Loading...
PRC 1987 06 16 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ,..... TrJNE 16, 1987 Vice Chairman Mady called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Hasek, Curt Robinson, Jim Mady, Larry Schroers, Carol Watson and Mike Lynch. STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator. A. REVIEW CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON GREENWOOD SHORES PARKING PLAN. Sietsema: As we were discussing before outside, the City Council acted to not go along with the plan we proposed for the parking spaces at Greenwood Shores. Along with that, they asked that Public Safety and Staff look at ways to correct the problems that are existing there. This is Jim Chaffee, the Public Safety Director, and he has responded to some of the things that they had questions about and given us some suggestions which are in the memo that I handed out. Jim Chaffee: I think we can open it up for questions if there are any. What I'm looking for basically, I think I've given you some guidelines on what we're trying to do in my memo but I would like some feedback from the park and Recreation Commission to let me know how best we can serve the needs of the park system in Chanhassen. So if you have any suggestions or questions, I'm here to listen. ,..... rtady: I attended the City Council meeting. It was discussed at great length. Some of the things that came out of that, the Council indicated that it should be a priority to handle all violations of the park rules and ordinances with tickets. That may help to alleviate some problems. Let the people, whoever they are that are creating the problems, know that we're going to try to get that situation quieted down. Hopefully, we won't have the problems every other year or whatever they happen to be. Gus indicated that possibly to alleviate some of the problems would be accomplished by a solid metal gate instead of a chain. . When I drove by the park over the weekend just to see if the cha i n was up or not and it was up but it's got to be a good, almost 4 feet in the air. It wouldn't take that much to drive a small car underneath it. There weren't any cars down there and it looked like the beach was being utilized properly. Jim Chaffee: Do you really think a small car can be driven under there? The neighbors have told me it happens but. Mady: It's pretty high. Watson: You can get a lawn tractor pulling a canoe under it. Mady: A solid gate would probably alleviate the problem. Watson: As long as it was something that was easy to open up because they 1"""" '.ve to do that lift station down there. It has to be easily opened and J.osed. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ne 16, 1987 - Page 2 11ady: A two hinged gate similar to Lake Ann would probably alleviate that problem. Schroers: Keep that gate closed until the problems have been solved, is that accurate? Mady: Yes, that park is not to be opened with parking. Watson: The other thing is the light, the relocation of the light. Do you know how long it took me to get that light? I got that light by saying you know what, I said if you lit up that park there wouldn't be any more vandalism of the lift station because the kids would have to do it in this big light. Do you know I got it in a week. Jim Chaffee: It doesn't light up the lift station at all. Watson: I know. I have no idea how it ended up where it ended up. Who made the decision? We used to talk about how the officers did not want to patrol down there because when it was dark, would you want to leave your squad car and walk down that little narrow park? Nobody blamed them for not wanting to go in there. The officers are by themselves except on weekends when he came with a reserve officer with him. You get out of your squad car and walk down there and poke around in the weeds for a bunch of... ,..., .m Chaffee: Who knows what. Hasek: Mark, do you have a plan on that park with you? Mark Koegler: No I don't. Hasek: I don't know where the Satellite sits down there. The only time I've seen it is from the road. ...where the light is and where the light is going and where the Satellite is. Mady: The light is basically right where the Satellite is. It's just a regular street light that kind of shines down. Robinson: It's off to your left as you walk down. Mady: It's a directional light pointed across the beachlot toward the corner. Hasek: Isn't there some big trees right in the middle of that? Mady: There's a big tree but we lost half of it. About half the branches are gone. Watson: That storm a few years ago we lost all of these huge trees. " 3ek: Larry, you're familiar with that park. Is that going to do it? A _~rectional light pointed at it or does the light have to be moved? Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 3 ~chroers: No, I think it would be adequate. --" Watson: If there were more than one light. If there was light directed up towards the lift station and that area of the park and then one directed" more down towards the beach area. It's more like dual spot lights on a house or something like that because as it is, if you go down there at night now, the light shines in a relatively small area. However, it does light the middle of the park and it has made it easier for the officers to look down there and see what's going on. Hasek: Carol, do you think one light is going to be enough or do you think two is necessary? Is two going to be enough or do we need four or eight or ten? I don't know of one in the seven county metro area is having in this one stinking little park and I can't believe that there's that much going on down there. Watson: You know the reason it's going on down there, to be very honest with you, is because they can go through the park and the minute they see an officer or anything else, they're on private property. Take one step that way and they're in that woods. They're on private property and all the officer can do is stand over there and say hey, you guys are making a little noise, knock it off and they smile, laugh, throw things at him, whatever they choose. sek: Who's private property? Are they on their own private property? ~re those the people that are going down there? ......." Mady: It's not posted. Hasek: Jim, it's never posted property. If the neighbors posted their property for no trespassing, would your officers then be able to go into the property? Jim Chaffee: Yes and no. Technically, even if it was posted it wouldn't mean anything. There are two aspects to the trespassing law. One is you have to tell the people to get off your property. So I, the property owner have to confront the violator personally to tell him to get off the property. He's still not trespassing until he refuses to go. Then he's trespassing. But those two elements have to be there so the posting really doesn't mean anything in the strict sense. Because these people are going onto private property though does not mean that the officers can't do anything. The officers have all kinds of tricks in their bags and they should be able to use them. Especially if they are an experienced officer. If they are in the park after hours, I don't care if they run of private property or not, the violation has occurred. They are in the park after hours. Even if they're not, if they're making noise, the fact is that they are making noise, I have every right in the world to investigate that call and I can follow them to the ends of the earth if I had to to investigate that call. I'm doing my duty and I'm doing my job. Atson: But going down in there? -'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~e 16, 1987 - Page 4 vim Chaffee: If they have never been directed, the Sheriff's Department has really never been directed to strictly enforce our, the city of Chanhassen's ordinances and it's really hard, you've got so many different cities to cover all the time although we've kind of got a luxury here where we're assigned deputies pretty much strictly with Chanhassen. But because of that we hired (a) Chanhassen police officer who is very familiar with our ordinances and who is very capable of enforcing those particular laws and we're just getting geared up and set with this program. His responsibility is the parks. 80% to 90% of his time. Friday and Saturday nights he's going to work until 3:00 a.m. from 6:00 at night until 3:00 in the morning. On Friday and Saturday. So he's going to be hitting the parks heavy. Not just Greenwood Shores but Carver Beach, Lake Ann. I think last Saturday he caught four kids drinking on the pathway between Lake Ann Park and Greenwood Shores Park. I've also heard that the people to avoid paying the gate receipts at Lake Ann will sneak in to Greenwood Shores, go down the trail and park and no one's the wiser so we're going to try and stop all that stuff. We can't be everywhere at the same time so if problems do occur, we're asking the neighbors to call us. Watson: They ride their bike in. They ride down on their bike along the path right into Lake Ann Park, go swimming, do whatever they want in there and don't have to pay. ~.Hoers: In the middle of the day on Sunday there was a car parked on the odchip trail by the fishing dock. They drove all the way in to the ~lshing dock and parked right at the dock. Just sitting there having a party. Jim Chaffee: Getting back to one of Jim's comments, the other thing is that we have not been truly strong enforcement minded in this community. I'm directing them slowly but surely to take strong enforcement action as the Council has indicated and as the Park and Recreation Commission has indicated. It seems that warnings aren't doing any good and it's going to take some hard enforcement action to make sure that this is going to come to a stop. At least it's a try anyway. So they will be issuing the hard copy tags to the violators. To the parking violations to the people in the park after hours. To the juveniles that are drinking in the parks, we're going to try to do the best we can. Certainly with the police officer and part time police officer in Chanhassen and the best we can with the Sheriff's squads. One thing we have to keep in mind though is that we do have the rest of the City to cover so we can direct the part-time Chanhassen police officer to proactively patrol the parks. The Sheriff deputies though are goign to have to respond to the other calls within the City and during the summer months they are traditionally real busy. Watson: If they get a call to come to the park, they will come? Jim Chaffee: Yes, they have come. Now there was an hour and 15 minute ~lay two weeks ago I thi nk it was to Green wood Shores Park and I checked a logs to be sure there was a reason and there was. There was a heavy _mestic that both cars were on and they arrested the male party in the Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 5 uomestic and they had to transport him somewhere and then there was a loud -' party in one of the apartments which is kind of hit or miss type of thing. Which takes priority? That was the reason for the delayed response time. Now when the deputy did come, he just drove by. He didn't get out and look. That's what we're trying to get a mind set into the deputies to get out there and actively get out of their cars and walk the parks. We're going to try and get them to do that. The complaintant at that time called back and said, hey the Sheriff's deputy just drove by. He didn't see any cars so he just kept going but they're back there in the park and then he did come back and rouse some kids out of the park. So we're going to do what we can but we need the citizens to call us a lot. Don't be afraid to call 911. Schroers: Is the part-time Chanhassen deputy, is he a full fledged law enforcement officer? Does he carry a weapon and handcuffs and all that? Jim Chaffee: Yes he does. He's a Chanhassen police officer. He's fully licensed. Jim Castleberry, my predecessor activated his license back in November so all it was waiting for was something like this where we needed him. So yes, he is fully licensed in the State of Minnesota. Robinson: Why did we do this? Just to patrol the parks? Jim Chaffee: No. There's a few other reasons why. One is that we couldn't get the response we needed from the Sheriff's deputies to do some of the dar surveys that we needed on some of the roadways in Chanhassen. They uidn't have the time. That was part of the reasons. The parks were part of ~ the reason. I would say the parks are the main reason we did it at this time. Robinson: In reading the Minutes, it says for instance, Jim has hired a police officer who will devote a large portion of his time to patrolling parks and I thought my god, just because we got some Greenwood Shores people in here and the Council spends two hours on it. We've gone overboard but maybe that's not the case. Jim Chaffee: No, what happened is, there's a long story behind this. Monies were budgeted for three part-time police officers for 1987. Jim Castleberry, when he went to the Sheriff's Department, gave us a deal we couldn't refuse. He offered his part-time sheriff deputies for $18.00 per hour which is dirt cheap so we started that program in May, hiring this off- duty, Carver County deputies to work for the City of Chanhassen, paid by the city of Chanhassen. It worked out well during the month of May but then the lawsuit with Chaska against the County Board over the contract system with the Sheriff's Department got in the way. The other cities were complaining why they were paying $30.00 an hour under the contract system and Chanhassen was getting this deal for $18.00 an hour. We kind of knew it was going to be short lived but we didn't think it was going to be just one month long. We thought we might be able to skate through the summer so what we did was redirected those monies to the part-time officers so it just kind of ~ 'ppened all at the same time and worked in well. ......". Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 6 ,....., ~ynch: We would like some feedback too on spots that the officers are going to say that are hard to patrol. Larry, Jim and I were out at Greenwood Shores the other day where the path starts to Lake Ann Park there has never been anything in there to keep a vehicle from driving all the way through. We're going to look at something now where we put some bollards around the parking area so people will not fit through and we might have to do something on the other end too so they can't get back the other way. We might have to start looking at all these trail segments and saying, okay, every so often we're going to have to put bollards this far apart in there. Jim Chaffee: I wouldn't recommend bollards. If we have an extensive trail system which it looks like we're going to, I would recommend a system whereby a police car or maintenance vehicle can get back there. Lynch: A chain and lock type of system? Jim Chaffee: A chain and a lock and I think I told you Lori how we did that in Minnetonka. I came from Minnetonka. I was a police officer there for 10 1/2 years and Minnetonka has an extensive park system but they're no different than Chanhassen. They have the same problems there as we do here but the way they did it was they had poles across the park entrance like this. This pole right here was a metal one, these were wooden and this metal one had a big ring right here with embedded concrete and another ring ~e and there's a lock through there so when a maintenance vehicle or ~ice car wanted to get back there, they would unlock the lock, slip that ~vle out of the sleeve and drive back through there and put the pole back. Lynch: A lot tougher to get around or through than a chain. Jim Chaffee: Yes, and it worked well. Sometimes the motorcycles could get back there too. That's another problem. We had a motorcycle patrol. But there are ways we can alleviate the problems. We're not going to solve them all. They are still going to occur but we can certainly keep tabs on them and limit them a little bit. Watson: Can we be sure then in one of our papers Lori, the South Shore or something that goes out to all the residents that says in big print we have hired someone who will be patrolling the parks and they will be issuing tickets so everybody knows. Our residents who are using the parks and are trying to use the parks and are concerned about what's happening down there so they are aware that we have hired this officer and there is someone who is going to be responding. If there is a problem they should call. Jim Chaffee: One thing I might mention is that on Saturdays for the most part and Friday and Saturday nights, this officer, the officer is Frank Ellering. Some of you might know him. He was qur CSO officer and he still is but he will be driving my police car that belongs to the City of Chanhassen but it's not marked. It's completely light blue Chevrolet ~lebrity so if you see that car, most likely that's him. That doesn't mean l't call. It's best to call and he'll let you know over the radio through .e dispatcher that it's him but I'm trying to tell everybody that until we Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 7 ~ct some funds for a police car, that's what we're going to be using. ......" Schroers: Do we also have a little pick-up truck that's got a license on it and what purpose does that vehicle serve? Jim Chaffee: Yes. That is the CSO truck. Community Service Officer's truck where they pick up animals and throw in the back and they have all the equipment for snaring raccoons and all the other good stuff. That's what Frank will be driving during the week but he will still be a police officer. Schroers: and I just to let the think it's I saw that vehicle down inbetween Lake Ann and Greenwood Shores wanted to know what that was all about. I think it's a good idea residents know that we do have police protection but I don't a good idea to know what the schedule is. Mady: The City Council wanted us to put a gate in down there. They definitely don't want any other improvements done to the park unless already approved in the budget. Sietsema: But there was a contigency on the budget when that was approved that parking had to be available to make those improvements so we won't be putting in the volleyball court or the totlot equipment at Greenwood Shores. Hasek: Is that money going to be redirected then? _.etsema: It will rollover into next year's fund unless we spend it on -' something else. Actually we can use that money because all of our projects and the other totlot equipment was over budgeted. Hasek: That's my opinion. Here we've got some people that really don't want anything done with the park down there and my opinion is fine, let's spend it someplace else where somebody wants it. Robinson: Who is obligated to pay for the signage that they wanted and the gate? Is that park funds? Watson: Lori can some of that money be used to do something so that nothing big can get from Greenwood Shores Park into that trail area that runs over to Lake Ann Park. You can take an 18 wheeler through there now if you wanted to. Some kind of system that keeps cars or any kind of vehicle from being driven into the park. Hasek: Except for, the trails are being designed so they can accommodate a service vehicle. Watson: It has to be removable but still, nobody should be driving down to the fishing dock. Hasek: Mark, do you have a design already in mind for that type of thing? ...." Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ne 16, 1987 - Page 8 ..drk Koegler: Yes, after the City Council meeting the City Manager requested a memo be put together taking a look specifically at vehicular problems on that trail and specifically a control on the Lake Ann end with the assumption being that through the gate, through the existing park, the Greenwood Shores end will be controlled. The option that we're looking at, which are a lot like what Jim described. It uses bollards for controls and possibly one centrally located at the trail. At Lake Ann the trail is 17 feet wide which will accomodate most vehicles. Throughout most of the trails it's 6 feet wide but we are looking at that for control on that end. Hasek: Are we proposing then that that trail be upgraded to accommodate a vehicle like the rest of the trails that we're proposing then? Mark Koegler: My reaction would be that probably won't happen for a while. The trail originally was to be 8 feet wide. It was down sized as a cost cutting measure which was unfortunate but did occur. I think the best we can do is go in and hopefully stabilize the edges with some additional aggregate so it would support a light pick-up or something to go through there for maintenance. Robinson: One other comment, that is a mess down there between Lake Ann and Greenwood Shores Park. Especially off in that woodchip trail. It's full of beer and pop cans and glass. The Park and Rec Commission should get down ~re and clean that up I think. It's really bad. hdsek: Is that mess continually occurring down by the fishing dock then or is it closer? Watson: I think mostly like a weekend like this one, I bet it's really something now with the pop cans and beer cans and stuff from people moving back and forth to the park. Hasek: Are there any garbage receptacles back there? Watson: Yes, there are a couple of cans in Greenwood Shores Park and I don't know if there is anything along the trail. Mady: No and it's a pretty heavily used trail. Watson: And there should be one by the fishing dock because that fishing dock is really used. When you go down there in the evening, I was down there the other night and there were four people fishing off the fishing dock. I know by son and the one of the neighbors go all the time. There should be something even if it's just for bait things and various things when you're taking off the lures and stuff. Something to put them in but it's an ongoing problem that has to be cleaned up. Hasek: If we put receptacles in there, if nothing else it would act as a ~get like the ones on the Apple River. At least it's something to throw at. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 9 ...""" ndtson: Yes, and certain types of people will use it if it's available. Lynch: You have troops out at Lake Ann making a regular sweep of that place. Sietsema: We do? Lynch: Dale does. Regular camp sweeps. Would you ask Dale to include that trail? Sietsema: Are you talking about scout troops or his maintenance people? Hasek: Do you think it would be work it to put some receptacles if there are none? Sietsema: Yes. Mady: How are they going to maintain them? Hasek: The same way they're maintained now. Watson: They could get the tractor. Hasek: There's got to be a vehicle that can travel that path. ~J.etsema: What they would probably do is have a trailer on the back of a big lawn mower tractor and go with that. Schroers: What do they use for cleaning Lake Ann? Do they have a small vehicle like pushman type or anything like that or a small pick-up truck? -' Sietsema: I don't know. Schroers: They can get all the way along that trail. Watson: The thing about it is, it's a small section of trail but it's indictative of what occurs along... Mady: It's a park. It's not even a trail. Watson: But I mean the maintenance of the trail system, that connection is a major issue. With more trails and more connections. It's going to have to be on a weekly basis. Someone is going to have to go and clean up the mess or pretty soon there will be a point where these neighborhoods are going to say, hey, I'm not going to have one of those things. Schroers: Another thing, the receptacles are going to have to be secured or else they're going to be floating. Kids love to see how long picnic tables and barrels will float. 3ek: Is that something that needs a motion? -....JII Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 10 ,..... Mddy: The memo mentioned that the table should be secured. Sietsema: You probably should have a motion to direct Staff to do whatever it is you want us to do. Mady: Add to that the light, direct Staff to get together with NSP and review looking at a directional light versus the vapor light they have now that just shines down. Hasek: Their recommendation, in addition, the existing light should be placed in a more central location within the clearing. I guess from a safety standpoint I would trust Staff's opinion as to where that thing should be located. A directional light if that will work. Mady: They're nice if they could on the property line and not the middle of the park. It also would have been cheaper. Hasek moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission adopt the recommendations as set forth in Jim Chaffee's memorandum dated June 10, 1987 with the following addition: to place trash receptacles along the fence between Greenwood Shores and Lake Ann as deemed necessary by Staff. Also to direct Staff to review with NSP the lighting situation at Greenwood Shores. All voted in favor and motion carried. ,.... FINAL TRAIL PLAN REVIEW. Mark Koegler: The documents you have before you, I don't know if we want to call this the final plan or the next to the final plan or something like that. It's the data we have gone over in the last few months that we have compiled. Much of that is material that you have reviewed and seen before. There is some new material there and what we would be doing is taking this now and taking it one step further in terms of detail and that specifically relates to some of the prioritizing. I should indicate that at the last meeting we talked about the commissioners indicating their own individual priorities. I have now received three of those and if anybody cares to submit any additional ones, we still could use that data. What we will be doing is bringing back to you next time around some information that will not be part of the trail plan element of the Comp Plan but will be part of the Capital Improvement Program section of the Comprehensive Plan which I think you're all familiar with which we will look specifically at the first five years and what might be accomplished in each of those years and what the funding sources might be. At the present time we are about to embark on a fairly detailed review of any and all funding sources within this city. We're going to take a pretty good look, subdivision by subdivision, lot by lot and do some projections on revenues that might be coming in as a result of building permit activity. We're going to take a look at revenues that might be coming in as a result of trail fees. Possible GO revenues. ~sible referrendum revenues and so forth and that's what we'll be bringing k to you next time. So all of that will be based on what's in this Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 11 .....", _Jcument before you this evening. I don't know if it's really particularly necessary to go through all of this. I think in very quick review, nothing has changed substantially over what you saw last time around. The phasings and the priorities were the ones that we discussed and that you basically preliminarily approved last time. It results in a Phase 1 trail plan that's about 1.1 million dollars which is a fairly substantial sum obviously. Phases 2 and 3 of about $400,000.00 to $500,000.00 each. Total trail system cost as allocated in this plan is about 2 million dollars. Out of that, as I indicated before, there is a variety of funding sources. Tax increment financing within certain areas of the community is another one. It has the potential to construct right now it looks like about $125,000.00 to maybe as much as $150,000.00 of actual trail work. That's part of what we'll be breaking down and bringing back to you next time. The other thing that's in here, just for reference and I think this group has been cognizant of it from the beg inning is that as we go through this the intent is not to lose sight of the maintenance costs. We got into a little bit of that tonight. Maintenance equipment is pretty expensive stuff so we've got to take all that into account if you're going look at eventually putting in some 70 plus miles of trail systems within this community over the long haul. So we've taking a look at just kind of the major items that you can anticipate for some of the maintenance costs and the biggee of all of them is sea1coating. That has to be done on some kind of a regular basis. For now we're looking at doing it every 5 years. It may be possible to stretch that to every 7 years or so once the system is in but that's the major item of cost and 'mp1y looking at Phase 1 alone, that could account for as much as ~~0,000.00 annually when you get 5 years out and you need to start doing one-fifth of the system that's in. Some of the other things and you just touched on it tonight, some kind of vehicle will be necessary. The Cushman type vehicle. That's in there at $4,500.00. So those kinds of costs are being looked at and it is very foreseeable that within about 5 years of actually putting the beginning of the trail system in, that maintenance costs could run as high as $30,000.00 to $35,000.00 annually. So it's a factor that's going to have to be dealt with. It's a factor that we will look at again as part of the capital improvements program as well. Other than that I think things are self explanatory and I would certainly respond to questions that you would have. I should indicate that the phasing maps that you have in there on Pages 14 through 16 didn't reproduce all that greatly. Those will be reshot so they are more legible. What we really would kind of like this evening, I don't know if it needs to be formal motion or not but your concurrence that this is essentially what you want to work with. We will now take and