PRC 1987 08 01
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
~EGULAR MEETING
'~UST 4, 1987
Vice Chairman Mady called the meeting to order.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Carol Watson, vim Mady, Curt Robinson,
Sue Boyt and Ed Hasek
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Lynch
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
A~PROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Boyt seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated July 14, 1987. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
REVIEW PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TENNIS COURTS AT MEADOW GREEN PARK.
Sietsema: As was discussed at our last meeting, the Park and Recreation
Commission budgeted for two tennis courts in the 1987 Capital Improvement
Program. Mark's firm has prepared plans and specs for these tennis courts
and shown them located to the east of the parking area. Placing them so
would require removing the basketball court or reconfiguring the parking
area. The Commission directed staff to contact the homeowners in the area
~or their input and to come back with the cost estimates on the replacement
r ~f the basketball court and reconfiguring the parking area. As outlined in
! letter from Bob Sellers from VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings, the cost of
l~configuring the parking area would be about $1,850.00 and the cost for
relocating the basketball court would be about $2,200.00. These cost
estimates are based on if the City were to include them with the bid. I
talked with Dale Gregory and he has informed me that this work could be done
in-house for approximately half the cost. The question before the
Commission tonight seems to be three fold. Does th~ Park and Recreation
Commission want to proceed with construction of the tennis courts at Meadown
Green? Is so, shall be placed so as to relocate the basketball court or to
relocate the parking area as it is clear that we do not want to eliminate
either in the process. We had contacted the homeowners and nobody showed up
last week so I did not recontact them for this meeting.
Mady: I talked to one of the homeowners, a sample of one on this thing.
He indicated that a tennis court would probably be a nice idea for the park.
He wasn't too sure about moving the parking lot and after talking to him, I
might agree with him. Moving a parking over, you're moving to the side
where all the homes are, may create a problem with the dust and noise and we
might be better off leaving the park as is. To me it might cause fewer
problems and just move the basketball court over since it's not a great cost
difference.
Sietsema: No, and like I said, I think it can be done fairly cheaply in-
house.
~.
~son: Can we do the basketball court in-house too?
~J
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 2
".....
~~etsema: Yes, we could do either one in-house and it would be about half
the cost of what it would cost to have someone outside do it, to contract
it.
Watson: Because I walked over to that and I talked to a couple people and
they were not happy about moving the parking lot. They didn't seem to care
about anything else. Not that they didn't care about anything else but they
didn't want to move the parking lot. Now I supposed everybody is used to
where it is and they figure if you move it you're going to start a whole
other bunch of people being upset.
Sietsema: The problems I see with moving the parking lot is you might have
some fly balls hitting the cars. When you foul balls off the softball
field, may end up in the parking lot. On the other hand, with the
basketball court there you might have them on top of peoples heads but it
would be a little bit closer to the backstops. The other thing is I was
trying to just picture in my own mind what it would look like having a
basketball court in the middle of the entrance to the park. I don't know if
that visually would be a bad thing or not. We do have the two entrances to
that parking area. The traffic flow is better the way it is than it would
be if there was only one. The other thing would be, if we ever need to
expand on parking, that's where we would expand too.
Watson:
"".....
- ~tsema: It was always in the original park plan. Whenever they talked
about that park, they always talked about having tennis courts there.
Discussion has corne up with those homeowners off and on about totlot.
Mostly they always requested totlot and they did. request the basketball.
I've never had a formal request for a tennis court there. It's only because
it was always in the plan, always talked about.
Is the tennis courts something that they requested?
Watson: It's an expensive proposition.
Boyt: It's not too bad, it's $23,000.00.
Sietsema: And we budgeted for that.
Watson: I bet you in that neighborhood they would get used, and when you
figure Saddlebrook corning in next door to it.
Sietsema: I think the tennis courts that we do have available in this city
are being used pretty consistently right now.
Watson: But that population is going to increase in that area so much in
the next year or so even if the present population isn't that bad. These
people didn't think they would use it. They thought it would be nice to
have but they didn't know if they would use it.
