment and I certainly would like to know how
we're going to maintain it because if the property owners maybe today if
it were there, the City would take care of it. Maybe tomorrow the
homeowner would have to take care of it. It wouldn't affect me on my
side, it would still be a concern of mine and my neighbors I'm sure, it's
a question that should be addressed.
Larry Beck, 7402 Laredo Drive: I'm definitely in favor of the sidewalk.
Not the asphalt but the concrete. I guess the biggest question I had was
I've got about 250 foot of frontage so I'm concerned about the maintenance
in the winter. I know I'm not going to be able to take care of that snow
so that's a real concern of mine. Otherwise I think it's fine.
Dick Konerza, Long View Circle and Laredo: My question is, what will be
~. the responsibility of the homeowner, financially, upkeep and all of that
from now until after it's not being used? Before I favor anything, I'd
like to know what is our responsibility to that walkway?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 8
Earl Mertz, 7510 Laredo Drive: I'm in favor of the concrete bit. I just -'
wonder who how far is it from the roadway? I'm concerned about my front
yard getting hacked up and some trees that are probably in the way and how
far would this be in from the present road? Are we leaving a boulevard
here are we or several feet in the sidewalk and then the rest of my yard?
I'm concerned about how it hack up my property.
Mady: We'll discuss that with the Commission presentation. You'll have
an opportunity at that time, if you don't get the response you're looking
for, to ask another question.
Mona Kerber: My name is Mona Kerber and my husband Patrick Kerber. My
husband was up here and has gotten complete information. I don't know if
we oppose or I'm in favor of it. Our question is also the maintenance of
it. Who's responsible because our driveway goes out into Saratoga Circle.
We do not use the Laredo frontage and we also have a hill that has been
landscaped. My husband came to the Village and got complete permission to
landscape it. Put the timbers in. What are you going to do with the hill
and the circle there? The curve around it, I agree it's a very hazardous
corner but what are you going to do with our hill? Who's going to, are
you going to take it out? Are you going to put it back? Are you going to
landscape it and John Mertz lives next door to us, they did not get a
letter in regards to this. We spoke with him tonight and I'm speaking on
his behalf also. Part of the hill where we have the disconnecting with
the timbers is part of his property now which means you're going to be
hacking that off. We'd like to know how much we're going to lose of our ~
hill? How much is he going to lose? Who's going to maintain it? Who's
going to pick the garbage up? Right now we clean the garbage on Laredo.
We pick up pop cans, school papers, everything on this street now and we
have a walkway down there? Is the Village going to maintain that? The
walkway is not that well maintained. We maintain it. Another question
is, you're going to plow snow there. Where is the snow going to go when
we have this large bank? Are we going to have to shovel the snow up on
top of our hill or what do you do with it? We have a problem already down
there with the snow on the corner. If it would be, we're in favor of the
cement. We agree with the safety part of it but we also are concerned
about our property and what are you going to do with our land and our
lot? How far back are you going to go?
Resident: Let me make one more comment and then I'm really done. What
I'm hearing is that the biggest concern is maintenance. I personally
don't have a problem with maintaining the sidewalk but that's because I
have a small frontage. I might make a suggestion that the City's going to
have to maintain the sidewalks within the City which extends down to the
Fire Department and the school so the cost of maintaining the rest of the
sidewalk down Laredo should be that much and since the use is really going
to be for the public school and the children, that maybe you could, you
know...
Pat Kerber, 7489 Saratoga Circle: The sidewalk is fine but I think we
should have got together first was where it was going to be. How much
room it was going to take up. Who's going to maintain it and this before~.
we get involved with do we want it or not. That seems to be everybody's
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 9
.~
concern. Thank you.
Sunil Chojar, 7480 Long View Circle: I have basically the same concern as
before we started this debate. The lady mentioned that we don't have room
on the east side of the road to put a sidewalk and it seems...
(There was a break in the tape at this point in the meeting.)
,....,
Mady: ...other trails such as the Pond Park trail that's adjacent to
Kerber's property, there's not a lot of reason to plow that in the winter
possibly and maybe we want to use some of those trails that we're
proposing as cross country ski trails, things like that so not all of them
are probably going to be plowed during the winter. We'll decide on a one
to one basis. I think we need to review each trail that comes in. It's
been our intention all along that once we have a trail system started,
that we will acquire a Cushman type of vehicle and have a park maintenance
person traveling the trail system to pick up, sweep up the loose sand,
glass and large trash that exists in there but it's still going to be the
homeowner's responsibly to pick up the few pieces of paper that fly into
their yard. I don't anticipate the City having someone driving that trail
everyday to pick that stuff up. I think there's concern on how wide the
boulevard's going to be. If we put the trail right neyt to the street or
we put it the full 16 feet away from the street. I don't believe we're
going to put it adjacent to the street unless we absolutely have no other
choice. If there is a fire hydrant or a large tree and telephone boxes in
the way and we have to go next to the street, we will but we want to keep
it away from the street. That doesn't mean we have to take the whole 16
feet either. I belive a 3 to 4 foot cushion is reasonable. It keeps the
kids and the street traffic separate. It also allows for some piling of
snow in small snow storms. Now obviously, usually in the winter we have a
lot of snow here so there are going to be winters or probably just about
every winter where we're going to have to get a front end loader or a
large snow blower up there to pull that snow away from the hills if we
don't have anyplace else to push it. What I'm hearing from the Park and
Rec Commission is that that's what we want to see done. We do have park
maintenance people on staff and I think that's what their function should
be in the winter. First on these trails and then to help out with the
street maintenance crew with the rest of the streets after that and then
finally the ice rinks. I believe someone raised the question about
financial responsibility. I think that might also come into play with the
liability. Who's responsible for things on the streets? I don't have an
answer to that but there is a case law on that. The City would not have
any way of changing...exist with sidewalk liability. If there's a person
that's injured on a sidewalk, and I know there's case law on that on what
happens. I don't have an answer to that, sorry.
Resident: What about if it's in your right-of-way and not on our
property?
I""""
Mady: I don't know that. That's something that I would at least ask and
get a clarification from our Attorney Roger Knutson when it goes to the
Council.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 10
Sietsema: I talked to Roger about this in the past and his opinion is
that, if someone gets hurt on the sidewalk, they can sue anybody. They
can sue you, if it's in your yard or they can sue the City or they could
sue both but generally the courts have been going, unless you have left
something out there dangerous or there was something very neglectful, they
have been going in favor of that you walk the trails at your own risk. You
talk some of the repsonsibility for being out and about, being able to
walk upon yourself and that's generally what the courts have gone with so
he doesn't see that as a big liability problem for either the City or the
people who are going to have the trails in front of their house.
....."
Mona Kerber: I have a question on that liability. Little kids like to
walk on the retaining wall up there. What happens if those kids are
walking the retaining wall, fall and hit their heads on the sidewalk? Are
we responsible for those kids?
