The URL can be used to link to this page

PRC 1987 04 07 ~PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING , REGULAR MEETING \pril 7, 1987 ~ Chairman Lynch called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Hasek, Curt Robinson, Mike Lynch, Jim Mady and Larry Schroers MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Assistant. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved and Mady seconded to approve the Minutes o~the Park and Recreation Commission Meeting dated March 3, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. Lori Sietsema introduced Todd Hoffman who will be working as a Park and Recreation Assistant. SITE PLAN REVIEW: NORTH LOTUS LAKE 1ST ADDITION, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES, APPLICANT. ~ietsema: This development is. taking place just north of the North Lotus Lake Park. It's the piece of property that we swapped for the piece down on the south end of the lake that the boat access is now on. Due to development being adjacent to the lake, it's not recommended that parkland be obtained and that we should accept park dedication fees in lieu of land. However, I think to continue our trail that is connecting our parks to the neighborhoods in that area, we should require a trail through or along the side of that development. Originally we had talked about having a trail going along the east side of that but because of some drainage swales that are within the development, that isn't going to be the best spot for it so I'm recommending to either go up the cul-de-sac and through two lots to Pleasant View or else all the way along Pleasant View along the west side and the north side. Lynch: Are we talking about the connection with Lotus Lake Estates? Sietsema: We're talking about the north connection. We have connections in Fox Hollow. Lynch: The north connection to Near Mountain and Trapper's Pass. And where do you want that to go with that? . Sietsema: It's one of two options. There is a site plan in your packet. We have one of two options. The trail is proposed to come in right here. We can either run along and go up the cul-de-sac through these two lots and our trail connection is right here in Near Mountain. The other option would "~e to go along Pleasant View Drive. One thing that we talked about in the ast is that there are potential problems going between lots so I would recommend that we go along Pleasant view Drive. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~pril 7, 1987 - Page 2 Mady: My original thought of going through the cul-de-sac would be nice but you've got to go in front of all those people between those two yards. Lynch: Not only that but you "T" them into a busy street around a blind corner. Sietsema: If we go through the cul-de-sac, we still want to get something along Pleasant View Drive so we can get to the trail on the north side of Pleasant View. Mady: If my assumptions are right on developments, that is pretty heavily wooded, do you expect to save most of the trees? Clayton Johnson: We haven't really looked at where the house pads would be in relationship to the trees and made a count. Our interest of course is to preserve as many as we can. It's wooded primarily up around Pleasant View. The balance of the land is pretty bare. Lynch: always for in you're around ,...... lay ton Johnson: I don't know if you're familiar with the history of this. I'm sure you are. The acceptance, when we accepted that land in exchange, one of the things that was dropped on us at the eleventh hour was the assessments that are already in on this property along this road. And everybody agrees that that would not be good development to have all these lots exiting on Pleasant View so that's how we carne back with this alternative cul-de-sac. There are several financial ramifications to it though. We've gone from 15 lots to 12 lots. But we're very pleased with the plan that you've corne up with for the park and drive in park. We don't pretend to be an expert on where the bike path should be in terms of we don't understand what the overall plan is for the City. Our feeling is, if this is the plan, we would be happy to give you an easement but we would expect you to construct. If it were to corne between the lots, we would be willing to construct but we really don't have an opinion on it. It's what you think is best in terms of the overall plan. That's always been a bad corner. I've lived farther south and it's been a bad corner for the kids because it's basically blind except the winter when you can see through those trees so I'm assuming going to leave cover there so we would have to watch before we went that corner. Lynch: We're just in the midst of trying to formulate an overall construction plan for the whole township for the trails so all we've done to this point is try to pick up the easements and develop some kind of coherent instead of just here and there. Where we thought there was going to be linkage. Clayton Johnson: I think everybody would agree that putting the cul-de-sac in here and accessing all these lots from the cul-de-sac is far superior. ~ike I say, we previously had accepted the $46,000.00 in assessments here hich are going to be virtually worthless. They are going to serve one lot nere but I think everybody agrees that that is a superior plan. This is the Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 3 -' recommendation of Staff and I guess this is what you're saying, this would avoid taking an easement on the other side of Pleasant View, if you eventually wanted to have one over here. That's fine with us. To point out though, we do need an access to Lot 6. There will be a driveway on Lot 6 out to Pleasant View. The Planning Commission has given approval for that one lot so there would be a driveway on Lot 6. Lynch: On the lot that sits directly next to it, his driveway is right along your line. Clayton Johnson: We will keep the driveway to this side but with this bike path, does that cause a problem? Sietsema: No. That won't cause a problem. Lynch: How are you getting into Lots 11 and l2? Clayton Johnson: Off the cul-de-sac that exists for Fox Hollow Drive. There is a cul-de-sac here in Fox Hollow Drive and there will be an easement across Lot 12 into Lot 11. Originally there was a street to go through but now with the street vacating, that's part of the approval of the Planning Commission to gain access to Lot 11 off of this cul-de-sac on Fox Hollow Drive. Lynch: We don't know yet what's going to happen to that little road that ....." loops on the tennis court? Sietsema: Yes we do and we'll get to that. The Council has acted to, in your packet under Staff Report, it talks about North Lotus Lake and it's got the new plan in there and it's got "the City Council adopted". Lynch: Okay, so we're not going around that. Good. Just to throw my opinion out, I guess I would like to stay away from the corridors in between the lots. There is a policing problem and winding up having to build a chain linked fence on both sides. We've seen those in the City of Minneapolis. A friend of mine lives right next to one and he had a chain linked fence put in and he now has the city crews come and clean his yard up. It's a busy park with a pedestrian corridor right next to his house so I would like to stay away from that. Also, most of our other easements in a similar situation are along streets and we have to decide whether it's going to be on-street, off-street, paved, whatever. Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that a trail easement be obtained along the south and east side of Pleasant View Road and that park fees be accepted in lieu of park land. All voted in favor and motion carried. Sietsema: Item (B) has been pulled to be discussed later. """"" Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ril 7, 1987 - Page 4 SITE PLAN REVIEW: WEST VILLAGE TOWNHOMES, WILLIAM JACOBSON, APPLICANT. Sietsema: This is called village West Townhomes. It's located right across the street of Kerber on the Brose property which is right now a farm. They are proposing three multiple family lots and 64 townhome units. I included this reduced scale in your packet so you would be able to review it a little bit. Basically, all I'm recommending on this, it's not within the park deficient area. It's got Chan Elementary and City Center Park just across the street and Chan Pond is just up the street a little bit. It's within the service area of Meadow Green Park and it's not far from Lake Ann Park so it's not a park deficient area. All I'm recommending here is that we continue the off-street trail along Kerber Blvd.. I believe this will be constructed within this street easement so it will not require the developer to even designate any more of an easement of his property. I just wanted you to be aware that we would be continuing that trail along Kerber on that side of the street. Robinson: What do we have there, 60 feet? Sietsema: I don't know. It's a wide easement. They are putting urban section in there right now and as soon as that's completed, we will be installing an off-street trail there. .~sek: How does that fit into the bigger picture? Sietsema: Saddlebrook is just to the north then there is a space, property to the south and then West 78th Street. Hasek: Is it actually about half of this? Sietsema: Yes, I believe so. Schroers: That blank spot is where the farm site is sitting right across the road here. Right Lori? Sietsema: You're right. What we're talking about only goes about half way over to Powers Blvd.. It's not all the way across. Hasek: Does the developer own both halves of this? William Jacobson: Yes. Hasek: And it's your intention to develop pretty much the same thing on the other half? Is there a phase 1 and 2? William Jacobson: Maybe I can explain. It is a 64 unit project in two phases of 32 units each. This is actually going to be a private driveway in. In discussions with the Council and Planning Commission, it was better ~o have a private driveway at this time. The farmhouse sits right down lout here. That's all zoned for commercial now. This is only about 440 .eet. Of the 24 acres of multiple family in the area and this is only about Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 5 -.till' one-sixth of that area. It's just a small portion of it. Hasek: So we've got 24 acres in the total RC district right and this parcel is how large? William Jacobson: This is about 6 acres. Hasek: What's the density on that? Just out of curiosity. William Jacobson: It's 12 units per acre. The right-of-way for Kerber is 100 feet and the City Council is going to be discussing it at their next meeting, the curb and gutter. Lynch: How does the open places adjacent to Kerber there, is that going to be lawn? William Jacobson: Yes. This sets back about 170 to 180 feet from what is paved. Lynch: Is that going to be bermed or landscaped? William Jacobson: Yes, we're looking at a couple of things. Originally I was just going to make it lawn and then in discussions with the Watershed District we found that we might have to go into some water retention ponds so I'm going to do some decorative landscaping with that. I characterise it~ similar to a si'lnd trap on a golf course. That kind of thing with some nice trees around it. As of last night at the Council meeting and learning they will be putting a storm sewer in there, that might mean that there won't be any water retention ponds required so until we nail that down, it will be up in the air but I still intend to have some decorative, I call it like sandtrap, area there. Hasek: Is that piece of road going to be private for now until this piece is developed out? When something else happens, then it will become public? William Jacobson: At this point it's going to be simply a private driveway. Not even a public street. Just a private driveway. If the City at some point there might be the need for a city street to come through here over to Powers. Presently, Charlie James, who owns the rest of it, doesn't know what's going to happen with the rest of it so he said, let's just put in the driveway and in the future, if they want us to put it in, we'll put it in here. Hasek: Are you dedicating the right-of-way for that street then at this time with the intention that there may be? William Jacobson: Yes. And we were thinking a couple of weeks ago that it's pretty ultimate that it comes through here. I think the Planning Commission now is thinking more in terms of if the street comes from Powers, it would come up here and then go up here to connect into Kerber. That's really up in the air but we're leaving a 50 foot dedication. ...."., Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ril 7, 1987 - Page 6 Hasek: How does this fit with the project that we reviewed several weeks ago? Sietsema: Saddlebrook? The trail along Kerber will connect. That will connect. Hasek: Is that open space that we're talking about right here? Right above this? Sietsema: There will be multi-family right above here and then that ravine that was going to be conserved is right above that. Hasek: So if they are talking about a road corning out of this project, this whole piece of ground, is probably going to connect into Kerber before it gets to that open space right? Sietsema: I would guess so, yes. Hasek: Rather than crossing it. Sietsema: Yes. The deveoper is going to be providing private tot lots for that area, is that right? ~.lliam Jacobson: Yes. Sietsema: That's something I wanted to mention. Mady: The Council acted a couple of weeks ago on Saddlebrook and they got some more parkland. I understand that's on the north end of Saddlebrook so this is quite a ways away from there and doesn't have an effect. So we're just looking for a trail really to continue through. From my looking, it looks like it is quite a ways from the conservation easement, the ponding areas that Saddlebrook is putting in because that was more or less straight across from the pond. Sietsema: Yes, there is going to be more multi-family above this before you get to that ponding area. Mady: I just wanted to get an idea of how far up that was. Hasek: Did they rezone something in here that we don't see? You said there was going to be high density above this. It has been rezoned? Okay. My only concern is that there is a connection with that trail system to the trail systems that we're starting to talk about getting settled. One of which we're hoping, and there was some discussion on how in the world we'll ever accomplish get it under CR 17. If we did want people to go from this site, and we've got a fairly substantial chunk of people, we're going to have about an R-12 density, which I'm assuming and I don't know the zoning .~ u~derstand what the R-12 means. I guess that means that's the cap on the nSlty? Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 7 ....." Sietsema: Yes. Hasek: So we've got another 24 acres so we're talking about 48 to maybe 60 acres of land with the potential of 12 units per acre and I would like to see those people get to this Lake Ann Park as directly as possible. I don't know if that means there should be some kind of interior system within this particular project on that proposed future road or if it simply means that we should keep our eye on what happens in this whole R-12 development in the future to make sure that everybody doesn't have to funnel out onto private roads, over to Kerber Blvd., back up to that natural area, back across and under. Sietsema: In meeting with the planning department, they initially said that this was going to be a street that would eventually go all the way across over to Powers and I said if that's the case, we want off-street trails along that street. Then she came back and said that it's going to be a driveway right now but they were going to be platting the right-of-way for a through street. At the time that that becomes a through street, within that right- of-way, we will have enough room to put an off-street trail all the way across because I was concerned about the same thing. I said, if you're going to fill that up with all that high density, you've got to get them out to the existing trails safely. But so long as that is just a private drive, I didn't feel that we needed it at this point but we did want to insure that -'e had the trail along Kerber which really doesn't affect the developer. .ld we will see any future development of this in addition to this as well. .....,I Lynch: He is, in effect already doing that. Sietsema: The trail? Lynch: The Kerber easement. Sietsema: You might want to include it in your motion to insure that... Mady: Is this City Council's recommendation? This has already been to the Council right? William Jacobson: No, this was at the Planning Commission. Mady: They are the ones that recommended that there was enough room in the existing right-of-way for Kerber? Sietsema: Because we had started it in Saddlebrook and we also saw this when they talked about rezoning it and we told them at that point that we wanted that trail along Kerber. When we looked that we had that wide of a street easement, we were sure we could get it in there. Mady: Without any further easement? .etsema: Without any further easement, right. ....." Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ril 7, 1987 - Page 8 Mady: So that's really the first part of development then? The City acquired off-street trail easement along the proposed road. Mady moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City place an off-street trail easement along the west side of Kerber Blvd. in the existing road right-of-way and to accept park fees in lieu of parkland. All voted in favor and motion carried. William Jacobson: I was not really aware of park fees in lieu of land but I would happy to give you 180 feet of land there in place of fees if you would let me create a tennis court or something down there. Or if you would like to just have it as dedicated park space. Lynch: We're normally pretty selective and are becoming more so about what land we pick up based on our overall key program for the city. I don't know if you caught that initially, Lori was mentioning that you are across the street from or close to being across the street from the Chan Pond's nature area. You're just down the street from the Meadow Green area and one of the closer subdivisions to Lake Ann and across the street south is the City Center so based on that, we're saying no, we would rather have the money. ,.... .QUEST TO INSTALL LIGHTS AND PARK BENCHES AT MINNEWASHTA HEIGHTS PARK, MIKE SCHACTERLE. Robinson moved, Hasek seconded to approve installing lights and park benches at Minnewashta Heights Park as consistent with Staff's recommendation. All voted in favor and motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW: CURRY FARMS, CENTEX HOMES, APPLICANT. Sietsema: Basically, the proposal is north of Lake Lucy Road. It's in a park deficient area and an area that the Comprehensive Plan identified as one of the neediest areas for neighborhood parks. It suggests that the City look at a 5 to 10 acre park within each neighborhood that comes in in this area. There are a lot of small lots all the way along that northern piece or small parcels that are going to be divided into 3, 4, 5 or 6 acres and we're not going to have a chance to get a real nice neighborhood park so when a big parcel comes in like this, we want to jump at the chance to get our decent sized neighborhood park. Hasek: This is within the MUSA line isn't it? Sietsema: Yes, it is. It is urban. The developer is planning to provide a ~3 acre park which is located in this area here. The area here and the .ea here are two deteriorated wetlands and what they are planning to do is _~ll that in and have some drainage ponds. I think the drainage ponds are Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 9 ....",. shown on the maps that are included in your packets. In discussions with the developer I indicated that we would probaby be looking to at least 5 acres of active use. Schroers: How large is that whole area? How many acres? Sietsema: 6.38. This area right in here. Schroers: When you say deteriorated wetlands, how would you define that? Dick Putnam: We talked to the woman from the Fisheries and Wildlife Department. When we first started, the Planning staff asked that we get a hold of Elizabeth Rockwell who evidentally has done a number of projects in the city of just looking at it from the Fish and wildlife Services at natural areas that exist. With Jo Ann from the Planning Department, and ourselves, we visited the site. She looked at the whole property and wrote a letter to the City which, did they get a copy of that? Sietsema: I believe the Planning Department has them. They didn't get one. Dick Putnam: Basically what she said was that the wetlands that were certainly there at some point because there is a lot of organic soil, had been drained, are really of a very, very low quality meaning cow pasture, ~orse pasture in most cases. Really don't provide any habitat of any .gnificance at all. ......" Schroers: Has that been drained with drain tile? Did that land drain out or did it just dry up? Dick Putnam: I don't know. As wet as it's been in the last few years and the cycle we're in right now, I think there had to be drain tiles. There certainly are ditches that have been cut over the years through agriculture. Most recent use has been Pat Jensen's riding stable and it's been used to pasture her horses. Sietsema: First of all, I'll just go over what they are proposing and then cover some other things. What they are proposing here is a 6.3 acre park and we also asked them to provide trails along the main streets of the development. Going in here and coming in along here to the park and along this street here. The developer has said that they fill, grade and develop the park and put in the trails. The concerns that I have are off-street parking in this area. Our policy is to provide off-street parking in our parks so we don't have another Greenwood Shores incident and end up with no parking signs all along the street. Again, I have concerns that with this steep grade, that we're going to be able to do that. The other question that we have to be concerned about is whether or not we're going to have enough space in here to provide the types of facilities that we're going to want to have in that park. Mainly tennis court, tot lot and a ball field which is pretty basic that we put into a park. Granted we won't be having !ague play here but we still want at least 200 foot lines with a backstop, o tennis court and a tot lot in here. I talked to the developers over the ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 10 ,..... phone. They indicated that there might be some way to push this around so we wanted to make sure that we have about 5 acres. At least 5 acres that we can get those things in on. If we can be assured of getting those things, then I would recommend that we go ahead and accept that land with the development being agreed upon and request that the City Staff and developer work on an agreement about credit for park fees. Now I'm sure that Dick has some comments as well. Dick Putnam: I'm with Tandem Corporation. The actual purchaser of the property is Centex Homes and Kevin Clark is here from Centex who will really be the project manager for this if it is approved. There is quite a lengthy story. We've been at this thing now, although this is the first time it's been on any agendas, for proably like four months and before that in discussing with Mrs. Dodds who has been the property owner of the 51 acres, it really went back almost a year. The attempt to purchase it and then other people were purchasing it and the agreement fell through. There is quite a long history but this is not our first shot at it. We've had two neighborhood meetings a number of the people who live around this site and through the course of those, we've talked about single family development plans that have ranged from at the top end about 100 units down to about 80 or 79 units which is really what we ended up with. All of which have been single family. A couple of the plans were under the Planned Unit Development approach that you have in your ordinance with the 12,000 foot lot size minimum. For a number of reasons, the plan that we've submitted .,..... really a subdivision or preliminary and final plat with the existing _vning. There is no rezoning. There is no special considerations for lots or anything like that. They are all 15,000. They all meet your ordinance. There are a couple lots where we end up in corners that they are like 146 feet deep instead of 150 which technically it is a variance but I think we might be able to fudge those lines on the final so what we've ended up with is really a straight subdivision sort of a project. In talking with the Staff, some of the problems or some of the things that they expressed to us, we've tried to reflect in this plan. In terms of traffic access to Lake Lucy Road and also to CR 17. We've made a tremendous effort to try and solve this problem of Teton Lane and Lilac Lane up in that area. Teton Lane is not a public street. It's a 33 foot easement that is owned by the Carlsons who are the folks that own this parcel right here. That's been a real experience I guess dealing with folks that some want a public street. Others don't want any part of it. I think the City Staff at least has conveyed to us that the City would like to solve the problem long term and the probable solution is to get the 50 foot right-of-way that would go from Lilac on the north and connect to our street system here as public. Through negotiations and actual purchase from Mr. Carlson, who is the owner of this property, we've acquired the right-of-way as well as this which would then be conveyed to the City and a public street could be built at some point in time if necessary. Around the parcel we have a real variety of things going on. For example, a question that was asked was is this in the MUSA line? Yes it is and we're the leading edge. In other words, south of Lake Lucy and west of here, is outside of the MUSA line. Shorewood is just up to the ,.....rth so we're right on the edge of it. That brings up a number of estions. One neighbor will say, can you provide sewer access to my site? Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 11 The next neighbor will say, I don't want any part of that. Keep the sewer as far away from us as possible and we don't think this should be developed at all. In fact, it should remain a horse stable. We have other folks that frankly want their parcels included in this parcel so it's been a real experience trying to work with people that have some small lots as well as some people that have, 1 i ke Jim Donovan up here who has probably 15 to 20 acres and his interest is to just leave it alone. It's very difficult when you've got a small lot in this area and a large lot in that area and this lot would like to be sold and would like to get public street access rather than an easement. We'll work that out but to say the least, I guess we've tried a number of different plans and we think this meets as many of the folks as we can possibly work with or satisfy. As it relates to the park system, this is the 6.38 acres that we're proposing and that includes an area here that goes up and through a woods and a hillside with a trail getting down to the park from up above. It also includes some ponding. One of the things and the question of the wetlands, the only wetland's significance from Elizabeth's view, as well as ours, is this is a watered area right now or pond and that remains there. The balance of these areas that are low and right here again are really not supporting anything. They have been pastured or drained and are just not anything in particular. In one case there is a drainfield from an adjacent house that's draining into it. All of this area picks up the drainage, there is a little lake up through here and that comes down through this ravine here. There is some ~rainage that comes from the south in this direction. There is also a .ainage from across CR 17 that comes across'under it and into the site and then everything from this whole drainage area goes through a swale and a culvert under CR 17 and ultimately down a ravine to Christmas Lake. One of the concerns that was expressed to us early on was that the water quality and amount of water coming off this site be regulated and be stored, cleared and those kinds of things on site if we can do that because everybody recognizes Christmas Lake as an awfully clear and pretty lake. The reason for creating the ponds, which there is only this one that exists today, is two fold I guess. One, it will do just exactly that in terms of detaining water on the site during storms and so forth. It will let it expand and fill an area if it's low and then slowly drain out through a system of storm sewers and ultimately out that direction. In the process it's going to drop any silt or sediment. with the marshes and cattails and that sort of thing that we anticipate growing up around these things, it's going to help to clarify the water and make it better than what we have today. That's one of the reasons for the ponds. Another reason for the ponds are simply that they are pretty and from the standpoint of selling lots and so forth, people like that. They would much rather have a large pond and wetland and marsh in their backyard then just a backyard so it's a selfish reason behind it but also a reason that I think will benefit everybody. In terms to how that applies to the park, this was a plan that was put together by the engineers. Subsequently, in talking with Lori ana she has made some good points in here Staff Report relative to why to use up all this'much area of the parkland in ponds, is there another way to do it? The other issue is how do you get down the slope here that has about a 15 to 18 foot drop to it? You could 'ive cars down to it but you would never get back up again so with those ~nings in mind, I guess I'll show you another plan that she hasn't seen that ......, .....", ....."" Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 12 ,..... we've put together today after our conversation that I think addresses some of those concerns. The other thing that I would like to bring up is that currently on the site, the only woodland that exists are really along the slopes in this area, wraps around here and then along this area. It's o.ur interest and our intent to try to leave as much of that as we possibly can. Two reasons. One, a lot with woods on it is worth more. It doesn't take too many brains to figure that out but the other reason is simply that it just looks better and so our interest is to cut the street in and do custom homes in this area that can work on top of the hill with these woods. We've also changed the street pattern to not drive through here and that way we can leave this area pretty much alone. Schroers: Are you planning on building homes right at the end of the wood:!d lots? Dick Putnam: The homes would be right up in this area and one is back in here. We'll try to keep them in what's open. It's really a matter of taking a look at what trees exist. There are a lot of oaks up there and it's kind of a lot by lot basis of which house goes where. This portion of the site, as you can see, is not graded like the open field portion. It's really cutting the street in and that's it. When you come in to build your house you end up picking which trees and so forth that you want to work around. There can be an oak that looks great but if you go up and look, ~bere might be a hole in the trunk so you make your choices. That one looks ~od and another one might not be. Schorers: But you do intend to do some right in the green area? Dick Putnam: Right up in here there would be homes that would come out around it, that's right so they would be backing into what is a wooded area. Mady: What is the green color? Dick Putnam: These are trees. Kevin Clark: What we've depicted there is the area, because it's really has not been 1 oca ted, it may seem denser than it is but wha t we want to do is preserve that but we don't know where they are going to fit so that's why we kept away from proposing any grading there until we decide where the trees and homes can fit better so that's why we left those upper areas pretty much alone other than just bringing in the street so we can keep all the maple trees in there but along that eastern edge the trees are large but not necessarily all would be in the house pad so a majority of them would be away from the house pad. Schroers: In your opinion, a lot of the more valuable trees would be able to be saved in that area? Kevin Clark: That's our concern and that's why we didn't go in there now ~d depict it as taking them all. Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 13 Dick Putnam: ...We also looked at connecting onto CR 17 through the Ci ty Chanhassen through park property or land they own but there are some tremendous grades through here and these people who own the properties. It's interesting. The price of the total property wasn't too far zemoved from buying about 5 acres from those folks by the time we got done talking to them and it was not feasible. -' of Hasek: acres, That extension, Franco extension and looks like maybe 4 1/2 to 5 that's not going to be developed? Dick Putnam: No. Haske: How do they gain access? Dick Putnam: Currently he takes his access off of the easement that Carlson's own. And if you drive up there, there are some concrete pillars that are out here and then Franco's driveway just really comes straight off at the end of it. What we're doing is providing him with a public street access right here so he would be able to connect hi s dr i veway to it and he then has public access and doesn't have to worry about that easement business. He is not in favor of our project at all. He used to own the property at one point and then sold it to Mrs. Dodds. He and some others were going to purchase it from Mrs. Dodds when it became available but for whatever reasons they chose not to and rather than the property go tax :linquent, which it was about to do, Centex stepped in and purchased it or made them a loan to pay taxes and then a purchase agreement to buy it but I ~ want you to understand he is not in favor of what we're doing at all and I'm sure if he were here this evening he would tell you that very vocally. He's got a very nice house. It's a big br ick house that I've never been in but he said it's just fabulous and I tend to believe him. There's not a whole lot we can do. The lots we have adjacent to him are like 36,000 or 32,000 square feet so we're trying to keep some bigger, more expensive homes there. Mady: The most recent trail plan that we've got shows major trail going down Lake Lucy Road. Is that something we were requiring this developer? Sietsema: Lake Lucy Road is going to be upgraded and as a part of that, there is a widened easement for that that it will be on the street. A stripped trail along the street. It's not an off-street trail. Mady: How wide is that easement for that right-of-way? Any wider than it is now? Kevin Clark: The property is going to be a little bit lower because we're going to have to run our sewer and water on the property so we could extend our easement 20 feet. Dick Putnam: The road right now is a 66 foot wide right-of-way which for the size street that you've got is a reasonable size. Frankly, if you would ke to seethe plan on the road and detach the trail, we'll pay for it on vur property. We just as soon have it detached. I have a personal bias ...."" Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 14 ,..... against stripped trails. Schroers: Talking about density of existing residents around that area... or around that area, that's not populted very heavily in there is it? Kevin Clark: There are all occasional type houses here. Dick Putnam: Particularly up here they range, the home that's right here that's for sale for $76,000.00 and 2 1/2 acres. The house is slab on grade. It's a one bedroom. It's really a cottage that's been changed. There are some very nice homes south of Lake Lucy Road that are set back and there is a driveway that goes back and they are on larger acreages. There is another property owner down here that has his property subdivided into four lots that contacted us if we were interested in buying, that are smaller lots. The lots that are here, that Jay subdivided, I'm not sure of the size of them but they aren't any much different than what we've have. I'm sure they are 15,000 and there is a new home being built on the corner. This property is a single family home and then also a permit to use it as a construction yard. The fellow is a contractor so he has his bobcat and that type of thing in a garage there. It's really a sprinkling. If we were able to say there was a consistent pattern where Donovan or Franco have some very expensive homes. There are some homes that are $70,000.00 to $80,000.00 around the site also. """hroers: Lori, in your opinion, is this parcel large enough to support 81 ~lngle family homes as far as the park acres is concerned? Sietsema: Yes. According to our Comprehensive Plan, we need 5 acres per 1,000 people and they won't be generating anywhere near 1,000 people. With the minimum being the minimum amount of parkland that we usually ask for. Mady: So this park will in fact support this area plus something in excess? Sietsema: Yes. Dick Putnam: It will be about 300 people. Kevin Clark: It's not a park for this particular development. for the whole area. It's a park Sietsema: To serve this neighborhood immediately but it would also serve surrounding areas as well. Nobody would be excluded from it. Lynch: You show a heavy grade just to the west of the green strip. For the trail to the north hits the lake, what immediately west of that? Dick Putnam: area is solid lines but this "...... binson: This is a ravine that goes up and it's wooded. This whole woods. I just didn't color it green to show our boundary is entirely wooded and it is a ravine that wraps up this way. And there is a little pond up there. Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 15 Mady: Are there houses built in there? ...."", Dick Putnam: No. Lynch: Is there any chance of us wanting to continue up that ravine? I've been back in there about four years ago and I can't remember exactly. Sietsema: I'm sure that would be desirable but isn't that the guy who owns... Dick Putnam: No, this is Willis Larson here and then Donovan's property, the ravine wraps around it. Sietsema: It would take up an easement from that other property owner. Dick Putnam: It might be something to talk to those folks about in the future because that connects up to that little pond that's up there and to the homes that are west toward Yosemite. That would be something to look at in the future. Whether Donovan or Larson would go along with it, I guess you would have to ask them. Hasek: Are you talking about extending the park up there or just the trail system? 'nch: No. I can't remember what's up there. If you get by Donovan's as you sweep up, is there any other large parcel in that area that would be ...."" possibly developed? Dick Putnam: I believe they are all individual lots. They vary from little old houses to new houses. One thing I should maybe mention too and Lor i brought this point up. When we talked about developing the property so it would be a parkland, what we would be doing is grading it and probably seeding it if that's the way you wanted it to go. A couple of things that would happen. One, in the grading of the property, we grade it in such a way that during different intensities of rain and engineering guys measures this stuff in what they call 5 year storms or 100 year storms. I think the biggest chuckle is we had two or three 100 year storms within about two weeks a couple years ago. I remember everybody was about swimming. What would happen in this area, as well as the other ponds, in the case of different size storms and I asked our engineers don't talk to me about 5 year storms. What is it? A 5 year storm is roughly 1 1/2 inch of rain within a half hour period. That's how they define it. And it goes up from there. Between that and 100 year storm, which is about 6 inches of rain in 24 hours. That's a lot of water. A one year storm is 3/4 of an inch or inch of rain. The way that the engineers are structuring this thing and they don't have the answers right now because and frankly there aren't contour maps of this whole area. The City doesn't have an overall contour map so we had to make our own but they are trying to figure out what the exact drainage area is on this side of the road. Likewise to the south and \ the west to figure our how much water is coming into this site. Unlike a ...ot of sites where the major drainage is just from itself, this one takes it....,.., Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 16 ~ from really three separate directions pretty much. So from our perspective, we've got to be careful that the hydraulics that we have on these ponds will work in terms of taking the water downstream. What happens is, in the case of a one year sort of storm which happens all the time, the water coming in is anticipated from the different directions, will basically stay within the pond areas. The blue areas. We get to like a 5 year storm and the water will come out a certain amount over the adjacent grass or whatever. In the case of a 100 year storm, obviously it's going to flood a much larger area, drain back in and out. The way they are approaching it right now, is that in the case of a 5 year or 10 year sort of storm, we're looking at about 5 hours, 6 hours to drain down so it's all gone. In other words, it rains like crazy. The water from the drainage areas come in, it floods an area and within 5 hours the piping that's here will head it down so it's all gone and back to normal. In the case of a 100 year storm, that's that 6 inches of rain in 24 hours, what they are looking at is probaby a 24 hour draw down and up to maybe 8 to 12 inches of water in places around the ponds it would then flow out over a 24 hour period until it's back down to dry again. How that relates to the park or these areas, there will be a high water elevation established and the basements all should be anywhere from 2 to 4 feet minimum above that maximum point that it would give you. Then the water can go back down again after it drains out. As that applies to the park, the facilities that you have in mind and that's really working with the staff if this project is approved, to figure out the grading on how you ~tually want it, there are some things that you would not to be flooded. an example, probaby a volleyball court or hard surface area or tennis courts or the tot lots so what you do is design the grading in such a way that those are above that elevation. For example I just drew a dotted line here. Let's say the maximum flood area here might well be this area and maybe an area out in through here. These areas would be high enough so they would flood even in a 100 year sort of storm. A good example or bad, I guess, would be Edenvale Golf Course. If you've been down there where the creek goes through in Eden Prairie. That area was designed to be a flood storage in real high waters. The greens and the tees are above the maximum flood elevation. The fairways are not. They've changed some of them because the creek tends to flood a lot more frequently than something like this would and that's been a problem over the years. Mady: One thing we're going to be watching out for, in your design there, you show the tot lot close to that pond and we will not be interested in a tot lot near that pond. Because we don't want small kids that close to water. Dick Putnam: I live on Lake Minnetonka and I have two small kids that grew up there. I grew up there myself and there are two philosophies. One is that you try to hide the pond away from the kids are. When you do that, the supervision of that pond is impossible. The other philosophy is you put the pond in the activity areas in such a location that it is close by where the mother is sitting ori the picnic table watching the dad play tennis or the parents are playing tennis next to the tot lot and the pond. You guys ~gure out what you want. If it were me, I would opt the pond is there. If .ey are going to go to a pond as a little kid, I would rather have them be Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 17 ......" here because chances are pretty good the parents are in this area and they are going to be able to work with that. I should point out too that these ponds are not going to be real deep. They may very well be only 3 feet deep and the reason for that is two fold. One, in our conversations with Elizabeth from the Fish and Wildlife, some of the ponds down here and here actually have little islands in them and the intent of this thing is to let them go into real wetlands. They aren't there now and what we would be doing is restoring them so it's not the sort of pond that's intended to be a lake. It's intended to have marsh grow up next to it and have ducks and that kind of thing. A little different than the kind of pond that you and I might think of would be a danger to kids. Hasek: I tend to agree with Dick. I think if you put the tot lot next to the pond, which is the way I tend to design them myself, and the reason is the education. I would rather educate the kids to the fact that they are not supposed to be in the pond. Mady: My concern is it just happened today in St. Paul where a 2 year old fell over a cliff. The mother was there watching the kid. There was a fence there. The kid crawled under the fence. It takes 5 minutes for it to happen. If she looks this way and the kid is gone, that's my theory. Keep it as far away as possible. J.fasek: The other way is the parent was right there and it was an lavoidable accident. ..""" Robinson: Lori, what are we supposed to be acting on or recommending here? Sietsema: We need to decide if this