Loading...
PRC 1987 02 10 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ".... FEBRUARY 113, 1987 2- The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was called to order by Lori Sietsema. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Curt RObinson, Ed Hasek, Carol Watson, Gloria Corpian, and Larry Schroers. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Lynch Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. Curt Robinson moved, Ed Hasek seconded to nominated Mike Lynch for Chairperson of the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and motion carried. Curt Robinson moved, Carol Watson seconded to nominate Jim Mady for Vice- Chairperson of the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and moti.on carried. Approval of Minutes: Curt Robinson moved, Jim Mady seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meetings dated January 6, 1987 and January 213, 1987. All voted in favor except the new Commission members who abstained ".... and motion carried. Carol Watson: There were comments made about specific parks, you and I talked briefly about it, about Greenwood Shores Park which is just about a block down the road from me I guess and the no parking signs and whether they deny access and whether park money should be predica~ed on access. I've lived there for 15 years and this is the first time we have been on the park budget. Jim Mady: Clark raised the point whether we should be putting any money into the park. Carol Watson: Clark and I have waltzed this one around several times. Jim Mady: We, pretty much as a commission, felt that if we have a park that means we fix it up. Councilman Johnson: Lori, you maybe ought to address what happened last night on this same issue. Lori Sietsema: What are you talking about? Councilman Johnson: On the capital improvements budget. That's what you're discussing right? The no parking signs and the amendment to the capital improvements budget that was approved last night was only areas with free access will be allowed to spend their budget. In other words, if ,~the no parking signs stay up in Greenwood Shores and Carver Beach, then Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 2 that money won't be spent at Greenwood Shores and Carver Beach. That passed last night. """"'" Jim Mady: I think we've recommended tonight that the no parking signs will be taken down. The Commission feels, at least that's my general feeling from our past meetings, that our job is to make sure that the parks are adequately maintained and the facilities are there. The Council's position as to whether or not the funds get spent, we just make sure that the park facilities are available and then the City as a Council has to decide what funds we can spend. . Carol Watson: Then does the neighborhood have the option of deciding whether they want those funds or their no parking signs? Jim Mady: I don't think the neighborhood really has a voice in it. Carol Watson: We asked for the no parking signs though. The no parking signs were a neighborhood decision. They came to the Council and they were granted the no parking signs. The debate over those no parking signs occurred again within the last two months and it was decided that they be left up. A poll was taken and I kind of suspect if you poll those people, you might find that they would tell you to keep your money because they've never had any before anyway. Jim Mady: As a commission we want to see the park open. private parks. We shouldn't hav ....", Carol Watson: It isn't a private park. Jim Mady: But nobody can use it. Carol Watson: Why? Jim Mady: Nobody can park. Nobody can get there. Carol Watson: You're not a block away from this park. You're not as far as from here to the street on that side of the building from that park where you can park. At Carver Beach Park that's true. You can't park for a long distance but at Greenwood Shores Park, you're not a block away. You go downstairs to that homeowners association, you find out who uses it. They do. They walk over and they use it and the City paved the trail that runs from Lake Ann Park over to it so we get everybody that doesn't want to put up with the lifeguard so it's not that the access, that people don't use it. There are people there all the time. You don't have to walk any distance because of the no parking signs. Jim Mady: I know my personal feeling is if you have to walk more than a block or even a block to get to a public park, it is no longer a public park. You should be able to drive right up to it. That's my feeling. My feeling is the same thing happened with the fence issue. If your fencing public parks then they are no longer are public parks. You're denying ....." Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 3 " access to other people and this is a very spread out community. That's what Clark was getting at. Larry Schroers: Unless I read that wrong, wasn't there something in there about the signs were going to be removed in the parking area only at Carver Beach but remain along the road? Lori Sietsema: That's right at Carver Beach. Larry Schroers: Then at Greenwood Shores, there is going to be enough signs removed so there are going to be 4 or 5 parking spots only. Isn't that the way it read? Lori Sietsema: That's what I recommended. Larry Schroers: That seems sensible. I use Greenwood Shores Park myself and there is a little red rock or fresh limestone parking area right there right now. Is there a problem with using that and leaving the no parking signs up on the street? Lori Sietsema: No, I don't think so. Leaving the no parking signs along the street and then just making sure that the gate is open during the day so that people can drive in and park there. ~ Larry Schroers: During the summertime in the past, that chain has been across there and there's been a padlock on there. Lori Sietsema: That's right. Because the lift station is down there. Carol Watson: They were always real senstive to anything happening to it but it gets mugged periodically anyway. Larry Schroers: Maybe there would be a way just to fence that to give it a little more protection. Ed Hasek: together? Where is the park that we're talking about? Is there a map put A color map of the City? A zoning map or something? Jim Mady: at. You'll be getting that with your Comp Plan that we'll be looking Councilman Johnson: It's right here on the northeast corner of Lake Ann. Lori Sietsema: As I said earlier, the new people will be getting that Comp Plan too. Ed Hasek: Are the maps pretty well updated? Lori Sietsema: They will be soon. We just went through the updating process and the planning area sections are all updated. We're just waiting ~to complete the updating of the recreation section and then we'll have a Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 4 whole new Comp Plan and those maps will be updated. ......" Curt Robinson: Regarding the Minutes, I was given credit in there for making some comments that I shouldn't have been. There's nothing wrong with that. Jim Mady: I thought a lot of times you were saying things that I thought I had said. Lori Sietsema: It could be because Nann has never met either one of you and all she did was listen to these tapes. Curt Robinson: I was going to say Jim, I don't feel offended by that... Jim Mady: There was one comment I made in here and I remember I made it and I wished somebody else had gotten credit for it. It was right after Dale Geving had said something. I don't remember what it was now. Lori Sietsema: Until Nann gets to know all of our voices, that may happen and that can be changed. Carol Watson: Are we going to pursue, for instance the donation of money in land and naming the parks after various people or organizations who want to do it? It was mentioned in the Minutes here, is that something? Jim Mady: It was something Tom threw out just as a comment and that's alL_" it was. I don't know who would pursue it any further than that. Lori Sietsema: If we want to pursue it, we can put it on the agenda for the next meeting. Carol Watson: I just thought it was an interesting concept because I think it could happen. Ed Hasek: I think it will just be a matter of setting up a policy and as far as setting up a policy, just passing the word around and if someone is interested, they can come to us with it. Jim Mady: Get the word out to the proper people. There's about a dozen people in town you could hit and that's probably about it. Carol Watson: Or organizations or something like that. Park Needs Survey = Pat Pfahl. Lori Sietsema: That's who I met with up in Excelsior. Pat had another meeting to go to tonight and he wasn't able to get out of it so he was not able to be here. Basically, what's in the packet is his proposal. He has some good ideas. He's been talking to the Met Council and a guy named Grant who works with the Met Council, he's a park planner and he has a lot -" Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 5 ,.... of access to a lot of existing surveys that have been done in the early 80's before funds were cut. They did survey after survey of the whole metropolitan area so he can get some ideas from that and use some of their methods. He's going to take our rough draft and rework it so it's worded properly. After he's done his research, he's going to come up with a recommendation as far as how to proceed with selection of sample size and distribution method. If it's going to be a telephone survey. We talked about that quite a bit or a mailed out surveyor whatever. We can probably get our results quicker if we do a telephone survey and with the ice being non-existant, I have rink attendants that are screaming for work and they would probably assist us in the telephone survey too. Our tentative time line on that would be, the next Park and Recreation Commission meeting, he will bring back the final form of the survey for your approval with all of his supporting information and a recommendation on the sample size and method of distribution. Your recommendation will then go to the City Council for their approval of that survey and he will be all in place to just go ahead at that time and hopefully have it done by the first part of April. Jim Mady: Has the City Council allowed us to hire this guy? Lori Sietsema: Yes, they did move last night that that was fine. Jim Mady: Okay, the concern that I had when I read through his proposal ~ was mainly with the wording of questions. I didn't see anything really in his resume that told me that he was really experienced. Lori Sietsema: He's not himself but he has access to people who are and as far as I was concerned, as long as I don't have to do the legwork to go and find those people, he's already got contact with them and a report with them and he can find that out much easier than I can. Larry Schroers: That's basically the same question that came to my mind. It sounded like he had experience in regards to surveying but not specifically to parks and I just wondered how knowledgable he was on parks and their operations. Lori Sietsema: Like I said, he probably doesn't have a real good back- ground in parks specifically but again, he does have access to people that do. He has professors who are willing to help him out and that kind of thing too. Ed Hasek: How would we put the survey out? Lori Sietsema: That's what he's going to come back with, a recommendation. Ed Hasek: It could go in the Post. Jim Mady: The only problem is we need to do this. .~Lori Sietsema: The Post comes out about once a month or month and a half. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 6 Gloria Corpian: Those surveys never come back though. -' Lori Sietsema: Unless you mail them with a returned, stamped envelope, they don't come back very good. Ed Hasek: But he's going to give us everything we ever wanted to know about getting a survey out and back? Lori Sietsema: Right, and that will be at the March meeting. Again, our recommendation will then be taken to the City Council at their second meeting in March and at that point, he will be able to just take off with it and have it back. We maybe will push our April meeting back a week so he has the time to have it all back to us by the second week in April. Gloria Corpian: We can't go wrong for $400.00 can we? Lori Sietsema: No, that's why with a graduate student we can get by a lot cheaper than if we were to hire a firm, it would cost us about $2,000.00 easily. Councilman Johnson: Does he get credit for this at school? Lori Sietsema: I don't know that. Carol Watson: He just graduated in December of 1986 so it's all very recent too. He isn't going back to anybody that he hasn't been with. He-, just got his Masters in Decembe~ of 1986. Curt Robinson moved, Larry Schroers seconded to authorize the employment of Pat pfahl to assist with the Park Needs Survey. All voted in favor and motion carried. Lake Ann Park Entrance Fees. Lori Sietsema: I have been in the past, year after year, in favor of lowering the fee at Lake Ann, the daily entrance fee at Lake Ann and the Commission has always asked to raise it. Last year I finally got the Council to lower it $1.00. No, two years ago and last year it remained the same. My recommendation is to leave it the same. It's finally getting in there so that it's comparable to what other cities are charging for a similar park. $3.00 per day is getting into the regional park fee range. I feel that $3.00 is still somewhat high but I would be happy with it remaining the same. Jim Mady: I looked at this and thought it looked awful high. Lori Sietsema: We used to be $4.00 per day so what I'm recommending is the $3.00 daily entrance fee with a $5.00 season pass for people who live or work in the City and a non-resident fee of $10.00. """'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 7 ,.... Jim Mady: Approximately how much do we pay a gate attendant to be down there all year to collect this fee? Lori Sietsema: They get about $4.00 per hour and they are out there 9 hours per day, 7 days a week for 3 months. Gloria Corpian: Has the attendance dropped or changed since it was raised or lowered? Lori Sietsema: The money that we've taxen in has been pretty constant. From 1984 to 1985 it was almost exactly $500.00 difference and then last year it was up again so I think last year, use of the park has increased. Jim Mady: Last year we required softball teams to buy tickets. Lori Sietsema: For the first time. Jim Mady: That might explain the increase. We're netting about $10,000.00 on the deal so I don't see any reason to increase it myself as long as it's covering. I'm not sure what the thing is supposed to be doing. Lori Sietsema: It just goes back into the General Fund. Jim Mady: But it's not really giving a whole lot of money. It must be .~ doing something other than that. Larry Schroers: How much emphasis do we put on generating revenue from parks? It's probably very little. Lori Sietsema: Very little. This is the only park we charge to get into. Larry Schroers: Okay. I was wondering why you can't buy your season park at the gate. It seems to me like you would sell a lot more passes if they were right there and available. Ed Hasek: Especially the softball players. Last year was the first year that we had to pay and unfortunately, the first couple of nights we were out there, the lady was very strict. I don't think she knew about the seniors being free either because I had a father-in-law that's a senior that got turned away twice. He just refused to pay to get into that park but she never even offered him a senior option. Lori Sietsema: She should have known that. She's on the Senior Citizens Group. Ed Hasek: But it seems to me, maybe we've got the softball players involved and if we left it the way that it was this year to next year, that would give us an indication if the usage goes up. If we don't change anything and we'll still have that constant indicator. ." Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 8 Lori Sietsema: What I've proposed to do with the softball players is just-' ask the managers right up front if they want to buy tickets for their teams and have them pay for it when they pay their regular fee or have them on sale at the organizational meeting too. That would be another way. Ed Hasek: How do you charge for events out there? to pay a one time parking fee? Do those people have Lori Sietsema: What kind of events? Ed Hasek: For example, you have an invitational softball tournament. You .are inviting people to come out to the park and participate in an event. Lori Sietsema: We usually waive the fee. Jim Mady: It comes before us and we recommend that they get waived. Lor i Sietsema: The reason is tha t the one tournamen t tha t we have tha t has been invitational from year to year, is the Fireman's and they charge a fee to get into the tournament. They're out there to make money to better the Fire Department and to help them out, we usually waive the fee. That's the way it's always been and nobody has ever questioned it. This year, for the first time, we've had a request to have a MRPA Regional Tournament out there and because we send OUr teams to other cities year after year to tournaments. Generally, there is no charge to get into those parks. It i our turn to have a tournament and I don't feel we should charge either. -' It's kind of our turn. Ed Hasek: It seems to me that that park actually belongs to the City and the people in the City are paying for the park. It's really our park so we shouldn't have to expect people from outside, that we invite to our park, to have to pay no matter what the event. If the Chamber of Commerce wants to have a tournament out there or somebody within the City, an organization uses the park and helps pay for the park wants to have somebody there, you shouldn't be charging your guests. To me, it's you're inviting them to your home and why charge them at the door to come in. Jim Mady: Just a little information on funding of a park. Typically, historically, the money that goes to purchase land or get land and buy the facilities and different things has come out of the various park dedication fees that is charged to the developers whereas the maintenance of all the parks comes out of the General Fund. Lori Sietsema: Lake Ann was also acquired with LAWCON Funds which is Federal Funds and LCMR money has gone into developing that park and that is State Funds so everybody has put in toward that particular park anyway. As far as the 4th of July, I think we charge everybody, whether they have a sticker or not to get,in on the 4th of July because we have the fireworks to pay for and the band and all the different activities that are going on out there and that's just a one day deal where we just charge everybody thp da i 1y fee. -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 9 I""" Gloria Corpian: When you moved it last year up here, it wasn't even in the park last year was it? Lori Sietsema: Just the band was up here. The softball tournaments and family games and during the day activities were still out at the park. Jim Mady: I don't think you charged though. Your sticker got you in anyway because I think I remember playing. Ed Hasek: That was the day my father-tn-law tried to get in there and he couldn't. Lori Sietsema: The deal is that senior citizens get a free pass but they have to have the pass and they can get the free pass up here. I guess I don't know why we do it that way. It was done that way before I got here