Loading...
PRC 1987 01 06 ~, t,' 4A ~~ Park and Recreation Commission Minutes January 6, 1987 The regular meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Mike Lynch. Commissioners present were Sue Boyt, Mike Lynch, Curt Robinson, Wallace McKay, and Jim Mady. Staff representatives present were Lori Sietsema, Don Ash- worth and Mark Koegler. Minutes of December 2, 1986 McKay moved to recommend approval of the minutes dated December 2, 1986. The motion was seconded by Boyt and carried unani- mously. Staff Presentation Don Ashworth was present to discuss the mission of the Park and Recreation Commission and the updating process of the Comprehen- sive Plan. ~ Ashworth said that he was present to listen as much as anything. He said that he reviewed the goals and objectives listed by Com- missioners for the Commission and felt that they were excellent. He said that it had been discussed at the Council meetings that it would be beneficial to have a joint meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission and the City Council to improve the com- munication relationship. Ashworth said that it was interesting that the Commission and the Council both felt a representative of the Commission should attend Council meetings. He said that Planning Commission does that now and has found it to help alleviate problems and solidify the relationship between the Planning Commission and City Coun- cil. ~ Ashworth said that from his stand point, it is important that the Commission and staff, and Council and staff have good working relationships as well. He said that the City of Chanhassen is in an infancy stage in comparison to other organizations and is roughly 20 years old as far as being an organization. Many of the early years, before present staff was employed, were spent in initial ordinance development, etc. Many of the things before the Commission now were developed only within the last few years. Only in recent years have we had a City Engineer, Park and Recreation Director, Public Safety Director, planning help, etc. All of these positions are relatively new. He said that he was mentioning these poi~t3 so that the Com- mission can recognize that when they are looking for information or different types of tools, and the staff does not immediately come forward with them, it is not because we do not want to, but because we do not have the tools available and we do not have the people to provide those services. r r I .t. JJ' Park and Recreation Commission Minutes January 6, 1987 Page 2 '-' -~shworth said that he was very 'happy ~ith Sietsema and services that ,s'he has given to the Cit'y. He said the Commission may recall '-the her.'pos'itio'n was established as an internship. Siet- sema proved the value of herself and the job was converted into a fulltime position. She has come a long way in her development process, when recognizing that it is a very trying position in terms of the full facet of things that she is required to do. A year ago, Sietsema may have head trouble telling you where the City s.tood financially on different programs, today she could answer those questions quitereadili. She has moved through the development process for herself very well. In that process she .ha~~dditional things to learn, for instance, over finances and funding techniques for park projects. She i~~etting through those very well, but in some instances she may not be able to immediately; respond to your questions: and 'may have to come back ah'd get help. Most of the efforts of the Park and Recreation Commission relate to"",the Comprehensive Plan. We are just in the process of updating that plan and have brought Mark.. Koegler back to help us in that process. Ashworth said tQatthe Commission may find it beneficial and interesting towork'with Koegler in the next few months as we start that updating process~ Literally in everything 'tha~ you do goes back to that plan. So that when we talk about things, such as neighborhood parks, we start out with the origi- nal goal of attempting to provide park and recreational services to ~ll age groups~ithin our community. We break that down into active recreational areas 6r passivi a~d we start talking about specific policies of 5 acres per 1000 people. We then look into the community and see the areas that have parks or do not have parks, translating that into specific ordinances. The ordinance that we have today for park acquisition and development derives itself from the standards that were put into place in the Compre- hensive Plan. Ashworth said that it is good and timely that we go back through that process, re-ex,m~~in9 ~ome of those missions.~' ,',' ,': -'" \ - :.~ . Eromca staff stana point, Ashworth said h~'was looking forward to the,:,next year as we look at that"upqat::ing:"process. He said he we~shot.1ld,really look,at some voids tliat:~e simply did not get to the first time around, ie: the trail system. A new issue that may into the Recreation Section is the issue of the Community Center. :He,said he 'was unsure 'of :wnit:tgoals'and objectives we will come IIp with, but that is :'an'~Iement that should be addressed in that section~<Pernaps theqecision will be not to build a'community center today,but.itshould address it in the fo.rm:of. identifying Lan appropriate service area, put it in the plan ,and give it a 'guide or c:basis -for h~, we move into tomorrow. Boyt'asked when we would ha\~e a joint meefing and when the Mayor ...", f),lans to make the appointments to the Commission. AShworth said that he was hoping that this could occur as soon as possible. r ,...... Park and Recreation Commission Minutes January 6, 1987 Page 3 Sietsema said that no new applications had been received to date. Ashworth said that