plan, as proposed, is acceptable in accepting that. Robinson: The amount of land and probably the location? Like your recommendation, the development and construction, we've got nothing to do with that. Sietsema: You want to recommend, if you want, that the developer to take care of the development and construction of that park. You need to include in your recommendation. Schroers: The developer is offering that, is that correct? Sietsema: That's what I understood, yes. Dick Putnam: I guess in terms of developing it, what we're talking about is making it a useable space that is high and dry and graded and seeded and we may very well work with you to put a tot lot in. I guess it just depends. I wish we were proposing a 199 lot project. It would be easier to do the whole thing but as it has turned out, I guess the ability to build the tennis courts and all that kind of business which we started out thinking \ lout, just kind of evaporated so we would be looking at the trails and <~idewalks, the grading and seeding. Grading it to what you think you want ~' Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ril 7, 1987 - Page 18 to do. In other words, you guys figure out the plans and we'll construct it right off the bat. Schroers: And your concern Lori was that the area is sufficient in size to accommodate the facilities that we wanted to put in there? Sietsema: Yes. Schroers: And according to that plan there, that is what the requirements would be? Sietsema: Yes. This plan looks acceptable to me that my recommendation would be to approve this. Hasek: A couple of things from the design standpoint perhaps. Is it the intent of the developer to grade the entire site but simply grade where the ballfield? That won't be developed? It simply would be graded? I guess with on-site material that's there. I think we would be creating another unusable ballfield for most of the year if that was the case that it was a low area that's going to be a muck hole most of the time so if we do want a ballpark, and I'm not sure that we do necessarily need a ballpark in that area, I would like to see us at least construct it so it's useable and will be available for a short period of time. We've got enough ballparks up here ~at don't dry up for days after a rain and those are supposed to be high ::h ballparks. Schroers: Would that ruin the flood plain if there were a berm built around the ballpark to keep the water off? Dick Putnam: I guess there are a couple of things that we could do there. Hasek: I think that would reduce your storage to the point where you wouldn't have any. Dick Putnam: I guess ideally it would be great if we didn't have to have any storage at all. Believe me, if we could confine it all to the ponds, that would be great but we have to pick up the water that comes up the creek and we're still trying to figure out how big that drainage area is. The fact that it's not going to be developed because it's wooded ravine and that sort of thing, is going to cut down the amount of water but we still have to deal with. There are a couple things we can do in that ballfield area. One, it's going to be a couple of feet at least over what it is there and possibly more than that. The pond itself is going to be a foot or two below the field elevation. A couple things we can do. One is we can run in a perforated pipe called french drain which is one way to solve that problem. In other words, that tends to dry that area up very well. We're using it on a golf course that we're doing right now and has worked over the last two years real well. There should be no reason why, once it's graded to drain properly that the thing should be wet now. You're right, you can go to the ~iversity ball field and that will be wet or high school ballfields .Jmetimes but the intention is not to make it a low hole that is going to Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 19 collect water. It's going to above that. ..."", Hasek: The second thing. I still think it would be a good idea to move that parking area over and maybe redesign the pond if you have to. Yes, the parking will be a little bit farther from the facilities perhaps but the guy who lives in home #1 is going to be living in that park whether he wants to or not and I think if you moved 1 over next to 17, then you've got the parking in the backyard as opposed to the sideyard. The other parking area is right off the end of the street where it probably should be. Dick Putnam: I guess that was one of the reasons we put it inside here. We wanted it in the sideyard and we will be adding some trees there on the lot or adjacent. A rearyard is sort of, that's where people orient now days. Their decks and all that business are out the rear. You can screen a sideyard a lot more effectively I think than you can a rearyard. Especially if the house sits up in the air and is a walkout as on a corner lot. We can look at that with the Staff and see how it's going to work better. I guess I wouldn't say we can't do it one way or the other. It's more how it's going to work best for both parties. Hasek: Do we know what side this trail is supposed to be going on? Do we know that? .dy: He's talking about taking a piece in here and a piece in here. ...,I' Dick Putnam: We can do that. Mady: What we're saying is we haven't decided that yet but we want to make sure that it's available. Hasek: Is this the road right-of-way? Dick Putnam: The road right-of-way is right here. Hasek: All you have to do is say sufficient easement to accommodate a trail along the road. Because it looks to me like this is the actual edge of the right-of-way on this side of the road. Dick Putnam: One of the problems is it drops off like gangbusters. Where the road is today is I'm sure where you are going to put a trail within a few feet of that if it's on that side. Hasek: Jim, basically is that plan the one? Mady: Pretty close. Hasek: With which exceptions? 'dy: We would be putting in an access to the park off of Road E. '...."." Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ril 7, 1987 - Page 20 ,- Hasek: Due west of Road F is really the right way to say it. The Lake Lucy Road trail? Mady: That's off-street which is an exception. Hasek: Okay, the trail connection for the general comment that we want to make sure that they retain an easement for a trail along CR 17. Is there anything else that's different from those three items? Is there a date on this plan that is different than any other date you submitted? Dick Putnam: What you are looking at today haven't been submitted and I guess if that's what we're looking at as a reasonable plan, what we'll do is try to incorporate that and that will end up being the plan that ultimately will go to the Council. It will probably be the same way. In other words, if they like this approach that you folks recommend, then in the final plat, that's the change we will make. Hasek: What I'm trying to do is to shorten up this recommendation. If you dated this plan we could say the plan dated such and such. Sietsema: Can we keep this? Alright, I'll just date it with our "Received" and I'll put that in. ~dy: What date are you going to put on? ~ietsema: I'll put on today's date. Schroers: Did you include the volleyball court? Hasek: I guess that's what we want to reserve the right to modify your facilities within the park. We want to have a large, sufficient sized ball diamond and all the rest of the things moved around. Lynch: We want Mark to do a master plan on it for the grading and the pond locations. Hasek: Can she shorten up your recommendation to add those three points. The grading and just simply refer to the dated plan? Okay, that makes it a lot easier. Sietsema: When they were talking about redoing Lake Lucy Road, Bill Monk was in office. He wasn't in favor of off-street trails because of maintenance and the headaches that go along with that. That's the way he said we had to do it because of the funds that we had to pay for it. Mady: But this developer is offering to put it in for us. Sietsema: The deal is, do you want an off-street trail just along there ~en the rest of it is going to be on the street? ~4ck Putnam: What we've asked is that we're willing to pay our share to do Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 21 it in our site but you can't just put one segment of trail in and then have to go back. That wouldn't work so what we've said is, how about doing it along the whole road and at least at this point the answer has been, no. Quite frankly, there are a number of neighbors that don't want it either. I guess I was a little surprised. They are still the wild, wild west syndrome there. On one side of the coin people don't want anything to do with roads, trails, other people. On the other side of the coin, there are people who like to see paved streets so you'll probably hear this. The Council hearing I suspect will be quite colorful because you'll have some real different opinions voiced. The divided trail thing, we would wholeheartedly support it but I think it has to be applied to this stretch of road that you're building. Not just one little chunk again. Hasek: I would say push to have it off-street. This is going to be a very busy road once the whole area gets developed. ..""" Mady: At least we'll be letting them know that we would rather see off- street trails than on-street trails and anyway we can do it, let's put it off-street. Hasek: The only thing that concerns me is the floodability of those parks and what we're left with for a park. The parcel is adequate as long as it's marginally dry most of the year. The only reason I bring that up is because T know that the ballfields that we play on up there are like when it rains. len you get a good rain, it's unusable for 3 to 4 days and those were supposedly designed to dry and they just do not do it. They don't need to ~ build more facilities of any kind. Sietsema: How about if you include a 5th condition that the City Engineers agrees that the grading they are planning to do will provide us with a dry park? Mady: The ball diamond actually isn't going to probably be used for any league games. Hasek: Exactly. In fact I wouldn't want it to be. We're going to start organizing leagues in the City, I would just as soon see all the parks in one place. One massive Lake Ann type of thing rather than having to drive here to go to one game and there to one game and there to another so I'm assuming it's going to be a neighborhood park but still, if it's a soft park and a wet park, there are going to get kids down there and motorcycles and everything else tearing it apart and we'll be down there fixing it all the time. I would just as soon see it drain. Whether that be drain tile or anything else, just so long as it's marginally dry at least on the surface so it's not destroyed. Dick Putnam: If we're grading the park, and there is no reason to grade it if you're going to leave it wet to be honest with you. If you were trying to use the land the way it was a t the ex i st i ng eleva t ion, then I would be ncerned but when we start running dozers and scrapers and all that busines vver it, what you'll end up with is... ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 22 .IfI1"" sietsema: But when you get your final grading plan you don't have any qualms about letting Gary look it over to make sure that he agrees that it's going to be a dry parcel then? Dick Putnam: What I would propose to do after tonight, and I guess I could leave a better copy with you if you want or just take that with me and I'll give it to our engineers tomorrow morning and redo the pond; and redo the grading and get that back to you probably by the end of the week so you guys can take a look at the preliminary version to see if it makes sense and then the only change to that would be when we get those draining calculations complete and then they will know how much water we've got to deal with. Schroers: I have one other question about the parking. say that there was a maximum number of parking spaces? Mr. Putnam did you Did you say 8 or l0? Dick Putnam: No, when I talked to Lori, she said that on the neighborhood sort of park like this you were looking at between 5 and 10. Normally 6 or 7 seemed to work so that shows 8 but it could be 10 just as easy as it could be 6. It kind of depends on what you want. Space is very much different one way from the other. Hasek: Lori, maybe you could monitor that. I don't know that we're going to see this plan again or not. Maybe the way that could be handled Dick is ~ simply show a grading expansion area where you're putting in a parking ace and the parking will allot for 6 cars but the possibility of expanding \.V 10. Schroers: What I'm saying Lori is that that is where we are running into some problems is not having adequate parking and I think to have a few spaces, even over and above what we anticipate that we need, won't hurt at all. Sietsema: Right. Like I said to him, 5 to 10 would probably be what we would need there and that's what we're looking for at Carver Beach that has had nothing for the last four years and we're looking at about the same number for Greenwood Shores which are both similar sized parks. Greenwood Shores hasn't had parking either so we are anticipating that those will serve the needs. Given that they are neighborhood parks and not wide community used parks. Hasek: I think it's a problem Larry though. What you're saying is, when we're grading this, a parking lot pad is a function of actually the lay of the land. I think we're just restricting it by showing it on this plan where in essence it could be anywhere from 6 to 12. This area is going to be relatively useable in here. Schroers: That is what I would like to see is some expandability in there in the event that some time in the future the park would become more heavily used then we had anticipated and rather than to try to have to connect some ~d somehow or purchase some more land to accommodate parking than what we Je available, we have enough area available if we need it. Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 23 ...", Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept the plan for the 6.38 acre park as shown on the plan dated "Received April 7, 1987" with the following exceptions and conditions: 1. An off-street trail along Lake Lucy Road. 2. A trail easement along CR 17. 3. Trail connection to the west of Road F. 4. Reserve right to modify the design as to where the facilities will be located. 