focus on Phase 1 and look at breaking Phase 1 down. Looking at the funding portions for each segment and looking at which segment we should actually put into the ground in year one versus year five. .....,,; Hasek: A couple of things. First of all, would it be possible to add to this map some kind of graphic the location of the parks that we have in this city so we can see the connections? What it is we're trying to connect. I think that might help the graphics a little bit. .....,,; Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 12 """'" 1......rk Koegler: Let me interject something there. That's a good point and that should have been in here. What this actually is, this is not intended to be solely a free standing document. This will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan but your point I think is still germain because it certainly can also serve as a free standing document in which case I think that kind of map is needed. When this is part of the other park dialogue, that information will accompanying this. Hasek: Second question, you said you that you had three specific requests for specific trails that need to be addressed or want to be addressed immediately. Can you explain where those are from the three requests that you got? Mark Koegler: No, I'm sorry. You misunderstood what I said. At the last Park Commission meeting the Commissioners all decided that you individually would take maps, take them home and get out your colored pens and pencils and determine individually what priorities were from your perspective and it was that that I received three of those back. There have been requests for two priorities from the general public that you should be aware of and one of them has not been put on the map through an oversight and it will be added. That came from the Minnewashta area and specifically Minnewashta Parkway. There was a second request that I think actually preceeded the Minnewashta one and the Carver Beach area to look at some kind of trail segment along Carver Beach Road itself. There is a playground there and ~apparently is seeing quite a bit of foot traffic from small children from ~ ~ Chaparral area and so forth that's heading that direction so we would advocate that that should be incorporated. In fact that will be shown on the map the next time you see that one. So that would be a Carver Beach Road connection. Basically running in an east/west fashion. Schroers: There has actually been a petition given to the City on that. Mark Koegler: Yes, that's correct. Schroers: A portion of that trail will go right across my yard and I'm highly in favor of it because of the speed that the traffic travels on Carver Beach Road. It is a particularly hazardous area. Mark Koegler: That's a straight shot through there. Schroers: And coming down a hill. Mark Koegler: So we will look at that as being a part of this as well. Hasek: Did I understand you to say that you received from the public on the Minnewashta Parkway? Mark Koegler: A petition. From Greg and the other signatories. The individual who I think, I don't know if he's the mastermind or whatever, but ~ sponsored the petition out in the Minnewashta area has been in touch .h me on several occasions and he was very pleased to hear obviously that Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 13 ......." ~Ju thought the way they did that the Minnewashta Parkway segment should be in the first priority group. Mady: I talked with Greg last week and he indicated that they were going to try to attend tonight. I indicated to him that for us probably the best thing they could do is get their neighbors together and talk amongst themselves and find out where they could put the trail in. Start the ball moving getting approval across people's property. Getting some indication. 90% of the people who want the. Now the hard part comes in, who's property are we going to have to get. That's not going to be easy and if they can get the ball moving on that for us, would probably be best. Mark Koegler: That particular trail segment is one of the more difficult ones on the entire system just because of the existing situation and that's going to take a fairly detailed feasibility study to determine where that could go. That's kind of the way this, to some degree, got started. We were asked to take a look at that. Where could the trail go and give us an idea on cost. All you have to do is drive that alignment a couple of times and look at the narrowness of the right-of-way. The narrowness of the street. The banks going off either way. The telephone poles. The mailboxes. Everything. Every nightmare you would ever try to find to put a trail through is there and we came back and said, you know this is not a simple task. So we started looking at it more comprehensively. - tson: There's no shoulder on the road. -' Mark Koegler: No, it's really difficult. Watson: There's no shoulder. There isn't anything where you could just have off-road area. So much of if, when you get off the paved surface and you're in a ditch. Hasek: I think it's going to be a very, very costly and laborious piece of this trail system to put in but I think that it's important. I think it's an important enough piece within the City knowing what's going on out there and the lack of services that we have because I live in that area out there that it shouldn't be shelved simply because it's difficult. I think it's important that it be kept in the forefront. I talked to Greg several times myself and he wanted to know if should come to this meeting or any meeting with a group of people and I said that's one way of looking at it but I think strategically we've done what we need to do to get it looked at now and I would ha te to see the Ci ty drop the ball. I think you would have some very irrate people out there if all of a sudden people said it's too expensive, we can't do it. Watson: What's the next step? Hasek: I think we're going through it. We're getting it approved and then they're going to just have to start looking at costs and so forth. There is T""l dedication out there. It's going to be purchasing most of it I'm fairly :e. If it was still a County Road and the County wanted to upgrade the ..."" Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 14 ~ ... _ad, if we could get the County to upgrade the road they might be able to take an easement or something but it's not anymore. It's no longer State Aid. Mark Koegler: The jurisdictional aspects I'm not totally clear on. I know there are no immediate plans to upgrade the road by any entity. That would be the ideal situation. Mady: Are we going to run into any problem since Victoria does have jurisdiction on roughly a quarter mile of that? Mark Koegler: Yes, as if the physical obstacles aren't enough there's also the political obstacle of dealing with another municipality now too. They may not have Chanhassen's enthusiasm for trail segments along there but we will determine that as part of the investigation now into the funding sources and priorities. Hasek: It seems to me though if we drew a straight line down the city line it would probably go right behind the church. Mark Koegler: Probably right through one house. Hasek: Have we had this map revised at all since January of this year? We have haven't we? ,..... .k Koegler: That's actually misleading. That refers to the City's base map dating. Not the map that you see in front of you. There is no date on this and it should carry one. Hasek: Yes, I think maybe it should be dated the same as the plan. Mark Koegler: Yes, it will be. Seitsema: So you want this plan to be known as the official trail plan. Hasek: With the alteration of the addition of Carver Beach road. Schroers: Also the location of the parks in relation to the trails. Lynch: There again, we just accepting it as preliminary and Mark knows what to add. Lynch moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the Chanhassen Trail Plan dated June, 1987 be accepted as the official preliminary trail plan with the noted addition of the trail on Carver Beach Road. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mark Koegler: I would still interject that if any of you have personal comments on prioritization that you still would like to submit, we would ~come those so if you've been delinquent in getting those back, Lori will erly await for those and pass them onto me. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 15 ....., ~_fE PLAN REVIEW: LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST. Sietsema: Basically what I want to go over is that this is a 399 acre development with 892 units located to the west of Lake Susan on both sides of Powers Blvd. and on the east side of Audubon Road. The developer is going to dedicate 18.2 acres of parkland on the west side of CR 17. With our calculation from the Standards of what's in our Park Ordinance, our Park Ordinance states that we need 1 acre per 75 people. The population generated from this development, that means we will need a minimum of 33 acres to meet the park needs. So in my recommendation I've said that we will recommend to accept the 18.2 if they provide us with a park up in the area of the high density. This is the high density area, R-12, so it's like 12 units per acre. There is also some R-4 along Powers on each side of Powers. I also recommended in my Staff Report to treat this as two separate neighborhoods as we have a major barrier of CR 17. So there would be a neighborhood park on the west side as well as the east side. Again, if we were to take the 18.2 acres on the south side, I would recommend that we get an additional piece on the north side to serve this area. The other alternative would be to get one large piece in the middle and the developer has indicated that that is not the way they want to go, which is fine with us. On the east side of Powers Blvd. the developer has asked that we give park credit for the open space along Lake Susan which is 6.7 acres. Because this is a high priority on our trail list, we really do want to get that and I think it is worthy of park dedication. We had a meeting this morning with . 1 developer and they agreed that they would dedicate the 6.7 acres in ....., ~_dition to park of about 3 acres in this R-4 area that would be centrally located. Lynch: That's pretty solid shore on that edge. Don Patton: Yes, it is. Hasek: How big was the piece in the middle? Sietsema: 3 acres. Hasek: And that's all within the outlot D? Sietsema: It hasn't been defined exactly. It would be in that area. Robinson: That's not what's marked A on our map? Sietsema: No, this has changed but it is in that vicinity so it would be centrally located and it would be relatively flat so it could be used for active use. For this park dedication of 33 acres, if you add up the 18.2, the 5 and 3 and the 6.7, it comes up to be about 33 acres. We would give them 59% credit in their park dedication fees. Then, I think Don talked to you about the trail dedication and that works out to be about one-third of the park dedication. The amount equivalent to one-third which is about ~, '38.99. I'm proposing that we get a trail along both sides of CR 17 and ...", ~ough the main street on the east side and the main street on the west Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 16 "" ~.de going over to Audubon. Also along Audubon. I didn't show that up here. It is shown on our trail plan as well and then this street that goes down to the park. Schroers: Are these on-street trails? Sietsema: No, off-street trails like sidewalks. Lynch: How does this tie in with where we had though to come in behind the Industrial Park and then across to Lake Ann? Sietsema: That's all north of this. Schroers: will this trail tie into that area? Sietsema: We will make the connection with CR 17 or also Audubon. Lake Drive East is up further and that's how we would connect. Lynch: What's your dotted line that's shown right on the bottom of this? Is that sewer grade? Sietsema: That's a good question. Could you answer that for me? This dotted line that goes right through the park, do you know what that's for? "" Patton: I think that's Williams Pipeline gas easement. Sietsema: I've seen that too and I didn't have an answer for that. Now with his trail dedication, we would also want to have the trail along Lake Susan be developed and in talking further with Staff, I haven't talked to the developer on this yet either, but the trails that are shown here, I was recommending that we would give them 100% credit on their trail dedication. I'm recommending that we include that they develop the trail along the lake as well and the reason for that is that I think that's a fair deal as that has a PUD which has smaller lot size, the developer is obligated by the ordinance to give more above and beyond what the normal park dedication is so we would be including this trail for along the lake to be developed as well as the other trails. Schroers: We get the trail dedication and park dedication and this is above both of those? Sietsema: They get a 50% credit in their park dedication so they would be paying $207.50 per unit instead of the $415.00 and we would give them 100% credit on the trail. Hasek: Are we asking that they also put the trail in? Sietsema: They will all be put in within the street easement and that would be off-street sidewalks that would be construced. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 17 -' .._sek: In the development along Powers Blvd., that's going to be a natural off-street. Sietsema: That will be a 8 foot wide bituminous trail off-street on both sides. Schroers: Is that the same type of trail as going along Lake Susan then also? An 8 foot bituminous? Sietsema: Yes, exactly. That's what we have planned for Lake Susan too. It goes almost all the way over to TH 101. Robinson: Those are not on this latest trail plan? Sietsema: The streets within this are not, no. We can not put in on the trail plan the streets because obviously we don't know what the developer is going to corne in with as a street configuration. On there it shows the major streets and when we look at each different subdivision we think how can we get these people safely to these main trail systems. As we get those, we'll put them on there as completed once they are completed. Hasek: As a part of the process, they are giving us 33 acres which is what the Ordinance really requires and we are telling them that is 50% of park dedication? .....,I ~_etsema: Right. Hasek: Then we give them 100% on trails as long as they're installed. We asking on the piece along Lake Susan as kind of a bonus. Sietsema: Right. Now the developer has asked if they could get a park credit if they were to grade these park sites for us and I indicated to them that we would need to know how much of a credi t they would want for us to do that. Obviously the fees generated by those is what we're going to develop those parks with. That's what is going to buy the totlot equipment and put in the tennis court as well as the grading so we would have to take a look at that but I think you could in your recommendation, recommend that Staff look at that unless you wanted to look at it again. Otherwise, Staff could probably handle that or they could look at it at the Council level too. Hasek: Look at the grading? Sietsema: Whether they should give them a credit for doing the grading because we haven't gotten that information back. So you could see that and make a recommendation or you could allow Staff to make that decision. Ultimately it's decided at the City Council level. Hasek: potentially we've got 800 and we're only taking down the 427 lots, is that what we're looking at right now? Is that where the dedication is r~~ing from or are we taking dedication from the whole thing? ....." Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 18 ,..... ~.etsema: From the 892 units. Hasek: The 892 units times $207.50. Don Patton: I'm developing the land. It's really partners that are involved in this. Tom Reeves, Jim Lamsom and Mike Forkins have owned this for 17 years and worked with the City extensively on this. I guess one of the things that I wasn't clear from our discussion, your trailway system shows a path down one side. Sietsema: Right and we talked about that earlier that it was to be on both sides but I only showed it on the one side. Don Patton: Then based on other discussion, I really question if we do need it on both sides here and along the lakd. That wasn't part of our earlier discussion. Sietsema: No, that's what I said. We had both sides on Powers Blvd. and we were going to discuss whether it should be a part of that on the lake. In discussing that with the Staff further with the Planning Department, they indicated to me that as a part of a PUD, it says in the Ordinance a minimum reduction of up to 10% below 15,000 square feet may be granted if the proposal contains items in the list below or proposed as other features which are above and beyond standard development requirements which would ~.. Don Patton: One of the things, by taking out areas here, we are reducing the density some also. We're taking 5 acres here which you're taking 60 units out basically. Here you're taking 2.something acres. Watson: What are the number of units proposed then? Don Patton: It will be down around 870 at that point. Hasek: You have an option I believe and that is the option of dedicating the land or keeping the density. Keeping the units. Don Patton: I guess I would like to explain a little bit about the project as we're looking at it. This is some of the information. We'll be going to the Planning Commission tomorrow. Obviously it's not going to be all built at one time and you know the problems with Candlewood Five that was built in Eden Prairie. What we are looking at doing is, and I think the analysis of two communities is a very good one. The west side we're looking at being in a price range of $90,000.00 to $140,000.00 houses and we've got Covenants that will fall within that. Medium priced housing, I'm sure there will be some entry level coming into it but also you'll get some second owners. This is a wooded knob here. The intent is to cut a cul-de-sac up into here. Leave the woods. This side is looking from $140,000.00 to probably $250,000.00. Especially in the city Ordinance it talks about it requires ~000 square foot lots along the lake. By the time you get the pricing and quality that you've got, you're going to be looking at $225,000.00 to Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 19 ......" v~50,000.00. The covenants that we're requiring on this is a minimum of timberline roofing on it. Masonry fronts. All wood siding. Paneled garage doors so we're looking at a high class subdivision here. One of the things we had talked about as a part of our land, even prior to talking to the Park Staff, was we were proposing walkways here. The builder for this will be Joe Miller Construction. His preference is that this walkway system internally would be concrete sidewalks. At one time that was talked about, bituminous but we would prefer concrete. It really dresses up a neighborhood a lot. What we were looking at on the side down here, I know there was concern with wetlands but if you look at the wetlands map, this isn't wetlands. One of the things we asked earlier with Staff was to consider this area be donated for park. The pathway, if you look at your plan as proposed, it's actually coming down along in here somewhere. What we were looking is trying to place some that back and bringing that in along the street, jump down into and then go along the lake. Trying to avoid some here. If you have to have that addition too. I do question the extra burden. On two sides of CR 17 and this, plus the interior. It is going to be a burden on the project. Hasek: What's happening right in here? Don Patton: I gave Lori some plans of what we were proposing on that. We've actually laid the ballfields out for that. One other thing I guess, from the standpoint of phasing, I think that's another consideration. The :st phase for development would be this high area. The reason for that w_e drainage, street access, accessibility of sewer and water on the west side. On the east side we're looking at really doing the north end of this cul-de-sac, this street in here and a few of the lots here. So this is really Phase 1 of the higher priced neighborhood. This is Phase 1 of the other. What we've proposed and we have provided the Staff is a plan. Let me back up a bi t, Then Phase 2 would be this area through here on the west side. This area of Phase 2 on the east side with this thing connecting down in through here and the rest of this down in through here. Robinson: Have you got the planning on all of that property? ....", Don Patton: Depends on the market. Tell me what interest rates are going to do and we can answer that question for you. Hasek: Does Council and Staff require that they have a guesstimate on the timing on the phasing? Sietsema: I really don't know. Don Patton: That's a pretty hard thing to do. We would like to say in 3 to 4 years. Robinson: What about the first phase? What's the timing of the first phase? ......" Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 20 IfIl'" ~~n Patton: The first phase, the plan is to have the grade done, sewer and water and streets in on this and on this before winter of this year. That's the commitment by the builder and developer on this. The plan that was laid out for down in here, at one time, if you look at all the old PUD's, there was housing planned in here. If you take this connection, it's a different scale, there's going to be some ponding required in through here and I think as we get into it later there's going to be ponding required for the storm sewer system down here. But building this ponding, building parking, a ballfield here. This is a very steep hill. Using this for sliding hills off of this road here. This would be CR 17 coming off that into this park. Again, this is a flat area. This is basically fairly flat across the top with tennis court, parking for that and soccer fields in this area. Schroers: Right on the corner of that soccer field that would be facing northeast. Don Patton: Yes, north is straight up. Schroers: And on the northeast side of that, we were just out there looking tonight, there is a grove of trees in there. Is that part of the development or is that outside of it? Don Patton: That should be outside of it. This has been farmed. ,.... roers: ........undary? So that little tree line there would kind of like right on the Right on the edge? Watson: Can I ask a question about the ponding area that's at the end of the parkway there. Will that have water all the time? Don Patton: There is an extensive, again some of the engineering details haven't been defined. There is a whole series of ponding and again the cause of it, since the nature of Lake Susan and also Lake Riley, the Watershed District is requiring as much be retained on site as possible. Because of the types of soils you've got in Chanhassen, yes I think it would be. I think it will retain the natural run-off. The dry weather like we're having right now, they may dry out from time to time. Of course you've got lawn sprinkling and other things going into the system but what you've got is a series of ponds up in this area. There's another pond that's going to be down in this area. Another pond in here and then a combination of piping that will enter into, I can't remember the name of the creek. Watson: The pond isn't really on the park property is it? Don Patton: Yes. Watson: It is on the park property? Don Patton: Yes. ,..., Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 21 ......, hdtson: How much space are we talking about? How much does that pond take up? Don Patton: The size of it is about 100 by 200 which is a good size for a hockey rink type. Sietsema: How deep is the pond? Watson: Yes, how deep is it? Open ponds near park and play areas can be a liability as well as an amenity. I'm just concerned exactly what this is and whether the park is having a pond on it or whether a pond can be part of the park. Don Patton: What they do a lot of times with those, they can make them dry ponds. Like I say, I don't know that it's that far into the planning. Lots of times you have a surge and it's a pond. They then design the outflow so the pipe coming into it is larger than the pipe going out so it builds up and trickles out over a long period of time but those are some engineering details that will be forthcoming working between the consultants and the City Staff. I think it's an excellent area for skating rink. Sietsema: The reason I ask how deep it is is because normally we can't have city run skating rinks on open bodies of water but if it freezes all the way to the ground, than we possible could. ......" ~~n Patton: I think those are some things that we need to work out. Sietsema: Because of our liability, we can't get our equipment out there and we're not covered by insurance and that kind of thing so that's the kind of thing we need to know about too. Hasek: Do you have a feel for the cost to grade what you're proposing for the improvements that are at that 18.2 acre park? Don Patton: consul tant. time. No I don't. We'll be putting that together with the I really don't and I would hate to give you a number at this Hasek: I apologize, how do you fit into this program? Are you the developer? Don Patton: Yes, I'm acting as the developing agent for the landowners. Schroers: Lori, can I ask you who decided what facilities should be in that park? Sietsema: They did. Don Patton: This is just a proposal that we made. ~ =tsema: Just a suggestion. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 22 ,.... ~vnroers: So the soccer field and tennis courts and that, that is part of your development plan? Don Patton: Yes. Again, it's our plan. Jim Hill has been appointed for a tremendous number of communities in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. I'm sure approaching 100,000 lots. I've developed almost 15,000 myself over the last 15 years and I've built several parks in Apple Valley and Bloomington and other co~nunities. Schroers: How does that fit in with your needs as far as the City is concerned? Sietsema: Those are typical facilities that we put in a neighborhood park so typically we try to get the backstop, the tennis court and then soccer and anything else we can fit in. That was what we typically put into a neighborhood park. Mady: Have you given any consideration to the other small parcels you recommended? Sietsema: What should go in there? Mady: Yes. ,.... tsema: I really haven't. ~~/s a typical Chaparral Park There isn't a lot of options that we have. or Carver Beach or other parks that we have. Schroers: That's what brought the question to my mind was the fact that there is a soccer field proposed for the additional development on Lake Ann and there is at Chaparral and I'm wondering if we're getting too many soccer fields. If we're going to have the use for them. Sietsema: The soccer field would be used for neighborhood games in the neighborhood park. They wouldn't have league games scheduled on them. We try to get the league scheduled games in the community parks. If and when we build a park in the southern area of Chanhassen we would have a soccer field there for leagues and the one up at Lake Ann Park would be for the league games. The most that would be scheduled on here would be some infrequent practices possibly but nothing real structured. Schroers: Actually that can used by the community and the neighborhood as just an open space. Sietsema: Exactly. Schroers: Football. It's not even for soccer. It's for throwing a fresbie around. Anything that they wanted to. Fly a kite out there. Whatever. Sietsema: ,......, Right. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 23 ......"", hclsek: Is there any part of Outlot A that might fill the 3 acre requirement that you were requesting? 