~)inson: Are there trees down where that tennis court is going to be?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 3
Sietsema: Yes, there are smaller trees and I think that we can relocate
them.
"""""
Mady: Bob Sellers indicated that they would use a spade to get them out.
Boyt: Do you know how much the basketball court gets used? I know it gets
used a lot but.
Sietsema: How many nights a week or anything?
Boyt: It looks rather small.
Sietsema: It's a half court basketball and that's what they did request.
When they brought in the request they were concerned with public safety
because they can't have, on a lot of those homes, they can't have a
basketball hoop on their garage so they were playing in the street and they
were concerned that somebody was going to get hit by a car.
Mady: ... to add on another half court and make it a full court at some
point in time if they decide to.
Boyt: I was thinking if it does get a lot of use, we could put in a larger
court when it's moved. It looks- like it's rather inexpensive to do that.
~tsema: Yes it is.
..."",
Mady: A lot of times, you have little kids coming out there if you want to
shoot some baskets and they get in the way of the older kids who want to be
a little more competitive so this way it would be easier to half both these
groups using it.
Schroers: To me it looks aesthetically more pleasing to relocate the
basketball court otherwise the basketball court is sort of hidden back
behind the tennis court and you're going to have to go around the tennis
court one way or the other to get to the basketball court.
Hasek: The tennis court is going to have a fence?
Sietsema: Yes. Did you have anything to add on this Mark?
Mark Koegler: No, I don't think so. The only thing, they are no plans that
I'm aware of now but the other factor you might want to consider is if you
light it in the future, what impact that has on the surrounding properties.
Boyt: I don't think they would want it.
Mark Koegler: That park's going to be difficult in the future to light it.
There is always the option of maybe lighting the one court that's further
away.
......".
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 4
I"""
Boyt: Itls pretty much surrounded by homes are they? They will be pretty
soon.
Robinson moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend approval of the feasibility study for the tennis courts at Meadow
Green Park located on the east side of the parking lot and the basketball
half court be relocated by the City Maintenance crew. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE MASTER PARK PLAN FOR CHANHASSEN POND
-- ---
PARK.
Sietsema: This item was included in the 1987 Capital Improvement Budget as
well. We allocated funds to develop a master park plan for the Chanhassen
Pond Park. I think that we ought to do that now before we do anymore
development in there so that we don't have things happen like what happened
in Meadow Green Park where we have to move stuff. If we would have had a
master plan for that park in the first place then we wouldn't have had to
relocate those things. That seems to be a popular spot for Eagle Scout
projects. I think we probably might get another couple of Eagle Scout
projects of there with the trails that need to be developed and maybe some
landscaping. What 11m recommending is that you authorize staff to proceed
with the master park plan for Chanhassen Pond Park. I talked to Mark and he
~1icated that this could probably be done for about $1,500.00.
Boyt: I would like to see input from a landscape architect on plantings.
Sietsema: That's what Mark is.
Mady: Did we ever get an opinion from Roger Knutson as to whether or not
we can place a trail in a conservation easement?
Sietsema: We can not.
Boyt: We can not?
Mady: That's based on the watershed? Because I called the DNR on it and
the DNR said if we talked the Watershed into it there's absolutely no reason
why we can't have one.
Sietsema: I think from the City's standpoint that we can't.
Mady: He said that the local agencies are usually more restrictive than
they are when it comes to those easements.
Sietsema: I think that the easement prohibits us from doing it.
Mady: Can we send a recommendation to City Council that they review the
~nservation Easement ordinance or whatever they call it and allow for
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 5
trails to be put in conservation easements since we have those all around
us?
......",
Sietsema: Is that a motion?
Watson: Isn't it basically the changing of the definition of a conservation
easement?
Sietsema: Yes.
Mady: I think we should have a public hearing and I think we would be
willing to do that.