this would mean the earliest time for appoi'nb- ments would then be Janu'ary 26th. He said that the joint ,meeting should be scheduled for ~anuary' 20th and invi te any applicB',nts-to the joint meeting. ' Mark Koegler said that we were probably somewhat remiss a cOltple months ago when we sat down to go through the plan revisiona~as we said here is what is now and, here is what, we have to change. What we should have don'e, perhaps, is taken a few steps back to ,; start at the beginning, as most of the members of the Commission were not here when the origi6nal document was put together, ,What is what we are advocating doin'g now, so when the ne~r people start we can bring them uptQ speed 3.11 at once. McKay said that as he reflected back on his own experience" he . felt that the initial period is very confusing. He said that it takes some time before you become confident in your own perspec- tive and ability. He recommended that the City not make too" drastic a change inthe"Commission,r.eplacing o~ly those who have to be replaced out of necessity. If, there are 5 or 6 replace.-,- ments made, he felt the Commission would be of little value tp the community. He asked that the Mayor seriously consider the , reappointment of those who want to be to enable the City to use- ~ the expertise and knowledge they have gained during their time Qf service. ...;.... . Ash\lorth said that the minutes 'Nill ref,lect \'lhat \'las being recom- mended and it was a good point'" 'He said t'hat each of Commissions are at a point right now that ~re critical in terms of leadership in the next few years. Presentation Reqarding Park Dedication in the Rural Areas. Mark Koegler said as a part of updating tne recreation chapter of the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, we have been requested to '.. C1 address the issue of park dedication requirements in the rural, unsewered area. This, issue has ,confronted the Park Commission as a result of the propo~eddevelopment plan for Lake Park Estatesd:; .. ja...... .....,..", ,". as well as receipt of the.applications fo, ,other subdivi~ions ia'; the rural area. -. !'\.J " . , f "'" ~ i;l He said it is obviously i~p<?l;t~llf, t~at the Ci ty'establi Sh - a ,,::~ policy of park dedication-i~~~be-~ural:area. The currentcases~~ require immediate comment anci tecommendation by t.he Park, arid :." ,~,.5 Recreation Commission.'. .This,unfortunat,ly may preclude the Com-a mission from taking a detailed look .a~ the eutire issue.' Due to.: upcoming changes in the-z~~ingord~Q~nc~, hQwever, it appears~as~ though two separate issues actually exist. The first issue is park dedication requirements for. developments of a density'of one unit per 2.5 acres and the second is the issue of park dedicati~n i \ r Park and Recreation Commission Minutes January 6, 1987 Page 4 ... ....,; requirements for development, at a density of or less than one unit per ten acres. The general issue of park dedication requirements in the rural area has both local and regional overtones. Chanhassen, and its updating of the Comprehensive Plan, is subject to the policy requirements of the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council's policies are stated in the Metropolitan Development Investment Framework which was adopted in late 1986. The frame- work states that "The Council supports development in the general rural use area consistent with service levels appropriate for a rural area". Neighborhood parks are typically considered urban rather than rural services. In order to further review the Metorpolitan Council's position on this issue, I talked to Metropolitan Council staff members Pat Pahl in the Planning Technical Assistance Division and Jack Mauritz in the Parks and Natural Resources Division. Jack is a Chanhassen resident and former Park and Recreation Commission member. r The Metropolitan Council considers development at a density of one unit per 2.5 acres urban rather thari rural. As a result, they stated that the City should plan for park and recreation needs in such areas and that local policies to that effect would be consistent with Metropolitan Council pOlicy. Jack further stated that one unit per ten acres is considered rural and would not be subject to the same interpretation. ...." From a local perspective, subdivisions of 1 units per 2.5 acres will generate demand for parks and therefore, should be subject to some type of dedication requirement. If this premise is accepted, the debate on this issue shifts to identifying the appropriate amount of land or cash dedication. ,- The Bloomington court case which is enclosed in the agenda packet as ~ell a~ other recent court case. has ~ustained the right of municipalities to require dedication of "reasonable II amounts of land for park purposes. The Collis v.,the City of Bloomington case found that "a reasqnable portio~i.,construed to mean that portion of land which the evidence reasonably establishes the municipality will need to acquire for the purposes stated as a result of the approval of the subdivision." If the City has intentions of establishing a neigh~orhood park to serve a par- ticul'ar new development, this statement implies that the develop- ment ihquestion is responsible for a portion of the park commensurate \'li th the demand it creates. It also seems rational to a.rgue that the new development also has obligations to the balance of the park system including community parks, trails, etc. --' Park and Recreation Commission Minutes January 6, 1987 r.. Page 5 In order to further review the neighborhood park issue, a com- parison of urban versus rural subdivisions may be helpful. Example Subdivision - Urban Land Size: 10 acres Land Consumed by Road: 20% Net Land Size: 8 