Mady: It's the same type of situation of just walking the sidewalk.
Unless your retaining wall was in any way unsafe, grossly did it show that
you were negligent for some reason, that child is still operating under
their own discretion and you can't prevent someone, unless you're out
there beating them every time they come near so, if you get to...make sure
your property is as safe as it can be but not to... Each individual still
has to act in a safe way and unless they can show that you were negligent,
you really don't have any financial responsibility I don't see.
Mona Kerber: The reason why, I was just going to give you an example. W\-,
had creosoled our wall to keep it. The children at the bus stop were
told, don't sit on the wall and don't play on the wall. It's been
creosoled. One mother called me at night and demanded that we pay for her
child's brand new pair of pants because she sat on our wall. We did not
ask her so now wouldn't she be a little hasty if her kid falls off your
wall and hits their head on the sidewalk? ...1 told her to keep her kid
off from our property.
Mady: It's the same situation when they come and you're painting your
house, either that or whatever, you can do everything you want and you
still can't prevent kids from doing some things. We'll try to be
reasonable.
Resident: Has the Council already approved this?
Mady: The Council approved our budget and this is a portion of our
budget. However, the Council still has to review the plans and
specifications and approve the bid letting process. Once the bids are
let, they have to review the bids and approve the whole bid.
Resident: Something just occurred to me, on the S kind of curve on
Laredo, it's a speedway right now. If you put sidewalks, kids do not
walk on sidewalks. I didn't when I was a kid. You probably didn't when
you were a kid. Drivers are going to think they're on the sidewalk and
it's going to be even worse in all probability as a traffic pattern.
They're not going to expect kids and kids on bicycles especially hate to ~
ride on sidewalks. That should be addressed and taken into consideration
,.....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 11
because it's bad right now. I think that might just make it worse.
Mady: I can see where you're coming from, I have a real problem with
that. We can't control 100% of the kids but if we do nothing on that
road, we're as much as offering a couple of child's life up right now.
It's a very dangerous street. It has been for a lot of years. We have an
opportunity to change that right now. That's why the Commission has been
looking at this item.
Resident: That was one of the things that's been ignored. I've got no
objection to it. My kids are all raised. They were all raised on this
street. Of course, it wasn't quite as busy but it's always been a
raceway.
,.....
Resident: Again, that's another one of the problems we have in the City.
It's been addressed recently in the paper that we do have some areas of
the City, and it's not just Carver Beach Road and Laredo where there is a
lot of fast traffic. I know the Public Safety Commission is looking at
that trying to find a solution. The obvious solution is radar detection
and speeding tickets but the cops can't be in one spot all the time.
Hopefully, they're going to find a solution to that. By getting as many
kids as we can off the road, we're lessening the opportunity for a child
to be hit and that's what we're trying to do is get as many kids off the
street as we can. Any other comments? I think we handled all your
questions. I don't see one here that was asked that we haven't discussed.
A motion would be in order.
Schroers: I will move that we accept staff's recommendation to construct
a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along Laredo Drive within the existing
right-of-way to accomodate the needs of the residents on the west side of
Laredo.
Boyt : Second.
Schroers moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to construct a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along Laredo Drive
within the existing right-of-way to accomodate the needs of the residents
on the west side of Laredo. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mady: We still need to make a motion concerning snow removal. We need to
handle that motion to the Council. I'll move that the City be responsible
for removal of snow on the Laredo and Carver Beach trails and that it be
done in a timely fashion so the kids do have a method of getting to school
in the morning without traveling in the streets.
Boyt: Second.
,.....
Robinson: Is that just on Laredo and Carver?
Watson: Do we have other trails that maybe should?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 12
Robinson: Yes, there's a stretch between Great Plains Blvd. and West 78th~
Street. Great Plains and Erie Avenue. I walk it every morning. The City
plows it with some type of a front end loader I believe. Not right away
but that's another stretch that I'd like to see included in that. That's
about the only one I can think of.
Boyt: We have a new trail on Kerber Blvd. that's directing children.
Sietsema: Let's just do it on all trails.
Watson: Yes, I think we'd better stick to all trails otherwise we are
going to leave something out.
Boyt: We can always exempt one later.
Mady: Okay, I'd like to amend my motion to recommend to City Council to
direct City Staff to plow all existing trails as early as possible in the
morning and that we handle exceptions to that on an exception basis. We
will be making motions in the future on exceptions to that rule.
Schroers: Just as a point of interest, I think that we want to recognize
that the City, the street department's first obligation naturally is going
to be to get the streets cleared and I have to believe that the trails are
going to be secondary so I don't think it's reasonable to look out your
window first thing after a snow and expect the sidewalk to be cleaned. I'
may take a while before they get to it but they will get to it. -'
Boyt:
I think we need to put paved trails so we don't do Chan Pond Park.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City be responsible for the snow removal on all paved
city trails as soon as possible in the morning and the Park and Recreation
Commission will handle exceptions at a later date. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Boyt: I have another trail related item. We talked about pets being on
the trails and at one point we talked about recommending a pooper scooper
ordinance and I'd like some discussion on that.
Resident: I think we can be expected to pick up pop cans and paper but
not other...
Sietsema: We did discuss that at one meeting and I do have an ordinance
that's being worked on right now and that will be coming back to you.
Mady: We did discuss at an earlier meeting an ordinance concerning pets
in the city parks and the trailway system is a city park system. Right
now the way the ordinance reads right now, what's on the books, pets are
just simply not allowed in the city parks. That would prevent anyone fro~
walking their dog on the city trail. Because of that, which doesn't make
sense in my opinion. You've got to walk your dog someplace. We have made
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 13
~
a recommendation to the Council that the ordinance be redrafted to allow
pets to be allowed on the trail system as long as they're restrained by a
leash of the required leash length, whatever that is by ordinance and that
they do have on their person the proper receptacle for picking up the
droppings of their pet. That item has gone to Council. I don't believe
they have acted on it yet.
Resident: If you get that through, I'll give you a medal.
Mady: I hope we answered all your concerns. I really appreciate the
turnout tonight. When it goes to Council, I ask that you attend the
Council meeting because it's important to show up and give your support
again. It's very important for the safety of our children but also for
the safety of everyone else. Chanhassen is a very mobile community in
that our residents do a lot of walking. There are a lot of runners. A
lot of walkers on the trail system.
Boyt: The trail on Kerber Blvd. was put in last week and there are people
out there.
REQUEST TO WAIVE TRAIL DEDICATION FEES, GARY BROWN.
~ Mady: Do you have anything to add to your staff report?
Sietsema: No. Basically what I've written here is that a trail fee
applies to the total acreage of a commercial development and therefore, we
don't break it down to building permit like we do on a subdivision. When
a building permit came in, even though the development is already started,
I charged the total trail dedication fee which was $1,165.00 I believe.
Mr. Brown didn't feel that that was fair. That he had to pay for this
development when he had already started.
Mady: Did you talk to Roger on this?