5. City Engineer will approve the grading plan for the park facilities. All voted in favor and motion carried. Jeremy Jenson presented a plan for an Eagle Scout project to construct a trail and bridge. VIEW PRELIMINARY TRAIL PLAN. ...", Mark Koegler: Last time we talked about we wanted to bring back what we were calling a preliminary trail plan. That really is somewhat synonimous to what might be coming a trail plan. What I want to do at this point in time is identify every and any alignment for people within the City that have interest in eventually having a trail. The problem between now and next month, because we will bring back then a priority recommendation to you based on certain criteria as to how this should begin to be phased and that's when your work is going to get more difficult as well. It's easy tonight to sit here and say yes, let's draw the line from point a to point b. Next time we have to decide is this one more important than this one and how much does one cost in general terms and so forth. So, with that, the exhibit here on the board is the same thing that was in your packet. The existing trails you are well aware as far as mut1i-purpose trails in most part go are really to go along TH 5 and one around the east side of the lake. Additional trails that are in existence right now is the cliff trail that I think one of Jeremy's peers put in at some piont in time and is certainly worth, in what he was just talking about, in terms of foot access that is around that pond. Aside from that, the slate is clean. We don't have to many built in obstacles other than money and those kinds of simple things. The scenario that we've laid out so far, and sitting down with Lori and looking at this, we tried to identify first.of all the obvious things of connection some of the major facilities. The Arboretum and the Regional Park. Some of those kinds of things and how they can tie into some of the her parks. Additionally, as I sat in on Planning Commission meetings for various development related things, the Planning Commission consistent, any -,. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ril 7, 1987 - Page 24 time it comes to some of the County roads starts talking about trail easements and that's been a recurring theme. So this particular scenario shows that there is a pretty extensive trail system that would accompany. many of the existing road systems. That's to say that things like TH 101 along through here, the way it's shown on this, when TH 101 is approved and all things seem to indicate that it eventually will be. At least from what ultimatey is TH 212 to the north but that obviously is the appropriate time, if you are going to do a trail, to do it. You experienced the same thing recently with Lake Lucy Road and the improvement that's going on there at the present time and getting a trail put in place. Some of the things that we looked at in terms of overall trail alignments were the connection points to the system that Chaska has planned and in effect and then some of the connection points that Eden prairie has planned and in effect. Additionally, the regional network along the river and the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Their trail plan's call for a trail coming out of Chaska that goes across the river, I think over a railroad bridge if I remember correct, over into Shakopee, come across the bridge to Shakopee and then essentially veer east into Eden Prairie. That trail may ultimately touch the corner of Chanhassen, it may not. That's undecided. The rest of the property that is shown, either for acquisition or just for management purposes, really is just habitat. It's not really active recreation oriented that has occurred in other areas. Other inputs that we had in putting this together, I don't know how many of you know Tim Erhart from the ~anning Commission. Tim lives up in this area and has a very active :erest in trail network in the southern part of the community. He actually did Lori and I a great service by walking a great deal of these alignments on some of these tough winter days that we've had here and walked through the bluff creek corridor and came back very excited I think about the prospects of that pedestrian access only. The grades in there are extreme. If you've been down there, there is no way you could get any kind of bicycle or vehicular trail through some of these almost canyon like recesses in there but there seemed to be a good opportunity to get some specifically trail linkages. The one that's shown in here is actually one that Tim is proposing to develop himself on his private land. He has put a trail in from 96th Street kind of walking towards the west, he's looking at expanding that in the future on his accord and having that available for public purposes. As I say, we tried to identify any and all of the potential alignments. There is one here that is missing. I think you may want to comment on it. Actually there is a couple of things that I think we probably should discuss. This City for 10 years or so has always expressed a desire in a variety of ways, to ring Lake Ann certainly with something that I would like to see personally, because I was on the Staff. Reality of that mayor may not be rather touchy. That's not on here now. You may want to address whether or not you want to continue to show that. Kind of part of the parcel to that, I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Lake Ann Interceptor sewer line that comes through here. The easements for that are being acquired at the present time. Unfortunately, they are being acquired only for sewer purposes. They are not being acquired for trail ourposes. The NWCC does not get into the trail business. They made that ~?wn to the City very early on. They indicated that any negotiations along _ .at line would have to be separate. The major obstacle of that is a Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 25 -' significant stretch of the sewer goes through Prince's property and they were concerned enough about getting sewer easement, which they found apparently the people to be pretty cooperative. The chances of getting a public trail through there I think are, you've got to be a better talker than I am. So with that, what we would like to do tonight is just have you critique and add and delete and give any thoughts you have on other alignments that we nee~ to show for ultimate consideration. Hasek: Prince's property is within the MUSA line isn't it? Koegler: No, it's not. It's in this area. Hasek: And the MUSA line runs where? Generally where? Koegler: The MUSA line generally comes up TH 41, comes across here essentially and picks up a bit of property here, it comes down along through this portion into the industrial park and down over. Excuse me, Prince's property is actually in the MUSA line. It's not within anywhere where there is existing sewer service. Hasek: It seems to me like we ought to continue to show it if it's something that we would like to see at some point. There is the possibility that he's going to decide he wants to move, that piece will be up for sale. The next guy wants 10 acres or 20 acres around his land and he wants to vide the rest of it into 5 acre parcels not on the lake or something. If we want it, I think we should continue to show it so should a developer come along in the next 10, 15 or 20 years, at least we will let them know what our thoughts are. If they want to change it 15 years from now, another commission wants to change it, they can go ahead and do it but certainly I am of the opinion that it should have a trail going around it and we should continue to try and inspire it. ......" Schroers: I will agree with that. I would like to see that kept alive. Koegler: Let me clarify Ed your point. It's within the City's MUSA line right. It's not within the Metropolitan Council's MUSA line. The Metro Council we use essentially the red one on this map. with Prince's property being located right about in here so it is not within. ... Having this segment maintained. Lynch: I would like to see it hang in there too. Mady: The Pond park trail off of Laredo, I didn't notice that on the map. Koegler: The connection through here? Mady: Yes, that exists. Koegler: Yes, that just isn't shown. That's correct. ...", Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 26 ,..., Schroers: The reason that I feel we shouldn't bury that idea of continuing around the lake is that in doing the surveys that we were doing this past couple weeks here, many people that I interviewed suggested or wanted or indicated that they would at some point in time like to see the trail around the lake so I think there is a lot resident interest. Lynch: I know there is Council interest too. A couple members have been interested in that forever. Hasek: Are we not also looking at trying to get some parkland between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy? Lynch: Yes, we would like to get that little chunk. Schroers: How many landowners are there? Carlson owns one part there? Sietsema: On Lake Ann? Schroers: That little strip between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Sietsema: To be honest with you, I really don't know. Lynch: What we wanted was owned by one individual I thought. Between the ~ncture of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy and it runs west a little bit. We took c :un at that years ago I remember. Koegler: If I remember that was even before my time. Obviously it's not a developable piece of property. Hasek: Does it have tamarack in it or something? Schroers: Basically it's just a thin strip of land inbetween the two lakes. It's fairly hard ground. It's not swampy. It's got various hardwoods in there like you would find in the area. Hasek: It's not developable from the standpoint of houses. Lynch: It would make a neat picnic area. Hasek: I mentioned earlier the possibility of including plans for the two parks, the Arboretum and the County park in our packet. Maybe this is one reason why I would like to see them because I would like to know what the trail system is in that park because it seems to me like the distance between the two parcels right there, it might be real easy to run something between them and actually get a trail closer to the lake on TH 41. Koegler: It might be. You're aware, this is Camp Tonadoona right here which is a Campfire Girl's camp. You would have to do some investigations as to how they feel about public access going through. Those tend to, ~liously not high security situations but they tend to watch that more Jsely now than they used to. Ideally, I would agree. Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 27 Lynch: Then you have a problem getting across TH 41. Koegler: That's the other point. This is the Arboretum and this is state owned land on this side too so there is no reason why that couldn't be brought back perhaps and still use TH 41 as a crossing point. ......,;tI' Hasek: Now we're at least starting to go around Minnewashta and we've got some residential areas up in here. We're talking about a trail in this part and potential of connecting into something that could actually go into here. This is going to develop someday. When I don't know. There is a possibility of running it down through here eventually without actually going out onto what is a terrible road anyway right now. It would be nice. Koegler: The Commissions generally, where the TH 7 has been under study for improvement, in fact there is a report out with all the recommended improvements. It's being fought now amongst all the cities trying to mutually agree what is going to happen and you have a few cities like Excelsior that don't agree with the original premise of the study to begin with which makes it more difficult. There will ultimately be some improvements on TH 7 and again, that's the opportunity to perhaps get a trail link along there. The Minnewashta area, as you will know, is a whole series of intersections and things that you wonder where they corne and where they go. The level of detail that we're dealing with right now doesn't show r~e kind of things Ed that you're really picking up on and that's correct, are will be a trail that aligns through here and there are neighborhood connections coming in and there would be hopefully a designated street -' system that would be in that. I think that same thing is true in a lot of the developments. The existing street system or the case like Sadd1ebrook where that is actua1y more connections. Those will work to funnel people through to major trail linkages. Lynch: I was just looking at the one that goes through the east end of the Arboretum but the last time we checked maybe a year ago, the Regional park said they didn't want any entrances to that park besides that front entrance. We were talking to them about connecting up to a trail that comes down to the northern Minnewashta neighborhoods and how about if we went out south. They said no, they want everybody to come in the front gate and out the front gate. Koegler: They tend to be, and we haven't conferred with them yet, but they tend to be rather security minded. They fenced that property was the very first expenditure that the County channelled into this site and I'm familiar with Brad Linkridge from the park over on the east side of Eden prairie and they have essentially what you described. There is the one major entrance and walk-ins and bike-ins are not a problem. They are glad to have those people corne in free of charge. As you said, you come in through the front door. There aren't any back trails coming into that so I don't know if security is something we are really sensitive about. 3ek: Does Independence work that way too? -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 28 ,..... Schroers: Yes, it basically does because you have problems of being able to control what is coming in. We're not opposed to pedestrian traffic or bicycle traffic but 3-wheelers and motorcycles, you can't really have an access that will allow bicycles and pedestrians that something is not going to invent a way to squeeze a 3-wheeler or something like through and then you start having all kinds of erosion problems and complaints and an endless variety of problems. Hasek: Aren't there some trail connections out of that park into Long Lake? Schroers: Yes there are. But what they are, they are paved bicycle trails and there is a spur that goes into the city of Maple Plain and there are three or four other places where it would be neighborhood acess but there are locked gates at those points that deny access and they are also monitored on a regular basis by the Ranger. Sietsema: I talked to someone in the landscape Arboretum on an informal basis. They said they weren't the key person to talk to but they indicated that they wouldn't be totally against walk-in trail connections. He said basically we charge per person not per car but they are not locked into anything so it would be worth our further investigation into the landscape Arboretum anyway as far as trail connections. Mady: That might be an opportunity to draw up one chunk of that major trail ~item off of TH 5. Take it down through that road that goes through the z-._Doretum. Koegler: Are you talking about removing this segment? Mady: Not that much of it. goes through there. Coming in there and see there is a road that Koegler: You come in the main entry. Mady: And it comes out right where Minnewashta Parkway is. Koegler: The only problem is crossing over TH 5. Mady: They are showing a little piece on the south side already. Maybe they will grant us the ability to extend that a little farther. If we had one connection here and this piece could be eliminated and this extended. Schroers: There is an old road there. On the south side of TH 5. Sietsema: They indicated that they would be open for a trail along that as well. Koegler: That's a possible thing that we need to look at. We have a problem with that and that is we're out of the City of Chanhassen so that's ~ng to take cooperation from Victoria or trying to find a way to get ;ough here which really is not the best alternative at all. Hopefully Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 29 Victoria will be ameanable to that but again, they haven't been approached until we get some feel