acres 8 Acres at 15,000 sq. ft. lots = 23 units 23 units at 2.86 people/unit = 66 people Dedication at 10% = 1 acre Park Requirements: 1 acre per 66 people Example Subdivision - Rural Land Size: 100 acres Land Covered by Roads: 20% Net Land Size: 80 acres ~ 80 acres at 2.5 acres per unit = 32 units 32 units at 2.86 people/unit = 91 people Dedication at 10% = 10 acres Park Requirments: 10 acres per 91 people or 1 acre per 9 people Koegler continued saying, as the above examples indicate, strict application of the 10% park dedication requirement to rural sub- division results in a dedication requirement that is approxima- tely seven times that required for urban developments. On a demand basis, it seems unrealistic to assume that a rural sub- division creates seven times the demand of an urban development, particularly in light of the added amount of privately owned open space in rural subdivisions. Another valid method of looking at this issue is to examine approaches taken by othermuni.cipali ties. Chanhassen is facin(~J;. the issue of rural park' 'dedica'ti.on largely due to upcoming .' ";,. changes in the zoning ordinance which have prompted private l.emir owners to try to develqp parcels .in ,conformance with the old,....: more lenient zoning standa'rds..This situation makes Chanhasse'n ~ somewhat unique in the ~etropolft~n area and a quick review of ~ other city's ordinances did not uncover gimilar situations. Municipalities in various'parts of the country have employed a sliding scale for park dedication which is tied to lot size. A.- model ordinance prepared by the American Society of Planning _ Officials in the mid-1970's contained the following suggestion:.. J1-. " r Park and Recreation Commission Minutes January 6, 1987 Page 6 ..."., Sinqle Family Lots Size of Lot Percentage of Total Land in Subdivision to be Preserved for Park Purposes 80,000 sq. ft. plus 50,000 sq. ft. 4'0,000 sq. ft. 35,000 sq. ft. 25,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 1.5% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 5.0% 8.0% In accordance with the ASPO model ordinance, 15,000 square foot lots create approximately five times the demand for recreation that is created by lots of approximately two acres or larger. This relationship is inverse to the situation created by strict application of the ten percent land dedication requirement in Chanhassen. r As was indicated previously, all residential developments create a demand for parks and as such, should not be immune from dedica- tion requirements. Pertaining to 2.5 acre lot subdivisions, strict application of the ten percent dedication requirement seems to result in dedication that is not consistent with created demand. Since most of the proposed subdivisions are in the same geographic area, it may be possible to identify an appropriate location for one new neighborhood park and then require land dedication in an amount of approximately 2% from the appropriate land owner or owners. Since the 2% dedication requirement is not going to be adequate to obtain a park of 10-15 acres within any one subdivision, money collected from the other rural sub- divisions in lieu of land dedication could be used for acquisi- tion purposes. ....""" { Koegler said it is likely that the most appropriate location for a new neighborhood park may not be within the confines of any of the land parcels presently proposed for development. If this is true, the Park and Recreation Commission could recommend collec- tion of the cash contribution of $415 per unit for all new sub- divisions in the rural area. Proceeds could be earmarked for acquisition of a new neighborhood park. ~he location or alter- nate locations for the neighborhood park could be identified in the park and recreation chapter update of the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion: Lynch asked the current value of land in the rural area. Ashworth said it was valued roughly at $2500 per acre. Lynch said that 2.5 acre lots precludes the need for a mini park or neighborhood park, so then we are up to a neighborhood playfield. We can not get enough land from one development through dedication and the proposed developments are not con- tiguous. McKay said that based on what he has seen in Tonka Bay, Min- netonka and even in Chanhassen, he can not believe that there ..."" ~- Park and Recreation Commission Minutes January 6, 1987 Page 7 will not be development outside the MUSA line. Boyt said that the present MUSA line was to serve until the year 2000. Koegler said that this was covered in other sections in the Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act which was passed in the late 70's, which is still the governing legislation for preparing Comp Plans, requires cities to show how they pro- pose to expand outside the MUSA line in the future. The 1980 Comp Plan showed much of the area north of T.H. 5 as getting sewer service after 1990. The Metropolitan Council has now said that that will after 2000. Boyt asked if we were to set a policy tonight on the 2.5 acre rural area developments. Ashworth said this was never a concern area in the past because development was not allowed in the rural areas. Therefore, the current Comprehensive Plan does not address this section and what we should do about parks in this area. r ~ The Comprehensive Plan calls for 5 acres of park land for each 1000 people, thus setting a standard for neighborhood parks. It also outlines three examples for park dedication: 10% of the land: 10% of the market value of the land: the demand formula of $415 per unit. All of these formulas amount to about the same value. f,-.. Ashworth said when you apply these formulas in the rural area they no longer work out to be the