Mady moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
that the City Council review changing the definition of the conservation
easement so that the City can construct trails within the conservation
easement. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Mady: When I wal ked through the tra i 1 a couple of times now, the pond tra i 1
down Steve White's stairs and down to the new bridge by Jeremy, the heavy
rainfall washed out a good deal of that. The stairs did very well, I met
Steve White's dad about two days later, he was out there shoveling, filling
and putting rocks in and I was very happy to see that the stairs made it.
__Ie trail along side of course didn't. It appeared that a lot of the water ......",
came from on top and as a drainage way, would it be possible somehow to
build some type of a catch basin just past the top of the hill and drain it
on the other side of the stairs? Someone design it so...
Hasek: That might be able to be handled with just a little culvert.
Mady: Exactly, that way we would maybe prevent some of that washout in the
future.
Watson: Or even something where water can drain slowly rather than just
gushing out of there.
Mady: On the water side of the stairs, there is nothing there so if you run
through the grass it would be okay but running through the gravel.
Sietsema: I'll check with Dale on that.
Hasek: So really what you're suggesting is that the stairs is pulling the
water to the east side of the stairs.
Sietsema: They are paving that if they haven't already so there might be
something they could put underneath there.
- yt: Are they paving the area next to the stairs?
...",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 6
,....
Sietsema: No, on the top because that's always washing out too.
Watson: Is that going to create more run-off though? Is that going to make
the run-off faster?
Sietsema: Well, it could possibly speed it up.
Mady: There's not a whole lot of slope down toward the lake. Most of the
slope is in the middle.
Hasek: Maybe just direct it over to the other side of the stairs to prevent
some washout.
Sietsema: You may want to give Mark a little bit more to go on as far as
what we want to include, see happen in the park. We can't put a trail in
the easement but we can do landscaping in the easement and I know originally
we had talked about we wanted to make it a duck and wildlife habitat area.
Something that would enhance the nesting waterfowl.
Watson: On those steps too, if it were landscaped along there, doesn't that
help to keep the water from just gushing down if there's shurbs and bushes
and things?
~dy: On the east side of the stairs is the 6 foot path.
. ~tson: And we can't obstruct the path.
Boyt: Do you know wha t tha t was used for all one weekend? A motorbi ke
going across the bridge, up the trail.
Hasek: Mark, are you familiar with that area down there?
Mark Koegler: To be honest with you I haven't been back in there for a
number of years.
Hasek: I think if you walk back there and took a quick look at it or even
the City Engineer might be able to solve the problem with the water draining
down there.
Mady: I think we're right, if we can get the water across that path to the
west side of the run down to the bank of the pond.
Hasek: Even if it created, even if it should create a waterway it's not
going to harm anything.
Boyt: I think we wanted some platforms for geese.
Mady: Wood duck houses. Is that a very conducive area for wood ducks?
~ek: Without trees.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 7
Boyt: So that would be on the border by the stairs.
...",;
Hasek: I'm wondering about maybe putting some type of a tree, poplar or
something along the houses along that side toward the top of the easement to
keep it more looking wild.
Sietsema: On the north side of the pond?
Hasek: Where the houses are on top of that high hill.
Sietsema: You're talking about Chan vista. I don't think we want a line of
them though.
Boyt: That's what Mark would be good at. Selecting the right kind of
trees.
Watson: Or a variety of trees and shurbs for screening.
Robinson: I question the need for such a study right now or plan. Is that
going to make any difference?
Sietsema: The reason I'm asking to do it now is because we continually have
Eagle Scouts that come in for projects that have not been budgeted for so
what I'm afraid is going to happen is that we're going to say, sure you go
and build that and then we're going to come back hindsight two years
Ater and say, gosh we shouldn't have put those steps in, we've got to get a ~
truck in there. We have to tear them all out. I want to make sure that we
don't have to remove a basketball court to put in a tennis court again. If
we had had a master plan for that park that wouldn't have happened.
Hasek: Mark, maybe we can do it this way, rather than expending the
$1,500.00 for a full blown plan, could you put together like a concept plan
to begin with?