Sietsema: Yes. Everything I've said in the memo was a reflection of what
Roger had told me.
Watson: We've done this before and we have to be very careful about
setting precedence without thinking. We don't split it out by the number
of buildings on a site. It doesn't have anything to do with that. That
could come to the point of saving their own...
,.....
Sietsema: What we have done in the past and what we did do for Gary
Brown, for this very development is, he had originally had, I think it was
like a 14 acre parcel of which he was only developing 3 acres. He didn't
feel that he should have to pay for the park dedication fees for the total
14 so we broke it down, looked at the entire piece. What are you
grading? What part are you developing and that turned out to be 3 some
acres and we postponed the payment of the fees for the rest of it until he
develops the rest of it. So we did phase his park dedication fees but the
trail dedication fees are what is outstanding.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 14
Schroers: And the trail dedication covers the entire 14 acres?
...""
Sietsema: No, that's just these 3 acres.
Schroers: Have we had any similar situations with someone else? Where
they have started and then we've imposed the fee on them?
Sietsema: Not in a commercial situation but our park dedication fee was
put into place well after many subdivisions had gone in back in the early
80's. Every building permit that carne in after that time, we applied to
those subdivisions regardless if their plat was approved before the park
dedication fee was in place or not. Anything that carne in from that point
on was responsible to pay park dedication fees. It's the same case with
the trail dedication fees. He's developing a piece of property and it's
3 acres in size and therefore he's responsible for the trail dedication
fees for those 3 acres. I'm not sure what the acreage is but whatever it
is.
Mady: If we had a developer, commercial developer corne in and build a
large warehouse say and he started his project prior to our trail
dedication fee, he put in a 100,000 square foot building. Then a year
later he decided that he would like to have his trucks maintained on the
site so he decides to build a 5,000 square foot building. How do we
assess the fee?
Sietsema: If he had already paid the fee, because the commercial is not -'
done by lots like the residential, when he first carne in for his building
permit, he was charged for the total acreage. Anything he builds on
later, he isn't charged park or trail fees because he's already met his
requirements for that acreage.
Mady: Then how is this different? Gary's already started his project on
the whole acreage.
Sietsema: He has not met his trail dedication fee requirements.
Mady: There wasn't one when he took his first permit out.
Sietsema: But there is now and he's still developing that project. He
was not completed.
Mady: But that's the same situation we're in with this hypothetical case
where the person has already started and has a building going up and
decided they wanted to put another building on, how do we handle that?
Sietsema: If he's already met the requirements, then he doesn't have to
pay again because it's not per building permit that we charge on the
commercial. We charge $1,050.00 per acre that's payable the first time
that you build.
Mady: His first permit has already gone out?
-'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ September 14, 1988 - Page 15
Sietsema: His first permit, he was charged for that on his first permit.
If he was not charged on his first permit, he would be responsible for
paying for the park and trail dedication fees on that property.
Mady: But see in his first permit there wasn't one. I'm not real clear
on this whole thing. That's why I'm trying to get discussion out on it.
One part of me says that he should pay the whole thing because it's new
but the other part of me says that he's already started on it and it's
like any other developer out there. In a neighborhood situation it's real
simple. It's cut and dry because there's one permit per house. It's real
easy but on this situation, on a commercial development, we may see this,
since there is a lot of commercial development taking place and it's been
in the ground for a little while other things are coming to it, we will
probably see this again and we need to think it through real well as to
whether or not, if the first permit has been let on it and there wasn't a
trail fee involved, if a subsequent permit comes in, why should the
permiting person have to pay the entire fee for the entire development?
,.....
Sietsema: If he had subdivided his 3 acres, then he would only be
responsible for the building permits that he's corning in but he's
developing the piece as one whole piece. Therefore, he's responsible for
the total fees of that one whole piece. When he comes in on the rest of
it, because we waived the park fees before or postponed the payment of
park fees on their other 11 acres, we would follow suit with the trail
dedication fees so when he comes in with the development plan to develop
the remaining of his property, he will be responsible for the park and
trail dedication fees of that. But within this 3, I think it's 3 acres,
he's responsible to pay for the total thing unless he were to subdivide
,that out.
Mady: I'm looking to be reasonable on this thing.
Watson: Perhaps it should be kind of prorated based on what portion is
already developed as opposed to the portion that is now being developed?
Mady: I was at the Council meeting when this carne up and it was tabled.
Just the brief comments that were made at that time, I got the impression
from the Council that they were looking for a reasonable situation. What
can we reasonably expect and since a fourth of the development has already
occurred, I'm thinking maybe a quarter of the payment be waived.
Watson: That's what I was leading to. Prorate it based on what's already
been done that had nothing to do with park dedication fees because we
didn't have one. Now we can develop another part, same 3 acre tract but
another portion of that, that you would just charge a trail dedication fee
against the new development. Not go back and pick up the old one.
~. Mady: I'm looking at this also, on new residential development and you
build your home on it and you decide you want to put a garage on it,
attach a garage and you have a big enough parcel, would you then come in
for a new permit because you have to have a permit. Would you then get
hit with the trail fee? I don't see the difference.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 16
Sietsema: Yes. Yes you would. If the trail dedication fee was not paid -'
in the original building, then it would, as I understand it.
Schroers: I recognize the difference in that, I can understand Mr.
Brown's point of view. When he originally decided to develop this
property, there was no trail fee at that time, is that correct?
Sietsema: Right.
Schroers: Okay, so that wasn't in his plans at all. He didn't account
for that in his expenses that he would occur while developing so he
developed the first portion of it. Then when he went on to develop the
second part of it, the trail fee had been initiated. He was asked to pay
trail fees for everything. For the entire amount that he proposed to
develop. It would seem logical to me that since there was no trail fee in
existence when he first began his project, that that portion of the
project would be deleted or omitted from having to pay the trail fee.
Watson:
project?
This is his third building.
Four? How many?
Were there 3 phases to this
Sietsema: He's got 8 buildings I think that he's going to put on there.
Watson: Eight buildings that he's going to put on these 3 acres? So he's
a quarter of the way into building?
-'
Sietsema: And this is not a fee I would charge on the remaining. I
wouldn't charge this again the next permit that comes in for his fourth
building. This is a one time fee for that 3 acre lot.
Boyt: When someone comes in from Chaparral and wants to build a deck, are
they paying the trail fee when they take out their permit to build a deck?
Siestema: I'll have to check into that.
Mady:
Rog er .
What I'd like to see is to have these sort of things brought to
I'll support just about anything Roger says.
Sietsema: This is what Roger told me. I'm telling you want Roger said.
Mady: I want to make sure he
something he didn't think of.
or not we have some latitude,
to do it. If there something
we do whatever we have to.
hears our side because there may be
If it's up to our discretion as to whether
then we need to discuss and say how we want
clear cut on there, I want to make sure that
Watson: What you're saying is, do we really have a decision to make or
don't we?