about what your thoughts are. -". Schroers: Do we have a standard Mark on how wide the trail has to be? Koegler: That's the second item we're going to discuss this evening. What the general thinking has always been and it's been compromised to be honest with you, is that 8 feet would be the minimum for a pedestrian/bicycle kind of multi use trail. That was what was originally planned for this segment around Lake Ann Park and that project got down to cutting right down to the wire on costs. It was reduced to 6 feet. In retrospect I'm not sure, we thought we had the contractor talked into just putting in 8 feet because he could use the paving machine and just run it right through but he went in and put 6 in. Generally, the existing one down here, I'm sure you've been on it more times than I have, is that 4 feet wide in some areas. Schroers: The problem with that, if you went down and looked at the one along Lake Ann right now, it is for servicing. You run service vehicles on something that narrow, you got one tire off and if it's soft and wet, you're digging a trench and you're throwing mud and all kinds of debris up onto the trail. I guess I'm a believer in the 8 foot. Koegler: I don't argue with you a bit. That one we did put the base is in there solid at 8 feet. As solid as the soil permits in there. That area, we have a normal spring, is not an area that even if it was 8 feet wide you would want to take a vehicle down. But I agree with you, 8 feet allows maintenance vehicles and everything else that you were talking about before. """"",< Schroers: Then is this whole system basically being looked at as a multi- use bike/pedestrian trail? Koegler: That's the issue that we would pose back to you. As it's shown right now, the vast majority of it would be shown as a multi-use trail. The only exceptions are the ones I noted that are on this particular one in blue and I think they were hollow dots on your map. That's the one that comes up through the more difficult terrain with the connection piece is actually a private property and then some of the existing ones, this one terrain, obviously again is a factor that precludes bicycles. Somewhat the same situation there. Other than that, the intent right now and the thinking is that in order to take the minimum or the small part of financial resources that the City may have to make it multi-purpose. Hasek: That trail that goes down through Bluff Creek, I know you can get a bike down there because I found one in the creek. Koegler: Unfortunately, that ravine was a dumping space for people for quite a while. There is a lot of debris down there. Hasek: That's gorgeous piece of property. ....." Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 30 IfIII". Koegler: Some of the other things you might want to think about are like up along the Lotus Lake area. I think probably you made some decisions tonight that will have some impact on Bloomberg's development for instance. The. trail going through the cul-de-sac or along Pleasant View Road. The connection here where the City can most conveniently take a trail out to TH 101, unfortunatey doesn't line up with where Eden prairie has connections. They have connection to the north but presumably some kind of a trail linkage along TH 101 could be brought down to tie into their cross street. These properties right in here right now are being considered for development which may make a street connection off-setting the one in Eden prairie which again would be a crossing point. Mady: You might even be able to take the trail off of TH 101 and put it in through the development because TH 101 actually does have trails along it in many spots. Koegler: Yes, that's possible. TH 101 again, is anybody's guess what will happen but all parties agree that it has to be improved. Right now we're fighting over who's jurisdiction it is. Nobody wants it. Schroers: It seems like in the center area, we're pretty saturated with trails in the Lake Susan area and east. We've got two trails there are basically going from the same place. From Arboretum Blvd. down to Lyman ~d.. What's the reasoning for so many trails right in there basically ng to same place? Koegler: CR 17, I think the reasoning there is probably fairly self- explanatory. That's a major north/south linkage at least down to TH 212. It probably would go down to pioneer Trail. The city's transportation plan shows that as being extended eventually down to TH 169. I don't think that will ever happen. The terrain and the golf course and everything else is too many built in problems. This segment along the center portion is in there as kind of a connection that comes out of the Industrial Park and feeds down. This Industrial Park connection is another one that I think we're going to want to look at a little bit more because I know originally, and I don't know if Lori knows what the City has for sure in there or not, but originally there was to be dedication all in through here from the developer. Whether or not the deed actually got recorded or not. Sietsema: And I haven't been able to nail it down that far yet. Koegler: That's an alternative for corning through there. The problem it gives us is that again comes out with another location on TH 5. At least if we use the street portion for a part of it, eventually there is to be another street off-setting the intersection here and I would perceive that ultimately that would be single lots. The discussions with the Industrial Park have always been that that probably will happen but we'll have to wait and see what the warrants unfortunately dictate but that's likely to be a signalized intersection in the future. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 31 ~ Schroers: If you're running south from the Industrial Park right there, what is that area going to service? Is there a lot of development planned along there? Koegler: Rural development only. The Planning Commission within the last three months or so has reviewed some proposals along here. At the time of review on those, there was discussion of trail easements. I don't know if any of those were acquired or not. I don't think they were in that case. There was a piece of property here that's being used for the new Gardeneer that's moving down there. Schroers: That's not CR 117 along there is it? What is that? Audubon Road. Koegler: CR 117, Galpin is over on this side. This one used to be designated, if I remember correctly, as CR 17 and then when the new 17 went in, it took the designation. 17 used to come up and do this. Schroers: I wonder if we leave that area in there, if there is enough use right there to justify the cost of putting that in. We're extending it over from existing CR 17 and to where it would go over and intersect with the Lake Ann trail. I wonder if we need it beyond there. J.f~sek: I think the ideal area is down the road 20 years and if we get a ~l for what's happening and if this think all of a sudden became an Eden pra i r ie, in 20 years it would develop out. I don't think that's going to happen but that's the whole reason for the Plan is to update the last one that we had which really excluded the other side of Lake Minnewashta and that's being included now and I think we're trying to include some other areas that we maybe are going to see develop in the next 20 years if we're lucky enough to get the MUSA line. I guess we're just going to have to see what happens but that's it. It's an overall plan and I think it's kind of like as he pointed out before, as the develops come in, they are going to have to put in their own connections to the major system and we've got a decent road in there. I'm sure you've driven that road. ~ Schroers: Yes, it the one that has the sharp bridge going over it. Hasek: theirs. But I know the bikers use that a lot and it's a favorite road of That I think is the idea if I'm not mistaken. Koegler: Yes. You're touching on a real important point and that is, that when you compile this, in essence you are putting the Planning Commission and the Council on notice that that's what is planned so if they get another rural subdivision that comes in along here, they will ask for the appropriate trail easement. And granted, the trail may not be built for 20 years but the City will have secured the necessary right-of-way and that's the key right now. So if you think there is a strong need or see a strong need for the future, by all means draw the line at this stage of the game 1 we'll deal with phasing it. .....,,' Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 32 ,...., Hasek: Generally, I think it looks like it works for me, with the limited knowledge on the whole ci ty. We've shown a couple of areas where there are some strictly pedestrian trails, particularly along Bluff Creek. Are there other natural areas within the City that may be considered for more pedestrian section which we should be looking at? It seems to me like there might be some opportunities between Lake Minnewashta and Lake Lucy there someplace in that basically undeveloped land and I know there are a lot of potholes and slews and deer hunting country in there. Sietsema: Does Bluff Creek go all the way up to north of TH 5? Koegler: The Watershed does. The actual creek does go on up further than this map shows. If you look at an aerial, it comes up and branches off. I don't think there was a significant water force that really does go, at least that I'm aware of. Sietsema: I know Tim indicated that it originally or at one time or something he had talked to Al Klingelhutz and that it did start up there. Hasek: I think the drainage area might start up as far as that pond that's right next to the Jr. High School. Koegler: I would think that it comes out of all this area and feeds into ~~at. How much of that is actually a substantial creekbed and an amenity ~'us an almost tilled field... Hasek: Have you walked much of that back in there? Have you been back in there at all? Schroers: It was so long ago that I wouldn't remember it. You're talking about the Bluff Creek area? Hasek: The Bluff Creek that runs through there. All that. Schroers: Yes, as a matter of fact I have been back in that area but I think most of that now has been declared a wildlife sanctuary and I was between there and the city limits of Chaska, that would be down a little further but in that area, you haven't been allowed to move freely in there for quite a while. Hasek: That would be one possibility. Koegler: It does branch up in there and extend. Hasek: That would be one addition that I guess I would like to see, if there are any natural areas that are around. It would be nice to see those included even if it's just a pedestrian pathway now or bike trail. One quick question, the back side of Lake St. Joe's. Between Lake St. Joe's and that pond, there is a real nice stand of tamaracks in there. I don't know ~t the future for development. We've got the trail generally shown on the .d there and I know there is a lot of discussion from the neighbors they Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 33 want to see something done in that area and the City says, we've got a road that can't be expanded. We've got a real difficult section of road in order to develop, would now be the proper time to indicate that we would like to see the trail perhaps moved someplace other than the road in those areas that we know it just is never going to happen? If it's just a generalized line saying we want something in there. How it's going to happen we're not sure. .....",. Koegler: That actually fits very well though with what you're going to be doing with the rest of the rehashing of parkland itself. Earlier drafts of the 1980 Comp Plan had shown this Lake St. Joe area hopefully to be acquired for public open space purposes. Again, that was kind of a wish list. Whether that was actually ever going to occur or not, that was part of the intent. I don't know if that is on there or not. I think it still is. Sietsema: It's on the Land Use Plan. Koegler: Okay, so it is still shown as being the desire so that any trail connection that be proposed to go through there is consistent with the Comp Plan at the present time. Sietsema: One of the things about Lake St. Joe is that it's marshy way away from the actual body of water. All the way almost up to the road. 3ek: We could have a chipped trail. We're talking about a pedestrian t:.cail. ....", Koegler: Would that most appropriately go between the two bodies of water or around? What are your thoughts? Hasek: Maybe the aerials would show you. Koegler: Just some kind of movement through. Would you look at that as replacing a trail segment or in addition to? Hasek: That's a real tought piece through there. I think that's kind of your job if you want to know the truth. A trail along that road is going to be tough no matter what and no matter where you look at it. Mady: Do you have a preference to show it off? Koegler: The argument I would have for leaving it on the road is that hopefully that road will reconstructed at some point in the not too distance future which will hopefully again improve the alignment and the capability to put a trail through there. Most of the arguments that I've heard from residents who I have been in contact with in this area, is that they are really concerned about pUblic safety and there is a lot of movement through there. I'm afraid if you get too much off the beaten path, you're going to start encouraging them to use the street again so I would recommend that lt be supplementary and maintain still movement along the street for Jvggers and bikers and so forth. -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 34 ,.... Hasek: So then the major trail would still be on the road? Koegler: This may be a trail for a pedestrian one. If you are saying that it is pretty marshy but would support a chip base or something. Schroers: I've got one comment in regards to what everyone is talking about in regards to the natural areas. I guess I'm not of the opinion that we should have a trail through every natural area. If that were the case we wouldn't have a natural area. I would just as soon leave some of it alone. In that St. Joe area back there is pretty wild right now. Hasek: I guess I was thinking not so much, more like a schoolyard learning experience type of area. I don't know. There is no tamarack in the Arboretum that I can think of. I don't know that there is any out in the Lowry Nature Center or whatever it's called now. Schroers: Oh yes, there is tamarack there. Hasek: Can you get to it? Do you know where it is? Schroers: Yes, there is a boardwalk trail that goes through that whole swamp and there is a lot of tamarack back in there. B~sek: I guess that's what I had in mind. A learning center more than ",.thi ng. Koegler: This obviously is a nature area. The previous Comp Plan when it looked at Lake Minnewashta area, looked at there being at least in the near future, not a great number of opportunities for parks and that was looked at as being a passive, kind of open space area that be designed for community wide use for particularly to appeal to residents along the west shore of Lake Minnewashta. That was tied in at the time of discussions that ultimatey the city would like to possibly acquire Leech's Resort for additional city lake access and put in a park and tennis court facilities but that went by the wayside. Schroers: Do we have a ratio or formula of some kind that says we should leave so much natural as opposed to some much developed? Koegler: No. Because there really is not an adequate inventory of what's natural to begin with. A tilled field is not natural, that's easy to spot but beyond that, how do you categorize it? So there is not a ratio relationship of that kind. Schroers: I wonder if that is something that we could look at and consider at some point in time down the road. Along with development, preserving some of the natural areas is really important because that's part of our area and we need to save that because there is an awful lot that is being developed. ,....