5 acres over there? Is there anything in Outlot E that would fill that in your mind? Sietsema: Yes, we did talk about that this morning. They would rather give up the whole 5 acres out of Outlot A. Hasek: The question I had was, we were asking for roughly 3 acres in the area of Outlot D. Is there anything in Outlot E that would fulfill that 3 acres that you're asking for? Sietsema: That's basically all low and wet. It's wetlands area. Hasek: Is it unlike the low area that was being proposed to develop in that large one that we just took a look at off of... Sietsema: The reason we accepted that was because they could fill that so we could use it for parkland. This is a wetland area. A live wetland. That was a dead wetland so we can't alter this at all. It is as it is. Watson: Is it appropriate for a passive park? Sietsema: A passive park but that's not what we're looking for out our park dedication. ...." ~~nch: What about kids going across the road? Sietsema: We want to meet those needs on that side of the street. Hasek: I think the answer that you gave that it's designated wetlands is the appropriate one because you don't want to develop lowlands. That doesn't mean that it can't be developed. We're not going to use all our prime land for parkland if it's not necessary. Sietsema: Yes, but with the strict wetland ordinance that the City of Chanhassen has, the city can't touch it either. It is as it is and that's exactly, we have the same thing on the other side of that line that was over in the Chanhassen Hills development. He gave that to us with no credit at all so this is typical. Hasek: Is the developer getting credit for density on that? Sietsema: Outlot E? I don't know that. Are you getting anything? I don't think so because a wetland is a wetland and you can't touch it. It's not any good to anybody. Don Patton: No we're not. Hasek: I don't know how the Ordinance reads, that's why I'm asking the 'estion. Some cities will give you credit for that. "., Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~e 16, 1987 - Page 24 uvn Patton: If you look at the wetlands plan, the designated wetlands, this area and in some area going down through here, if you look at this there certainly are open growing part of this down here so part of it is and part of it isn't. For a linear system, the plan that you just talked about was talking about going up through here. Sietsema: Because we have the other side of that creek that runs through there. That's why that's in there. Don Patton: You were intending to put that up this way? Sietsema: Because we didn't have the other side, that was the plan yes. Don Patton: I guess the thing that I would ask, I do think that burdening the project with both sides of CR 17 and this wasn't what we discussed this morning and I do think the three is too much of a burden. One side and maybe this would be... Hasek: It might be nice Lori, my looking at it, if it's possible with the wetlands ordinance that we have to put a trail across Outlot E and connect into Lake Susan, that might be a nice connection versus having they walk and bike right along CR 17. ~tsema: We would have that anyway because we've got the other side so ve definitely got, what I'm saying here is that the City currently owns t...is piece of property right here. So on our trail plan we show that trail going along there so we have that in there. Robinson: So what's the reasoning Lori for both sides of CR 17? Sietsema: So they don't have to cross it. A safety feature more than anything. Robinson: You only would be crossing one though if you got on. Don Patton: That's the reason. I think it's an unnecessary expense and unnecessary maintenance cost that is going to be born by putting in both sides. Hasek: Lori, is that a part of our policy on CR 17 and other roads like it in the City to have it on both sides? Sietsema: That's optimal but we haven't actually... Hasek: That isn't actually policy. Is there any other place, maybe this road up here, where they've got it on both sides? Sietsema: Kerber? We only have that on one side. ~ek: Is CR 17 the same status as Kerber? Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 25 -III' ~~etsema: I would say it's consider more of a collector. A busier road than Kerber. Robinson: If that's not a very far distance, it doesn't look to me to have that many trails? Sietsema: CR 17 is going to be the first link of our connection to the school. To the Chaska schoolyard. Because of that, I give it more importance than a lot of other streets because it's going to have a lot more use by kids. Hasek: So we have the transportation section? Sietsema: NO, I don't have that. I have the planning and the park section. Hasek: Do you happen to know the designations of that road? Don Patton: Of CR 17? Hasek: Yes. Is it a collector or distributor or ? Don Patton: I don't. I'm sorry. Hasek: I guess my concern maybe is with the developer that maybe we're over reloping. However, if Lori is confident that it's necessary, I certainly ~vn't change that. ...,., Don Patton: What are the plans for TH 101? Hasek: TH 101 is a phase 3... Sietsema: Because TH 101 is kind of a no mans land. Don Patton: Certainly TH 101 is going to have a greater amount of traffic than this is. Hasek: Vehicular traffic I don't think is the important part. I think it's the pedestrian traffic that we're interested in. TH 101 would be carrying it from Point A to Point B but there's nothing in between. Mady: There's also going to be a connection maybe into Lake Ann as the beach so kids are going to have a tendency to use that to get to Lake Ann. Hasek: How was that connection going to be made to get up to Lake Ann? Is there some plan to go cross country through here? Sietsema: Audubon. the business park. Audubon. We've got a trail system that goes up CR 17 and through It's off-street there but we'll also have all along -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~e 16, 1987 - Page 26 ..tsek: We had talked about one time about going up that creek or something and more directly connecting to Lake Ann so we end going through downtown. Mady: That comes out on the other side of Lyman. Hasek: That's part of the problem of not having topography maps and aerial photographs to look at because you just don't get a feel for where things are going cross country on a section map. Jim what we had talked about was a possibility of crossing underneath Arboretum Blvd., TH 5, someplace directly south of Lake Ann Park so that we could be directly into there without having to necessarily funnel everybody along. I know there is right at this location, I guess just a little bit to the west, right behind Prince's new building there's a creek that runs through there. We had discussed that. Maybe it did run the whole gammet of discussion but I guess I'm a little concerned that things are all funneling up to TH 5 area. Because it's not shown on this plan doesn't necessarily mean that that's not our thinking. Mady: I don't think we're going to gain anything by taking it. Where that piece of park comes out is closer, is going to be equal distance from Powers Blvd. to Lake Ann Park than following up that creekbed. I understand with that creekbed kind of rolls. ~ek: When you look at your map, the corner lot on the corner of Arboretum d. south of Lake Ann and Audubon Road, the one on the southeast corner, .at's where Prince is building his building right now. Right behind that is where that creek goes through. It comes down and you can see the creek on this map. It kind of meanders behind. Schroers: When you're saying behind Ed you're talking the east and southeast. Hasek: Yes, the east side. That's where the creek runs through and it runs out of Lake Ann. You can see it on the map very clearly, running through there and then into Lake Susan. That was the connection I was hoping that we might be, the alignment that we might be able to use to get people from the south side of the City, south of TH 5 into Lake Ann Park pedestrians without having to go down Arboretum Blvd.. Sietsema: The reason it is, you see the dotted line there, that is the easement through there. We own that currently. That land and that road that's on the north side of Arboretum Blvd., it shows a little road there that goes nowhere, that's where the new entrance to Lake Ann may be. That's where it's proposed to be. That's why it's like that because when that piece to the east of Lake Ann develops, that road will be put in and than our gate house will be there so we don't have so many exits off of TH 5 and that will right across from that road that is there. ~ek: Lori, Powers Blvd. as you mentioned is supposed to be meeting Chaska 001 system? Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 27 ...."" .etsema: Yes, we were talking about getting down to Chaska so we would go down to Powers down to pioneer Trail and over. Than Chaska would pick it up from there. We were talking about a joint effort on that. Hasek: And that would be both sides of the road all the way down there? Sietsema: That would be ideal. Hasek: Can we ask that the developer maybe at this time to develop one side and give us an easement on the other side with the stipulation that if it's not developed by the time this thing has gone out and our plan doesn't indicate that it needs to be developed, that it would convert back to him? Can we do that somehow? Certainly I as one, wants trails in the City but I also don't want to take land if we don't need it. Sietsema: The problem with that would be the difficulty in following up. I may not be here forever and may not remember that. It would be in the Minutes but it would be more easily overlooked. Hasek: But if it was in the development agreement it would be on record and at that point it couldn't fall. I can see things like brick in the front of the houses and stuff like that falling through the cracks because it's happened in my neighborhood a lot easier than something that's in an aqleement with the City as opposed to an Association Covenants. n Patton: So what you're saying is put it on one side and then dedicate the land. -,. Hasek: It would be developed on one side and give us an easement on the other side. Sietsema: But see, that would be built within the right-of-way anyway. It's not any additional easement that we're requiring. Hasek: Okay, than it would have to be stipulated that at the time it is developed out a decision will be made whether it will or will not. And if it't not developed, that the credit comes back to the project. Don Patton: We certainly have a lot of details to work out yet. Hasek: I guess I'm more concerned about what specifically happens in the park than the general location of the trail plan. I think the general 10caton is fine. I would like to know what the greater scheme of things for the parks are. We need to know what the appropriate equipment and facilities should be. Schroers: In the high density residential, what type of dwellings do you intend to put there? ~ ~ Patton: That is currently zoned R-12. It has been under the old and i. We really don't have any plans. -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ne 16, 1987 - Page 28 ;hroers: Are we talking townhouses in there or twin homes? Don Patton: 12 units per acre would be high density apartments, condo type of thing. Watson: You're getting up here the Industrial Park there. To provide rental housing for those people. Don Patton: One of the things that we've done here as a part of the -planning process, we're trying to keep the single family into itself. The access as you can see would be 0 ff Creek Dr i ve so the owner s are sayi ng we'll gamble for a while until this is built for this connection to be developed. These will be served off of this street and our proposal on this is to be served off of Powers Blvd. here with some R-4 townhouses in this location. Mady: Did you want to modify the Staff recommendation, the 8 acres requested on the east side of the development, that it be split into two parcels as requested by the developer into a 3 acre park and a 5 acre park. Hasek moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend approval of the proposal set forth by Staff in the Report dated 6/12/87 with the following modifications: If!"" 1. That only one side of Powers Blvd. be developed at this time and the second side be reserved until a need is defined by Staff at some point in the future. If it's not developed the trail dedication will be appropriately reduced. 2. The trail go along Lake Susan as discussed. 3. The 8 acres requested on the east side of the development be split into 5 acres in Outlot A and 3 acres in Outlot D. 4. The park dedication would include 18.2 acres of Outlot F as defined in the developer's map, 5 acres on the west end of Outlot A, 3 acres on the south end of Outlot D, and also 6.7 acres along Lake Susan. All voted in favor and motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW: PEACEFUL HILLS Sietsema: This development is located on the southeast corner of Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane. Over here is CR 17. This is the north end of CR 17. We were just talking about way down here. This proposal is 10 acres ~be subdivided into 15 single family lots. This development, a portion of - lies within the park deficient area. In looking at it, Staff has taken a 21 close look at the area and there aren't any neighborhood parks in the Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 29 ~mediate area so that whole area between Lotus Lake and CR 17, or Powers Blvd., in that area we should be looking at park. ....." Lynch: North Lotus would be the closest facility. Sietsema: We've got Carver Beach Park down south and over a little ways and Centex Homes is across CR 17. That's the 6 acre park if that develops. Lynch: Isn't there an existing home on the top of the hill there? Sietsema: Right there. What they've proposed here is that Peaceful Lane would come in like this and this portion be abandoned. The reservoir that's going to be built, this is the site for that. Planning has indicated that they would like this road to go here because they have a road easement down on the north side of this development in here and we would like that addition. However, the developer disagrees with paying for that. What I basically said in here is that we want a trail along the street as we do on all of our subdivisions so that would be along here. Initially when I looked at this I thought how can we get parkland or how can we use this as park because it would be a nice spot for a park. It's beautiful piece of property and all that's going to be on there is this reservoir. However, there is no way we can get any land to the south to add to that because that is already platted and it's beyond our abi~ity to do that. This area over here probably someday will be developed so in looking at it I thought, we l't like to take anything less than 5 acres but to take of this of guy's ~ .operty for a park is hardly fair so I thought if we could get 1 1/2 to 2 ....",l acres in this area and when this comes through to get another couple of acres, we would have a nice size park in that area to serve those neighborhoods in that area. That still is one of my recommendations that we look at that really hard. The developer did come in this afternoon and said he would rather have us take this area here connected to this as long as they've given this up already. Lynch: Would that be 10 and II? Hasek: He would redesign that I assume. Redesign the road. Sietsema: And tha t way we could st ill maybe get a piece of it up here to expand the park. It would be a long narrow park though. Hasek: Do we have access to it on this corner down here? Is there road in where it says Nez Perce Drive? Sietsema: That's this street here and that would be this connection. What this would be connected to. Hasek: That's impossible to make that connection, is that what you're saying? r"'l Bonner: We feel that the two developments are quite different. Art's a larger lot. We would envision homes more in keeping with the Beddor ...."" Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~e 16, 1987 - Page 30 ~velopment, etc. and the existing new homes across Peaceful Lane that are in the $225,000.00 to probably $300,000.00 price range. The development just directly to the south there have much smaller lots we assume would be smaller homes. It's really a different character of development. We really agree that the Planning Staff has asked for that but on the other plat there was a connection there but it seems to me that it becomes kind a self fulfilling prophecy there so we could possibly connect if we need to. We're saying no, we don't need to. We prefer not to and it just doesn't make any sense to us. Especially in light of the water tower and some of the other things going on. Hasek: Have they discussed at all with you the possibility of making a connection similar to the one that exists down there to the west to the next piece of property? I can't believe they're thinking about just a series of cul-de-sacs would happen along that street up there. Bill Bonner: This Outlot A was provided for in the replatting. This was all in those very tiny lots that were totally unuseable. They took all of those and replatted them into a smaller typical subdivision kind of lot and left Outlot A for the provision of future development over here. We were simply saying that really doesn't meet our needs. I'm not following your other alternates there. ~ek: I think Staff suggested that maybe you're going to have to make the lnection to the east off of your street. Bill Bonner: No, at this point Mr. Owens has talked with this homeowner and we did have an initial scheme that tied the two together. The homeowner is an elderly gentleman and they have lived on the property literally all their life and at this point they were just not ready to decide whether they wanted it developed or not. Hasek: I guess my thinking is that I can't believe, it looks to me and I can't see what's happening underneath this map entirely but there's a series of very narrow pieces of property across there and at some point in the future is going to end up being subdivided just like this one. If they don't start providing for those cross accesses through there, they're going to have a series of little cul-de-sacs. It's certainly not the best scheme in the world to have a series of cul-de-sacs. That's not our charge here. Bill Bonner: We did originally have a provision for a loop coming down through here but likewise this gentleman needs to want that as well. It's not out of the question but at some point we need to make that determination. Hasek: Lori, how large are the lots on the south, off of Nez Perce? Sietsema: I don't know. ,.... ,son: They're small. I'm sure they're 12,000. They were probably in lt neighborhood. They were lots marching one after another right down the Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - page 31 Arve. That proposal is years old now. ......", Hasek: We do have access off of Nez Perce there, right on the corner right? Bill Bonner: The existing road comes in to connect to the cross traffic here and drops down. There's one of the former Councilmembers homes here and it bends down again basically and just follows along the property line. Hasek: We do have access to Outlot A off of Nez Perce on that corner right? Bill Bonner: Yes. That was originally and I can't speak for Mr. Warren, originally they had intended to service the water tower off of this point. My guess is, and we are amenable to that, to simply providing a small connection here. This is very difficult topo. It's a severe slope and it's heavily wooded. For the minimum useage that they're going to need, I don't see the problem coming through the neighborhood. It's not like they're there every Tuesday and Thursday with massive trucks or anything so we have no problem with that. Hasek: Has the City taken Outlot A as a dedication? Bill Bonner: It's in eminent domain proceedings now. Lynch: Now the east end of tha t, you see the contour feet where they would ~ate the reservoir. ....." Bill Bonner: Yes, at about 1050. Lynch: Is this wooded then east beyond to Lot 11? Bill Bonner: No, the tree line is pretty much in reality is pretty much what is shown on the topo. It ends at about the 1050 and then this is pretty much rolling meadows through here. The side slope here is heavily wooded but for the most part you only get just sporatic trees. It comes along this ridge line, goes up to the top and they are largely mature oaks all along the edge of that slope but for the most part this is just open meadow land and roll i ng to Mr. Owens' home and then it drops down to a little pond area on the front side but that's also open. The character is really more meadowy except for this wooded knoll here. Lynch: So that eastern 25% would probably be used... Sietsema: For parkland. Yes, and I talked to Gary and it wouldn't be sacred grounds that we couldn't use because we wanted to make sure of that. But in looking at it, it's going to be real tough to get enough parkland in there to be the size park that we typically get so that's why I looked to the east side there to connect to the next property eventually. Watson: Lori, a piece of property of 10 acres, it's not so much we're · '.king about 300 and some acres of property and you're talking about a ;ferent thing. When you're talking about 10 acres of property. 2 acres ..",., Park and Rec Commission Meeting .~e 16, 1987 - Page 32 At of this is one-fifth of the property. It's one-fifth of the total development for parkland which seems excessive. Sietsema: All these lots, all that area is small lots like this. If we don't start taking little bits here and there, we're not going to get any at all up there. We're going to be real park deficient so that's why I said let's go along the property line and get a little bit from a couple of different people and make a decent sized chunk because a 1 acre, 2 acre park is not enough parkland to really do anything that we ever want to do. It's going to be a lot of mickey mouse maintenance work as well. To have a 2 acre park here to go mow and take care of and a 2 acre park here, we start getting little parks like that around, it's a lot more work. Watson: I understand all that. Sietsema: This park property will more than likely exceed what park fees we would generate from this so we probably would have to outright purchase a part of it but I feel that because we are in a park deficient area, now is the time. We either grab little pieces now or we're going to end up with nothing later. Hopefully the little pieces will end up to one big whole. Lynch: I even talked to Don about in that area and several others where, ~'s say we have five parcels and three develop and two look like they may er and they're long skinney lots like we have. That's almost all in my ~ghborhood. I go through there quite a bit. We may get to the point .ere we're going to go eminent domain and tie together several small pieces that we have to get a park because the population has reached a point where you're got to have a park in there and these other parcels aren't going to develop. There's no place else to get the land. Sietsema: I felt that an 1 1/2 acres was better than 5 acres out of one guy's property. Hasek: I'm looking to the parcel to the south there. That's south of this man's property. Is there a house on the triangular piece or the next one in? Mady: On Nez Perce. Hasek: Off of Nez Perce to your left. Bill Bonner: No. Hasek: How about the next one over? Bill Bonner: No. There's nothing developed all along this parcel. Lynch: But what you look for is this piece that Lori has outlined, Lots 8 ~. 9, we're on a corner so we potentially tie in south and west which we Jld have to do to come up with a decent sized park. It also has the Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - page 33 Avantage of it becomes accessible to two neighborhoods for sure and maybe a -' third. Hasek: Actually, if you look at it exactly like we just discussed, if you take another parcel like this out of the next piece to the east, what you have done is to put together a very nice park with some very elite homes and that's it. Is that what we want to do? Mady: It's a neighborhood park. Hasek: It's a neighborhood park but only for a maximum, how many lots have you got here, l5? Potentially the next piece will only develop into maybe 10. Sietsema: But it will also serve those people in the... Hasek: But they can't get to it. How can they get to it? Sietsema: If this connection comes through. Hasek: That's if that connection goes through. You're making an assumption. Lvnch: If you take out the piece of property just south of that Ed that's : developed. ....", Sietsema: We can't go south. You would have to purchase the lot. Lynch: Alright, that's what I'm talking about. Hasek: That's exactly what I was thinking. If we're talking about buying lots, maybe buying the ones to the south is probably going to be less expensive. Bill Bonner: Our premise to some degree is Mr. Owens has already given these three lots here and then to lose two more major lots, you end up with a rather unusual arrangement. You've got these two lots that are isolated by the two city properties. Your point is well taken. Centex has a 7 acre park across here and I guess I don't feel at that point the area is park deficient. Hasek: Except for that's across a rather substantial barrier of CR 17. I guess what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to agree with Lori because I think she's right that we do have to start assemblying those things. I'm not necessarily sure that what we're looking at is the right way of doing that. If we don't get the connections to Nez Perce, we are starting to build a very elite and very private park and I don't think that's what we want to do. I would like to be able to tie it together to Outlot A if it's at all possible. Maybe it's a park that is going to be difficult. We obviously , -'e the dedication. We have a piece of the ground to the south there :eady and the street dedication. -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~e 16, 1987 - Page 34 .etsema: Maybe what we need to look at what the Planning Commission does with that cul-de-sac. If it goes through. I think that's crucial because if that piece goes through than we're going to have a road in the middle of our park if you try and connect it to the wa ter tower site and we don't want that. Hasek: If this thing falls just exactly the way they've got it there, maybe we don't want 9 and 8. Maybe the developer would rather have us have 11. If we did get 11, we could tie it together with A. We've already got the dedication to the south and if we do have to buy land, we're not going to be buying anymore than those two little lots to the south there. It might not be as flat as we want but I think it's more accessible. Bill Bonner: This is certainly not balldiamonds, etc.. It's one of the prettiest pieces of land in terms of picnic tables and lesser uses and I've got to believe there's a place for that sort of land as well so the possibility of rolling some of this together makes a lot more sense from our standpoint. Watson: You're talking about lots in excess of 20,000 square feet too. These people have more space for on-site activities than you do on the smaller lots. ~ch: But the type of activity that you get Carol, if you've got ,are foot lot, they're not going to go down the street to picnic .ey're not going to go down the street probably for a jungle gym. going to go down the street for a ballfield or a soccer field. a 20,000 and They're Hasek: I don't think that's necessarily true. Watson: I don't think you need to walk to these places. I honestly don't believe that. I thinl it will be nice someday when it happens it will be nice but people are mobile. People get in cars and they drive. People in our neighborhood, before the connection, drove to Lake Ann Park. Lynch: I live on the north side of Lotus Lake and pled for years for some kind of a park up there because we had to dr i ve so far to get to any type of flat spot to even throw a ball around. The whole point up there amongst 30 houses, I've got a little piece of property that's the lower part of my yard, 75 by 25 and that's the only flat spot in that whole neighborhood so that was the neighborhood ballfield for 10 years. That was it but yes, I think we should have some place the kids can go within walking distance to do these things. Watson: But if you took Outlot A which actually is not really going to be doing anything, the reservoir is going to be there but the property around the reservoir is not going to do anything. You connect it with Lot 11 rather than going and chopping off another 2 acre chunk on another part of }-k Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 35 Lynch: If that gives us enough land that is good enough to do something with. .....,; Bill Bonner: Even Lot 12 is nearly an acre in this wooded knoll continues over there and it would make a great deal of sense that way too. Sietsema: Lot 12 is quite hilly though. I would rather see us go with 11 and 10. Mady: It's really unuseable. It's nice having open spaces but the city is not going to be able to utilize it. Bill Bonner: You're not going to get a ballfield on Lot 11 either though. If you're looking at that kind of space, nothing in here is going to work but if you're looking at more of a passive use of picnicing and that kind of thing, throwing a fresbie around, connecting it this way would be fine. Lynch: Park deficiency is basically park deficient for active area. Yes, you're right, there is no portion of your development which we can develop. What I'm saying and what Lori is saying is we have to get a small portion here that in itself would be developable. Bill Bonner: I understand that but what I'm saying is that takes 20% of Mr. Owens left, we've already under diress given this piece and I'm not sure lt it makes any sense to do that because that presumes a lot of things V\ler here as well. ......"" Lynch: We're to the point now where we're going to have to do some presuming. Bill Bonner: If we're going to resume, let's leave Mr. Owens' lots here and take, this is totally undeveloped now. Why not do that? Mady: We have the opportunity right now. That's why we have to jump when the opportunity presents itself. Hasek: I guess what I'm saying is we do have to take a look at it. Maybe we have to take a little bit closer look. Maybe it has to go through Staff. Maybe Mark has some suggestions. I don't necessarily think that taking one lot or two lots, either 8, and 9 or 7, 8 and 9, anything in there is necessarily the way to go unless there is going to be a connection made streetwise between this development and some potential future development. Bill Bonner: There again, if you take 7, 8 and 9 and than the Planning commission takes 11 and the water tower takes 12, at some point Mr. Owens has about half of his land left. Hasek: No, I wasn't suggesting that we take it all. r '.1 Bonner: No, but very honestly that's what happens. The park says we \._nt these three and the Planning Commission says we want 11 and the water ....,., Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~e 16, 1987 - Page 36 tuwer is already there, I'm