Mady: I think what we need to do is make a decision based on the
assumption that we have a decision to make. Then if Roger says no...
-'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ September 14, 1988 - Page 17
Sietsema: This is what Roger told me is that the total of the acreage
would, he would still owe the trail fee on that total acreage. Now if you
wanted to deviate from that, that would be your choice but keep in mind I
think that that would be setting a precedence.
Mady: I want to make sure we understand. I guess part of when we make a
motion on this, is I want to make sure we go back to Roger and ask him
that decision. What if for a person building a garage, do they now pay
for the trail fee?
Schroers: I also think that I personally would rather have Gary Brown
here to hear his point of view and side of this also before.
Sietsema: He was invited to the meeting.
Mady: We can't hold up a decision because he chose not to be here.
Watson: Basically what we need to decide is whether we feel the entire
trail fee is due on this property or if three-quarters of the trail fee is
due on this property.
~. Mady: What we should reasonably be doing.
Watson: If a quarter of his project is done, the only real latitude we
have is to omit one-quarter of it. It seems to me that the portion that's
not done would still logically fall into that category. If you're going
to build a garage and you get the trail fee, it sure seems to me that
three-quarters. If one-quarter of the project is already finished, that's
really questionable.
Mady: I guess I don't have a problem with staff's recommendation if we
have the ability to do that. I don't feel real comfortable yet on what
our legal actions. When I attended the first council meeting on this, I
was thinking now, what are we trying to do here? This should be pretty
cut and dry. He's taking a permit out, he has to cover the fees. My gut
feeling is, if that what's our ordinance is, that's what we do. I don't
like exceptions.
Boyt: That's what it says in here.
Mady: I'll support that as long as that's what we can do.
Sietsema: I wouldn't lie to you Jim. We talked about the different
scenarios.
~
Watson: I think Roger probably thought of it and I think we just have to
decide. That's the ordinance and that's the way the ordinance reads. I
don't feel that we have a lot of latitude.
Robinson: I think there is some room for reasonableness and I liked the
scenario that Larry painted. He did not realize there were any trail
dedication fees and he did not have that in his plans when he went ahead
with the first building.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 18
....."
Mady moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to support the ordinance and to accept the City Attorney's
opinion. If ordinance allows latitude, then deduct 25% off. In not,
require Gary Brown to pay the full amount. Mady voted in favor and the
rest voted in opposition. The motion failed.
Mady moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table
action on this item has been referred to the City Attorney for his opinion
regarding the previous discussion. All voted in favor of tabling the item
and the motion carried.
REVIEW PARK DEDICATION, COUNTRY OAKS.
Sietsema: As you may recall, we reviewed the site plan proposed for
Country Oaks at our last meeting. The Park and Recreation Commission had
a lot of discussion about requiring two lots of the development to meet
park needs within that development. That that development would be
creating the need and asked staff to work with the developer to identify
two lots that would favorably be along the southern border so that when
the area to the south develops, we could acquire additional property
there. I did talk to Mr. Johnson. He's not in favor of dedicating two
lots because it is such a small development that he feels that there woul~
be a definite economical impact on the development. One of the other
things that the Park and Recreation Commission discussed was providing
private parkland or open space and he pointed out that there is a beachlot
on Lake Minnewashta which will serve this area. There's 31,080 square
feet within this beachlot and I believe it's 150 feet of lakeshore. He
feels that that will meet the park needs of this area.
Boyt:
Is it adjacent to the property?
Sietsema: No.
Schroers: It would be across the frontage road.
Dave Johnson: It's across Lake Minnewashta. It's the Pleasant Acres.
Schroers: Is that where that plane used to be moored down there?
Jo Ann Hallgren: He's further north then where the plane used to be.
Schroers: And it's a pretty steep hill going down to the lake there.
Then is there a flat recreation area down by the lake? Is there enough
room to set up a volleyball net or something on the flat area down there,
would you say?
Dave Johnson: It depends on how many
too because they park, depending upon
there, they park allover the place.
10 or 12 cars and room for the people
cars and
how many
My guess
who came
stuff you've got down ther,-,
people are corning down
is that it would hold about
in them to be down there.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ September 14, 1988 - Page 19
If it wasn't a full day and you didn't have 10 or 12 cars there, there'd
be plenty of room to play volleyball.
Boyt: How many units have access to this beachlot right now?
~.
Dave Johnson: There's a deeded access to that lot that was given to quite
a few acres of land, some of which has been developed. It's my
understanding that there's about 60 families there now. I would add, this
is a 27 lot subdivision but I will add 26 families because there's a house
already on this property that will be on one of those lots. There's been
some resistence from the people, which is probably what you're referring
to, from the people up there in the Homeowner's Association but I guess
everyone figures when they get there first, it's our period. That land
was deeded, has deeded right from the beginning of the whole thing and the
people who got there first don't have any more or any less rights than the
people who get there last. For some reason they have chosen, they didn't
corne to my neighborhood meeting that I held. They didn't call at my
invitation on the letters that I sent announcing the neighborhood meeting.
I gave them my home phone number and my office phone number and I don't
think I gave them my car phone but I made it plenty easy for them to do
that. Even after the meeting, no one called. They were fairly well
represented at the Planning Commission meeting but even since then when it
was pointed out to them that it had been researched by the City's Attorney
and those rights go with the land, no one has called me. I haven't called
them because I wanted to see what transpired here. I figure it's not my
position to be going and negotiating and getting something that I have a
right to.
Watson: Is there any particular reason why people park down there?
Mady: They don't have a place to park?
Schroers: You can't park along Minnewashta Parkway.
Watson: And they have a driveway?
Dave Johnson: No more than they have to. It's pretty close.
Watson: If you took the 10 to 12 cars out of there, you have a
significant more park to make use of rather than parking.
Schroers: There are a lot of arguments there. Do you expect us to carry
our coolers and everything down this steep hill?
Dave Johnson: Additionally, some of the people who have rights there are
on the other side of TH 7. On Pipe Wood Curve and so on.
.~
Watson:
So they are quite a distance away?
Dave Johnson: Some of them are quite a distance away. If you covered the
land on both sides, they owned, I don't remember the exact figure but
something in excess of 100 acres at one time and I presume all of that got
deeded lake rights or most of it. I'm not sure but it's certainly
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 20
...""
scattered out. I know I was sending letters to people on the other side
of TH 7 and I know Pipe Wood Curve. I know that area is, it's Pleasant
Acres 2nd or 3rd or something over there and all of Pleasant Acres has
those rights.
Mady: I think we recognize the need for parkland on the west side of Lake
Minnewashta.
Watson: I would have to agree with him, taking 2 acres out of a 10 acre
parcel.
Sietsema: Not 2 acres, 2 lots.
Watson: How much area is 2 lots?
Dave Johnson: It was a little less than an acre.
Sietsema: It was more than three-quarters of an acre I think. Roughly
three-quarters of an acre.