~tsema: Past Commissions have been more concerned about natural parks .her than active parks but they haven't figured out any ratio, no. Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 35 Koegler: It has been kind of just follow the direction of the Park and Recreation Commission and the group that sat in your chairs in 1978 and 1979 were probably more natural area oriented then I think they began getting increasing pressure for active facilities and that kind of tipped them back in a way that seemed to flow with the need. Hasek: I'm just looking at this Comp Plan here which is in the process of being updated, they have trail connections between Lake Ann and TH 41 shown. ...." Koegler: That was really to be, it's always been a vision that if and when the Lake Ann Interceptor went in, that that would be the base for a trail connection. Again, I would throw that one back to you with the Lake Ann issue. If you think it's valid to show that we can show that. Hasek: Does it have to go on the sewer 1 i ne or can it be a ambiguous connection of some sort? Koegler: It can be as ambiguous as you want to make it. Obviously for just convenience purposes and acquisition purposes, following the sewer line is a very easy thing to do. They are going to be doing some tree cutting to get that through there and some restoration and it's easy to put a trail along that alignment. That, as we talked about earlier, is not possible along all of it so you wou ld have to dev i a te .from the sewer 1 i ne to respect cer ta in rn~operty owners. hasek: Absolutely but I guess what I didn't want to do is guess on this -' one... The other thing on here, it shows us some parkland on Lake Lucy, is that something that has gone by the wayside. That pennisula that sticks out in Lake Lucy. Is that developed out there right now? Sietsema: I'm not sure if it's developed. I think that was considered though. Do you recall, isn't that where they were going to put the boat access up in that area? Were you here at that time when Fran? Lynch: They looked at that maybe 8 to 10 years ago. Sietsema: And we actually got the LAWCON Grant to put a boat access up there. The deal fell through in purchasing the property and we moved the grant to the Lake Ann Park. Lynch: You couldn't get to the property. Sietsema: The file is unclear as to what exactly happened. Schroers: That's basically more of an island than a pennisula. That's pretty much surrounded by swamp. The whole thing. I can see why you couldn't get to it. Lynch: The problem was trying to get an easement for the roadway from Lake cy Road. It didn't work. ....", Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 36 """'" Sietsema: I don't want development is going on there now. currently there. What is Hasek: Can we still show it? Sietsema: I can find out. Hasek: I'm wondering if we want to show a trail around Lake Lucy. To preserve the intent. I don't know that much about some of these areas and maybe I'm flying off the hand. With St. Joe's I happen to know a little bit about. Lynch: I look at the Lake Lucy circle as even more remote and less possible than the Lake Ann because of a great deal of individually owned pieces of property where the people are adamantly opposed. Schroers: That whole back area, there aren't any houses or anything back there. Really that is all pretty natural area on the north and northwest side of Lake Lucy and continuing around to the west, all of that, there is nothing really developed back there at all. Hasek: How about 67th Street? ~ietsema: Isn't that Merrill Stellar's property? ,..." h_egler: I know there was a rural development approved and several homes have gone in for what is known as Lake Lucy Highlands. I'm not 100% sure. I know part of that does include this ponding area and some of these lots through here. Schroers: Directly on the north side? Koegler: Yes. Hasek: So then the possibility of going up 67th Street seems to be... Sietsema: We did look at that section where there are little bumps on tne northwest side of Lake Lucy. We asked for a trail easement. The Park and Recreation Commission asked for a trail easement along that when that development came in and they are also talking about the realignment of Lake Lucy Road and the Council did not go along with that because it was so marshy in there and they didn't feel it went anywhere at that time. There were people on the Council that were opposed to having any kind of trail that didn't actually connect to anything. To just go along that section, they didn't feel that it was necessary. Hasek: That's why Minnewashta Parkway is in trouble I guess. You get a major development go in and there is no trail system there now, why take a piece. Now we're going to put a plan out here that says maybe we should ~e taken it. Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 37 Sietsema: As I recall and my memory is sketchy because that was a couple ~ years ago, but on that northwest edge there, we gave up our right to that. Schroers: There is a steep wooded ridge along there too. Sietsema: Yes, it's pretty steep and marshy at the bottom. Lynch: We asked for it and the developer didn't want to give it and the Council didn't ask for it. Hasek: I guess I would still like to show it. I don't know that the alignment that is shown on the old Comp Plan is the one that we want to use or not but I think that there should be some sort of connection across to the Reg i ona 1. A more direct way to get people from the center of our city to that Regional Park. Sietsema: How about going around Lake Harrison? Lynch: We talked about that several times but due to the undeveloped nature of that area, we have never been able to even draw. Schroers: There is a snowmobiling route that goes right there. Right where we would want to go. 3ek: That's not purchased or anything. Sietsema: No, that's on private property and they have to get the consent of all those property owners. Koegler: That's a good interim though. Once somebody has made public consent to at least use it. Especially for snowmobiles. ~ Schroers: Where the sewer line goes, how far west is that going to be established? Koegler: It ties in up on TH 41. It comes down through here and then it goes down through the Industrial Park and over. Schroers: I think that makes the most sense to go along the sewer line and make most use of the area that we can. Hasek: Maybe we should ask are there any omissions that you see on here? Is t'he plan that you propose that seemed to fill the bill and you are just asking us for extended input? Koegler: Earnestly asking you for input. I think most of the lines that are on here are consistent with a lot of discussion that has happened with a lot parties over a period of time. The thing that we need to pick up on and I don't that you have the expertise to do. Particularly some of these destrian links and some of the areas that you are not as familiar with_ ~eographica1ly as other areas. The obvious ones, we've all seen the Bluff ....., Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - page 38 ~ Creek drainageway and we're all impressed that we should do something with that. I honestly don't really know. As many times as I've been across the roads and so forth, what specific features might lie within some of these areas. If anyone is aware of anything or if you are driving around over the course of the next 30 days or so and you see something, by all means bring that back to our attention. Schroers: I've been through that area on cross country skis. I've cut through and between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy then I hook up on that snowmobile trail and then I cross country ski across CR 17 and then I've been back in that area between CR 17 and TH 41 and that area in through there has got some pretty hilly and ravine type area that would probably lend some problems to construction of a trail because of the steep ups and downs but I would think that if it were to follow the sewer line that a lot of that problem would be eliminated. Whoever is putting the sewer in would have to make some kind of arrangements where they can bring their equipment in there and cut down some of that grading but it's a lot of open space. There is really nothing developed in there. A few houses here and there but it's basically farm country. Koegler: And will remain so now. It's not within the City's MUSA line which is the now out to the year 2000 and now that it's subject to a 10 acre ~;nimum for resideDtial development, that will slow that down too. ,.... Jroers: It's a real nice area back in there. Lynch: How heavily is our rail line used? Hasek: Jay Johnson said something about seven trips per day. I don't if that's accurate or not but it's what Jay mentioned. Lynch: Railroad tracks are becoming a thing of the past real fast. I sure would like to get a hold of that one. Where does that end up? Schroers: It goes out through Jonathan and continues out and it goes out across the Creek Road and then into Cologne I believe. Lynch: Where does it actually service? Schroers: I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure on how far it goes but I do know for sure that it does go as far as Cologne and out through there. Koegler: There is a greal deal of discussion right now with the southern railroad line may be abandoned. Schroers: Those are the ones that run down into Shakopee and Chaska. Lynch: There is some road right on the south side of the river down in ~ko~ee. Was that an old rail line? It's about half way down the bank to rlver. It looks like it used to be an old railroad. Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 39 Schroers: Is that part of the State trail down there right now? .....", Lynch: It may be. Hasek: What else do we need to tell you? Schroers: The way it's laid out, it looks like we have the area covered pretty well. Lynch: I think it would be really great to get from Lake Ann directly to the Regional Park. Schroers: What is your opinion on that Mark? Do you think that along the sewer would probably be the most practical and most viable? Koegler: I think no matter what business your in, whenever you are addressing a group you always come up with something but let them do it. That trail and the Lake Ann trail, I'm certainly glad you drew it in because I think those should be there. On the practical side of it, it may be a little difficult. We'll look at that in detail between now and next time as well as the Arboretum and some of the other points that you've raised this evening. Sietsema: It may very well be possible that if Prince won't let us go :oss his property on that Lake Ann Interceptor, he may give an easement rlght on the outside of his fence. Maybe. To continue our trail. It just ~ depends on how much you can see his house and that kind of thing probably. Hasek: Before this is done it might be another 10 years and this map will change by then. All we're going to do is give it our best shot and our impressions, right now today. Lynch: When you compute the mileages on that, would you break out the off- road, on-road. Break that down because it is a tremendous difference in cost. Koegler: The real tremendous difference comes in terms of sychronizing construction. On-road if it's on existing TH 5 is still expensive. On-road if it's on Lake Lucy Road right now is a bargain. When you are doing road improvements but we will break that down. The second item which just briefly, because what we just started talking about, we will be coming back with a review of alignments and costs and things, those are going to be based on some very general criteria at this stage of the game. I just wanted to relay and I think realistically, the main thing is we are going to be looking at a ribbon that is 8 feet wide unless you have any other concerns. Beyond that it will be just in terms of preliminary steps right now and observing normal standards of grade, clearances and so forth which really that level of detail is not that significant at this stage. There is a kind of a sampling in there that probably most communities use as a ~imum kind of set of standards. We really don't need any input beyond '~..at. Just to let you know what it will be based upon. ..."I Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 40 ,..... Lynch: I would like to ask everybody to mark in around Lake Ann and Lake Minnewashta Regional over to Lake Ann and for now at any rate, take this map and tuck it into the back of your folder until we get an update on that. Sietsema: Were we going to talk about prioritizing next time then? Koegler: Yes. Next time reserve some discussion time on the agenda. REVIEW POTENTIAL 1987 LAWCON APPLICATION PROJECTS. Lori Sietsema gave the Staff Report regarding the projects outlined for 1987 LAWCON grants. Schroers: Lori, could we look for additional funding somewhere else? Instead of having to totally eliminate the $80,000.00 or $100,000.00 portion of it? Sietsema: Yes, that is what they would do. They would say we will approve up to $100,000.00 and you could either cut it or keep down the expense of your own. That happened with the lights at Lake Ann. That was originally a ~,000.00 project and they said we'll approve it up to $57,500.00. We ld either cut it back, because that was all the money they had left, or pay the extra. Schroers: From where you're sitting now, totally hypothetically, just say that they did give us $100,000.00 but they didn't give us the $80,000.00, what would be the chances of us being able to come up with the extra $80,000.00 to do what we wanted to? Sietsema: I don't know. It's not that we don't really have the money. It would probably depend on how supportive you people were in doing the whole project and how it was perceived by the Council as a priority project. I don't really know. Lynch: We have never before tried to pass a project larger than $25,000.00? Sietsema: Our LAWCON projects have all been more than that. Lynch: That's matching funds. That's a little bit different deal. Where we just said let's spend some money and our budget shows. Sietsema: We were used to a capital improvement program of $35,000.00 to $40,000.00 and this year we've proposed $118,000.00. Schroers: I think when they start looking at this proposed trail system, they are going to realize some real dollars. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 41 Lynch: I think the Council's concept of the dollars to be spent on the Park -' program is going to necessarily alter in the next 2 or 3 years as they start looking at some bigger dollar numbers. Schroers: If they don't. Lynch: We can panic and just say forget it or they will develop some realistic viewpoints and start looking at it. Mady: We could possibly put in the trail system funding in the bond issue. If the Task Force decides that the community center is going to be looked at. Hasek: The Lake Ann picnic shelter and recreation building, is that something that has been conceptually designed at this point? Sietsema: Yes. The plan is all together. All we would do is put a new cover letter on it with the right date. Hasek: How does the shelter that's going up there right now fit in? What's happening with that? Lynch: That's up on a hill by the tot lot. ~tsema: The soccer fields we're talking about would be going in right wHere these hockey rinks are shown, instead of hockey. In this field, we're ...", talking about building that and that would be phase 1. It would be phased project with this being second project or maybe two more projects with additional parking over here. This street alignment of the whole entrance road is different than what it is and it is still a question of if that will ever occur. That's basically what we're talking about. Schroers: Is that coming off of CR l7? Sietsema: No, it was at one time proposed to be another street there with a development next door. But there has been about four different plans for that piece of property since this plan has been made so whether that road will ever go through. Koegler: Part of that is platted right-of-way now. Sietsema: Our half is. Hasek: Field #1, is going to have lights? Sietsema: Yes. Hasek: Has there been much input, maybe the survey said something about that, but of lighting more of the fields? -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 42 """ bchroers: I got comments about lighted ballfield on Lake Ann. going to get the lights and all I could say was it is proposed give you a date. I don't know when and how. How close are you that down to dates? When are we but I can't to nailing Koegler: That project will be completed within the next 3 to 6 weeks. It will be used this season. Hasek: That ballfield just has such potential. I just can't imagine that if they had lights out there on three or four fields, that thing might be booked every weekend through the summer for tournaments. I'll bet you would have to make room for tournaments on that thing. Schroers: I would have to agree with that. Look at how large the complex is in Bloomington there. When I lived in Bloomington I couldn't go down there and play catch with a friend. We would get kicked off because there was someone coming to use the field. They were constantly in use. Sietsema: And these are scheduled continuously from 5:00 until dark Monday through Thursday for sure. Some Fridays and we do not reserve them on the weekends because we would like people to go there and have some pick up games and whatever. They are scheduled solid for games. All the other ballfields throughout the city are scheduled pretty solidly for practices. ~'roers: Then in Phase 2, is there more lighting scheduled? Sietsema: We have not included that. That may be something that you want to talk about. Schroers: I would think that that would be something that we would want to seriously consider is at least one more lighted field and possibly two. Mady: You might be able to get the lights on one field to pay for the development on another field.,. Sietsema: How many are typically approved? I don't know a ratio or anything but I could tell you that in the years since probably mid-70's, we've gotten at least two for Lake Ann Park. Lynch: Four or five grants in the last six or seven years. Sietsema: We've gotten three for Lake Ann Park. At least three. We've gotten one for the North Lotus Lake. We've gotten quite a few grants. Lynch: There is something of a squeaky wheel proposition here too. You don't want to go in with one. Sietsema: I would recommend that top four. I think that the trail connections to Chaska is a good project. I don't know as though we have ~)ugh time to coordinate it all. We don't have our trail plan completed. It might be something that we might want to look at again next year. The Park and Rec Commissio Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 43 downtown rest stop area, it was put in there basically because it was a low budget item and in talking to Don he thought it's nice to have a low budget item in there in case they've got 40,000.00 extra dollars or whatever and that fits in but I think we've got the Lake Susan one that is only $50,000.00. I think that covers that. -'" Hasek moved, Mady seconded to make application for LAWCON grants for the Lake Ann ballfield development, Lake Susan Park development, and the Lake Ann Park picnic shelter/recreation building and Lake Lucy Boat Access via Lake Ann as presented in the Staff Report. All voted in favor and motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW: SOUTH BAY, JAMES ~ HILL, INC., APPLICANT. Sietsema: This is the South Bay subdivision and it came to my attention late and I apologize for not having anything in the packet about it. It didn't seem like a big deal to me until I looked at the Land Use Plan and it's in there as potential parkland so that requires an amendment to the Land Use Plan. This plan is located to the south of Lake Minnewashta. The very, very southern tip of Lake Minnewashta. This is Lake Minnewashta and this is a little body of water that tips out there. They are proposing a subdivision, wetland alteration permit for 17.88 acres into six single family lots. Basically what I see here is a potential trail connection )ng TH 5 if we want to reserve it just in case we might need it but ocherwise, as far as neighborhood parks, it's not close enough to any neighborhood to serve as a neighborhood park. with the Arboretum right below and the Regional park right above and Lake Ann just down the road, I can't see it being used as a community park so what I'm suggesting is that we go ahead and I don't know why it was put in there. Barb thought maybe it was an error. Do you know? .....", Koegler: No. I talked to Barb. To my knowledge that was put in there because you'll notice on the Comprehensive Plan that category is parks and open space and I think at the time the City thought, that being a very low area in general, it would be designated as open space. I think it's only for that reason. There was never any intention of an active park facility on that property. Hasek: Are we talking about the area that is actually out in the lake? Lynch: No, it's the western section of the lots that are low. The right section is high. Koegler: Here is the high water mark right here at 945. Schroers: That's a pretty nice area of maple trees in there. I would just as soon see that left an open space. ~tsema: The area to the west? That area would generate $2,400.00 in park ~~es. There is a whole outlot there that isn't proposed for anything. I -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 44 "",..... don't know what the price of that would be. If you wanted to acquire that wetland just for preservation purposes. They can't alter it to any great degree. Schroers: What did you say about acquiring a permit for wetlands? Sietsema: Evidentally they are applying for a wetland alteration permit. Schroers: In other words, what they want to do is probably put some fill in and stuff so they can build it up? Hasek: Wetland alteration permit for what area? Outlot A? Sietsema: I don't know. I could get Barb down here and she could explain that to you. Do you want me to see if she's still here? Lynch: I don't think wi th the current wetland ordinances we've got, they are going to be doing any filling. Schroers: I was wondering what our position was as to how much influence we have on something like that. Sietsema: She's not here. "",..... ch: How much influence do we have? About whether or not it's developed, l:-..:riod? Schroers: Yes or whether or not the wetland alteration permit is granted. Do we have anything to say about that? Lynch: Not unless we're willing to accept it as parkland. Sietsema: You can include it in your Minutes and you can include it as your comments. Lynch: If we don't want it for park and we're simply concerned about it, yes we can send some correspondence over to the guys that do rule on that and say, we don't think this ought to get done. Sietsema: It's really a planning issue though and I'll tell you, the Planning Commission and the City Council has taken a pretty firm stand on wetlands. Like I said, we have one of the strictest wetland Ordinances in the State from what I understand. Hasek: How long has that been in place? Lynch: About a year and a half. Hasek: I was go i ng to say, I know some people who crea ted beaches where ~re used to be cattails just like that. Outside of a possible trail ,ement along TH 5, I don't know what else. Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 45 Sietsema: Mark, I know you came in cold on this. Do you have a recommendation or any comments? ...." Koegler: As I mentioned, the Comp Plan's intent was really only open space and it was really targeted to more the wetland area which, with the City's new Ordinance and with the plan the way it's shown, I think in essence you are going to get that preserved anyway as open space. Consistent with what we've talked about tonight, I think minimally you want a trail easement along TH 5 and Ed was raising what I think was a valid comment also that if you look where this eastern property line falls along through here and if we ignore terrain for a moment, we're coming right up through here. A possible trail. I would think in terms of your consideration, it would be for two possible trail locations with this being prime and maybe there is cause to think about one along there. Hasek: That's a real strange layout. There isn't any access shown to any of those lots is there? Koegler: The 40 foot road easement shown through here. I don't know what's going on with these lots. I don't know if they can get... Hasek: Get there from above? Koegler: I don't know if they can. bletsema: Would a 20 foot trail easement along the east border there do it? -' Koegler: There are two ways to approach that. One is easement or the other to require them to actually dedicate additional land to the City. Most cities when they have the opportunity will go for the dedication for outright ownership so you don't have any future problems. That's the preferred mode. Where that doesn't work is the fallback condition for easements. Presumably, given the size of that subdivision with 2 1/2 acre minimum lots, you might be able to get a dedicated strip. We've already got a bubble here in the right-of-way. The grades are a little more touchy in here but otherwise no problems. Hasek: Who owns that green rectangle? Koegler: It is shown as State ownership but presumably it is part of the Arboretum. I think they are growing something in through there. Sietsema: With that, I guess what Staff recommendation would be is a 20 foot trail dedication along TH 5 and along the eastern border. Schroers moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend a 20 foot park dedication along TH 5 and the eastern boundary of the development for trail purposes. All voted in favor and motion carried. .."",- Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 46 JfII1f1"" Koegler: You may want to address the fact that the city is changing the Comprehensive Plan from open space designation to residential. This group being the ones that is charged with parks, I think it might be appropriate that you consider a motion indicating that you reviewed that and found that this plan contained the open space which is the intention and provided them for trail dedications that you called out earlier, that you have no objections to the change in the land use from park open space to single fami ly. Mady moved, Robinson seconded to retain the wetland area as open space as originally intended in the Comprehensive Plan. All voted in favor and motion carried. UPDATE OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON: A. PARK NEEDS SURVEY. Lori Sietsema stated that there were still about 100 phone calls left to be made before the survey would be completed. B. FOURTH OF JULY FIREWORKS. ~ Council approved what was recommended by the Park and Recreation '- .1Un is s i on. C. NORTH LOTUS LAKE REVISIONS. Staff presented what the City Council approved which Lori Sietsema stated was an improvement over what the Park and Rec Commission had seen. D. SADDLEBROOK Lori Sietsema stated that the City Council took the 2 1/2 acre parkland and they are giving a credit in park dedication fees. 1986 GOOSE CONTROL PROGRAM REVIEW. Sietsema: I am not sure if the new members are familiar with our goose control program. Hasek: It's a hunting program is it? Sietsema: No. Bascially they removed, as in Dr. Cooper's report, they removed 170 geese from Chanhassen last year. They estimate that 50% of those geese will return so we're planning to have all of them that we find removed again this year so there should be 85 geese. JfIII"'-- Park and Rec Commission Meeting April 7, 1987 - Page 47 ....."" Lynch: There was about an 85% capture rate and then they figure about 30% to 50% above that so you wind up with about half the number to keep halving it so it keeps getting tougher. They get sneakier. Sietsema: At any rate, we would like to continue the program. We got a lot of positive comments in June. The lifeguards loved it. And the people on Lake Minnewashta too. We're still going to have geese when they get their wings and they fly in from other areas. There is nothing we can do about that. Schroers: Are any of the geese being clipped so they can't come back at all? Sietsema: I don't think so. Mady: They go to Oklahoma. Sietsema: The matures are taken to Oklahoma. The immatures are taken to southern Minnesota. Schroers: We sent some to Oklahoma also but we didn't want them to return so what we did was try to capture breeding pairs before they bred and we clipped the wings so they stayed down there and nested down there and then we just rid of them. They became Oklahoma residents. Mady: It's difficult to catch them.. They have also discussed transporting them to Oregon. Last year it hadn't been decided yet. ...." Sietsema: program. They were the geese people to At any rate, Dr. Cooper has a pretty good handle on the whole They were very, very responsive to anybody who had any questions. very courteous about going and asking people if they could capture on their yards. I couldn't have asked for better, more courteous have done this. As this was a budgeted item, Hased moved, Schroers seconded to direct Staff to continue the goose removal program as outlined in Dr. Cooper's report. All voted in favor and motion carried. RESIGNATION OF GLORIA CORPIAN FROM THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Robinson moved, Hasek seconded to accept the resignation of Gloria Corpian from the Park and Recreation Commission and to ask Mayor Hamilton to reconsider past applicants to fill her position. All voted in favor and motion carried. The Commissioners discussed receiving their packets earlier to give them a chance to review the material. They also discussed the possibility of meeting twice a month rather than once a month.. They decided that they ~ould talk about meeting twice a month at the next meeting. --' Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,-,. April 7, 1987 - Page 48 Robinson moved, Hasek seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim ,.., ",....