saying really fol ks, let's be fai r. I'm all for parks and everything else but Mr. Owens has lived in the community for longer than the kids that are going to be playing on those ball diamonds. I get a little upset about that. I think at some point it's got to go both ways. We are not saying we're against the trail system. We're very happy to accommodate that. We are very happy to pay our $415.00 per lot but I'm just saying it just doesn't make any sense from a planning standpoint. Schroers: I think we have to come to an equitable solution here. It doesn't seem fair to take half of the man's property. Lynch: Let me address this too to the Commission, it's really none of our business here tonight to worry about where that access is going or the fact that Outlot A has come out of Mr. Owens property. Our only decision is what do we want to do about park property development in a park deficient area. It's up to the Council to hack out what's fair with Mr. Owens based on Outlot A. What Planning wants to do with the easement and what we want to do with the park and what anybody else wants to do. We're just in a recommending procedure here and that's our only thought here. Forget about the rest of the stuff. Bill Bonner: But I'm saying you can't forget all the rest of the stuff. This isn't three little cities. It's one city doing all of this stuff. ,..... lch: The Council are the people who have to put all the little pieces tugether and pick and choose what's fair. Who gets how much money for what. Bill Bonner: I can't believe that about fairness. I won't buy that. about fairness just because you're that's right. the individual groups have nothing to say You're telling me that you have no qualms not at the Council level. I don't think Lynch: No, you've come to me and you say, I have this piece of property to develop and the city already took Outlot A from me and that should have something to do with what we do with parks and I say no. That's not our charge. Bill Bonner: At that point we disagree. Lynch: If you talk to the Council I think they would agree with what I told you. That our charge is to look at the parks in a manner in which the Council asks us to. Bill Bonner: And I'm not saying you don't need parks. I'm saying that part of the other aspect of that ordinance is that we're willing to contribute money so you can acquire other lands for parks.. I'm not saying let's not have parks. I'm saying this is not the logical place for it in lieu of all the other things that have come up. ""'" ch: The money is contributed is for development and/or land acquisition. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 37 .....", b~ll Bonner: That's right. And/or land acquisition and there's lots of other land to be acquired. Lynch: The Ordinance also says that we can acquire land in lieu of and a lot of other things so it's up to us to look at it. Now, what Lori is saying and I do agree with her, although I don't know if 8 and 9 are the answer or 11 and 10 are the answer, is that this is a park deficient area. We've got to start sometime. We haven't had any development up in this area since I've been on the board other than the Wilma Thompson properties and that was all straight up and down. There wasn't much we could do except run a trail through there in that valley. We have to realize thta development from Wilma Thompson property, are you familiar with that Ed? Hasek: No. Lynch: That's being developed now. That's going to come this way because it's going to be shorter than going to North Lotus Lake. Wilma Thompson comes down right into here. Watson: Do you think that the people from Fox Chase, who are more than likely going to drive, are going to stop at this neighborhood park as opposed to going down to a larger facility which this will never be? Lvnch: No, I'm not concerned about the people who get in their cars to go drive someplace. I'm talking about neighborhood kids. My sons and the ...~ds in our neighborhood rode their bikes a mile to get up to the main field, the main alfalfa fields regularly. Twice a day. ...." Watson: I just have trouble imagining people driving from Fox Chase driving down to a park. Mady: We have to look at this in the long term. We're not talking these two lots. We're talking about getting additional... Watson: How big is the Fanda1's propety? Bill Bonner: 8 acres. Hasek: Can anybody tell me what Nez Perce, it doesn't exist. Watson: It's not there. Hasek: It's a platted road but it's not... Sietsema: It's a paper road. Hasek: It's in this parcel going down. Where is this proposed to connect? Watson: It's supposed to be directly opposite Lake Lucy Road. 1re. This is Mr. Hobb's driveway. It isn't ...." Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~e 16, 1987 - Page 38 hdsek: Is the Fox path developed? Are there houses back in there? Watson: Yes. Hasek: All of them? Mady: No, it will be in a year or two. Hasek: That's got to be going through too. When did that neighborhood, that PUD come through? Lynch: They started developing that two years ago. Hasek: Did we take any park out of there? Lynch: No. As I say, it's just not suitable. It's all straight up and down. Hasek: Is all of this land back in here the same? Lynch: It crests. You come back away from the lake. You've got the lake ridge and it comes up and it crests. In fact it's not far from right in back of Larry's house. ,.... linson: Are lots 10 and 11 relatively flat? Bill Bonner: They are approximately the same topography as exists over here. 9 is probably the flater of the three or four in this area. Lot 7 then again becomes flat. It's all a little bit of rolling meadowland. We're starting to catch a little bit of the toe of this slope coming down this way with this being the very highest point on the subdivision. It's all more or less rOlling. Hasek: Maybe we're looking in the wrong place. Yes, it would be nice to connect it to Outlot A. No question about it but if Outlot A is basically unuseable as a park, why do we need to connect to it is the question I'm asking? Robinson: Unuseable as an active park. Hasek: We're looking for an active park. Maybe we should be looking at one of the other parcels. The gentleman's plea about Outlot A being taken from his land doesn't phase me in the least. I'm concerned about getting a park that we can use and if this particular piece of property isn't the location for it, I think we should be looking someplace else. I'm looking here, does the Comp Plan spot a park up here anyplace? Sietsema: No. It just says that a neighborhood park should be looked at in )Jao.is area. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 39 ...,.., hasek: Are those next pieces around and across there, the next pieces of property on the section map up here, on the City map there, cut in half, of north and south at roughly I don't know, I'm going to guess, 400 feet. wide by 500 feet deep or something. Are they owned in common by one person at this point? Mady: No. What we have now is all these parcels are small parcels. Hasek: We may have to buy but at least we're going to buy where it want it as opposed to taking it here and maybe not being able to use it. That's my concern. Mady: If we don't take this land now. Hasek: Jim, maybe we're taking something that's not suited for the purpose. Mady: We don't know that any other land is better suited. Hasek: But if we don't know, that doesn't mean that we grab now. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to grab the land. To me, what Lori is saying is she is looking for active land and that's kind of why she spotted 8 and 9 there. My thought is, we've already got a parcel of land. If we can't connect it to what we've already got and we can't control what's happening to the rest of the land, maybe what we should be doing is simply 'ing, okay we realize now at this point that we're going to have to buy t...is piece of property. Let's go out there and let's spot something right now and let everybody know who develops that land in the future that this is what we want and we're going to end up buying that as opposed to taking something. What are we going to do with it if we don't use it or can't use it. It's going to sit there and not be used. All we're doing is making a larger Outlot A out of Outlot A. ..". Mady: I don't know if we necessarily have to put it next to A. What I'm saying is what we do is take whatever parcel Staff decides is the best parcels and we let the Planning Commission know, whoever we have to let know, that the parcels that border it, we want that land when it comes up. Hasek: Do we know what we want? Do we know what's on the other side of that? Mady: My understanding this is all basically rolling land. It's not going to be a great big flat field out there. What I'm saying is, I don't know if the land any place around it would be any better than wha t we ha ve right there. Schroers: Directly to the south, this land here is very nice. I would say that's just a general slope coming down, that would be very suitable for park property down here. r 1tsema: To the south of this? ...,; Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 40 ,..., ~_nroers: Yes. Directly underneath it. Sietsema: That's all platted so you're talking about buying lots rather than raw land. We're talking about developable land there. The price is totally different. You're talking about lot prices. The price wise, you're talking about buying a lot rather than acres of raw land. Bill Bonner: Why is that a lot on Mr. Owens' land? Sietsema: Because that's already a final plat. Bill Bonner: I understand that but it's not there and Mr. Owens hopes to develop yet this summer so realistically these will be lots a lot sooner than those will be lots. Sietsema: Legally though, that's the way we have to look at it. Robinson: I guess I'm still not convinced that we need an active park area in that area. Didn't we talk earlier about a backstop out here on 18 acres? How much room do you need just for a backstop? Sietsema: 100 feet that way and 100 feet that way at a right angle and half a circle. "...., inson: I sti 11 1 ike that Outlot A, and I haven't been out there but it ~~~nds like it's treed and rolling hills, it sounds like a good passive area. Sietsema: We've got it no matter what. We've got that. Robinson: Yes, but then right adjacent to them, what I'm proposing is going with lots 11 and 10, right adjacent to that you've got a less hilly area and few trees on there? A spot of trees on maybe Lots 11 and 10? Bill Bonner: Not on 11 and 10. The tree line stops about right here. If I may make a suggestion, it would seem to me that 11 and 12 would make more sense in that they create a larger, more useab1e area in general and that would likewise allow us to move this road back. Where if you take this 11 and 10, we still have to serve Lot 12 and the way the throw of that slope works, this is all pretty flat over to this area and it's not wooded. It's wooded to about this point although those trees will be lost due to the water tower. Robinson: I know we've already got Outlot A but you put all that together and you've got a pretty good sized park. Hasek: Looking at this, to me you can put the back of a backstop in the corner of the northeast corner of Lot 10 facing out towards Lot 11 and get a small ballfield in there. ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 41 ...",;' ~.11 Bonner: I don't think the topo would handle a ballfield. You've got 14 feet of drop from here down to here. Unless you did massive grading. Lynch: without earlier develop I just can't see that there's enough there to develop anything taking up some adjacent properties. I agree with Ed's comment that I certainly want to develop a ballfield. I wouldn't want to much of anything that only served 10 homes. Schroers: I would agree with that also and I'm wondering if we always have to stick with the normal active area things where we're talking about ballfields and stuff. Can we incorporate something like a creative play area? Sietsema: We can do something like we did up at Herman Field and have like the nature walk with the little climber things every so often and explore type things. Schroers: Then the topography doesn't have to be all that congenial. We can build it right into the lay of the land. That seems to be much better use of what we do. Bill Bonner: Another thought here, if I'm not mistaken, this area here is a little wooded pond area and there's no possible development there. Do you recall what Gary Warren said? I don't know, the City is planning to vacate ~s part of that street. There's a possibility that this whole thing could L_ connected in a little bit more of that nature. This is really a -' beautiful area down through here and if the ownership of this becomes city, at that point you've got a 10 or 12 acre... Robinson: And that's all unbuildable. Bill Bonner: What I'm saying is, that could be a logical acquisition for the park to tie together with this wooded slope that carries right down into that pond area. So if you've got some nature ponds, coax people down to the water, that could be a pretty interesting area and that's all undevelopable anyway. Schroers: How does that fit into your scheme of things Lori? Can we make something like that work as an active area in lieu of a ballfield? I think that would just make our whole city a little richer and give us a little more diversity. Watson: Can take advantage of what's pretty up there. In spite of the reservoir, that's a very high hill. Hasek: I don't think the reservoir will be a distraction at all. Schroers: It will be if you knock all the trees down. v tson: It's huge. It's not going to be gorgeous or anything but in spite '" that, it's a very high hill and it's very pretty up there and I'm sure ....,; Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 42 """""" ~~en with the reservoir there on the top, it's going to be a pleasant area to walk on and to go to. Schroers: The thing is sitting there but it's not being obnoxious. It's not bothering anyone. Bill Bonner: These really are mature oak forest areas in here. This is really lovely. Watson: I intend to stand there and watch them go over to that hill and put that thing in so they don't any trees than they need to. Hasek: Is that a street coming through there? That old street? Bill Bonner: Yes and Gary Warren has said that he's willing to vacate half of that to Mr. Owens' property and the other half to this pond area so it's their intention to vacate the street basically where the new one comes out. That used to be the old highway I understand. CR 17 came down before they straighten it back out. Hasek: Is the street that's graded out there right now on one-half of that easement or another or does it generally fall down the middle? ~l Bonner: Yes, it falls essentially down the middle. It was I think a -foot