same. The formulas are based on developments with 3 units per acre as opposed to 1 unit per 2.5 acres. By taking 10% of the land, you are far exceeding the demand created by the new development. Using the existing for- mula of $415 per unit will be a charge in accordance with the demand that they are generating. If that would ever further sub- divide, we would then have the right to again charge them. He said the concerned he heard McKay express is, if we do not acquire those lands now in advance of something happening, we may lose our chance. A~hworth said that Koegler should be charged.. with, not only what we should be looking to for goals and poli- cies, but what ordinance changes should we be looking at. We can then make decisions as to how we should charge these develop- ments so that we meet the needs of today and have the choices for tomorrow. He said this is critical as these developments will be going to council in the next 30-60 days. Lynch asked what the chances are of these developments actually' _' going ahead. Ashworth said the Lake Park Estates has some problems and he did not see it going through immediately. Others have met filing requirements, but will probably not go through in the near future. He said that the deadline for approval is July 15. If they are approved by that date they have two years to complete the improvements to be considered a final plat. '\ Park and Recreation Commission Minutes January 6, 1987 r Page 8 ...." Lynch said then that we only have to worry about these proposals, as anyone who does not have their application in by January 15th will not be considered. Those who do get their application in by January 15th have 2 years complete the improvements. Any other applications for development in the rural area will have no more than one unit per 10 acres. Met Council says that we do not have to provide parks for rural developments. He asked if these restrictions were going to be legally defensible. Ashworth said 95% of the communities already have the 10 acre requirement. They were required to do that as a part of the Comprehensive Plan process. Since Chanhassen did not allow any subdivision in the rural area, there was no conflict with Met Council at the time our original plan was approved. It was after that that we locally changed it and it was then that they forced us to change to the 10 acre requirement. So the current position is quite defensible as we are simply responding to the require- ment from Met Council, and their authority to do that is well founded under statute. .r Mady suggested that the City identify parcels in the rural area that could potentially be acquired for parkland. He said that the City would not necessarily have to buy it immediately, but have it identified in the Comprehensive Plan so when the area is developed, that area is reserved. ..."", Koegler said that the Commission often has to operate with a gun to its head, as when a plan was reviewed it was immediately sche- duled to go to the City Council. There are two items on tonight's agenda that are really in the same vain. What the Com- mission should seriously consider is taking cash in lieu of land. Koegler said taking this position will give the Commission more flexibility. The cash contribution of $415 per unit is collected at the time a building permit is issued for a piece of property, and tho'se houses will create the demand. This allows us the abi- lity to sit back and answer the question that has been asked tonight: How many of these developments will become a reality? You will then be able to address, suitable location or locations in that area for future parks. This will need to be part of the Comprehensive Plan. Ashworth said that he would strongly recommend that the Com- mission choose to take the dollar amount and direct Koegler to Gome back with community park options that will serve these areas. f McKay expressed his concern that if cash is taken now without examining where the best location for a park is first, we may not get the best location. Ashworth said that the Commission could table action on this and the two site plans until staff has the opportunity to make that identifiction. This would potentially .....; , ,..... Park and Recreation Commission Minutes January 6, 1987 Page 9 delay the approval of these developments, however they have until July 15th to get approval. Lynch asked how Koegler would go about identifying potential park land in the rural area and what things would he take into con- sideration. Koegler said he would first look at the existing development pattern. Road alignments and traffic patterns would be another consideration as it would have an impact on where and what number of facilities we would look at. The existing topography would be an additional factor. Robinson moved to table action on the site plan review of Great Plains Golf Estates and Country Hills until a policy can be put in place in the updated Comprehensive Plan: 30 to 60 days. The motion was seconded by McKay and carried unanimously. The Commission directed staff to work up a Park Dedication Policy for rural developments for discussion at the February meeting. Review Goals and Objectives r "".... At the last Park and Recreation Commission meeting, it was decided that goals and objectives for the Commission should be defined for discussion at the joint meeting with the City Coun- cil. The Commissioners were to each send their list of goals and objectives for staff to compile for review at the January meeting. Sietsema said that she received goals and objectives from two of the Commissioners and included them in the packet. Lynch reviewed the goals that he sent in: 1. Methods to interface with Council to: *Clarify proposals *Insure