Dave Johnson: One of the problems with it is, it's not only the land
donation but I can't run my street and my sewer and water from the lots on
the west side of it to the lots on the east side of it without going past
this land so I have the same development costs going into the park unless
I were to give the land and the City were to pay the proportionate share
of that development. I still wouldn't want to do that but that would make-'
it more equitable.
Boyt: I think it's pretty typical that most developers don't want to give
up land because it does take away from the profit. Especially on a small
development. I don't think the beachlot though would be adequate in
meeting the needs of the people of the development. That's just my point
of view. It might not necessarily be the point of view of the Commission.
Dave Johnson: I haven't read your trail ordinance, my engineer has and
I'm not exactly sure what bearing that has on but I know that it was
recommended, the first letter that I got a copy of from Lori there,
indicated that it was staff's recommendation that I be required to put a
trail in on the through street and pay cash instead of any additional
land. I'm not sure what your ordinance spells out as far as how much cash
you're looking for and so on too. If I put in trail, I know that people
just to the southeast of me in there, pierce and that development, I
believe just put in a trail and no cash and no land.
Sietsema: He had to pay park dedication fees but not trail dedication
fees. Just as you would if you were not required to give land. You would
be required, you would not have to pay the trail dedication fees but you
would still be required...
Dave Johnson: Is there a trail dedication fee and an installation of
trail that I would be obligated to do? -'
r.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 21
Sietsema: No, you do one or the other. Just as you either give land or
pay the park dedication fees.
Dave Johnson: Okay, what is the trail dedication fee.
Sietsema:
It's $142.00 per acre.
Dave Johnson: For the net acreage?
Sietsema: Not an acre, a lot. Excuse me. $142.00 a lot.
Dave Johnson: And the park fee is?
Sietsema: $425.00.
Dave Johnson: $425.00. So if there were not a trail put in there, it
would be $567.00 total which would be somewheres in the neighborhood of
$15,000.00 I believe. If I didn't put in a trail or give land?
Sietsema: Unfortunately, it's not your decision.
Mady: We need to continue discussion here and get everyone's thoughts on
,...... this item. Sue's given hers. Carol?
Watson: I think the 31,000 square feet for a potential, especially if
people can drive down there and half of it turned into a parking lot...
That isn't a park space. Now whether we would prefer to take the money to
develop a park around Lake St. Joe and we would develop a real park or
whether want to take a couple lots and have a very small isolated area, I
guess in a way I'd rather have the money so we could start to develop that
Lake St. Joe property and make something that would be of significance to
a large number of people but I don't think 30,000 square feet on that
beach with half of it parking lot is providing a parkland. If we're
looking to really provide virtually on-site recreation for these people,
that's not going to solve it.
Jo Ann Hallgren: I'm Jo Ann Hallgren and I am the property to the south
of Mr. Johnson's property where you say you're going to take some of my
land for the park when it's developed. That doesn't leave me any choice
of what land you're taking because you're certainly not going to take
anything that isn't adjacent to his. I have 11 acres and a part of it is
unbuidable and part of it is very low land right across from the church.
Why would you want to take good buildable property away from me for a
park? I went around my neighborhood and I was trying to get information
out to people about parks and they what? Another park? This is what you
hear. Another little park. Who wants to go to a little park when you've
got all those parks around the lake. If I want to pack a picnic, I'm sure
not going to go to a little park inside of a little neighborhood when I
can be on Lake Minnewashta or Lake Ann or something.
~
Mady: To answer your question, at our last meeting we almost had this
place full of people waiting for just a little park because they have
nothing within walking distance. The closest park to them is three-
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 22
....",
quarters of a mile away. That isn't neighborhood access to a park. The
same situation exists on Lake Minnewashta. We've had a number of people
come in here and ask us for parkland. One of our commission members who
isn't here tonight lives on Lake Minnewashta. He has the support of the
neighborhood. We want to get a park over there.
Jo Ann Hallgren: I did talk to people who live on Minnewashta and that's
what they told me. I agree that parks are very nice but St. Joe has got a
lot of condo property...because it's really marshy. To me it would be an
ideal place for a larger park because of the wildlife that you could find
there. Whatever is there in the lake.
Mady: One of the goals we have though is, when we put a park in in that
area, that they have no active play area. The park has to be useable and
it's in a marshy area. We'd lose it whenever it's wet so we haven't
really provided a service to the people who live there. Our goal has been
to attempt to at least gain active area that's useable. Personally I'm
not sure that this proposal is going to meet that need because my personal
opinion is we need more than just that.
Jo Ann Hallgren: If I had my druthers, a trail is more important to me I
think because you can't even drive down Minnewashta Parkway because of the
people. I had my horse trailer and truck last night or the night before
and I just literally stopped. There were bikers, joggers, women with
babies in strollers. They have no place. ....",
Boyt: It's too bad they didn't support the trail system.
Jo Ann Hallgren: I don't know why they didn't because it's very dangerous
to drive, walk or ride on Minnewashta Parkway. The trail system to me is
something that needs to be done.
Dave Johnson: I guess I agree with one of the things you said about not
taking all wetland but there are large enough parcels that you could get 4
or 5 acres and you wouldn't hurt the development that much. In fact, if
you have a large enough parcel, well, they didn't take any parkland
because we were bordered by a park. In Shorewood I had 44 acres and I had
93 acres in Burnsville that were just south of a park so there was no
parkland taken but I've seen other areas where if you've got a large
enough parcel, it'd be advantageous to the builder to put a park in there
and have houses that abut up to it. That could be a real selling point
and you could recapture some of the costs of the land that you gave away
because it would increase the value of the adjacent lots but that's not
the case here. A little two-thirds or a three-quarters of an acre park
wouldn't, to start with, there'd only be probably, I don't remember
exactly how it lays out. I think there's just one lot adjacent to it but
I think it goes up to the street. Maybe there's lots on either side of
it, but that's only two lots and if it's a totlot or something of that
nature that has very little service, it would definitely not increase the
value of the adjacent lots either because it would be a nuisance to the -'
people who live next to it.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 23
,...,
Schroers: We have a real problem out in that area. According to the city
standards, that western Minnewashta area is park deficient. We do not
have enough park space. We don't really know what's going to be available
to us in the future as far as developments are concerned and in a
development like yours, if we look around at other parts of the City, we
see what, the people that are moving in are basically young people raising
a family with younger children and they like to have an area immediately
adjacent to their residence where they can walk and take their children so
they don't have to load them up in a care and haul them around to the
other side of the lake to a larger public regional facility or something.
They like a place in their neighborhood where they can just walk. Even if
there's just a swingset or a roughed in ballfield or whatever, they need
an open space where they can actually get to from the neighborhood. I
guess we have looked at this Minnewashta area before and we've considered
trying to earmark funds and maybe purchase some land in the area
specifically for a park and I guess we're still in the planning and
discussing stages that we really don't know what it is that we want to do
in that area. My point is that I think the people from your development
very likely will show up here and say, why don't we have park space? All
the other neighborhoods in town do, why don't we?