and we've never changed it. Ed Hasek: That would be another nice thing because that park really draws from a lot of places. Especially seniors I think. The seniors need to have a break and I can see where giving those people in town a pass so there isn't a question but it seems to me if there is a question with anybody that goes out there when they're old. I mean a senior is a senior is a senior. I don't care where they come from. It seems to me like we ought to let them in for nothing. I think a little bit of good will is ~just going to help to improve this park too. Carol Watson: I think if the seasonal thing is offered out there at the park, then the first time mom brings the kids for their swimming lessons, she just buys that ticket and that's the end of it. Larry Schroers: What's happening with that is the families bring their people ou t dur i ng the weekend and on the weekend they can't come up here and purchase their pass and they're busy and they're working during the week and they're not free until after business hours so they'll go a couple of time and they'll pay their $3.00 and they'll say, it's too big of a deal. If they could buy that sticker right there, then we would have the desirable people using the parks too. Gloria Corpian: If they do it then they should advertise in the newspaper too and let them know it. A lot of people I know don't go because they can't get in over here when they want to use it. Being new here, there's a park over on Minnewashta, is that part of? Jim Mady: That's a County park. Lori Sietsema: It's regional. Gloria Corpian: We have nothing to do with that? Lori Sietsema: We have no jurisdiction over that. I""'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 10 Gloria Corpian: Oh, because I thought they had a little house to collect --' money too. Lori Sietsema: They do but it goes to the County. Jim Mady: They do have to come in front of the City Council from time to time. Carol Watson: Yes, their permits and all their rules and regulations came from us. How they operate, what they can do over there, what the restrictions were but they are actually part of the metropolitan regional park system. Larry Schroers: Are they operated by Carver County? Carol Watson: Yes. Larry Schroers: And is that in Chanhassen's boundaries. Lori Sietsema: The park is within Chanhassen. Their offices are out of Carver County Courthouse in Chaska. Larry Schroers moved, Jim Mady seconded recommended to make season and daily passes available for purchase at the gate of Lake Ann Park; to leave the daily and season fees the same as the last year; and to permit senior citizens free admittance without a special pass from City Hall. All vote6~ in favor and motion carried. Recommendation of a Park and Recreation Commissioner to serve on the Communi ty CenterTaskF"'Orce:- - - Jim Mady: I've already indicated my interest in doing that, is there anybody else? Lori Sietsema: Does everybody know what we're talking about on this community center task force? Curt Robinson: I told Lori last night that I don't want to. I just thought that if we have to limit to one I would rather that it be you than me and I thought somebody should be on it. To tell you the truth, my interest was two fold. One, that I think I've got some background in that type of thing. Secondly, I wanted to make sure that we didn't end up with three hockey rinks in a community center. What's it going to be made up of Lori? Just one person from each commission or as many outsiders as is warranted? Lori Sietsema: It will be one from each commission and one from the Council and there will be members at-large. What we're trying to do is get someone from the CAA. Someone from different areas and different community organizations. We would like to limit so it isn't a monstrous group. The -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 11 ,.... ideal number of course would be 7 but it sounded like at the City Council meeting last night that it may get larger than that because there has been a lot of response. I have gotten a lot of calls. We've got about 5 or 6 if not more applications for the people at-large. I don't know how big it's going to end up being at the end. Councilman Johnson: We want to get representation from the Senior Citizens and various groups. Larry Schroers: This is a task force just to study. plans or anything? There are no formal Lori Sietsema: There is nothing in contract. CHADDA has proposed a facility and feels that there is a need and the City Council has more or less said, you're right, there may be a need but they don't want to be locked into their idea alone because it includes a regulation size hockey rink, a swimming pool, racket ball courts, a gym, parking ramp, farmers market, and community rooms, which all are nice but it's a 2 1/2 million dollar project. Larry Schroers: And where do they plan on putting it? Lori Sietsema: Adjacent to the bowling center. On the other side of that existing building. ~ Councilman Johnson: CHADDA wants to generate trips downtown. Whatever they can do to get somebody to drive into downtown to stop and leave their money there. That's what they want but that's not necessarily the objective of the community center. Carol Watson: It's not necessarily where it should be. Maybe someone feels it should be out at Lake Ann Park or anywhere in the community. There's nothing sacred about where they've decided because this is the second time that there has been a task force. Larry Schroers: Who is CHADDA? Lori Sietsema: It's the Chanhassen Downtown Development Association which is composed of Bloomberg Companies and a private developer who is a resident. Jim Mady: So they have some private interest. Lori Sietsema: But again, we're not locked into their ideas. We want to look at all the different options. If indeed the committee were to decide that we do need a community center, at that point then they will look at different options and what other community centers have and if they are solvent. If they are in the red or in the black. Those kinds of things and then they would make any recommendations as far as what the facility should include and how much it should be to the City Council. ,...., Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - page 12 Larry Schroers: I think it's wise to look into all the aspects of it. I've heard very favorable comments from the Eden prairie community center. ....." Lori Sietsema: They are one of the most successful and they are adding a new rink on. They are doing some heavy duty expansion. Carol Watson: They made money the first year and they didn't expect to. They thought they would lose for a while. Gloria Corpian: Was it on the tax roll"to begin with though? Lori Sietsema: Yes. Carol Watson: Oh yeah, they went to the people of Eden prairie and they sa id do you wan t th i s bad enough to pay for it and the consensus was yes, they did and that it probably would lose money for a while and be a financial burden but in fact, it earned money the first year and has been far less of a burden than anticipated but the presentation originally was this thing could be an albatross if it doesn't go and people don't use it and we don't get the community involvement expected but they got far more than they expected. It isn't large enough. Lori Sietsema: The reason why they are so successful, one of the big reasons is because all of the high school hockey is run out of it. They are subsidized by a hockey association that is so strong. They are really gung-ho. In fact they are now going to build a recreational rink so they -' will have the free skating out of the hockey rink so they can put more hockey in. Gloria Corpian: That's what the Minnetonka High School did. Councilman Johnson: Didn't you say we're almost totally booked up on hockey down at the Bloomberg arena now? Lori Sietsema: Yes. Jim Mady: That may change now that Eden prairie is putting a second rink in. Minnetonka is putting another one in. Curt Robinson: Are we making any money on that ice arena? Lori Sietsema: This year we may break even. Last year we lost about $1,000.00 which wasn't really too bad considering we didn't know what we were do i ng. It was just kind of feel your way through it and it has gone a lot better this year. Larry Schroers: You may want to use Pat for a Need Survey. Jim Mady: Yes, definitely we're going to have to look at more than just the 9 or whatever people it ends up being voicing their opinions. I'm afraid we won't get enough community input just by having a meeting. That-, Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 13 .1"'" was one of the thoughts when we originally drew up the survey was getting a question on it. I don't remember if it's still on there or not. Lor i Sietsema: Yes, it's sti 11 in the rough draft. going to keep the dollar figures. I don't know if we're Councilman Johnson: When I was out campaigning last year, city wide, rather than taking neighborhood issues out, the community center was probably the second most often brought up issue right behind taxes. Carol Watson: I think the question is everybody wants it. It's how are they going to pay for it. People look at it and say I'm not going to go down there. I don't play racquetball. I don't have any kids who are going to use the facilities. I don't want that on my taxes. Gloria Corpian: Remember that everything isn't centered right around Chanhassen. I happened to live in Lake Minnewashta. I'm just saying that. I don't know if they would support it like maybe the people who live in Greenwood Shores. Carol Watson: The whole thing though that it would draw the community together. That because it was yours to use that you might come and that it would pull the community more together by having a place where we do come together and share a facility and activities. ~ Councilman Johnson: We may not want it downtown. We would want to get someone from Minnewashta. Jim Mady: No matter where you put it you're going to have the problem that somebody is going to have to drive an extra 5 miles to get there. Lori Sietsema: It's the same with the people up in Fox Hollow. Are they going to want to drive all the way around Lotus Lake to get down there? Councilman Johnson: They go to Minnetonka schools. Lori Sietsema: And Eden Prairie is closer. Ed Hasek: I take my kids over to Eden prairie a lot. Lori Sietsema: I'm a member at Eden Prairie. Carol Watson: We do too. Gloria Corpian: I work in Waconia and I know people there that drive to Eden prairie so maybe we would get people that would drive here. Jim Mady: I have a feeling that people tend to drive 10 miles into town versus driving 2 miles out. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 14 Carol Watson: They can do other things at the same time. They can drop the kids off and I can do something else. ......" Larry Schroers: It can almost act like a daycare. Carol Watson: Right, or they figure that at least when we're through here we can go shopping or we can do something else and it does help. Larry Schroers: What I see in the new developments is a lot of younger people with kids that are of the age that they are going to want to start doing some of those things and I would have to believe that there is going to be a lot of favorable response for it. Curt Robinson moved, Larry Schroers seconded to recommend that Jim Mady serve as the Park and Recreation Commission's representative on the Community Center Task Force. All voted in favor except Jim Mady who abstained and motion carried. Consider Abandoning No Parking Zone at Carver Beach and Greenwood Shores Park. Carver Beach: Jim Mady: I think we should probably look at them as separate items. Let' take Carver Beach first. At the joint meeting we held 2 to 3 weeks ago, ~ the question was raised whether we should be spending park funds on a facility that realistically did not have access to a majority of the community. It only had access to those who could walk to the park. As the discussion proceeded we started getting into things that happened previously at Carver Beach and to a lesser extent at Greenwood Shores approximately 5 years ago. It was felt that possibly now is the time to open up those facilities to allow cars near them again in order that the general community can possibly use the park if they so desire. Also, to find out if those problems are going to come back to us. We decided to put it on this agenda opening up the parking spaces at Carver Beach. I believe there are five spots there or something like that. That has currently been chained off. What happened five years ago, there were noisy and potentially dangerous parties taking place at night down there and the participates typically were from outside the community. By putting up the no parking signs they were able to alleviate the problem. The previous park commission felt that it would be wise to open up the park to the general community so that's what we're looking at now. Larry Schroers: Can we do it for a one season trial basis? Jim Mady: That's exactly what we were asking for. Larry Schroers: How hard is it to reinstate the parking ban if we want to? Jim Mady: Not hard at all. .....", Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 15 JII"" Carol Watson: What you're suggesting is to leave the no parking signs on the streets but open up the parking spaces in an existing lot? Jim Mady: Right. Lori Sietsema: I think with the CSO's that we have on staff now and with Carver County Deputy on duty 24 hours a day, we have more coverage than we did five years ago. Curt Robinson: What's a CSO? Lori Sietsema: Community Service Officer. He's not quite a cop. They don't carry a gun I don't think. Jim Mady: They can't arrest. Lori Sietsema: One of them is licensed to, Frank is. They are college graduates. They wear the blue uniforms. They're not deputies. Gloria Corpian: You're saying there is an existing parking lot there right now? Lori Sietsema: That has no parking signs. ,.... Gloria Corpian: Who uses that then? Lori Sietsema: The people within walking distance. Gloria Corpian: So all you have to do is take down those signs without telling anybody and people may start to use them or they may not. Jim Mady: One of the things that we had also discussed at the meeting was making some information known to the community as to what's available in the community parks and that would be part of something that we would want to do. GLoria Corpian: You want to advertise? Jim Mady: We want the community to know that there are some parks available. It is our feeling that most of the community doesn't know what's around. Unless the park is within a couple blocks of your home, they don't even know it's there. Larry Schroers: You just want to add that in with other information. You don't want to specify and single it out and say the party spot is open again. Lori Sietsema: Generally, each spring in the spring addition when the summer programs are advertised, we say the parks are open and list the hours. Here's where they are and here's what they have in them and .~parking is in the grid and checked off and we would then check off parking Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 16 in Carver Beach. It wouldn't be exactly the party spot is open again but ~ it outlines the hours and park rules that apply to all the parks. No pets and no booze and no littering. Gloria Corpian: I agree with that. I wouldn't want something in the paper where we have now opened our parking. Ed Hasek: Is the parking area at Carver Beach really defined? Lori Sietsema: Yes. It's gravel. Ed Hasek: You can't drive off of it? Lori Sietsema: No. It's a wide spot in the road and then it's a cliff and there are steps going down the cliff to the park below. Ed Hasek: Parallel parking? Lor i Sietsema: No, it's per pend icular parki ng but it's only park ing in the parking lot. They couldn't park on the grass. Gloria Corpian: And these are the only parks you have restricted parking on? Lori Sietsema: Yes, right now. We used to have Bandimere Heights which had no parking too because Prince lived down there but now that has been removed since he moved. There were so many groupies that were parking outside his house, it was really creating a nuisance. ......,; Jim Mady: He's been a good neighbor, that was one of the things we do. Carol Watson: He really has. Ed Hasek moved, Jim Mady seconded to recommend that the City open the parking at Carver Beach for the 1987 season. All voted in favor and motion carried. Greenwood Shores: Carol Watson: It's a relatively flat park and you come in and go down and the parking would have to be very well defined and it would have to be sectioned off because you could drive right down to the lake. There would be nothing to restrict parking. It's not like we have a cliff. We don't. It would be very easy to drive anywhere within the park area. There is nothing down there presently. There is a parking area that they are using now. Jim Mady: But it's been chained off. Carol Watson: Yes, it's been chained off before but the sewer lift station is over here and the lake is down here and right in this flat area up herE ....." Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 17 Ii"""" they've been parking and ice fishing on the lake. The road comes in like this and if this were, some kind of a barrier were created. There's a woods over here and this is privately owned and that has been part of our problem. The kids would corne in. They would park up here on the street, and they would go into that woods, which is private property and the police cou Id not make them 1 ea ve. They cou Id sit ou t there and make them uncomfortable. They could try to get the people as they left for minors with alcohol and stuff. They could not really control the situation because of the fact tha tit was pr i va te proper ty and they cou ld not go on there. Gloria Corpian: How far is that lot from the lake then? Carol Watson: Like a yard, like a lawn. It's not that big a park. Larry Schroers: It's 25 to 30 yards. Carol Watson: It's just a very short walk down there. Jim Mady: Could we ask Dale Gregory to look at it and determine if we could put like four spots just out at the street and restrict it there? Maybe we would have to move the chain they have. Carol Watson: And if the police would corne at 10:00 and put that chain ~back up again so there wouldn't be the problem with the driving. Jim Mady: Instead of having the parking way down here, have it right on the street. Carol Watson: There's no place there to do it. Ed Hasek: It is right on the curve like it shows on the map there? Carol Watson: Yes, it's right on the curve and you corne and then drop down. It's not a steep slope but you drop down. The parking virtually has to be where it is right now and it's not far. Larry Schroers: There are trails there also. When you go down to the lake from that parking area, there's a big trail that goes over to the main Lake Ann beach and then there is just paths basically that go on that narrow strip of land between Lake Lucy and Lake Ann, is that the private property? Carol Watson: That's all private property. Larry Schroers: If there is not a barrier there and people have access down in there, I would think that 4-wheel drive people and all terrain people and stuff would really like to get back in there and tear things up. Lori Sietsema: That's the problem they did have. ~Jim Mady: We need to put signage in to restrict that. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 18 Carol Watson: And to do something with the parking lot. ......, Jim Mady: Like the Lotus Lake access would be. No trespassing signs would be put up next to the private land. Carol Watson: And something to restrict the parking so you couldn't simply drive out of the parking area. Ed Hasek: Does the City have some sort of design like a bo1lard and chain or bo11ard and cable type of system that they use? Carol Watson: No, not really. Even just those posts not spaced too far apart so you could drive a vehicle. Ed Hasek: I f you pu t a cha in or cable bet ween them then you are restricting it, we don't allow motorcycles or 3-wheelers through it either and for very little expense you can prevent both items. Carol Watson: It's fairly open. Not that's a real cheap way to get to Lake Ann Park is to walk in which a lot of people do. They come in our park and they walk in. Jim Mady: That will happen more with the trail system. Carol Watson: And the kids fish along there. There are a couple of real nice fishing docks along there where the kids catch a lot of fish. .....,,# Jim Mady: I don't have any problems with people walking into Lake Ann. The drivers you have problems with. Ed Hasek: It seems to me if we're going to restrict the parking to a specific area and we're going to need bol1ards and cables to do that, it doesn't make any sense to just open it up and say, what's the next thing to do? Somebody has to take a look at it. Is there someone on the city staff that's available to do that? Lori Sietsema: Dale and I could do that. Jim Mady: Dale Gregory is the Park Foreman. Carol Watson: And he lives in Greenwood Shores so he's pretty familiar with the park. Ed Hasek: Can we say we would like it opened up but until some form of a barrier is established along the signage that it's going to remain closed? Larry Schroers: Maybe we could move that the parking spaces be opened contingent on restrictive parking that restricts access beyond that point. Gloria Corpian: But if we just say that we're opening up the parking and not saying what else we're doing. --' Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 19 ,.... Ed Hasek: If you say it that way, the policy simply says, you just take that and just open it up and nothing is formally done. Carol Watson: Because there is a private residence right here by the park entrance. He's right next to the lift station. Gloria Corpian: But he chose to buy there though. Lori Sietsema: How about if the Park and Recreation Commission meets at 7:00 at the next meeting out at Greenwood Shores and looks it over and then we can make a formal motion with what you want to be done too. Jim Mady: I think I'm comfortable to make a motion to open up parking at Greenwood Shores and the existing facility with bollard and chain installed to prevent access beyond the parking facility and that the City continue to restrict parking on the street by the use of no parking signs. Carol Watson: I think if people park carefully, you could get at least 6 cars down there and maybe more than that. Jim Mady: I think we should limit. I don't think you want to have any more than 4 to 6 cars. It's a small park. Ed Hasek: If it gets posted maximum 4 car parking or something like that. ,.... Carol Watson: Then if the Sheriff would put the chain back up at 10:00. Councilman Johnson: But if there's 5 down there, who do you ticket. Larry Schroers: It seems kind of funny. It goes in straight for a little bit and then it angles to the right sort of towards the lift station and that would be another thing that Dale would have to consider would be that we have parking far enough away that people have access to their lift station. Ed Hasek: A center car on post thing would be real easy too. Larry Schroers: But you do need the chain or cable to prevent the motorcycles and 3-wheelers from scooting through. Gloria Corpian: Does Carver Beach close at 10:00 also? Jim Mady: Yes, all parks close at 10:00. Lori Sietsema: There's not a chain there though, no. Not all of the neighborhood parks need chains. Councilman Johnson: Doesn't the Carver Beach park have the wood arm that comes up and down? ""'Lori Sietsema: You're talking about Carver Park. This is Carver Beach. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 20 Ed Hasek: Doesn't City policy say that it closes at l0:00? --' I Lori Sietsema: We have a Park Ordinance that states the hours. Ed Hasek: Does the City have a specific design for bollards or signage or anthing like that at this time? Lori Sietsema: No, nothing uniform. Our park signs are all uniform. They are all the wood, the park identification signs. Ed Hasek: But everything else is the metal sign with raised letters on it? Lori Sietsema: Right. Ed Hasek: How about bollards or anything like that? Lori Sietsema: I can't think where we have bol1ard and chains. M. Koegler: We had proposed bollards down at South Lotus Lake and they were omitted from the job early on. Ed Hasek: Because of cost or what? M. Koegler: Yes, and there was some dissention about whether they were really needed to keep people within the travel portion of the roadway. That's the only place I know they were going to put them. --' Carol Watson: Maybe we should leave the bollard and chain deal up to Dale in case that turns out to be kind of expensive and they can come up with just as restrictive an alternative but the cost isn't as much. Ed Hasek: Have you ever been asked to do that, to get some sort of standard format? It sounds like you've got the signs but the bollards and paths? Mark Koegler: I think the comment that was mentioned a minute ago has been probably the appropriate one that it has come up on an as needed basis. The first time an installation goes in, that basically sets the tone and standard. I think that would have occurred with the bo1lards. You were going to provide a detail as part of the construction documents but again, that was omitted so it didn't occur. Jim Mady moved, Larry Schroers seconded to recommend that the City open parking at Greenwood Shores with bo11ard and chain installed to restrict the area, to keep the no parking zone along the street, that the Sheriff will close the park at 10:00 p.m., and to install private property signs along the property lines. All voted in favo~ and motion carried. ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - page 21 ,... Authorization to execute 4th of July Band Contract. Lori Sietsema: Since I started here 3 years ago, I've planned a 4th of July celebration out at Lake Ann Park and what that is is family garnes, a softball tournament, duck soup tournament, which is a kitten ball game with crazy rules. You have to dress up like Groucho Marx. There's fireworks and we had clowns one year and we had a couple of characters corne in and entertain the kids and put on little skits. Last year for the first year, we had a street dance. It was more of a parking lot dance and it was held up here beh i nd City Ha 11 and the fireworks were shot out over the playground instead of over the lake at Lake Ann. Basically the street dance went really well. The band was excellent. The people had a really great time. What we did was snow fence in a dance area and a beer garden area and charged $3.00 to get in. This year we worked it into the budget so we won't have to charge to get into the band because there were people who stood on the outside and didn't corne in and just listen to the band. Jim Mady: It created a lot of hard feelings and problems last year. Lori Sietsema: It will be just a lot nicer to have it open to everybody and then all we'll have to do is snow fence in the beer gardens because that definitely has to be a contained area. What this is is the contract for the band. It's the same band as last year. They were great. They were fun and I would like to see them corne back so that's my recommendation. ,... Ed Hasek: The terms and conditions are the same as they were last year? Lori Sietsema: Yes. suggestions for us. In fact, they are corning back with a lot more They are going to be helping us out a little bit too. Ed Hasek: Did you get any negative feedback about moving it from the park up to here? Lori Sietsema: No. Jim Mady: Positive feedback. Ed Hasek: The one thing I remember last year was the mosquitoes and finally the wind started to pick up at the end. If we had been down at the park, we wouldn't have had that advantage. At least up here they are going to blow away. Lori Sietsema: The nice thing here too is it's easier to get out after the fireworks. It's such a mess on TH 5 after the fireworks are over and everybody wants out. It's a lot easier to handle the traffic. Councilman Johnson: On the fireworks as a part of this thing, I think we have to look at, we had flaming fireworks landing on buildings over here. We had the Fire Department out to wash down roofs and we found live explosives in the fields. Children can walk out in the fields and play ,..... with live explosives. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 22 Lori Sietsema: They were live? --' Councilman Johnson: Live explosives, yes. Jim Mady: Why don't we limit that to when we review the fireworks. Councilman Johnson: I don't think that input ever got back to Lori. Lori Sietsema: No, it sure didn't. Gloria Corpian: Would they have the band if there were no fireworks? Jim Mady: I believe the fireworks is already contracted. Lori Sietsema: That will be on the next meeting. I just have to get another bid. Larry Schroers: You don't have much of a 4th of July celebration without fireworks. Gloria Corpian: I know that but I just want to see if we okay the band we want to make sure... Councilman Johnson: I just brought that up. It's not under consideration. Jim Mady: We want to get the band going. -' Lori Sietsema: available. I'm afraid if we don't book the band they won't be Carol Watson: And we will have fireworks. Ed Hasek: If you don't have fireworks there will be fireworks. Carol Watson moved, Ed Hasek seconded to recommend to accept the contract for the band for the 4th of July celebration. All voted in favor and motion carried. Lori Sietsema: I just need to remind you that we're making recommendations. When you see the motion in the Minutes it will be, Carol recommended to do because the Council gets a little fiesty if we direct without recommending. Carol Watson:. This is a recommending body. Lori Sietsema: We are a recommending body so all of the motions are recommendations to the City Council. When I do the Minutes I do write them up as recommendations. ....,/ Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 23 ,..,.. Councilman Johnson: The election of your chairperson and vice-chairperson and that kind of stuff, that's your own direction. We already authorized you to hire Pat without seeing his resume. We authorizeD you to spend the money, you decide who you pick. I don't think we get it back. Lori Sietsema: No, that won't go back to you again. Review of the Comprehensive Plan Updating Process. Mark Koegler: We kind of had an introduction a minute ago but I'll fill in a couple gaps in the way of background since there are some new faces that I haven't met before. My involvement with the City goes back to about 1978. I was the City Planner here from 1978 through 1981 and was involved in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan at that time. At the present time the Council and Planning Commission are undergoing a process of updating the Comprehensive Plan that was compiled around 198a and that's being done for some very specific reasons that I'll get into perhaps a little bit more thoroughly when we talk about the next item. What we thought it might be beneficial to do would be to take a few minutes tonight and kind of step back since you have some new people on board and I think since Carol and Mike, if he were here, are the only ones who went through some of this Comp Plan stuff the first time around, and talk a little bit about, first of all, what a comprehensive plan is so you know ,..,.. what you're doing. Specifically, what the recreational plan elements contain so you know how that fits into the overall structure. The Comprehensive Plan, if you've ever seen it, is a document about that thick which is really a document adopted by the City as an offica1 policy guide. It assists the Council and Planning Commission in decisions that they have to make on a weekly basis and really to look at what the physical development of the community is to be. It sets goals. It sets objectives. Policies on how you want to obtain what you ultimately want to achieve. That plan is a flexible document. Planning is a process by definition and typically there is flexibility there so whatever occurs, hopefully that Plan can react to that. The Plan itself contains a number of components. The one this group is obviously most interested in is the park section but it also contains sections on land use, transportation, housing, capital improvement programs and so forth and all of those are very much inter- related. All of those additionally have to be prepared within the framework that is provided to this City and to every other metropolitan city by the Metropolitan Council. They have some very specific requirements with regard to sewer capacity and roads and regional parks for example, that are considered regional systems that this City then has to basically fall in line with. The plan has to be prepared using that as a framework. The Park Commission, obviously involved with the park element of the Plan itself, is in the position to basically guide that now that we go through and update, to establish policies that you would like to see the City try to achieve over the next 5 to 10 year period and certainly to provide direction to those of us who are putting material together for you to review. We started the update process back in about October or November ,..... and the issue of this survey came up and kind of put the update of the rec section on hold for the time being until there was some resolution of how Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 24 -..III' you were going to conduct a survey. The survey being viewed as pretty significant information in terms of viewing demands and wants and what the pu b 1 i cwo u 1 d 1 i k e to see in the par k s y s tern. Now t hat hope full Y t hat. i s going to get underway here shortly, we will be able to proceed on that component but in the meantime there are still some other items that have come up that we need to address. The park plan, if you've had a chance to look at the old one, contains information. First of all an introduction to what it's all about. There is information there on the existing park system. There is information on the needs and demand. The population of the City. The anticipated population of the City. Who the users are. Who they are likely to be and then there is a plan section which contains narratives and graphics which are aimed at providing future facilities that meet the identified needs and hopefully correct the identified deficiencies that you've come up with in the existing system. As we go through this in the next 30-60 days, that will become more evident because we'll be reviewing some of those components. I think the thing I would stress is that the Plan maintains somewhat of a general framework. It will not make every d'ecision for you but it is a guide in making the major decisions that you face. In that regard, it is a flexible tool that is intended to be used in that kind of a manner. That's really I guess enough said about what the Plan is unless you've got specific questions, I would certainly be glad to address those. Seeing none,. I would kind of like to roll 10 and 11 to some degree together. Adoption of Park Dedication Policy for Rural Developments. ......." Mark Koegler: The next item on the agenda deals with an item that we discussed at, I think, at the last meeting which is looking at a rural policy for park dedication. The rural park dedication requirement issue is a new one. When this City went through it's comprehensive plan effort back in 1980, at that time there was an ordinance on the books and the number escapes me at the moment but it basically prohibited development in the unsewered area unless it was a lot of record which is defined as a lot that's in existence at the time the Zoning Ordinance is put into effect. That law was struck down approximately 3 or 4 years ago I believe. It kind of opened the door, if you will, on the rural area for some additional residential development. That really put the City in a position of having to address an issue that it did not have to address previously. The Park Dedication Ordinance that is in effect, although it may be somewhat confusing, probably does do a fair job of targeting the urban type development. I don't know that that necessarily is true for development that is of a higher lot size or lower density as it appears in the rural area. I referenced before that Metropolitan Council is very much involved in the comprehensive planning process. This little snakey black line that wanders through here is known as the MUSA line, which is the Metropolitan Urban Service Area line. That line is a line that has been dictated essentially by the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Control Commission's input. What it says is all of this land up in this portion of the community will be eligible for sewer service between now and the year 2000, if it's not already served and that sewer service and the extension of that has to occur in an orderly fashion so a parcel down here is not ......" Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 25 ,.... likely to be served until it basically begins to move that direction. What that policy also says then is that this area, which is officially labled the general rural use region will not receive sanitary sewer until at least the year 2000 and most of those cases it is going to be well beyond that. The areas that are shown in this kind of goldish yellow color are subdivisions that have come in very recently that are being proposed and ultimatley being reviewed by this body, the Planning Commission and the City Council. All of those are rural lot subdivisions with presumably an average lot size and minimum lot size of about 2 1/2 acr.es. The City entered into an agreement with the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for the construction of the Lake Ann interceptor, which you are probably generally familiar with. It's an interceptor sewer line that will essentially come down through this portion of the community, over and into Eden Prairie. That will provide future capacity not just for Chanhassen but for the entire southwest area and particularly some of the communities that are just northwest of the municipal boundaries of the City of Chanhassen. That agreement carried some clout. It carried some stipulations and in fact is the very reason why the Comprehensive Plan is being updated right now. The Agreement called for the City to make some changes to the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. It specifically required the City to make some changes to the Zoning Ordinance. The old Zoning Ordinance allowed 2 1/2 acre lots throughout this area. The new Ordinance, which is going into effect now or shortly will be, that is boosted from 2 1/2 acres to a 10 acre minimum and that is consistent with ~ the requirements of this legal agreement. You can guess what impact that has had. The application date deadline was January 15th so anybody that wanted to fall under the old Ordinance had to have their plans in by then. That's where you get all of these preliminary plats coming in. The landowners, whether they're really serious about developing or not, perhaps feel that it's in their best interest to maximize the potential economic return on their properties. If they can put in 2 1/2 acre lots instead of 10 acre lots, that's more dollar signs in their eyes. So you've seen then a rush for all these things to come in. That rush gets us back to what we're talking about tonight in that there really has not been a park dedication policy that very adequately addresses the rural area. We talked a little bit the last time about comparisons between an urban subdivision and rural subdivision and how a 2 1/2 acre lot size versus a lot size of 10,~00 or 12,000 or even 15,000 or more square feet, simply don't generate the same amount of park demand. I think that's probably fairly obvious that if you have one hous i ng un i t ver sus 9 hous i ng un i ts on the same amount of land, there is different levels of demand generated. The charge, at least from what I've been told that has come back to this group is to sort through that and determine what policy you would like to put in place when it comes to looking at these rural subdivisions and looking at the provision of parks in the rural area. At the last meeting there was discussion of taking a look within the southern stretch of the City and determining whether there were reasonable parcels that could be acquired in some form or fashion to satisfy at least a neighborhood park level of need. That was defined to be approximately 15 acres, ballpark type of number. It was also ~defined to be a facility that would contain primarily active types of uses. Ball diamonds, soccer fields, hockey rinks, whatever those might be. The Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 26 ..""" feeling being that the more informal type of play activities will likely occur in yard situations, particularly where you have 2 1/2 acres surrounding your home and that this would be a little bit more geared towards perhaps the organized, not necessarily the league type of activities. Since that meeting, Lori and I have taken a look and have discussed that and are coming back this evening with four sites initially for you to cons ider and to discuss the mer i ts of and then I would like to take those and tie that to a discussion of how you would go about acquiring that and what might be a reasonable pol.icy with regard to the rural issue. The gray line that is on here is future alignment of TH 212. TH 212, 20 years ago people would have said it's going to be built tomorrow. We're standing here, actually it's probably more like 25 years ago, it still is not built but it is getting closer. They are officially mapping the right- of-way in the Chaska. Eden prairie is going that and I think Chanhassen will very soon begin the official mapping process for right-of-way which will secure that corridor for future highway development. Councilman Johnson: Not necessarily that corridor at this point. Mark Koegler: Whichever. A corridor. This is the preferred alignment right now. It is the one that is reflected on the majority of the plans. The reason it's on this map, it does set up a physical barrier, obviously, between certain portions of the community. Basically, the hashed areas here are existing, just from a size perspective, more substantial subdivisions. There are a number of other ones around but these are where~ there are kind of concentrations of existing housing units. What that sets up to be is we've got a fair amount of population that is right down in this area. These other ones are corning down the line now. Some of them have regional proximity or good proximity to Lake Ann Park. Some of them have good proximity obviously to the Arboretum and Minnewashta Regional Park. Ed Hasek: Can you show us about what a 15 acre park looks like on there? Mark Koegler: Patience. Ed Hasek: Just a size? Mark Koegler: I've got that. We looked at thi s area and targeted four areas, as I mentioned, which seem to be logical choices to locate a facility at least initial facility that's closer to where the population base is going to be and is, as a matter of fact. What we did then is took a hypothetical look at what a 15 acre parcel would look like in those areas. This is a 200 scale aerial. Here's Pioneer Trail. It continues across. Here's TH 101. This is site #1. Lake Riley shoreline being right up here. The configurations on these change and they may change depending on the ultimate facilities that you would want to see. If it is going to be primarily ball diamonds, it might be better to have more of a square facility than a rectangular facility but just to get an idea of the amount of land that is there and the terrain that is there and how well it will fit, this represents about 15 acres on that particular piece of property s~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 27 """'" that sits right in here. The total acreage of the Gagne property, as I guess it is commonly known, is about 134 acres. That gives you a little bit of a perspective. Ed Hasek: Okay, so that's like that small green area north of Carver Park, right? Up in Lake Minnewashta? That park on the larger map is kind of like Hermann size. Mark Koegler: Right, it's about that size. It literally would sit in here about like this. Ed Hasek: That 15 acres is based on projected population? Mark Koegler: The 15 acres is based on somewhat of a judgment call that I guess this group made a couple of months ago that basically said if we're going to provide some kind of neighborhood facilities, we have to have a minimum size threshold and that was defined to be about 15 acres. Ed Hasek: That's the minimum threshold? Mark Koegler: Minimum, correct. Larry Schroers: Isn't there some formula that you have set up? So many acres and so many units you need so much park space available? ,... Mark Koegler: There is within the Comprehensive Plan, there are general guides for neighborhood parks and the guide that has been used, I believe is 5 acres per 1,000 for neighborhood park facilities. That number is also in the City Dedication Ordinance which is a very cumbersome formula but that's a component of one of the formulas in the dedications Ordinance which hopefully you will see the wisdom to change one of these days. Larry Schroers: lots in there? In the existing subdivisions, are those also 2 1/2 acre Mark Koegler: No, in most cases they are larger than that. The Hesse Farm, for instance has lots that are 5 and probably in some cases closer to 10 acres. They've got some of these bluff lots along here which are extremely large and a lot of that is due to topography. A lot of it is quite steep but many of the lots in there are more on the order of 5 acres. 96th Street probably is closer to the 2 1/2 that is useable because the back portion of this gets very wet. These new ones here, just looking at them, are probably in a 2 1/2 to 5 acre range so lot sizes do vary a little bit. Ed Has e k: Was any par k de d i cat ion eve r t a ken 0 r cas h in 1 i e u 0 f fro m He sse Farm? Mark Koegler: I can't answer that. Hesse Farm, the first phase of that """",was proposed probably about 1975 or 1976. The subsequent phases of that that came in while I was with the City, I do not recall a park charge being Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 28 """'" collected at that time. That might mean that it was collected up front. I'm not certain. That was kind of a grandfathered approval because again, that fell just prior to the inaction of this Ordinance that I spoke of that prohibited the development. That one got in basically the way these are getting in now. Councilman Johnson: Your park dedication fees are being collected with building permits so if somebody builds a house in Hesse Farm today, they pay $415.00, or they pay on 1,300 squar~ foot lot or whatever. Mark Koegler: The Park Ordinance that is in effect right now and was effective at that time, actually states that the park charge is to be collected up front or, at the discretion of the Council, can be collected at the time of building permit issuance. I don't know back then whether they collected up front or whether they are collecting. I take it from Mr. Johnson's comments that they are probably are collecting it as units are bu i 1 t. Councilman Johnson: That's what Don said today. Mark Koegler: Okay, so they are still collecting fees from that particular development. Those fees are subject to the curre~t rate schedule. If you raise it to $450.00, they will be paying $450.00. Ed Hasek: How did that system get set up? Is that $415.00 based on some -' portion of the average cost of a standard sized lot in the City or how did that get started. $415.00 is free. Mark Koegler: Actually, it's not if you compare it to other cities, it's not free at all. It's on the high end of the spectrum. Lori Sietsema: It's on the high end of the spectrum, right. Councilman Johnson: It's a complex formula which we spent longer than you want to spend tonight on earlier in a meeting today in this room and it really ends up back into... Ed Hasek: Okay, then I'll let it slide. When I heard $415.00. Lori Sietsema: We will be looking at redoing that. I'm just doing the research on tha t now and see i ng wha t other ci ties are do i ng. Wha t the going rate is and what kind of policies other cities are doing. What I found so far is a lot of cities are redoing their park dedication ordinances. Champlain is in the middle. Plymouth just did theirs. Eagan is in the middle of doing theirs or just got done doing theirs so there are a lot of changes going on. The one that we have on the books right now came from Maplewood because that was where the City Manager was before he was here. Councilman Johnson: They don't do it on the price of the house or price 0 the lot, you have the same number of people maybe in this house or that ......" Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 29 ill"" house and the same park usage for both families so they both benefit the same. It would be hard pressed, in some people's opinions, to charge this guy $1,000.00 and this guy $400.00 when they are both going to have 3 kids and use the park the same. Ed Hasek: That's probaby true but if it's done with the idea that the land is going to be further developed in the future, for example you've got a guy who owns 10 acres and he pays $415.00, that stays in an estate for the next 150 years, that's one thing but if he builds on that with the intent that he's going to further subdivide, then the income continues to come. Otherwise that land is locked up so there are two ways of looking at it I guess. If you do it based on the value of the land, then there seems to be an across the board equity there someplace for me. Do you actually see it at that point? Jim Mady: Why don't we look at that issue when we start... Mark Koegler: To continue, these two parcels are shown here. Again, Pioneer Trail as it goes on across and TH 101, both of these are on the Halla Nursery property. I believe the development is known as Golf Park, actually occurs on both sides of the road. Essentially, we have two options within one development proposal. Those are both shown at about 15 acres and I think there are some pluses and minuses. Both of these sites are extremely flat and as you can see, they also contain a wide range of ~plant materials that are very evenly and incrementally spaced for a nursery, which can be an asset or liability depending on what you want to do with the property but it appears that it might be an asset to the seller that you may be asked to pay for. Jim Mady: Do we know exactly where TH 101 is going to be realigned down there? Mark Koegler: The only proposal, which has been a proposal for some time, to realign TH 101 will come righ through here. It basically just takes out these curves. Councilman Johnson: There is some strong talk to do much more than that. Mark Koegler: Yes. Again, it gets back to my comment that all of this is interrelated. The transportation section is being reviewed now by the Planning Commission. In fact they will have another session tomorrow night on that. There has been a long standing debate about the status of TH 101. It's not resolved at this point in time. Presumably it will be a minor arterial in the future. Jurisdiction is still a matter of debate. There will undoubtedly be some improvements. That's the same rherotic though that was occurring 8 or 9 years ago. It's not quite as bad as TH 212. Carol Watson: I wouldn't hold my breath regardless of what they say. '" Mark Koegler: The other site that we looked at was, what is listed over here as item 4, that's a piece of property that is actually in private Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 30 --' ownership. It's not part of any development proposal. It's a piece though that's somewhat more gentle rolling and does have the potential for park access. Coincidentally, one of the City's Planning Commissioner's actually owns it right now. That piece is right here at the end of 96th Street. 96th Street terminates right at this point so this area here, at the present time, this is an aerial that is 4 or 5 years old, is now platted. In fact the streets are in in this configuration so there is existing development contiguous to this to the south. Before we go into any definitive comments on which one of. those or which other ones might be potentials for identification as park sites, I think it's probably beneficial to talk a little about how you might acquire those. We went through a number of scenarios. The first reaction that the Chanhassen Park Commission had when it reviewed the Gagne property, was to require 10% dedication. That ends up being about 13 1/2 acres on that particular property which is probably questionably defensivable from a legal standpoint. Does that development really generate the need for 10% of that land area being parks? If not is there is a way to substantiate that, that's one issue but if it's an arbitrary 10%, the Attorney tends to get very, very nervous about that kind of position. As a result of that, we talked a little bit more about that last time and there seemed to be interest on the Commission that in a number of these... * A tape break occured at this point in the meeting. then collecting those monies would go out and actually acquire at what was determined to be the most advantageous site, a 15 acre park parcel and the"""" to subsequently develop that. That rationale is one that has a lot of merit but it probably also says that if you're preferred park site is within one of these developments, why collect the money and give the money back. Let's figure out a reasonable dedication for that development and if we've got more and we need to buy additional land, enter into negotiations at the time of the plat approval and hopefully acquire that land. In light of that, I just put together some scenarios. The idea that kind of cropped up was to take the $415.00 per unit and to collect that on each of the units that are built within the rural area. Then if you hit the case that I just described where you have a property, and let's just say hypothetically it's the Gagne property, where you would like to acquire a park, can you turn that around and say, Gagne's going to develop 42 lots. That's going to be worth .so many dollars. Instead of collecting those dollars, can we take an equivalent amount of land? State Statutes read that for most enabling legislation for park ordinances, that you can accept cash in lieu of land. The question I posed to the Attorney today was can you accept land in lieu of cash? He thought that was probably something that could be supported if it had a rationale behind it. Ed Hasek: Demand the land? Mark Koegler: You can demand the land. That's not a question but the question is can you arrive at the amount of land by first saying we want the cash and then working it backwards. Let me run through this and I think that will make a little more sense. Site *1 is the Gagne piece, 134~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 31 ~ acres. 42 units at $415.00 per unit is a total cash collection potential of $17,430.00. What I did then, based upon a land acquisition cost of either $2,000, $3,000.00 or $4,000 per acre, turned that around and said, okay how much land can we buy for a total of $17,430.00 at those various prices per acre? Ed Hasek: So you're taking the raw farm land at that point? Mark Koegler: Correct. The Ordinance talks of it being raw land, not improved land. Basically, the only improvements you see going down into these areas are streets anyway. There are no utility improvements. Raw land basis, on that particular one, if you can buy it for $2,000.00 per acre, you can get 8.7 acres. If you can buy it for $3,000.00 it goes to 5.8 and at $4,000.00 it goes to 4.4 acres. Just as an item of interest, I've also shown the percentage of the total development. We were talking before about acquiring initially about acquiring 10% was the Park Commission's recommendation. At the $2,000.00 per acre, you're actually acquiring 6 1/2% and that drops progressively down to 3.3% at the $4,000.00 per acre pricerange. What I also did today was talk to a couple of realtors that sell land within this area to get an idea of what current raw land was going for. The indication was that in many cases, the $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 range is pretty accurate. It could be either way, it could be in the middle. There are some exceptions and it is my understanding that the Gagne tract is one of them. I don't know how long that property has ~been for sale but it currently has a price tag of $7,000.00 per acre. Now, whether or not the market will support that and whether or not an appraisal would ever come in at that value I think is very much suspect but nonethe- less, that is the asking price. Councilman Johnson: It's pretty much wooded isn't it? Mark Koegler: Actually, quite a bit of it is open. tilled and quite a bit of it to the south is tilled. of woodland along the shoreline portion. All of this area is There is quite a bit Ed Hasek: Does that parcel go down to the lake? Mark Koegler: Yes, it does. Ed Hasek: That's what he's selling. He's selling the woods and the lake but that's still part of the total parcel. I'm sure you're right. If they would just appraise what's up next to pioneer Trail there, irrespective of the rest, it would be $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. Mark Koegler: The overall ask i ng pr ice is $7,000.00 per acre on tha t. Again, I think that is somewhat suspect. I've also been informed, not told what the number was, but the Halla tracts, which are these pieces, carry even a higher price than that does. I can't explain the rationale unless they think the trees are extremely valuable. ~Ed Hasek: How long as Gagne had that piece? Do we know? Quite a while? Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 32 Mark Koegler: Yes, years and and years. At least 10 years that I know of~ He's a landowner in a number of municipalities. Ed Hasek: He usually rolls his land. If the market doesn't look good, he'll roll it. He's not going to hang onto a bad piece. Mark Koegler: His aim undoubtedly is to sell the property. I don't know if you've been following the issue of the new regional park that they're trying to locate up in the Minnetrista area but there was an article in the paper the other day that mentioned that' the only willing land seller so far that had come forward with park plans was Vern Gagne so he does want to divest his holdings apparently. At any rate, if you apply those kinds of dollar figures and either the $3,000.00 or $4,000.00 seems to be kind of in the range. Those are the amounts of land that you could acquire. I think that says a number of things. One is that probably if you were to go back and make a recommendation that we need to acquire 4 1/2 to almost 6 acres, that seems to be a fairly defensivable position. Again, I asked that specifically to the Attorney this morning, is that a way to come about tryi ng to quan t i fy a number and he thought tha t perhaps it was. Let me run through the rest of these quickly also. Sites 2 and 3 have been broken out separately but they are really one so why don't I just focus on the combination there with 2 and 3. The Halla piece ~s approximately 104 acres. I didn't have an exact acreage number of that. 37 units all together. There is 18 on the one side of the road and 19 on the other. It ends up being about $15,355.00. Again, you can see at the $2,000.00, $3,000.00 and $4,000.00 per acre level, how much land could be acquired. -' It ranges from 7.7 down to 3.8 acres. Site 4 is one that is a little bit out of step with the rest of them in that there is presently no subdivision plan that has been proposed for that nor is there likely to be in the future so that would be an outright purchase. At the $2,000.00, $3,000.00 and $4,000.00 level, again, you're looking at a purchase cost between $30,000.00 and $60,000.00. What I've shown on the bottom there is the corresponding number of building permits that the City would have to issue, presumably they might be rural permits, to collect enough revenue to justify the purchase of the land and that ranges from 73 to 145 permits. Ed Hasek: That's under the current 2 1/2 acre? Mark Koegler: That's under the current $415.00 per unit. It's all based on that unit charge. There is a real pitfall in looking at how you are going to acquire land because the point the City doesn't know right now, and I don't know that all landowners know either, is how many of these are going to come to pass. I had a conversation with Mr. Halla after the last meeting and he seemed to be indicating he certainly was in no hurry to develop that property. Under the City's Ordinance I believe he has to produce some development within the first 2 years but that can be a matter of putting a short section of street through and creating minimal number of platted lots and then trying to market those so some of these may sit either vacant or with very minimal development on them for a number of years. The reason obviously that is significant is that if you are counting on the building permit revenue to acquire land, it may not be """"'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 33 ,...., there and the Ordinance does have the option right now of requiring these land developers to pay the park dedication up front but given the past practice of collecting at building permit time, that probably politically would be a difficult thing to do. Ed Hasek: You're saying that it might be politically impossible to collect it from the developer up front? Mark Koegler: Yes. Bear in mind, these developers by and large might be farmers, conservation minded landowners, or whatever that feel like they're trying to protect their interest. You could make the argument that they have to decide whether they are farmers or they are land developers. That's something that could be argued but in the real world, given the fact that the City has continually collected this money at the time of building permit issuance, it's probably not going to be possible to go back and force the small landowner, farmer, resident of Chanhassen, to ante up this kind of money up-front. I'm sure that's in his proforma? Gloria Corpian: Would we even be interested in developing a park system somewhere where there were no buildings and maintain a parcel that wasn't being used? Mark Koegler: I would doubt it. That's a very good point. .'" Councilman Johnson: If they don't develop, we don't want to develop but my personal opinion is that we need to think of the future and have it set aside, whatever and well into the future, these 2 1/2 acre lots in the year 2010, 2020 whatever it turns out that sewer does come to this area, these 2 1/2 acre lots will be further subdivided to 1/2 acre or whatever lots and all of a sudden we no longer have 42 lots. We now have 120 lots or 200 lots and 200 families and so we have enough park for those 200 families in the future? Jim Mady: One of the things we were looking at maybe 4 or 5 months ago was two concerns. One is that Lake Ann, even with this proposed expansion may not be large enough to hand Ie the need s of the Ci ty when it comes to act i ve sports. Then we need to acquire an additional piece of property that is large enough to handle ball diamonds, more than two diamonds. The only open land really that is available, that meets that need we felt was down in the southeastern part of the City. What we're trying to do really is identify parcels at this time that would possibly be available and see what they are going to cost. We're not at this time proposing that we acquire any land. We're looking at maybe obtaining an option to purchase possibly or something of that nature, or if the land becomes available through the use of a development going in, then getting it if the price is right but we're definitely not proposing getting 15 acres of land right now. Gloria Corpian: Because today's prices would differ from tomorrow's too that we're looking at. ,...... Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 34 Jim Mady: What we're concerned about and when this first came up, Dale Geving came to one of meetings and voiced his concern that land down in this part of the rural part of Chanhassen was developing rather quickly or being sold off into smaller chunks and if we were going to find the 15+ acres of land, we would have to do it in the near future and that we should be looking for that opportunity. ....." Mark Koegler: In the process of putting the update for the Comprehensive Plan together, this rural issue is going to be receiving attention where it didn't before. It didn't need to before because these kind of issues were not evident at that time but in doing so, we'll have to address these kinds of concerns and I think your point is very valid. You don't want to end up with a park facility that is serving no users. On the other hand, you can't crystal ball all of that. If you determine that the most appropriate site for a park is on either parcels 1, 2 or 3, you have development proposed right now on 1, 2 and 3. You have leverage right now to get a dedication from that developer to start that park off and then to make arrangements or get options or whatever to purchase the balance of that as needed so it is somewhat speclative on what will happen. There is some demand in that area at the present time undoubtedly from the existing households. It's not as though there is no population base there to begin with. I think that adds credance to locating something in that area. Ed Hasek: To what extent is Lake Ann going to be expanded? Is it the three ball fields and half a cornfield like everybody has been talking about for the past few years? ~ Lori Sietsema: We just acquired a 20 acre parcel right next to where the ball fields are right now. Ed Hasek: A long narrow piece? Lori Sietsema: Yes, so what we're proposing to do is more or less a mirror image of what's there. Ed Hasek: Is there enough room on that for the ball fields? Lori Sietsema: Yes. Ed Hasek: So there is going to be three more ball fields? Lori Sietsema: And a soccer field. Jim Mady: A soccer field on the bottom half along TH 5. Ed Hasek: Okay, so the ball fields are going to be more up towards the beach then, coming back that way? Lori Sietsema: They will be right next to where 3 is. It will be a mirror image. ......", Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 35 '" Ed Hasek: That then is the main central facility that you're looking at? Lori Sietsema: Right. Ed Hasek: We're going to have one 15 acre, plus or minus, facility in the south, proposal it off for another and I guess the only way you would know where the development is going would be based on that interceptor that is being putting in. Is the contract being written to preclude hook-up to that thing by the City? Mark Koegler: Yes. Ed Hasek: Is that why it's going to 10 acres? Mark Koegler: Yes. Ed Hasek: So Chanhassen gets zero on that interceptor? Mark Koegler: Today. Ed Hasek: And that's only to the year 2000? Is there any kind of discussion beyond that? The one that's heading out to Blue Lake I'm assuming. "'Carol Watson: Supposedly after that point we will be able to begin to use it but they didn't want us to prematurely develop the area along that interceptor so in the agreement, when we didn't have to take the Lake Virginia course main, we were forced to agree not to touch that interceptor. Ed Hasek: That's the year 2000 so that's only really 10 years away. How often do you have to update the Comp Plan? Every 10 years? Every 5 years? Mark Koegler: It's done normally by most communities about every 5 years. There are provisions in the law, that if I remember correctly, require it to be updated every 10 years. There is an important distinction I think you've got to make. The MUSA line that you see on there right now essentially in it's present form, originally was the sewer line for 1990. That has not gone to the year 2000 so don't assume that by the year 2000 magically that will be expanded. It mayor may not be. Ed Hasek: I know, it's based on development around the city. In fact, sometimes it's hard to develop inside that if somebody else is putting pressure on for development where it's actually needed. Mark Koegler: It's based on development but it also controls development. Ed Hasek: Is there any public access within .our City on Lake Riley? Lori Sietsema: No. ~ Ed Hasek: Was there any reason why the park wasn't targeted on the lake? Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 36 ......", Lori Sietsema: There is a public access on the Eden prairie side. Ed Hasek: Is it just an access to the lake? Mark Koegler: No, they have a park there. Carol Watson: A real nice one for boat access. They maintain it. They hire the people and it's beautifully done. Ed Hasek: Is there any other, within the other communities around there, is there another large park or facility like we're proposing to put into this one? Sometimes you're looking in your own living room and failing to realize that there is a whole house around you and there are other things going on. Jim Mady: Eden prairie is doing something to expand their parks into that area. Our concern is that we've got to be able to have some parkland there because there definitely is going to be a need in 10 years. We feel there is going to be a need in 10 years down the road. We're not saying put a park in in the next 5 years. We want to be able to have the option of doing it and we're afraid if we don't go now to do that, it's not going to be there 5 years from now. Ed Hasek: Have you had any discussion with the park board in Eden prairie as to what their plans are for that area? I'm wondering how big of a par~ they have targeted down there and exactly where it's at because if we've ~ got two of them targeted within a mile of each other, all of a sudden we've got a very rural area of the city developed in 2 1/2 acres with two of the biggest parks in town. Mark Koegler: Portions of that area in Eden prairie are not sewered either. They are outside of the MUSA line. The MUSA line does meander through Eden prairie as well. They are not facing this Ordinance change situation that Chanhassen is and correspondingly they do not have this as an issue right now. They are at at least 10 acres and they may be larger for a minimum and to my knowledge, I met with their Planner a week ago, don't have plans for facilities. The closest facility they've got targeted I think is over by about CR 4. Just west of CR 4 and where TH 212 comes in, they have proposed a substantial neighborhood park there that is going to basically be a soccer complex from the drawings that I saw of it. It is very heavy into soccer with a couple of ball diamonds. It's probably a 20 plus acre park facility but that is fairly removed from the area that we're talking about. Ed Hasek: Do we have an opportunity, and it doesn't look like there is, are those three different owners right there or just two? 1, 2 and 3. Mark Koegler: Two. Ed Hasek: 2 and 3 are Halla and 1 is Gagne. .....,,' Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 37 ,...., Mark Koegler: Gagne, two Halla's and the fourth one is owned by another party. Ed Hasek: So we don't have any place where we could assemble maybe the acreage that we feel necessary by taking 10% from several landowners? Mark Koegler: That was my first question when I was informed that all of these were coming in is did we have a couple of them that were contiguous that we could package them together. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are roads separating any place where we have abutting. Ed Hasek: Just a general comment, is there any reason why we shouldn't be taking the 10%? If we want it targeted at one, it seems to make the most sense. If we're talking about ballparks, we're going to have to tear out Halla's beautiful trees anyway so 1 seems to make the most sense right now. It's right on a collector or at least a main road of some sort. TH 101 has got to be a collector doesn't it? Of course, 3 is too I suppose. They all are but at least we don't have the tree hassle there. 10% is what 13 acres which is a ballpark close to what we want. Mark Koegler: Let me respond to that for a moment. The 10% number is one that has only been tossed out as a guide. The Chanhassen Ordinance does not say anything about 10%. It contains this cumbersome, complex formula to ,...., determine what the land demand is. In a lot of cases according to Don, and I think Don is the only one who thoroughly understands it, it works out to be an equivalent to be about 10% in the urban area. Ed Hasek: Not in the rural? Mark Koegler: Not in the rural. Ed Hasek: What does it work out to in the rural? Mark Koegler: It is a very low equivalency. Ed Hasek: That's why you were saying let's change it. Jim Mady: We were talking around 2 to 2 1/2% in earlier meetings. Ed Hasek: You were trying to get that? Jim Mady: We've been talking about that. Mark Koegler: I think a memorandum th'at I had put together for one of the previous meetings talked about looking at general guides. The American Planning Association's predecesor group puts out model ordinances and one of the model ordinances that was developed had a sliding scale of park dedication that was related to lot size and that is one of the only references I've seen to that. That showed for example that a 15,000 ~foot lot, their recommended model ordinance park dedication was 8%. that jumped to 80,000 square feet, which is still slightly under the square When 2 1/2 Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 38 acres, that jumped down to 1 1/2%. Again, reflecting the basic thinking that as lot sizes get larger and you have much more open space, the need for park is not nearly as critical. .....,., Ed Hasek: The only pitfall with that though is that once you take 180 acres, divide it up into 18-10 acre lots and further divide that and subdivide it and develop it, you get down to 1/2 acre lots or 1/3 acre lots and at that point you've lost your opportunity to put a park in there because you can't take 50% of a 10 acre. parcel. Jim Mady: But we can't require the present developer to pay for what we may want to do 20 years down the road when they further subdivide it. So that's why we have to look at acquisition. Ed Hasek: Am I right or wrong or don't a lot of cities, they'll just take a straight percentage. Mark Koegler: written. Some of them do. Depending on how their ordinances are Ed Hasek: Have there been any real legal hassles with any of them? Mark Koegler: There has only been one Supreme Court case that has tested that issue and it was a case brought against the City of Bloomington. It didn't focus specifically on the 10%. What it said is that it had to be very well founded and if you just said we need 10%, that was likely to be ....",- judged to be arbitrary and would not be upheld. Again, this comes from the City Attorney as part of our conversation again today. There is a real concern in just saying we need so many acres and therefore this guy should give us that many acres. If that does not equate to the demand that he is actually putting on the park system of the City of Chanhassen, he is brings suit he is likely to prevail. Councilman Johnson: Can't we consider future, ultimate demand? Mark Koegler: Yes. Councilman Johnson: How can you predict ultimate demand? Mark Koegler: You can't totally. Councilman Johnson: It may always stay 2 1/2 acre lots. Mark Koegler: Or as you said, the likely scenario is 30 years from now, they will be split. Many cities on rural plats will require the subdivider to place housing pads such that you can corne back in and rep1at or subdivide lots to get additional lots in there. Ed Hasek: Unlike Hesse Farm. ...."" Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 39 ifII"'" Carol Watson: We found it difficult to say that. To try and plan someone's house so that when they subdivide their land, the road will go through correctly. Ed Hasek: Orono is going through that right now. Exactly that issue. I just got done putting together that type of thing for them out there. Basically, we allowed this developer to go and put in 2 acre lots with the intent that he would want sewer with the intent that in the future it is going to be subdividable, we'll offer him the sewer but he has to show us a plat that will subdivide those lots and the homes have to be built with the proper setbacks for future subdivision. Mark Koegler: Famous ghost plat. Ed Hasek: All of these are ghost plats that we're talking about right now. I would bet 10 to 1 that none of them are going to happen. They will come back again and will continue to as long as they make the minimum improvement, like you said, will just keep it running. Mark Koegler: This is an example of where you have a conflict of what you want to do long term and what the realities of the existing situation are. When somebody comes in with a 2 1/2 acre plat, you have to review that plat on the merits of what you have required them to submit which is 2 1/2 acres of land. You can't somehow anticipate that in the future they are going to ~do this or that thereby doubling or quadrupling their demand or whatever so I think reasonably the only way you can guard against that, which is what I think this group is trying to do, that is to define a minimum threshold of what's needed and to set in gear the framework of how that can be acquired. If that means that the Gagne piece is required to dedicate 5 acres or 4 acres or 3 or whatever the number is, and then simultaneously the City enter into discussions with them about acquiring the rest or getting an option on the rest, the option presumably would be the preferred method because that may buy you 5 or 10 years for all we know. We don't know how these things are going to proceed but that is specifically the intent. How do you protect that long term interest and that is what this group is trying to do. Jim Mady: One of the things we may want to look at is a suggestion Tom Hamilton came up with of asking a developer if he would be willing to give us either a reduced price or possibly even additional land besides what we can legally require and then hang his name on the park. Larry Schroers: Is it the purpose of this Commission that we want to make acquisition of the parcel rather than getting the $415.00 per unit or wahtever to use that money on improvements elsewhere like Lake Ann for lighting or something? Is seems to me that we wouldn't be getting as good a deal on the property if it sells for $4,000.00 an acre because we get a smaller percent of that. Is that correct? "......Mark Koegler: That's correct but again, that's tied back to presumably a defensivable position that that's what the land costs and that's a real Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 40 ......" number that's known. It's not an arbitrary number. We're not saying in this scenario that let's acquire 4.4 acres. Well, where did you get the 4.4? This way we've got a defensivable way as to how we arrived at that number. I don't know if that answers your question specifically or not but that's the intent and to try and quantify what is a reasonable amount that can be collected and then in turn what can be acquired? This whole thing, as you can tell, is a very complicated issue. It's not black and white by any means when it comes to the rural area. Larry Schroers: It seems to me like itis going to be hard to decide whether or not we want the property or the money basically depending on if we justify the use. Jim Mady: I don't think that decision is going to be quite as tough. We first have to decide whether or not we need to acquire any parcels at this point and if we do decide we need to acquire parcels, the opportunity exists now to acquire some of the land through the park dedication fees. I think what we're going to be looking at coming up at these proposals, we're probably going to be looking at taking the money first off at least until we decide what we want to do with the land. Mark Koegler: That's the unfortunate aspect I guess of timing on this. It would have been nice if the targeted date for the ordinance change would have been June 15th or something because you would have been through the park element by then and you might have decided definitively that yes, we ~ want a neighborhood park here and we want a neighborhood park here and then you can work towards that. Unfortunately, the cart is in front of the horse here in that you have to make a decision and a recommendation in a timely fashion to the Council on what dedication you're going to make a recommendation on for all of these subdivisions that are coming in. I think you've got about 3 or 4 of them on your agenda yet this evening. Gloria Corpian: Can we make a recommendation without even seeing the area? It sits here on a piece of paper and say that looks good. Jim Mady: We usually do. Curt Robinson: Do we have to make a recommendation tonight? Okay. Larry Schroers: That kind of goes back to what you were talking about with the Attorney earlier today was that if we can buy back, isn't that what you were saying earlier? Mark Koegler: I guess technically you are buying it back. There won't be any exchange of dollars. We use the dollar figure to arrive at what his proportionate share of land dedication should be and in this case, if you use Gagne at $4,000.00 per acre, it is 4.4 acres. The thing is defensivable for you to go back and say vern, old buddy, we don't want any of your money, we want 4.4 acres and then we want to purchase an additional acre or we want an option on a purchase of additional acres at this point in time to bring us up to the 15 number or whatever. -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 41 J1I""'" Ed Hasek: With the hope that the appraisal on that particular piece doesn't come in at $6,000.00 which would leave us down around 2 acres. Mark Koegler: I think probably a direction in that vein would best be stated kind of here's our preliminary recommendation, have the City Council or the City Staff look at dollar numbers and if there is any substantial change from that, it would probably have to come back to you. You are operating a little bit in a void or a vacumm of information and that's the way typically, unfortunately these things work out. Gloria Corpian: You've got your pictures drawn in certain areas there now, could the landowners say I won't give you that but I'll give you this? Mark Koegler: They could and that's possible and that may be acceptable to you. Councilman Johnson: Carol, let me ask you this question. There's a January 15th cut-off of putting in the applications and there is a June 15th cut- off for certain actions to be taken... * A tape break occurred at this point in the meeting. Carol Watson: Dave and Don Halla, 11m guessing but I suspect that all they did was do it because they just didn't want to be locked into the 10 acres. """They don't have any intention of subdividing that land and creating lots the day after tomorrow. They aren't developers anyway. They would have to sell it. There again, the price is higher than Gagne's. I don't think that is going to happen very quickly and I don't think they even want to. I think they will do the minimum of what they have to in order to maintain their right to 2 1/2 acre lots and keep us quiet. Councilman Johnson: We just tabled this one until January of 1988. Whether there is a possibility, if these guys really don't want to develop, they want to maintain their 2 1/2 acre rights. Right, because of TH 212. Ed Hasek: He's still under the rider and he doesn't even have to do anything. Councilman Johnson: That's correct. Because of TH 212 and how that is going to affect him and how it is to the City's advantage if we allow him this 2 1/2 because he could go there and force us to buy TH 212 right away now or he's going to subdivide that first. Ed Hasek: Has there been much action along either of those TH 212 corridors by landowners? Typically when a highway goes through, somebody is out there buying land at intersections because they know the zoning is going to change. It seems to me that there ~eally isn't a need to acquire the land at any particular spot right now. We know that we need a park down there. Whether it's where 1 is, where 3 is, where 4 is or where some ~other parcel of land is. If there is another large parcel of land. We know the development is going to be there but we don't have to target this Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 42 .....,.". park in the middle. It's a large park. It's not something you have to be able to walk to. Certainly Gagne isn't going to give us the entire frontage along pioneer Trail. He's going to want some access in there I'm sure. Maybe what we ought to do is just let it go for right now. We'll say yes, we're going to take the dedication when it comes down and my push is going to be to up that dedication. Carol Watson: I think we would have plenty of time, at some point in time when Gagne's property sells before it's subdivided to make that determination. . Jim Mady: I think what we need to do then is make a motion to accept cash in 1 ieu of land and ask the Council that once the development starts to go through that we have the opportunity to take a look at a large parcel of land. A 15, 25 acre of land. Carol Watson: I can't see how we can even decide on this. None of these properties have sold. We don't know where any houses are going to be. I don't see how we could decide where we even wanted it. Ed Hasek: I think we could decide if we really had something in mind but it sounds like we've got kind of a program and about a size that we want and a location that's generally in this vicinity but I guess I just don't see the push to really tie it down that tightly right now. Perhaps he's right. Maybe we should take cash in lieu of with the recommendation to. the Council that we be allowed to look at those developments in case there-' is something that we really feel that we need or would want based on forecasted residential development. Carol Watson: Anything that g~ts done comes back here anyway. Lori Sietsema: We're at the sketch plan process right now. This is the only time we see it. Ed Hasek: Does that make sense Mark? Have you been pushing for it for any particular reason? Mark Koegler: No, if there was one clear cut best choice, I would advise you of that but this issue is so gray that there is a lot of ways to go. Still though, the inherent danger in that one is if Mr. Gagne proceeds as he is going to do presumably, and comes in with all of his plat information, he could have platted established lots by the time you decide we need a park there and that's going to reflect on the price. Ed Hasek: It could with the except that the Planner, in discussion with him, and I'm assuming that the City still encourages people to come in and talk to them before they go ahead and final plat, we have the whole preliminary plat process to go through which he must be just starting right now. Mark Koegler: Yes, or about to start. -' Park and Rec Co~~ission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 43 ,.... Ed Hasek: So he's still on a hook. If the planner is under the understanding that we're looking at something down there, and something flashes, it's up to the Staff to recommend to us and to look at things too right? Mark Koegler: The fallacy in that is that at the beginning point when the preliminary plat is reviewed and approved, you are asked to determine what the park needs are in that subdivision. Your policy that you're looking at right now says that we're going to coll~ct dollars from each and everyone of those units that goes in. That is the policy that apparently may be enacted and presumably would be transferred onto that particular subdivision. At that point in time, he's done with his park review. If you want to come back later and buy land from him, you're at his mercy. Ed Hasek: Gagne. But what I'm saying is I don't think necessarily because of the amount of undeveloped land that there is down there, that necessarily Gagne's is the one. He's going to come back. If it doesn't develop he's going to have to reapply in two years or he's going to have to start his plat and he's going to have to outlot everything. How does the City work the development? Is he allowed to plat the whole thing and not develop any roads or anything? Mark Koegler: He can get a preliminary plat approved on the entire thing but the final plat probably only for the first division which might only be ~how many lots it is with everything else being put into one outlot or a series of outlots. Ed Hasek: Have we got hooks into the subsequent phases then at all? Mark Koegler: Typically, no. Once you've approve the preliminary that sets the tone for development. Ed Hasek: Until he gets one developed. Mark Koegler: See, that's where it gets tricky. Ed Hasek: How long can we hold onto 1 with developing 2, 3, 4 or 5? Carol Watson: He can go on for a long time. Jim Mady: All he is required to do now is have a final plat on a partial development in in two years. Ed Hasek: What does the City typically require for Phase I? 10% of the development? Mark Koegler: There is no specified percentage. Ed Hasek: If a guy comes in and says he's going to develop 4 lots out of ~15~ for Phase 1, is that acceptable? Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 44 Mark Koegler: It may well be. Ed Hasek: Has it been the policy of the City to accept things like that or do they typically say, this doesn't show us enough of a commitment? ~ Councilman Johnson: We're in new territory. We're in virgin territory right now with these developments because the switch between one Zoning Ordinance to the new Zoning Ordinance and people coming in. We've got the previous Council made some special exclusions to allow what's happening right now where you can go to January 15th to make your application and June 15th to do certain other things. This is something that has never been done before in the city so there is no precedent. Ed Hasek: The question comes up, you've obviously taken a look at this. You've got the aerials and things and you've obviously studied it. Has there been a push by Lori, by the previous Park Commission, by yourself as a planner for the City, by the Planning Commission or Council to locate a park down there or has it just been kind of? Carol Watson: Where do you want it? I'm serious. You looked at it, where do you think it should be? Mark Koegler: You made the statement earlier that concurs with my thinking. I think there are a number of parcels down there that are suitable. As I said earlier this evening, some of those fall within these pieces of property and some of them don't and undoubtedly as of this point~ we have not investigated all of the reasonable choices. The issue that had to be brought to you this evening was one that involves timing and that is, if for some reason you particularly are attached to the Gagne piece, or the Halla property, now's the time to act. If you want to say, we think there are other options out there. We're not going to take those. We'll look to some other ones. That's another course that you can take. Jim Mady: I guess I'm of the opinion that we maybe have to gamble a little bit on this and just guess that we're going to have the opportunity further down the road. I don't 1 i ke do i ng someth i ng with a gun to my head and know darn well that we send it to City Council and tell them we're going to take Gagne's piece of property, we're probably going to get 4 acres and we're goi ng to ask for another 10 and we're goi ng to buy it at $40,000.00, tha t is going to get shot down. I personally don't think that would be reasonable for us to do something of that nature. I know my vote is going to be to take cash in lieu of and suggest that maybe the Planner, when he talks to Gagne, that if they are interested in dedicating some of their land to us and get their name put on it, that we might be willing to take a look at that but we're going to have to gamble at this point and not take some land right now. We just can't. Carol Watson: The Gagne property is so far east. It's way over on the Eden prairie border. It's not a particularly centrally located area. It's just inside the City limits virtually. He's going to put a real nice with it wrapped around a lot of roads and everything because he's going to~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 45 ,..-.. sell lots on the road first so he's going to end up building streets up the kazoo before he builds anything. This piece we're considering certainly is not going to be his first sale. It might be real cheap by the time we make that decision. Ed Hasek: It's like Hesse Farm. When Hesse Farm first sold their lots, I think they were selling for like $25,000.00 roughly. The last lots that sold were selling for $100,000.00 and that's what is going to happen on that parcel right there. The only thing it doesn't have is the bluff overlook and that's what the people in Hesse Farm really bought. Councilman Johnson: Gagne is going to get some good prices along the lake, his wooded area. His cornfield and his swamp. Ed Hasek: That will kind of slide back a little. You'll be surprised. People like to live next to big ones. It helps the value of your house too. Mark Koegler: Just as a comparison in land values. These lots down here are selling in the neighborhood of $25,000.00 to $28,000.00. Ed Hasek: How big? Mark Koegler: 2 1/2 to 3 or there abouts. The lots up in this area, and you probably know the name of that subdivision. I don't recall what it is. ~"There were lots in there that started at about $28,000.00 and some of the rear lots that sat up high that had... Carol Watson: Lake Lucy Highlands. That was Stellar's property. Mark Koegler: Okay, some of those lots sold in the neighborhood of $67,000.00 plus a $7,000.00 street assessment. Ed Hasek: $415.00 a unit. Councilman Johnson: That's another thing to be decided upon. That $415.00 is based on urban where you have 15,000 square foot lots and smaller. Another thing for you all to work on, I don't know if it's tonight, I don't know if it's on your agenda at all but needs to be but is how do we assess what dollar amount do we go for for 2 1/2 acre and 10 acre, whatever lots taking into accout future needs and has to be taken into account, that's where Mark maybe would have helped you. Ed Hasek: I think it ought to be a dedication at the time that the building fee comes in but why set it at $415.00? Why not base it on the cost of the lot? Councilman Johnson: That's for you all to decide and recommend to the City Council in the future. ~Jim Mady: Mark, first off, do you have any more? Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 46 Mark Koegler: No. The only issue that is before you first of all is to set the policy. ....."I Ed Hasek: Set the policy for these rural area? Mark Koegler: For the rural area. Councilman Johnson: How do you define as setting the policy? Does that include cost or whatever because I don'~ think they have enough information at this time. Lori Sietsema: How generally are we going to treat rural subdivisions and made a recommendation to send it to City Council? That's basically what. Mark Koegler: I would suggest that you have some kind of statement of intent that you foresee the need for neighborhood park facilities within the rural area and in order to accommodate that need, you feel the most equitable basis would be to collect the cash per unit charge in lieu of land dedication and then to allow the city time during the comprehensive planning process and normal planning routines to go back and identify sites that should be acquired for park purposes. Ed Hasek: I don't feel badly about saying that we'll take cash in lieu of right now but I certainly don't want every developer who comes in figuring that he's got cash in lieu of up front because that really the way it sits right now. He's getting it for free and any developer would pay cash in ~ lieu of. If the policy says that, then he's going to take that to court saying, you told me this what I had to do and that's all I want to do and now you tell me you want 10 acres of property. Where does that come across in your policy so we have to kind of protect our rears. Councilman Johnson: In your motion you don't want to specify or you may want to reserve back that you want to look at what that cash will be. Mark Koegler: You do that annually anyway by resolution. Ed Hasek: Okay, so that's something comes up every March or something and it's just one of those policy things. Lori Sietsema: Exactly. We usually do in January but with this whole process and with the Comp Plan updating process, we're trying to tie it in all together. Ed Hasek moved, Jim Mady seconded to recommend that within the general rural use area of the City that the City accept cash in lieu of payment for park dedication with the stipulation that at the time developments are brought forward the Park and Recreation Commission is allowed to review each and everyone of them for potential park sites. All voted in favor and motion carried. ....,,;' Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 47 ,..,.., Councilman Johnson: Paraphrase your motion, when you look at Robert's Rules of Order, whereas we find, therefore I move and what Mark said in the front is that the whereas we recognize there is going to be a need for park land in the general rural use area. That's how you get your intent into your motion if you want to play with rules of order. Jim Mady: We've been pretty loose at the Park Commission. Gloria Corpian: It hasn't been all right on tonight has it? Jim Mady: It very seldom is. Councilman Johnson: The Council is pretty loose too with Rules of Order. Rural Subdivision Reviews: - Lake Park Estates - Great-prains Golf Estates - Country Hills---- - Timberwood Lori Seitsema: Your motion says that as they come in you review each one and you have so... ",.... Carol Watson: Basically, we want to review these because you showed this is what we talked about. Jim Mady: Let me go over each one. Lake Park Estates is item 12(a). This is the Gagne property. One of the concerns I have with it is the potential trails. Specifically along TH 101. I believe that corridor is probably important. Lori Sietsema: This is the parcel we're talking about where the site #1 with that 15 acres is. TH 101 is here. He's talking about putting in a street right through the middle with this being the lake and kind of a wooded area in here. What I am proposing is Eden prairie has a trail along this street. This is supposed to be straighten out here. It has a trail along the street that stops somewhere over here and I believe as they improve this, that it is going to go all the way through so we are proposing to connect into their trail and ask for an off the street trail easement here and also a off the street trail easement through the main street of the development. Not on the cul-de-sacs but along the main streets. Larry Schroers: Do we know what kind of trail we're talking about? Is this a multi-use trail or is this a paved bicycle trail or what kind of trail is that? ~Lori Sietsema: As we get the trail plan all together, Mark's working on that too as a part of the Comp Plan updating, will be identified at that Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 48 --' time how we're going to deal with each one of these trails. I would guess that this would be paved and probably this would be too on one side and just have it on one side of the street but those are the kind of things we'll be talking about when we get that and that will be the next meeting. Larry Schroers: Is there enough easement there that you could, if you wanted to, run a cross country ski trail alongside of the pavement? Is there enough room for that? Ed Hasek: They're asking for something beyond the right-of-way. The trail would actually be on their right-of-way. Lori Sietsema: Yes, we're asking for land beyond the right-of-way of the road there so it would just be as much as we wanted to ask for. 20 feet would give us a bike path and enough room for a cross country trail. Ed Hasek: Are those going to be platted as outlots? Is that how they are typically done now? Is this something that you've done in the past, these easements? Lori Sietsema: Yes, they are usually outlots. Ed Hasek: They are platted as outlots then so the homeowner adjacent to it doesn't own that land. It is an outlot within the plat? -' Lori Sietsema: We do a combination. Some of them we've gotten easements where the person who owns the lot actually owns it. What we prefer to do is get a deed for that trail. Ed Hasek: Is that taken as park dedication then? Lori Sietsema: The easements have not generally been given park dedication credit but outlots are. It just depends on who you're working with. It just isn't always the same. Ed Hasek: Is there a legal problem with taking an easement? Is that why the City prefers outlots? Lori Sietsema: We prefer outlots because then as a property line they have to comply with setbacks. An easement, they can build right up, an inch away from the easement as long as they don't build on the easement. If it's a property line then they have to be so many feet back and that gives you a buffer if you're walking your dog. Carol Watson: They don't build their garage or something right up against. Lori Sietsema: That way they don't feel like they've got people walking right next to their windows. Ed Hasek: Does the easement kick out the normal setbacks then? If you've got a 35 foot front yard setback and we take 29 feet of it, put the trail u~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 49 ,-.. against the road anyway, or 10 feet is enough for a trail I guess, that doesn't kick out that 35 foot setback from the right-of-way does it? You're talking about building right up against it. Carol Watson: But if you own 10 feet of that, they could get awfully close. It would be part of that setback area wouldn't it. Lori Sietsema: If it's an easement, they can build right up next to it. Ed Hasek: They could potentially if we took, for example 35 feet in the front as an easement, it would take their building setback then and they could build their home right up against the easement? Lori Sietsema: Right. It's just like a utility easement. Ed Hasek: If we took 10 feet then they would have to go 20 beyond the easement. Carol Watson: Anything we have to do with that? Lori Sietsema: You just have to make a recommendation as far as what we're going to require of this developer. Jim Mady: What I would like to suggest we look at requiring a trail along '-"Pioneer Trail that will essentially connect into Eden Prairie's trail system at some point in time and along pioneer Trail we will request what we consider a Class I bikeway. A totally separate off-road trail. Lori Sietsema: Class I is having a street, a walkway, a bikeway so that's two trails is Class I. So bikers and walkers on the same in a Class II. Jim Mady: Okay, I'm looking for Class II then along pioneer Trail. Ed Hasek: Can we add something to that. Have we got anything going down TH 101 at all? Jim Mady: We would like to put trails along there. Larry Schroers: But there are proposed changes for TH 101 in that area right now aren't there? Lori Sietsema: Yes, I would go for a trail along TH 101 too. Carol Watson: Not at this point, not at that particular portion. Lori Sietsema: There is talk about straightening it down in the Halla piece and we'll see that one next. Carol Watson: But right here it wouldn't change configurations. ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 50 ",." Ed Hasek: What I was thinking about was some way of cutting through this plat rather than having everything out in the street. If there was some way of cutting through here and I can't believe the City's not going to make him push this out to the property line so that this road can go through to develop this piece without having another cul-de-sac put in. I think you're right that maybe there's an opportunity that... Gloria Corpian: Maybe we should table it until next time and think about it. Jim Mady: No, we can't let it go. What we're looking for really is to take advantage to ask for trails on both pioneer Trail and TH 101 as well as through the main road curving through the property. What I'm looking for is off-street trails on both pioneer Trail and TH 101 and a combination of off-street and on-street through the development. I wouldn't be real concerned with being off. Carol Watson: No, because there won't so much of a traffic consideration. Jim Mady: But it definitely has to be off-street I think on the two lane arterials there. Councilman Johnson: trails in there. I like his comment on an outlot to connect the two Jim Mady: We're already doing that though. -' Ed Hasek: See, that's the problem. We're doubling up. Now we've got a guy that's got a trail on both sides. Is the intent to serve every lot with a trail system or does the trail system a means of getting people... Lori Sietsema: I believe we have a trail on the other side of TH 101 so we don't need it there. Jim Mady: Okay, then why don't we request... Councilman Johnson: You want a trail all the way around? Ed Hasek: No, he was just saying that maybe if there is a trail on TH 101 that maybe we could do something else. Is it possible that we could ask for a trail connection... Carol Watson: I think he needs to sell some of that property and he will. Jim Mady: What I'm looking for is a motion for off-street trail along pioneer Trail and to check what we have currently, if we don't have a trail plan along TH 101 on the west side, to ask for off-street trail along the east side of TH 101 and that the main roadway circling through the property be widen to allow for on-street trail. ...",,; Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 51 JIll" Carol Watson: Yes, just so it's off but just a little bit wider so that there's a striped area or something. Lori Sietsema: Now in the joint meeting they mentioned that striped trails along the street were not desirable and being the curved street that it is, I think that we need to be consistent in the kind of trails that we're going to ask for within subdivisions. Personally, I think it should be off-street with the curve that it is, the Council and the Commission has mentioned in the past that it's most desirable to have the off-street trails and I think we should make it to be consistent with what we ask for from one subdivision to another. Carol Watson: So policy would be that we request all trails be off-street? Our preference would be that all trails be off-street? Lori Sietsema: That's my recommendation. Councilman Johnson: There's not a necessity to put a trail along a street. In a subdivision I lived in Iowa, the trail was actually back between lots such as the back lot line here cutting up and through rather than getting people walking where cars are moving. Where cars could come off the street onto you, whatever, this would help the value of these properties to have a trail through. The lots that sold first in Iowa were the lots with access ~to the trail leading to the park. Carol Watson: Here, it seems to be people do not appreciate having public walkways through their backyards. The neighbors feel free to walk their dogs and ride their bicycles and their children are playing. Lori Sietsema: They are much harder to enforce and maintain. Councilman Johnson: It's not much of a trail to walk along though. Carol Watson: Developers don't like to have to mess with it. Ed Hasek: I think that's excellent idea for major trail systems but then you have to be able to police them. The Luce Line Trail for example. Some of the railroad corridors that have been converted to trails and I know that a lot of the cities require an internal major connection. Rather than putting it down at the roadways they will relocate them but that is something that has to be planned where a kid can go. I don't think on a small plat like this is perhaps a place to do that. My suggestion, and obviously if the piece to the east is already platted is not going to work, would be to kind of do that same thing only do it on secondary streets around that lake. Connect up to TH 101. Take something maybe that would connect into Eden prairie and go around that lake on secondary lakes but that's not going to happen. Carol Watson: Next door they are platted kind of up their long narrow lots ~to pioneer Trail. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 52 Jim Mady: I'm changing my mind now. I'm not really seeing a need for a trail right through the middle of the property. I don't think it's going to go anyplace. ..."",. Councilman Johnson: Starting no place, going no place? Jim Mady: Exactly. If the Planning Commission is looking for sidewalks, that would be the place to put them but I don't know if we need to put a trail just through that guy's subdivisi9n. Larry Schroers: I work for Hennepin Parks and we have extensive trails systems. We have a northern trail corridor that links many of our parks and we run into a lot of enforcement problems and personal property damage as a result of people going down the trails with snowmobiles, motorcycles, cutting private property owners' fences, tearing up grass, injuries out there. Someone hurts themselves and it's unaccessible and we have to send rangers out there on snowmobile with a rescue sled behind to get somebody 3 miles back to an ambulance. Going off of the main arteries is desirable aesthetically but practically, it's a lot of problems. Councilman Johnson: Future subdivision trails here may be a bigger issue than at this point because who's going to be using them? Ed Hasek: That's close. I'm hoping that Mark is looking at the trail system. ....."" Lori Sietsema: Yes, we are. Carol Watson moved, Ed Hasek seconded to recommend putting an off-street Class II trail along Pioneer Trail and potentially along TH 101 if it doesn't currently exist in a plan. All voted in favor and motion carried. Ed Hasek: Are those things converted to snowmobile trails at all in the wintertime? Lori Sietsema: No. Ed Hasek: Horses are off as well? Carol Watson: We don't have anybody to clean up after them. Ed Hasek: Cross country skiing? Jim Mady: They're not maintained for that. Lori Sietsema: We don't have any groomed trails that the City does. Larry Schroers: That's probably something that will become an issue in the future and one thing that you want to consider there is you don't want to put a groom trail on top of pavement. It just doesn't work. ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 53 lflii""'" Carol Watson: There are a lot of nice groomed trails out on Minnewashta Regional Park. Lori Sietsema: And Carver and the Arboretum. Carol Watson: Carver Park, there are plenty of places to go there. Great Plains Golf Estates. Lori Sietsema: This being pioneer Trail here, up here is what we were just talking about, this is TH 101, this is a deep gully here, a deep gully here and somewhere back here they corne together. He's got a cul-de-sac corning in here and a cul-de-sac that comes here and a cu~-de-sac that comes here. Basically what I'm proposing is that we acquire an off-street trail along TH 101. It's steep right in here so somewhere, maybe at this point here, get it to corne along this side and then a crossing point here. Eventually, if this is straighten out, we could keep it on the same side but because of the steepness right in here and the grade. Larry Schroers: Is there any reason why it can't stay on the west side of TH 101 to hook up with the other trail that we just proposed? Jim Mady: The slope on the north side is real steep. ,.... Larry Schroer s: I'm wonder i ng about the danger of cross i ng TH 101 there. There seems to be pretty limited visibility just about anywhere on TH 101. Ed Hasek: Does the west side go down all the way to pioneer Trail on TH 101, north of Pioneer Trail? Is it on the west side in place or proposed? Lori Sietsema: Basically, we're working on it. We don't know yet. Jim Mady: It's still being designed. Ed Hasek: Can we just say that we would like it to stay on the same side as whatever is going on. Jim Mady: Consistent with the trail. Ed Hasek: They can work with the slope. We can get a trail down a steep slope with any problem. Jim Mady: We don't want to have to though because it costs money. Gloria Corpian: Just leave it as a trail system along TH 101 and they can decide where is best to put it through. Jim Mady: We should really be recommending it as much as we can in detail to the developer otherwise we're going to end up, he's going to give us ,...... right-of -way. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 54 Lori Sietsema: If it isn't clear, we won't get it. .....", Larry Schroers: What kind of liability do we have if someone would get run over crossing the road there? Does that fall back onto the City? Jim Mady: Potentially. I think if they're hurt on the trail but if they're hurt in the right-of-way. Carol Watson: Then it's like being hurt on the street. Councilman Johnson: Except we designed a trail that criss-crossed a highway. Jim Mady: And if they can prove we were negligent in doing so it's always open. If we're crossing pioneer Trail, we're crossing basically a major thoroughfare no matter what we do there. Carol Watson: If Eden prairie is willing to run the risk of crossing TH 5 and TH 4, I think we could probably handle one crossing on TH 101. Jim Mady: I think what we need to do is take a trail along the southeast portion of TH 101. Can we go back to Gagne's for just one second just to see what the topography is like? We don't where the trail is on Gagne's yet right? It hasn't been established? Carol Watson: Along pioneer Trail. .....,,' Jim Mady: Right but we don't know where it is on TH 101. It comes down on the west side but it hasn't been established all the way to this point yet right? You say that it starts on the west someplace? Lori Sietsema: It's pretty much for sure to here and from there down to the corner is where it's unsure. Jim Mady: We don't know what the topography looks like there? Why don't we just keep it on that side and just keep it going? Lori Sietsema: That's what we would like to do if we can get the trail on that side. The thing is we don't want to have to cross there and then again there and again. Carol Watson: You can't have a tremendous expense to develop a trail. Ed Hasek: We've got our choice. We've either got a little bit of expense to develop the trail or we've got to run the risk of crossing TH 101 several times. Jim Mady: I would rather cross TH 101 because I know if we have the expense to put the trail in, it won't go in. Carol Watson: It won't happen. ....." Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 56 "... we need to do with it. Lori Sietsema: For five lots, take the money and run. Carol Watson moved, Ed Hasek seconded to take cash in lieu of land dedication for the five lots in Country Hills subdivision. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Johnson: The preliminary plat was approved last night. Lori Sietsema: This was one of them that was tabled though so we could get that policy in. Timberwood: Lori Sietsema: This is Galpin Blvd. here, up here where there are a couple of lots if TH 5 and Lake Ann is right up over here. I'm recommending the standard, have the trail along the main street. Hopefully we can get a trail all the way along it up to TH 5 with someday a trail along TH 5 to Lake Ann. Jim Mady: Along Galpin? ~Lori Sietsema: Right and an off-street trail along the main street within ':he development. That's my recommendation and take cash in lieu of. Carol Watson: Where's the cemetary from here? Lori Sietsema: Outlot A. Ed Hasek: Why don't we just go with Lori's recommendation? Gloria Corpian: Why did you want the trail through the center again? Lori Sietsema: Because it's my recommendation that we need off-street trails through each subdivision to get them to the main streets safely. To get them to Galpin on their bikes and get up to Lake Ann and go swimming. Carol Watson: This one looks like potentially it will connect up with another development next door to it and we will actually be creating a trail system that will probably run from CR 18 internally all the way to TH 5 actually. Larry Schroers moved, Curt Robinson seconded recommended off-street trail through development and along Galpin and take cash in lieu of land dedication. All voted in favor and motion carried. ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 55 Jim Mady: At least for the next 15 years. That's just the realities of it so what we have to try and do is get the trail plan in. ....", Councilman Johnson: Will we really be pushing to put a trail in here to service these 42... Jim Mady: That's what we're looking for. We're looking to put a trail in so the people coming from downtown and out west can get down towards the bluff area where we do have parkland and at some point in time hopefully tie into the wildlife area. Lori Sietsema: We want to connect Chaska and Chanhassen to Eden prarie and eventually Hopkins. Jim Mady: Shakopee, it's all available to do it and we should be looking into doing it. Ed Hasek: So what you're talking about is bringing the trail down and crossing TH 101 and pioneer Trail to get i~ onto the east side and then dropping it down through Halla's parcel on the east side and then crossing back over again to the west side at some point? Lori Sietsema: We'll have that trail plan here by next March. Next meeting. Gloria Corpian: Let's just table it until next meeting then. -' Jim Mady: We're being requested at this point to ask for parkland now. Ed Hasek: Can we ask for it consistent with the recommendations of the Planner as to the location of the trail? We're not holding anything out. They are in preliminary plat right now aren't they? Lori Sietsema: Right. You're right. Ed Hasek: So they still have a final plat process to go through. That's another whole month. Lori Sietsema: As long as he owns both sides of that street that we're talking about, TH 101, we can say a trail along TH 101 consistent with the trail plan that is adopted in the Comp Plan. Jim Mady moved, Carol Watson seconded to recommend obtaining a Class II trail along TH 101 consistent with the trail plan that will be adopted in the Comp Plan. All voted in favor and motion carried. Country Hills: Jim Mady: This one is 15 acres, 5 lots. I don't believe there is any trail plan or anything in place for it and I don't think there is anything -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 57 " Urban Subdivision Reviews: -Sadd1ebrook Lori Sietsema: Sadd1ebrook is in the urban area so wipe everything you know about rural out of your mind. We're back to small lots. This is Kerber Blvd.. Right here is where we have the off-street trail along Kerber Blvd.. Chan vista is right here. Chan Pond here. This is the triangle, a weird piece where the cattle path is. This is Powers Blvd.. There is currently no off-street trails along Powers Blvd.. Meadowgreen Park is an 18 acre park with two softball fields, a whole soccer field, a tot lot and scheduled to have a tennis court and it has a half-court basketball court up there. There is a ponding area right in this area. We have a trail along here that connects over here and goes down and eventua1y someday will connect to Carver Beach. What I am proposing here is, they are talking about public park adding to this. I believe that it is very hilly and low. It's high or low. There are trees in here. I'm saying if they want to give it to us fine but I'm not real excited about giving the park dedication credit. Jim Mady: We're not going to take anything in money. Lori Sietsema: I'm not excited about giving them a park dedication credit. I'm asking for a trail easement along here. A trail easement through these ~3treets that go through. Larry Schroers: Where is that creek that goes down to Lotus Lake down there? Lori Sietsema: It crosses underneath the road right here and there is a trail easement that goes across the road. So I'm saying, let's get an off- street trail along here. There are trails that go around the pond here and they'll corne out underneath the street here. It will be a crossing somewhere up here because the sidewalk is on this side. Let's get a trail here, here, here and going right across here and a trail along Powers. Ed Hasek: How about asking that he provide us with the land without any dedication credits? The hilly section that is a proposed park, since he's not going to be able to do anything with it anyway and then ask for an outlot. A trail easement through that one lot and put a trail easement along the property line so the kids can get into the park without having to go onto either one... Carol Watson: And one of the things there that's not at Meadowgreen Park is passive park. Lori Sietsema: But we've got Chan vista right across the street. Carol Watson: If he's willing to give that to us, then it still could be ~n area that could be left natural adjacent to that area. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 58 ..."", Carol Watson: That's why he's giving it to you because he can't do anything with it. Along Powers Blvd., you can't like your child very much to send them out on a bicycle along Powers Blvd.. Lori Sietsema: But we've got an off-street trail though. Carol Watson: Really an off-street trail because at this point, the park is on the other side. Talk about crossing something. I would rather cross TH 101 55 times then to expect a child to get across CR 17 at lots of times of the day. Lori Sietsema: Down here by the lights where the Lake Ann bike path is? That's what I'm talking about so we can get all the way down here and cross at that stop sign. Carol Watson: Right, but the new West 78th Street isn't there anymore and potentially that street, it's gone north, and potentially that street is going to go in there so we are not going to be crossing down there. We are going to be crossing up further because of that new street, that new alignment. Jim Mady: Do we want to look at overpasses, pedestrian overpasses, over CR 17 up in the corner if that's a concern? Ed Hasek: Where's the topography of this thing? sitting out here right now someplace? Isn't there a farm house ..""" Carol Watson: Yes. Ed Hasek: What does that ravine start? Carol Watson: Way down here. Ed Hasek: Is that that big ravine? Why don't we cross underneath the highway? Jim Mady: We have cattle paths underneath there that exist. Ed Hasek: How about here? Are there cattle paths underneath there? Carol Watson: Not on Powers but there could be. It sure is high enough. Councilman Johnson: But a lot of cost. Carol Watson: But it would be a lot less cost then going over the top of it. Councilman Johnson: I think you could drill and insert that cheaper then building a bridge over. ...,,;I Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 59 ".... Carol Watson: road fol ks. But both of them are unrealistic. We're going to cross the We're not going to under it. We're not going to over it. Councilman Johnson: Unless we find funds from somebody else to pay for it such as Met Council, State or somebody else. Jim Mady: Don't plan on it. Councilman Johnson: They are proposing two settling ponds down here. Are you looking at putting, have a park path through here? Lori Sietsema: We're talking about going around on this side because this is going to be multi-family down here so having a trail that would go around these. Councilman Johnson: Are we going to try and get a conservation easement? Like Chan Pond, I'm going to be pushing all the way through to keep this beautiful valley a beautiful valley and not somebody's backyard. Ed Hasek: What are they telling us they're using it for on the plat there? Jim Mady: The back of lots. Councilman Johnson: These are the back of lots. They run the lots all the Jll"""'way back and then the multi-family. Ed Hasek: That's a hill there though right? Councilman Johnson: This is a big hill here and there's a pretty good size hill. There are going to be some beautiful lots there for a back walkout. Coming out a walkout, he's going to get some big bucks for these lots going back and a conservation easement or something with a trail where we've got plenty of room when we're sure that we're not going to get guys putting utility sheds down next to these ponds and everything. That's one area I'm very concerned about protecting. He's going to go multi-family down here in the future. Carol Watson: Because that's adjacent to the commercial. Councilman Johnson: They are building multi-family in this corner right now. They sold this corner for mulit-family. They are looking to go for apartments. This whole area is developing into multi-family. Larry Schroers: Starting at the fence line or right up here at the corner of the road on West 78th Street? Councilman Johnson: No, the corner of the road back is commercial. About half way back, two-thirds of the way back and the last third is multi- fami ly. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 60 ......" Larry Schroers: There is a fence line there where the cornfield stops and the wooded area starts, is that basically it? Carol Watson: He took his trail here and the trail there and the trail in the internal streets to bring people from here even over to this way easily and then to Lake Ann Park. That's really all you would need and then if he wants to give us that piece. Jim Mad y : Ask him for i t wit h the 0 u t 10 t s but we' r e not go i n g tog i ve him any park dedication for it. Carol Watson: deficient. There's quite a bit of park in here. We're not park Lor i Sietsema: It's not a park defic ient area at all. We've got Chan Elementary right there. We've got Chan vista. You've got Meadowgreen. Greenwood Shores isn't that far away. Lake Ann isn't that far away. Carol Watson: That's why there are so many active areas, this would be kind of neat to get that hilly piece for passive. Jim Mady: What we need to do is recommend where we want the trails and what we want to do with park dedication fees. What I'm going to do is take what Lori is suggesting basically, which is the off-street trail along Kerber and Powers, take the trail along the cow path, ask for the Outlot A to bE-, dedicated to the City in gratis. No fee credits. Ed Hasek: The trail is going to go where? Here? Jim Mady: Along Powers, along Kerber, through the main streets there will be a connecting trail and down connecting. There are two outlots connecting the cul-de-sac and that other street. Ed Hasek: It's all taken up in Outlot A. Outlot A includes all of that. Jim Mady: Okay, that's what we're looking for. And a trail along Outlot B. Lori Sietsema: We want it meandering around the wet areas. Ed Hasek: So from the culvert it goes around like this and down to there right? Councilman Johnson: Are there any conservation easements to protect that valley? Ed Hasek: Is the storm water collected on the streets and put into storm systems in this City? There are no ponding easements? Jim Mady: That's down there is ponding. Carol Watson: There's natural ponding areas. ....."" Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 61 "" Lori Sietsema: There's ponding up there going up into the park. Right there. That's a pond up there. It's already there. Ed Hasek: He's not going to be able to go down there with his multi anyway. Jim Mady: Are there any commissioners who feel the need for a conservation easement? Larry Schroers: On that, I'm a little bit conservation minded and is there any practical way that they are going to be able to go down in there and mess up the ponding? Councilman Johnson: These homeowners? Lori Sietsema: Is that considered a wetland? Councilman Johnson: That is not protected wetland as of this time. Carol Watson: Down in that ravine probably has a status. Lori Sietsema: They have to be 75 feet back from. any wetland. Councilman Johnson: But they can still plant grass. They can put up ~. fences. Everyone of these people can put a fence all the way down to the edge of these ponds. Larry Schroers: crossing there. I would rather see that an open area. I've seen deer Carol Watson: Are those ponds existing? Councilman Johnson: No. Carol Watson: See, they are creating those ponds. We're saying we want a conservation easement along ponds that don't exist! * A tape break occured at this point. Councilman Johnson: Go with that as your conservation easement. Carol Watson: Anything below a certain point. Councilman Johnson: Something to give the people enough. You would have to pick a line and make a line that is a conservation easement. Draw one in. Jim Mady: I'll tell you what. It sounds like Larry is a little bit interested in it and it sounds like you're certainly interested in it. ~That is something you can bring up. Park and Rec Co~~ission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 62 --" Councilman Johnson: I'll be bringing it up in the future but if I can get your support, it helps me bring it up in the future. Larry Schroers: How big of a problem is it to ask for that in a recommendation? Lori Sietsema: All I have to do is write it down. Larry Schroers: If it's not a big prob~em, let's ask for it. Carol Watson: Let's ask for a conservation easement along the ravine. Not along the ponds that don't exist. Protection of the ravine area because we can't talk about something that the developer's are going to make someday out of storm water. Jim Mady: You want to make a motion? Ed Hasek: I thought it was. Councilman Johnson: It's pretty well written with the exception of the conservation easement along the ravine. Ed Hasek: The only addition would be the gratis instead of the dedication. Curt Robinson: We still didn't talk about park fees did we, park dedication fees did we? ......" Jim Mady: We would be asking for park dedication fees with no land. Lori Sietsema: With no credit. Councilman Johnson: You don't want Outlot A but if you're going to give it us, we'll take it but we're not going to cut down your park dedication fees. Jim Mady: But we definitely want a trail in there. We want to be able to connect th i s whole th i ng to tha t park without hav i ng to go out to the street to do it though. Carol Watson: We want Outlot A. We just want him to give it to us. I think it's nice passive parkland. Lori Sietsema: If he can't build on it, he might as well give it to us and I'm not suggesting we pay for it. Carol Watson moved, Larry Schroers seconded to recommend that a Class II trail easement be acquired along Kerber Blvd., Powers Blvd., the three main streets within the development and along the south side around the ponds that will be created, dry trails along the line separating the multi-family from the single family. In addition to this recommendation, ask that a conservation easement be placed along the ravine to preserve that ravine. . Also, Outlot A be taken in gratis. All voted in favor and motion carried.-' Park and Rec Co~mission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 63 11"" Updates: -Park Ordinance Review -Park Dedication Ordinance Review. -Water Surface Usage Ordinance Review. -Capital Improvement Budget Approval. -Removed Signs ~ Kiowa. -Lotus Lake Boat Access. Lori Sietsema: 14 is basically for your review. The only thing, we can have any discussion you want. I included the Ordinances if you want to discuss them in detail, I suggest that we put them on the next agenda. Jim Mady: Do you need a motion? Lori Sietsema: No, I need to know if you want to do that or if they are clear. The Park Dedication Ordinance will be coming to you anyway. Gloria Corpian: If we have a queston we can bring it up next time. Larry Schroers: The Ordinances that I read them, seemed pretty clear and to the point. Lori Sietsema: Last night the City Council acted to approve the Capital ~ Improvement Program as presented and the money allocated for Carver Beach and Greenwood Shores would be contingent on making those accessible to all residents. Carol Watson: Which we did. Jim Mady: We are recommending that they do. Councilman Johnson: It will be pretty hard for us not to take your recommendation since we told you to recommend it to us. There's also one other change on the capital budget. Removing a bol1ard and chain. Lori Sietsema: We just took out bollard and chain and put obstruct. I still don't know how that's going to work because if you put a berm there it's going to dam up all the water that runs down that street and we're going to have major problems so that's something that we're going to have to work on in-house and take it back to City Council. Councilman Johnson: Carver Beach, you've got $250.00 to put a bo11ard and chain up there. Various people said that it would just get ripped off, just get chopped up. They would just hook their winch to it and yank it out and bring it home. It would be best if you make a berm and throw some trees on it. Leave the $250.00 there and just say obstruct. Jim Mady: You could put a berm in and put a valley in it every now and ~then for water. That's no problem. Park and Rec Commission Meeting February 10, 1987 - Page 64 ..""" Councilman Johnson: We left the $250.00 there. We just changed the wording as to what it was for. Lori Sietsema: (C) was the removal of the no parking zone along Kiowa Trail which was right along Bandimere. That's where Prince used to live. They accepted McKay and Robbins resignations. They authorized the access plans for Herman Field and approve the Regional Softball Tournament as recommended. Jim Mady: One final thing, I would likoe to make a motion that Lori send out a letter of thanks to Mike Rosenwald, Sue Boyt, Wallace McKay and Charlie Robbins for their efforts on the Park and Recreation Commission in the past. Lori Sietsema: McKay's and Robbin's are already done. Jim Mady moved, Ed Hasek seconded to send letters of thanks to Mike Rosenwald and Sue Boyt for their efforts on the Park and Recreation Commission in the past. All voted in favor and motion carried. Curt Robinson: What about commission members going to the City Council meetings? Lori Sietsema: We need to set up a schedule for each commissioner to take a turn attending City Council meetings that have park related items on. I~ happens about every other meeting we have park items on. Ed Hasek: Every other regular meeting? Lori Sietsema: Every other regular City Council meeting, yes and it's usually the meeting after our meeting. The Council always meets on Monday and we meet on the Tuesday, the first Monday and Tuesday of the month and then the park i terns usually go on the thi rd Monday of the month for Ci ty Council so unless otherwise. Ed Hasek: Are we to start immediately? Jim Mady: We should. Ed Hasek: Why don't we set it up by seniority with the most senior being number 1 and the last you can decide what you want for the three of us here and just go through. Jim Mady: Would you be willing to do this first one Curt? Curt Robinson: Sure. Jim Mady: Okay, then we'll check with Mike and see what his schedule is looking like at the next meeting. --' Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ February 10, 1987 - Page 65 Lori Sietsema: I'll send you a City Council agenda with the packets that concern the Park and Rec items. Jim Mady: And you could ask the City Council that when a park and rec item comes on their agenda, that we would appreciate being pushed as close to the front of the agenda as possible. Carol Watson moved, Curt Robinson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. . Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Recreation Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim .,..,. ,..,