intent is understood *Prevent misunderstanding *Convey depth of our preparation 2. Catalog of parks with yearly update to be distributed to all Park and Recreation Commission members, Council, staff, neighborhood associations, etc. Lynch explained that he had designed a form that describes each park on one page. It lists the park name, the location, the type of park it is, the size, the general topography, existing facili- ties, comments (background), current budgeted items, space for notes, and a park site plan or location map. I ,.... Lynch said that this will be a handy reference to use that will be easier to comprehend than the comprehensive plan. It should also be updated each year. Park and Recreation Commission Minutes January 6, 1987 r Page 11 ......., 6. Complete development of trail system design, construction spe- cifications, cost analysis, maintenance estimates, on/off street variations. Map proposed systems and distribute to the commission for ready reference. Show trails by: *Existing-hard surface *Existing-chip or gravel *Owned but not developed *Unowned but needed 7. Since park and facility awareness seems to be an issue of con- cern at the Council level, can we develop methods in addition to present means (Chan Post, etc.) to educate residents? 8. Continue to improve and support special activities (July 4th, Halloween, etc.) and add others. Seek advance volunteer help committees from township organizations (JC's, CC, Legion, Lions, Fire Dept., Scouts, etc.) Attendance Policy r Sietsema said that the first meeting of each year the attendance policy is included in the packet with the Commission's attendance record for the past year. She said that the attendance policy set forth by the City Council for the Commission states that Com- missioners must attend at least 75% of the meetings each year. Failure to do so may result in the request for the Commissioner's resignation. ......" Lynch said that this has not been a problem in the past, as there have been Commissioners that have had health problems that were unable to attend many meetings. Robinson said that if this is a policy set by the City Council, then the Commission should take it seriously. He said that the memo states Commissioners who are absent more than 25% of the time should be asked to resign. He asked if this meant that Robbins and Rosenwald should be asked to resign? McKay said that expecting everyone to attend at least 75% of the meetings was unreasonable and it should be dropped to 67%. Lynch said that it has not been a real problem in the past and that no one has ever been asked to resign because of absences, he said the Commission has not worried too heavily about it in the past. Robinson disagreed, saying that the Council felt it was an impor- tant enough issue to make a policy about it. He said that we should either ask them to change it or ask for resignations. He said it is a policy, not guideline. ;' Sietsema said that the policy was made when an individual on a different COlnmission was absent a great deal of the time. She said that the Park and Recreation Commission had problems with """""". ,<~ Park and Recreation Commission Minutes January 6, 1987 Page 12 one member in 1985 and a letter was sent to that member saying that if they were unable to attend regularily for personal or business reasons, or if they had lost interest, they should resign. That individual chose to continue. Sietsema said that when someone misses a number of meetings in a row, it is difficult to keep them current with what is happening and they can not contribute as they otherwise could in the deci- sion making process. She felt that it was important enough to let everyone know each year that they should be here at least 75% of the time. She said that anytime a Commissioner is absent they should call the chairperson to let them know, and they should call her so that she knows if there is a quorum. McKay's Resignation from the Park and Recreation Commission The Commissioners expressed their regrets that McKay was resigning from the Commission. McKay explained that his home has been sold and he will be moving outside the City limits. Robinson moved to recommend that the City accept Wallace McKay's resignation with regret. The motion was seconded by Mady and .~ carried unanimously. MRPA Request to Hold Regional Tournament at Lake Ann Park Sietsema said that the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association has requested to hold the 1987 Regional Men's Open Tournament at Lake Ann Park on August 14, 15 and 16. She said that the City would be required to provide a concession stand and a tournament director. She proposed to let the Fire Department or the Ameri- can Legion run the concession stand in exchange for field main- tenance and 10% of the proceeds. Mady asked if the fields at Lake Ann were long enough for a Regional Tournament. Sietsema said that she thought that they were, but would ask. Mady said that the benefits to the City are that this type of thing brings in a lot of business. r.., McKay moved to recommend that the City host the Men's Open Region Softball Tournament for the weekend of August 14, 15 and 16, and that Lake Ann Park entrance fees be waived for that weekend. It is also recommended that the concessions be offered to the Chanhassen Fire Department with 10% of the proceeds being returned to the City and their agreement to drag the fields be- tween games. The motion was seconded by Mady and carried unani- mously. -- Park and Recreation Commission Minutes January 6, 1987 Page 13 ~ Adjournment Robinson moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Boyt and carried unanimously. Prepared by: Lori Sietsema Park and Recreation Coordinator ...."" ~