,-..,.
Dave Johnson: I wouldn't be as opposed to this if when pierce had
developed his property you would have taken a couple of lots from him in
the corner. There's potentially 3 developments that all come together in
one corner. You've got my property along the north, then kind of half
ways between my property to the south it splits. She owns the western
half and pierce owned the eastern half. If you had taken a couple of lots
from him or equivalent space in the corner over there, then I could
understand the logic of adding a couple of lots for that size area, mine
to his and then eventually when she does it, get another little bit from
her. Then you'd wind up with 2 1/2-3 acres for the park but this way, the
maximum.. .
Boyt: Is the size of the park across the street that serves 60 homes.
30,000 square feet which is the same as the size that's serving 60 homes
and this would serve 26 homes and they'd be much better off.
Dave Johnson: I think you'll have to admit that a beachlot serves a
totally different purpose than this type of a park.
Watson: How big are the lots in your development?
,-..,
Dave Johnson: The average is 17,000 and some square feet. The minimum is
15,000. The average lot size is 17,346 square feet.
Watson: Okay, which is a little over a third of an acre. I live on
somewhere between three-quarters of an acre of land. All the lots in
Greenwood S~ores are at least three-quarters of an acre. I really have
tr~uble seeIng my yard as a park. I'm not saying that it couldn't be.
We v7 developed very carefully. We're not going to provide a lot of
serVIces on that amount of land. Three-fourths when you live on a third
of an acre, that's not a real big lot.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 24
--'
Sietsema: But people in Pheasant Hills would die for it.
Mady: You also want more than that though. They're going to need
ballfields.
Boyt: We talked about in the future though trying to acquire land south
of this but we're not going for just three-quarters of an acre. We're
trying to plan ahead.
Mady: A third of an acre is not going to solve our problem. It's not
even going to begin to try and solve it. My opinion was, the first time
we reviewed it and still is, that we're not gaining anything by taking
land from this developer. We still have to pursue the answer to the
problem. We need to solve the problem on the west side of Lake
Minnewashta which is acquire at least a parcel of at least 5 acres so we
can a ballfield in there. We can have a totlot in there. We can have
tennis courts. Whatever we need to put there, we need at least that much
land to do it. Getting 30,000 square feet here and 30,000 square feet
from the adjacent property will still only give us 1 1/2 acres, that's not
large enough to do anything more than a totlot and a place to catch. We
need something better than that. I don't like doing things piecemeal. I
want to get it done right.
Boyt: The Planning Commission supports us in this. They would like to .-,
see more small neighborhood parks. They see the need within our community
for small neighborhood parks. You see the need when people come in here.
Schroers: But are we talking 5 acres? Is that a small neighborhood park?
Jo Ann Hallgren: I was at the Planning Commission meeting and that is not
what they said at all.
Boyt: This was a private discussion with the Planning Commission.
Jo Ann Hallgren: That's not what they said to all the people that were
sitting around.
Dave Johnson: Especially David Headla had some very strong objections.
Jo Ann Hallgren: And the guy who sits in the middle, was sort of the
mQn~tOt?
Mady: Ladd?
Jo Ann Hallgren: Conrad. He said, why piecemeal it? Get 5 acres from
someplace and make a decent park.
Boyt: That's what we need to do if we're going to do it but we've been
sitting here for 2 years talking about it and not doing it and losing 10 ~
acre here, 20 acres there. We're going to lose it all.
Mady: We need to put it on the Comp Plan and we need to do it.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 25
,.....
Sietsema: The problem with it is, if you're going to get 5 acres from a
developer, you have to have a big development. All that's left up there
is 10-15 acre parcels. If you take 5 acres out of a 10 acre parcel,
you're going to have a taking on your hands and that's not going to be...
Watson: You're going to have to buy it.
Mady: We're going to have to buy it. We have to come to grips with the
fact that that's what we have to do. We have to go out and buy a park.
We know it. I'm sure we know it. We've got to do it. That's our only
reasonable solution to the entire area.
Sietsema: Then it should be put in the Comp Plan.
Schroers: From my personal point of view, if I were moving into Country
Oaks and I had rights that gave me access to a beachlot, when I had time,
that's where I would go and I would bet that because I didn't have x
amount of space around me, I would still go to that beachlot. But that's
just a personal thing and it's besides the point here actually. My
question is, if we waive the park and trail fees, how much is that going
to help us in terms of being able to purchase parkland in the area? Is it
enough money that it's really going to do us any good?
~. Mady: This development is going to generate roughly $15,000.00.
Dave Johnson: If we don't put in the trails.
Mady: And the pierce development is roughly the same size.
Jo Ann Hallgren:
pay any cash.
I talked to Bob pierce today and he said that he did not
Sietsema: No, it's charged to your building permits.
Mady:
fee.
When you go and make your permit with the City, you then pay the
The developer doesn't pay it all up front.
Dave Johnson: Oh, he doesn't? That's different. I was expecting to
shell out 15 grand in order to file the plat.
Sietsema: You can do it that way but you don't have to. We get it as you
develop it.
Jo Ann Hallgren: If half of the place never gets developed, you never get
that?
Watson: That's right.
,...... Sietsema:
of money.
We've had such big development that it was a substantial amount
We've had some developments that it would be $100,000.00.
Dave Johnson: In this particular case, I guess speaking for myself, I'd
just like to get the issue resolved. If I did not have to put in a trail,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 26
....,,;
which that's a fairly short street. It doesn't go anywhere for people
walking on it. It's also not a high traffic thing. They can walk on the
street. It's not like Minnewashta but if I did not have to give up any
land or did not have to put in the trail, and only had to pay the fees, I
guess if you were to ask that I pay them up front then maybe that part of
the issue there, not up front but when I filed the plat. I would be
willing to accept that particular condition. I don't know what your rules
or ordinances or anything else are. I, quite frankly, I'm surprised to
find out that I didn't have to pay them up front because I expected that.
I have yet to do a development where I haven't had to pay it before they
gave me the plat back signed.
Mady: I have a question for you. What's this property run? Undeveloped
property in the sewered area, that's what you have there, if you were
going to buy just 5 open acres out there undeveloped?
Dave Johnson: I happened to get a fairly good buy on that. A fair price
would have been about $10,000.00 an acre. I'm not sure. It depends on
the soil conditions and everything because you've got some soil problems
in that area. I paid less than that for the 7 acres that I bought
from Lee Anderson and the house and land that I bought from her son is yet
to be determined what I paid for that until I split the house off and see
what I get for it. I guess if I were looking for a piece of land and you
had one to sell that had a few trees on it, that was decent topography an-,
a decent area, similar area to that, I would snap it up at $10,000.00 an
acre or close to it.
Mady: We need to move on this thing. Anybody have any thoughts, a motion
is in order.