Mark Koegler: That's where we start.
Hasek: That's where you started? That's the $1,500.00?
Mark Koegler: Well no. We would come back to you with a concept plan and
get your input and refine it for a final plan.
Hasek: Because I think it could almost be left at the concept plan stage
and then when things come down the road, if somebody wants to do a portion
of that plan, we would refine it at that time too. That's another option.
Mark Koegler: We could do that in concept form to suggest planting areas of
certain species.
Sietsema: I think the bottom line, what we need to let Mark know is that
'at we're looking for in a natural area that will be conducive to nesting.
....,.,
Park and Rec Commission
August 4, 1987 - Page 8
,....,
Hasek moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to authorize the expenditure of funds for the development of a
master park plan for Chanhassen Pond Park. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
CONTINUATION OF TRAIL PLAN DISCUSSION AND COMPLETING THE UPDATING PROCESS OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:---
Sietsema: We've reviewed the preliminary trail plan in June. Mark is with
us tonight to cover the financing portion of the trail plan and is also
prepared to continue discussion on the updating process of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mark Koegler: The Phase I trail plan that we've talked about before with
this group preliminarily identified and put a stamp of approval on is
essentially everything that's in some graphic mode depicted on this map.
The total price tag on that whole system including engineering, legal,
administrative fees as well as the actual construction costs is
$1,341,325.00.
Hasek: This is for all of Phase I?
~rk Koegler: That's for all of phase I. That included property
~uisition where we had easement situations and so forth that would have to
,cur also. And the task and I guess the subject we want to address tonight
is to take a little bit more detailed look at that both in terms of the
components of how that might be funded and then to translate that into
talking a little bit about the actual phasing. Phase I itself was depicted
initially as that work which we would hope to accomplish within a five year
period. From here now we need for capital improvement program purposes,
break that down into annual increments and we'll go into that in a few
minutes. The sources of monies for construction of trail systems
essentially consists of any existing park funds that you have right now and
account from whatever sources you would want allocated or see fit to
allocate to trails. Chapter 429 assessments which are just like putting in
a street or whatever, they are assessments to the abutting properties.
Trail dedication fees which now are a part of the fees that are collected at
time of building permit obviously there's not a lot of that money available
today but when we get to year 5 there certainly will be. Tax increment
financing within the downtown area and some of the areas over to the
Business Park portions. Then the last item is really the one we talked
about kind of skirting the issue and that's potential referendum proceeds.
I think there's people on this body that are also on this Community Facility
Committee that are reviewing that whole issue and ultimately this mayor may
not become a part of that. That's been discussed and will be discussed I'm
sure more this evening. Looking at some of the sources that are available
and I don't know how well this is readable. The dashed black lines with the
~llow in them which essentially are all right in here is the portion of the
~ject which ultimately could be funded through tax increments. That is
.e bonds would be sold and the debt would be amortized using tax increment
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 9
proceeds from the two district areas. The ones that are filled in with this ....",tf
kind of purple/fuchsia kind of color between are those which right now we
label as either developer or 429. Those essentially are in the works right
now. We would almost propose as existing because they will be presumably by
the end of the year. As a part of the construction that you see going on
just kind of starting now on Kerber Blvd. there will be a trail segment that
will accompany that. Additionally, the Saddlebrook development there are
requirements for trails that took place there both along CR 17 and a 6 foot
trail internally so those are the ones that we labeled as both developer and
429. One of the very small segments which is right up here, part of
Bloombergs project on North Lotus Lake and that's essentially just going to
be kind of a connection through that area where you recall we went through
the discussion on the streets. The tax increment portion, in working
through some of the numbers with Don and Lori, it appears is about
$240,000.00 of the total 1.3 million can ultimately be financed through tax
increment which is obviously a fair chunk. The trail dedication fees, when
we get to year 5, we're projecting that will run about $200,000.00. At the
present time it looks as though that's going to be about $40,000.00 a year
assuming development roughly at the 86-87 level.