right-of-way and it was, as you said, essentially graded at one ~.ffie. It's kind of grown over a little bit but there is a roadbed there and half of that is being vacated to this plat and the other half will simply fall to the pond area in the woods. Hasek: Lori, I guess what I was thinking is if that road is basically so half is going to be given back to you, than we have a problem with grading the trail and I'm wondering if maybe we should locate it. There's going to have to be a connection, if we do decide to go with this whole scenario, that that's going to be part of that passive/active. Bill Bonner: We would not be adverse at all to not taking that. In other words, it does not make this, Lot 12 is already 39,000 square feet. It does not make that more valuable nor Lot 15 for that matter. We would not be adverse to needing that as a walking trail or the creation of a trail there. That would not be a problem for us at all. Hasek: What are we talking about right now generally? Is everybody thinking that maybe they want 12? They don't want 12? Schroers: What I want to know is, if we get into the more of a passive/active area is that's going to be an equitable solution between the developer, the Staff and the Commission. Is that something that we can feasibly work out to everyone's satisfaction? ~tsema: I would say that that will serve that immediate area but we would .11 have to look at something closer to Lotus Lake to serve any new Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 43 ....,." ~elopment. of a purpose. as we have it bank the fees need to spend I don't know if we want to purchase this Lot 12 for that kind We might be better in just saying let's use Outlot A as long anyway for the same purposes of what you're saying and then from here to put toward another park. I don't know that we the money on that lot. Bill Bonner: That's fine with us. We're not trying to give you any of them. We would prefer to have the plat, but because of the way the topo, this knoll goes around and the potential to connect here would seem to tie a lot of land together. Sietsema: That would be the only thing to look at then is if we thought we could possibly get all that for a nice big open passive park. We might want 12. I don't know. Mady: Because this hasn't gone to Planning yet, I know because of the length of the cul-de-sac that they may ask that not be a cul-de-sac, can we ask the Planning Commission that we would really like to get an acre and a half to two acres to be tied into another parcel of land? When they start deciding what they're going to decide with this, will they take a look at possibly getting that for us? Sietsema: They will make their recommendation on that road and send it back here for us to review again as far as park needs. They aren't going to make ~. ~ decision for us either. ~ Schroers: Realistically Lori, what are our chances of obtaining this additional land in the future, the developments in this area, that we're looking for? Sietsema: You mean if we took 7 and 8 or something and something to tie into that? Schroers: If we were to take Outlot A and not take 12, in the event that we could pick up something else in the area later, what is the reality of that? How likely is that that we could get what we're looking for? Sietsema: It's just as much as this because the next one that comes through is going to be 8 acres and the next one that comes through may be 8 acres. It's harder to get parkland from smaller developments. There's just no doubt about it because it doesn't make sense... Bill Bonner: It doesn't make sense at some point though to target a piece of land before it's developed and take some of those funds that are going to accumulate and purchase it from the homeowner? This is the first we've heard about this today and we've been working with the City since January. Lynch: What we run into also, I think it exists in this area, there is r-obably not one signle piece of property there that we could use. Not one .gle piece. ,....; Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 44 1fI"". ~ ~l Bonner: I guess I disagree with that. This 8 acre piece here is a flater piece. Has one old farmhouse on it right up here and the folks are old enough, they might be very interested in selling that 5 acre piece to the City. Lynch: But the access to it is what limits it. One slot off Pleasant View and that's it. Robinson: What if we took Lot 12 with the possibility of joining it across Peaceful Lane and then got an easement between Lot 7 and 8 connect within that other area over there so they could come around. That gets them out to the east. They would at least have access to a big area over here. Bill Bonner: Have a trail connection. We've got enough room on Lot 7 and 8 that we could allow a strip where the trail actually goes. Sietsema: To connect to the next door neighbor in case we get... Bill Bonner: That's not a hardship on us at all because we've got a little bit of additional width on those lots. Robinson: Because that sounds like that's going to be a nice big passive area there with Outlot A and Lot 12 and you say whatever that is. ~ek: It's not going to be very passive being next to CR 17 but it tainly is a nice piece of property. My only reservation now is do we need 12. Do we need Lot l2? Can we get along with Outlot A and not take Lot l2? Mady: I don't know why we need 12. If we're not going to take land that is more useful for something, I don't know that we need to take... Sietsema: All of the park dedication fees within this would be used to take Lot 12. Robinson: Do we need the 10, it's a little less than 10% of his total acreage. Bill Bonner: At that point yes. It's almost one acre and a parcel assuming the City takes this piece is a little over 10 acres so. Mady: What we've been saying is we want this for active. If we're not going to get active land, why should we give him park fees to get passive land? Robinson: I don't know if we said that. Mady: area. If it's a park deficient area because it doesn't have active use /jIII-'roers: I think we need to define active use. " Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 45 ......" ;ek: I think you're out of base there. I think it's park deficient because it doesn't have a park. Whether it's active or passive doesn't make any difference. Mady: My understanding from being on the Commission is a park deficient area means the kids have a place to go. Hasek: A place to go but what they do there, does it have to have a ballfield? Can it have a playground? Is that active. Lynch: In going into the roots of the Comprehensive Plan, you need an open space play area. Whether you're going to call it a soccer field or a ballfield or whether it's just a big flat place with a backstop and jungle gym over here. It doesn't have to be a Class A ballfield but it does have to be flat enough so they can have organized group games out in the open where they can be supervised and non-hazardous. They don't into a tree or a cliff or something. Bill Bonner: At some point though I would think that the uniqueness of the area here has got to bear into it. There's a hundred places you can put ba11fie1ds. It just requires an open area but this is a rather unique. It's wooded wi th trails connecting it to a pond. I've got to think there's a place where kids like to go and catch tadpoles. 4 ,inson: What did you say? What in addition to Outlot A, incorporate that into the park system but you didn't take any other lots? ....." Hasek: No, necessary. hills or is Perhaps, if sliver that I don't propose taking any other lots because I don't think it's I think we've got a hill there. Do we need a whole bunch of the hill that we've got and the trees that we've got enough? we're going to take anything else, maybe what we do is take a would give us a wider abutting parcel to that. Sietsema: There is a sliver there that's kind of no man's land. Bill Bonner: As far as I can tell, we show this was just the original outline that the City proposed. In talking with Gary, they are perfectly willing to make this match the existing line. We're willing to swap around there. They had simply to establish a dimension at some point and that was before the plat was in existence. This could be worked out so that piece is getting a greater connection down into that pond area. For that matter, Lot 12 can come down here and jog in too. Schroeres: What do you plan on doing with the entire area of Lot 12 then if we don't want any of it? Bill Bonner: Lot 12 will simply remain a building site with a home up here because this starts to falloff. -"" Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 46 If!"". ~ .roeres: So basically the trees on the back side of Lot 12 will remain the same? Bill Bonner: There could be some kind of a planting easement or cutting easement or something. Obviously this person owns Lot 12 at that point. Sietsema: Put a conservation easement so they can't touch it. Lynch: I've got a little more discussion I guess. I could go for that if we tag on a note to the Council that this is a park deficient area and that we think that between us and the Staff we should identify some property to buy. Hasek: When you say Staff are you including the Park employee? Watson: Lori and the Planning Staff. Hasek: How about Mark Koegler? Is he generally thrown into that thing too or not? Lynch: We buy his time. Sietsema: Yes, we buy his time if we need him. If we were to pick out a spot and we wanted to say this is everything that could be done with it, we ~ht bring in Mark in to say yes, you could do this and this. We might 1 ~ him look at it and say, the soils pretty bad. We might just get his opInion. He doesn't charge too much for just general opinions. Hasek: When you guys identify these parcels, do you go out and walk them? Sietsema: Yes. We look at the aerials first and then we would spot an area. That's how we would start is looking at the aerials. The half section aerials. Hasek: I think the first time I came to one of these meetings we had aerials photographs for one of these projects, is that something we could requ ire tha t they br i ng to us so we can see wha t' s go i ng on? Sect i on maps and aerial photographs are so helpful. Is that something that's required when they go to Council? Bill Bonner: We have to have a topogrpahy map and the topography is almost always from an aerial but the only thing that's required for the platting is to have the actual topo. Many times the person getting the topo has the aerial with the trees and all that shown. Hasek: A lot of cities will require that. That you have to have the aerial photograph or they will provide it themselves so the Council and Planning Commission can see what's going on. Lunch: Would you agree to putting a tag on your motion and talk about .~ing a piece of property that lies to the east of this? ~--- Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 47 '-" ek: You bet. Watson: The park dedication fees off of these lots will be earmarked toward the purchase of park area. Lynch: That's general but I would like to bring it to the Council's attention that we would like to identify something now and get them to direct Staff. Sietsema: That's reasonable. That's a good idea so you've got those communication lines open. Hasek moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Rec Commission recommend to incorporate Outlot A into the park system with the intent of acquiring the area around the pond to the west of this parcel. Also, to retain the entire roadway easement for Peaceful Lane beyond what is necessary to accommodate a street access to this development for future access around that pond. Also, the developers provide a trail easement of 20 feet from Peaceful Lane to the property line to the east for future trail access to the potential future park. All voted in favor and motion carried. NOTE: To City Council, this area is park deficient and Staff and Park and Recreation Commission should be directed to spot an area for active park in this vicinity. -.I SITE PLAN REVIEW: ZIMMERMAN FARM PROPERTY. (There was a break in the tape and the review of the Zimmerman sub-division proposal was not recorded. Below is the action taken by the Commission according to staff's notes). The Commission felt it important to continue the trail connection from Highway 5 to the Minnewashta Regional Park. Lynch moved to recommend that the City accept park dedication fees in lieu of park land,to request a 15 ft. trail easement over lot 3 and along the entire length of Dogwood in lieu of trail dedication fees. The motion was seconded by Mady and carried unanimously. '-" Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 48 """"'" l ATE: TASK FORCE, JIM MADY. Jim Mady: We looked at three different architect's proposals and voted to accept a firm to start the preliminary process of determining what we need to do with the community center and possibly a referendum. We have yet to make the dec i s i on as to whether or not we want to go for ward with a community center, where it's going to be located or what type of facilities in it. It has been hired on a hourly basis to review what the community really wants and needs and they apparently have some strength in developing a referendum and getting it passed and that is one of those things that a community is most concerned about. The goal still is to get everything moving and get a task force to get something before the City in a referendum by fall. We don't know yet what we're going to do with it. We're going to be meeting again in another week or two. Robinson: How many times have you met Jim? Mady: We've met 3 or 4 times now. Robinson: And there are how many people on there? Sietsema: 11 plus Staff. r~ch: What's the deadline for the contract on North Lotus Lake Park? S4ctsema: The status on that is that one of the last things on Bill Monk's duties before he left was to get the contract out and we haven't been able to find it since he left. There is no contract. It shouldn't be a big deal. Mark is in the following up on it. He's getting in contact with them and we should still be able to get construction going this summer. Watson: Did anyone ask Bill what he did with it? Sietsema: No. Watson: Why? He's only in Crystal. Sietsema: I don't know if they did or not. Gary and Mark were working on it. That's where it's at. Mady: Can we recommend that Don Ashworth call Bill and find out what he did? Sietsema: Well, they probably have but that part is handled by the engineer. Lynch: Just send a note. M~dy: That the Commission is concerned that nothing is being done. ,.... . Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 16, 1987 - Page 49 tsema: There is though. It is being handled. Lynch: Send them a note anyway. Schroers moved, Watson 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 ---,' .....tI '-"