Watson: I make a motion that we take park dedication fees and trail fees
in lieu of.
Boyt: You don't want the trail constructed?
Watson: We didn't really talk about that.
Mady: We did before. To construct it on the through street.
Watson: So we want park dedication fees in lieu of the land. We want the
trail constructed on the through street.
Sietsema: Do you want me to read you your motion?
Watson: Yes please.
Sietsema: Carol moved to recommend accepting the park dedication fees in
lieu of parkland and to request the developer to construct an off street
trail along the streets in lieu of trail fees.
....."I
Mady: Second.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ September 14, 1988 - Page 27
Dave Johnson: Did that say, here's the plat, does that say you want this
trail going in here and one going down here?
Sietsema: Yes.
Mady: Yes. Our intention is when that other loop, there's going to be
another development coming in there and you would possibly...
Jo Ann Hallgren: Not as far as I'm concerned.
Mady: Not right now but some time.
Boyt: There might be a deadend sign.
Mady: You're aware of that situation but it's our purpose to have a trail
feed out to Minnewashta to hopefully gain to another park or if we can
feed out to the...park.
Watson moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend accepting the park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and to
request the developer to construct an off street trail along the streets
in lieu of trail fees. All voted in favor and motion carried.
I"'"
SITE PLAN REVIEW, OAK VIEW APARTMENTS.
Sietsema: We're missing having a large scale plan down here. If you want
I can go up and get one but otherwise if we want to refer to the one that
I put in the packet. I think that pretty much is self explanatory. It
covers it. What this is is a subdivision proposing to subdivide 18.9
acres into 4 R-12 lots and 2 outlots and to develop 17 8-plex buildings.
The R-12 would be high density. 12 units per acre. It's located just to
the west of West Village Apartments along West Village Road. In looking
through the Comprehensive Plan, there are existing parks in the area being
Chan Pond Park and City Center Park. This property lies within the
service area of those two parks. There are trails along Kerber Blvd. and
on the trail plan there are trails called for along Powers Blvd..
Therefore, the Comprehensive Plan does not identify this as a park
deficient area or call for parkland within this development. It's the
recommendation of myself to accept park dedication fees in lieu of
parkland and to require the construction of a trail along West village
Road be requested and also a 20 foot trail easement along the east side of
Powers Blvd. in lieu of trail dedication fees. we would attempt to build
that trail along Powers within the road right-of-way if at all possible
but requesting the trail easement gives us some leeway in case there's a
problem with the pond.
"
Mady: Through this development, this is the west side of that thing being
developed. Isn't there a street running in through the middle there?
Sietsema: It would connect through so that would be a through street.
West Village Road would be a through street.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 28
......"
Watson: Are these going to be units similar to the rest of the West
Village units?
Sietsema: I don't know.
Mady: The current issue of the Sailor has an art sketch. They're
apartments versus, the West Village is more of a townhouse type of
arrangement. These are more of an apartment type. Still that type of
construction but more of an apartment building. A larger building and not
so many individual units.
Watson: I remember now seeing that picture. I didn't pay any attention
to what it was.
Schroers moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and to
require the construction of a trail along West village Road and a 20 foot
trail easement along the east side of Powers Boulevard in lieu of trail
dedication fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW OBJECTIVES FOR SOUTHERN PARK ACQUISITION.
....."
Sietsema: As you may recall, we set up some objectives for criteria to
decide on a tract of land in the southern part of Chanhassen. We took
those objectives to the City Council for their input. As they will be
making the final decision, we thought that it would be appropriate for
them to have input on what our criteria is. They had four changes and
that was, to make it at least 80 acres in size. That the land costs must
be up to $3,500.00 per acre and not to exceed $300,000.00 total. That the
land topography be conducive for active facilities. They wanted us to
take out the number of ballfields. Then that it offers a unique
opportunity.
Mady: Did they discuss what a unique opportunity is?
Boyt: Something different than what we have now.
Mady: Which is?
Sietsema: I wasn't at that meeting so what I'm assuming that they meant
is, if there's something that's in the southern part of Chanhassen that's
unique to Chanhassen, or unique in the sense that we don't have it
elsewhere, that they would like...
Watson: i.e.?
Sietsema: Bluffs. Creeks.
....."
Schroers: A place for people to ride their horses. We'll make a horse
riding ranch.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
.~ September 14, 1988 - Page 29
Mady: One other comment I had concerns items 1 and 2. They're both
musts. If that's a must, if we have to have 80 acres, a minimum of 80
acres, what happens if there's a beautiful 65 acre parcel that's already
flat and we can get it cheap? All of a sudden it's gone so I have a real
problem with that must. Torn is the one that pushed that one. I don't
think he fully understood what he was doing and where our objectives were.
I personally can't work within that must. I just can't. It doesn't work
for me. If we have an opportunity to get 65 acres and it's flat land and
we can get it for $3,500.00 an acre. It can work as a want but not as a
must because as a want you can rate it. But if you put it as we've got to
have 80 acres of land or nothing, we may end up with nothing.
Robinson:
I think we go back and make an exception at that time.
Mady: But right now this is our criteria and I know that it's wrong.
Sietsema: Why don't we change it to a want and we can remind the Council
that that was their must. We'll be working under two different criteria
but I don't know how to resolve that.
~
Mady: I have a problem with that.
on TV and it just hit me.
I happen to watch that Council meeting
Sietsema: I don't know how to resolve except for us to treat it as a want
and if the situation does arise, we just have to express to the Council
when they're reviewing it that although it is their must, we felt that the
must could be, we didn't look at it that way.
Mady: When I watched it, the Council I didn't think had an understanding
of how this decision analysis worked. What a must versus a want does to
you in making your decision. I think you have to have a basic
understanding of how that analysis works before you make a determination
of whether something is a must or a want because it really makes a real,
real severe impact on how we can handle things. That's the only comment I
had on that.
Schroers: I had a question. We are trying to acquire but who is actively
seeking a specific piece of property? Do we have someone? Is staff?
Boyt: Is Mark going to do it?
Sietsema: Staff will be doing that.
it in the past.
I am and I have worked with Mark on
Boyt: The only unique piece of property out there is Erhart's property
and that's not for sale.
.""
Mady:
All property's for sale, you just have to have the right price.
Boyt: I don't know what the acreage is there. It's very rolling land.
All the area south of Lyman in that rectangle is very rolling.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 30
...."I
Mady: It's going to be difficult to find a flat land. There's going to
be some site work necessary.
Watson: Have you seen pieces of property that you think, do you have any
kind of pinpointed that you feel are appropriate?
Sietsema: I talked to Al Klingelhutz. He came in and pointed out a few
and I haven't looked at it actively in the last month since we talked
about these objectives. I did right after that and then it's been on the
back burner now because other things have been pressing but there are
definitely some possibilities out there.
Mady: I'd like to see us work with Al and Tim because they both have a
lot of knowledge on the area.