Hasek: Okay, that's projection based on the 86-87 level. No comprehensive
plan or any new demographic information than used?
Mark Koegler: Yes, and that is consistent with that as well. The trails
-'at are somewhat in the works right now that are basically the 429 and
_!ich is essentially a portion along Kerber Blvd. is about $33,000.00 and
that really is a set expenditure at this point but it is a part of that 1.3
million so that gives us a total of $473,000.00 in construction that can
come from sources. Being specifically tax increment and trail dedication
fees or 429 assessment procedure. That obviously leaves a gap. There's a
gap between 1. 3 mi 11 ion and $473,000.00 of about $860,000.00. There are
any number of sources for that but I think the most prominent one is
potential for referendum. We did a little bit of brainstorming I guess with
staff and the general sentiment was that a bond issue of that magnitude for
trails was questionable as to whether or not it would be widely accepted by
the public and looking potentially more in the neighborhood of $500,000.00
to $600,000.00 that would be potentially again more acceptable to the voters
and I think that is tied in to perhaps some assumptions that are being made
on the community center. I believe there may be some interest in keeping
that bond issue at or below a certain threshold and in order to do that it
may be necessary to keep the trail portion, if that was a part of it, at
about a $500,000.00 or $600,000.00 level. That obviously has the one impact
of forcing about $268,000.00 of trail construction to be withdrawn until
some later phase of the project. Later phase being defined as another 5
year increment somewhere down the road and that doesn't answer how that's
paid for right now either because your options there are essentially the
same as we have right now which include referendum again at some point in
time in the future. If you're successful with one now, Phase I goes in and
it's a total success, that may stimulate some interest in coming around with
'other one 5 years down the road or whatever. I guess to a certain degree
.ose are future considerations. In looking at the level of cuts that are
....",
..."".
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~gust 4, 1987 - Page 10
necessary, if we assume that we're going to try to end up with a $500,000.00
to $600,000.00 referendum, the little areas back here that are hollowed out
boxes, would be trail segments that could be omitted which would represent
about $260,000.00 in cost so what that would leave then is a Phase I system
with all this. It would omit this loop and it would omit all of the
southerly connection which quite honestly are designed as soon as possible
to provide a connection down to the school area in Chaska.
Hasek: Point of clarification, have you got Exhibit A and B labeled
correctly in that group?
Mark Koegler: That is possible. That is absolutely correct. That's right,
A is Band B is A. Sorry about that. ...so it is possible to pair that
back and I think still probably achieve some of the major goals which were
to first of all focus on some of the existing trail segments that are in
town right now and provide connecting links between those to take advantage
of that system. At the same time tie in most of the population base to both
of the facilities of interest be it Lake Ann Park or more regional
facilities such as the Minnewashta Regional Park or Arboretum. That's about
a million dollars worth of trails is what it ends up to be.
Hasek: Now, we can capture you said roughly $500,000.00 to $600,000.00 in
~ferendum? You felt that was reasonable?
rk Koegler: That was the general assumption I think and I think that was
_nd of a collective assumption by Lori and Don and I in talking about it.
Hasek: Is that something that you felt the general public would probably go
for based on the survey we took or is that just a gut reaction?
Mark Koegler: I guess I would have to answer that two ways. First of all
the survey did, as you're aware, indicate a very strong interest in trails
which is encouraging from a referendum perspective. In looking at the exact
amount we ran some numbers out based on an assessed value of the typical
house and I don't know what a typical house is but I think we used
$100,000.00 house and don't quote me on my numbers because I'm trying to
pull these back to memory but we were somewhere in the neighborhood of with
about a 2 million dollar referendum, $60.00 to $70.00 a year per household
increase which we thought was somewhat tenable. If we went up and looked at
the additional trail construction and if there was possibly a little bit
more money in there for, be it the community center or whatever, we were
into $100.00 to $120.00-$130.00 and there seemed to be a barrier there that
the public might perceive. That may be right and that might be wrong. That
was the philosophy.
Robinson: So this isn't a stand alone $500,000.00 to $600,000.00 vbte?
Mark Koegler: No. It's a piece in the puzzle. Only a piece and I guess
~ that light you bring up a good point that really you're only seeing one
;tion of this and I don't know Lori's obviously aware of what discussions
.ve taken place to date with the Park Commission on the Community Center.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 11
Sietsema: It's pretty optimistic I think that they're going to want to go
for a community center. To what level and what facilities are going to go
into that, they haven't gotten into it that far. I don't think that the
Task Force has even looked at how much of a referendum we could go for so
right now they're looking at a pie in the sky and they're going to work dowm
from there. Like Mark said, just talking amongst ourselves, I think we're
going to be limited to around 2 million dollars.
""""",0
Hasek: I guess the reason I ask the question is I'm wondering if we can
further carve that down by pulling pieces of this trail out of here which
might be kind of tentative or tenuous connections the way it is right now.
I don't know how much that's going to help and it's obviously based on where
that is. The most expensive trails must be the ones that are adjacent to
the highways I would guess.
Mark Koegler: Yes. TH 101 would be an example of one that's quite
expensive. There are other segments on there that are on street additions
which will virtually not change the cost at all. Frontier Trail is an
example of one. Coming up from Greenwood Shores, the one that connects
over to New Horizon. Anyway, that's a very low cost item and those segments
would not really benefit us at all to pullout but you're right and maybe
you want to defer on that until we talk a little bit more about the phasing
because some of those mayor may not be a later phase.
sek: One more quick question. Are there are any projected road projects
~thint his area within the next 5 years that might help to accommodate what ~
it is we're trying to accomplish that you're aware of?
Mark Koegler: The only one, some of them already have been taken into
account. Kerber Blvd. is the biggest one. Is just literally around the
corner. There are some improvements and we still need to do some calls to
MnDot, TH 5 being proposed. The contract supposedly was to be let last
month. I don't know if it was yet or not but they are doing shoulder
improvements out to just west of CR 17 or just west of TH 4l?
Mady: I believe it's TH 41.
Mark Koegler: They're doing shoulder improvements along TH 5. That may,
big may, be an opportunity to look at doing something in conjunction with
that. It's solely dependent really upon how much regrading they are going
to be doing. That is part of their project.
Boyt: Is it anywhere in the plan that a trail will go along Bluff Creek?
Mark Koegler: Yes it is.
Boyt: Because that road is going to go in with the next year.
Mark Koegler: Yes, and unfortunately there won't be a trail segment
~companying it. They are putting a rural section road in there and some of
.e grades in their ditch sections are so tight that right now there isn't
....."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~gust 4, 1987 - Page 12
room but that is shown as one of the future phases that there would be a
trail connection going through there.
Hasek: Bluff Creek Drive will be upgraded? To tar?
Mark Koegler: Yes.
Hasek: Who paid for that? That's not a State Aid road. Is that locally
assessed?
Mark Koegler: It's State Aid. There is an assessment on it also. State
Aid monies are contributing to the upgrading of that.
Watson: When we talk about the money that's going to be needed to build
them, have we figured what it's going to cost us per year to maintain the
trails once we own them and what it's going to cost, per household for
instance, for the maintenance of the trails? We talked about building them
but when we talked about the original cost and we want them to be patrolled
and maintained and kept up.
Mark Koegler: Yes, we had discussed that previously. We have done a little
bit of speculating. If you recall we talked about the need for additional
manpower and the need of a Cushman type vehicle and we talked about
~alcoating program which would have to start such that we would be
proving by sealcoat a segment of the trail every 5 years so the system was
.:done every 5 years. The number that sticks in my head was that after the
first segment was completed that the sealcoating maintenance cost could run
in the neighborhood of $30,000.00 to $33,000.00 a year.
Watson: What exactly does that include? That's mowing the lawn? The
sealcoating of the trail itself?