Boyt: Al had said before that he tried to acquire a park, he wanted that
piece of property where Tim...
Mady: It might be helpful when we get later in the fall, as our schedule
losens up, bring Al in to talk.
Watson: I just want to be sure that we...
Sietsema: We will look at all of our options.
-'
Watson: We're ready for it and we're not standing here hemming and
hawing.
Schroers: I agree and I also think that Minnewashta area is just about as
important too so when we actively get into to really checking on the
availability of parkland, I hope that we can also look in that Minnewashta
area.
Watson: And say, we have looked at this property and initiate discussion
about if it's for sale. We don't have to wait for the sale sign to go up.
Initiate the discussion, this looks like it would be want we want.
Mady: The question that if something comes up for development, that we do
have the money sitting here now, practically so we do have the ability to
buy a parcel.
Boyt: If it comes up for development, the prices are already changed. We
might need to start looking at topo maps in the County offices. They have
the aerial views.
Sietsema: We have those here and that's what I went over with Mark.
Boyt: I think once we approve this list, we need to get on it right away.
Mady: The hardest thing, you've got to recognize that there a number of ~
things that staff is being inundated with right now too.
Boyt: I think, the rest of us.
II"""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 31
Robinson: Is this just information?
Sietsema: Yes.
Robinson: I've got a question. It says, that section to end it all, with
the amended items and the addition of items 13 and 14.
Mady: That was just Council minutes. They got their numbering wrong. I
got real confused listening to them but I believe they were adding one
item which had to be number 13 and not number 14.
Robinson: It sounds like it because Jay Johnson ends it by saying, okay,
so that'd be like a 14 but it's really number 2.
Sietsema: I got the notes from Barb, Jo Ann and Don and this is what I
came up with and then reading the Minutes so I think that pretty much
covers it. Are there any items on number 8 that anybody had any questions
on?
Mady: Rosemount's going to present us with an opportunity for our Lake
Susan Park.
II"""
Siesetrna: We'll be getting about 3 additional acres to Lake Susan which
will help us out for the boat access from Rosemount.
Mady: On the north side?
Sietsema: We will be shooting the fireworks off on September 30th. We're
having a big Octoberfest celebration. We're going to have a good old
band.
Boyt: Who's sponsoring this?
Sietsema: The City.
Boyt: The City or Park and Rec?
Sietsema: It's the City. A combination of Park and Rec and HRA. We'll
be serving brats and polish sausage and hamburgers and sauerkrat and pie
and german potatoe salad and potato chips and beer and pop.
Robinson: And it will be where?
,.......
Sietsema: On Market Blvd.. The tent will be set up at the end of what's
now Market Blvd.. Staff is going to be manning the food and selling the
food. We would like anybody who could help us. We're expecting a big
turnout. The fireworks are going to be spectacular. It's the last show
that he has this year and he's just handpacking, he said wonderful things.
Everything he's got left over from the rest of the year, he's throwing it
in there. He said we'll never get another fireworks display for $5,000.00
like this one. So he's almost afraid that we're going to get spoiled.
He's going to be doing some really creative things. .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 33
...".
Mady: I'd like an update on the task force. I know what's going on in
the community center but I don't know what's going on on the trails task
force.
Boyt: It's called the safe sidewalk instead of trails.
Mady: That's what I understand. You changed the name and I think we at
least need to know what's going on. Some of the things I'm hearing is
you're talking about being specific on areas and cement. Location of
streets.
Boyt: Right. We have a map that shows what exists now and what's going
to be concrete and bituminous. Is that on it?
Sietsema: No, it isn't.
Boyt: We talked about that.
Mady: I would hope that those things come back to us.
....."
Sietsema: What we'll likely do because we're really running out of time
and there's no way I can bring the trail plan back here and say, what are
you going to do on each different section is that when we deal with those
questions in the audience, we can say it will likely be this. This is
what we anticpate. Based on what we've done with Carver Beach and with
Laredo, this would typically be the type of section. Or we would foresee
this but it's not written in stone anywhere.
Boyt: It would really be helpful if we had more people.
Sietsema: There's only 4 of us.
Mady: We have the same problem with the community center. We have a task
force of between 12 and 15 people and the most we have 6 to show up to a
meeting.
Boyt: Well, we only have 4.
Watson: ...provide some information about the difference in cost for
sidewalk section and bituminous trail secti0n.
Boyt: Another number wanted is how much is it going to cost Jim Mady for
this trail system. For 29 miles of trail. How much is it going to cost
the average resident in Chanhassen. ..,
Watson: When we're sitting here talking about all this sidewalk...
,.....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 34
Boyt: Lori said in some of the developments that have been going on, the
costs was not as high as they thought so it's not prohibitive.
Watson: The other thing. It's really fun to see all the people over at
South Lotus Lake and North Lotus Lake.
Schroers: While you're finding out all those numbers, why don't you find
out, if you get a chance, confer with both the park and the street
departments in regards to their feelings of the new proposed trails and
how they intend to maintain them and what they intend to do about removing
snow from the long side of Kerber's retaining wall and that sort of thing.
Watson: They work downtown so they've got to get their stuff together.
Sietsema: That's still the contractor who's taking care of that.
Schroers: People may want some answers.
Boyt: That's what they want. They want maintenance. They want upkeep
and winter maintenance and how much is it going to cost.
Schroers: Can we actually take a snowblower and run it down the sidewalk
~ and shoot the snow into a truck along side of it? Get it out of there?
Mady: You're planning on going referendum in November? The community
center task force at our meeting last week recommended to the City Council
that the community center not be put on the referendum in November. We
have too many items that have to be discussed prior to and two months to
go to the election is just not enough time. We have the school board
facilities task force is going to be reviewing the proposal behind the
public school. We need to get some information about possibly a different
site such as Lake Ann because there's a lot of stuff printed in the paper
that's totally erroneous. I'm getting tired of reading some of the
candidates ideas in the paper because they just aren't going to work.
They don't have enough information. It's doing some serious damage to the
City. The City's ability to propose something because they're saying
things, these are supposedly people who know what's going on in the City
and it's totally wrong.
Watson: You've got a misconception though that because you're a candidate
you know what's going on in the City.
Mady: But everybody's got that opinion. I'm hearing a lot of people talk
about some of these guys...
Watson: That's a mistaken piece of information.
,...,
Mady: We anticipate you're not going to be able to come to a conclusion
for a month or so anyway because we're going to be asking for some money.
Boyt: Do you know what our recommendation is going to be? Build a new
school. Five rooms are not going to help us an awful lot.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 14, 1988 - Page 35
-'
Mady: The new school's not going to happen in Chanhassen.
Watson: It better.
Boyt: That's where it is going to happen. In Chanhassen. It's not going
to happen in Chaska and they know that. It would be between Chanhassen
and victoria.
Mady: In the unsewered area?
Boyt: No, there's sewer north of TH 5. That's where they've planning.
Robinson moved, Boyt 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
..."",
....."