Mark Koegler: That was sealcoating and a full-time person during the
summer, an intern college student type, that would actually do patrol and
minor maintenance of the trails. Wash-outs and things when they occur.
They have a shovel and a few tools in the vehicle and they clean the trail
off. They would sweep up glass, breakage. Note any problems. If there were
small areas that needed patching they would do the patching. If there was
some weed cutting to be done they would do that kind of thing. The actual
level of maintenance obviously depends on where the trail is located. If
it's out along a road or whatever it's likely to be more wild, if you will,
in appearance. If it's going through an area where there are front yards,
it's going to be mowed more closely. Presumably some of those segments
would be mowed by the abutting landowners as well. Like the Saddlebrook
segments are essentially going to be sidewalks.
Watson: So the residents would be mowing right up to it?
)Wl.rk Koegler: Yes. So those were the kinds of numbers we had looked at in
?reliminary sense.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 13
Watson: I was just thinking if you could build in any of a maintenance cost
for the first year or couple years or something like that into what we get.
It might soften the blow. Otherwise it would have to be part of the capital
improvements. Just like the streets it would be a 5 year plan and rotated.
.....,
Mark Koegler: That's exactly what we're working towards. The work that
we're doing and talking about this evening is not really a part of the trail
plan as much as it is going to be part of the capital improvement program.
The trail segments that we're showing will be broken into annual segments
and then I think you're familiar with the capital improvement chart that we
developed a number of years ago. That will be plugged in. There will be
construction cost in there. There will be funding sources listed and there
will be maintenance costs addressed also as part of the CIP so those will be
shown as a component of that.
Schroers: Mark, can I ask about the gap on the north side of Lake
Minnewashta there? Are those gaps there because of the existing housing
development and is it always going to be a gap or is there going to be a
trail at some time?
Mark Koegler: It really probably is not correctly shown because the reason
it shows those gaps is we're using existing streets to make these
connections. The connecting points which really there are two, this one
here and this one here, are getting two points where there are existing
reets or merging, if you will, or we've got an area where we've got two
_reets that terminate in this case that channel goes through there but the ~
intent was to use the street system up through here to get over to Herman
Field and then be able to make a connection down. So that should be labeled
as an on-street trail throughout that segment also.
Robinson: Mark, how do you feel about the estimates of the tax increment
financing, $240,000.00 and trail dedication fees of $200,000.00 and Chapter
429? Is that a pretty good shot in your opinion?
Mark Koegler: Yes. We think those are very comfortable. The tax increment
estimate is not an estimate of what monies will be available so much as it's
an estimate of what trails we propose to put within the tax increment
district and what they would cost. If those trails actually cost
$260,000.00, you would have seen $260,000.00 in there. The increment
districts are strong and we think their future is strong and there should be
no problem retiring a debt level of about a quarter of a million throughout
that area so that's really reflective of the amount of trails that happen to
fall within that geographical portion of the city.
Robinson: The trail dedication fees?
Mark Koegler: I don't want to label either a liberal or conservative
estimate. We think it's a reasonable estimate. $40,000.00 a year is a
level we think should be fairly easily sustained. Again, that's based on a
'''6 to '87 level. The '87 level is surpassing the '86 level right now in
.ilding activity.
....""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 14
,.....
Robinson: That would be roughly 300 building permits per year.
Mark Koegler: Yes, at $138.00 per shot.
Mady: With a scaled back trail Plan B, right now the way it looks with Lake
Susan Hills West, the connection down to Lyman probably is going to get part
of that provided it's accepted by the City Council so then we're really only
talking about losing the Lyman Blvd. and CR 17 portion there. I think we
reflected the possible nature trail through the creek.
Mark Koegler: To the south?
Mady: Yes.
Mark Koegler: No, I believe that was shown on the second phase. The other
thing that this particular discussion that the capital improvement focuses
on is the more capital intensive trails. The multi-use trails. The others
are easier to develop from a cost standpoint. We had shown those in Phase 2
which will be the second 5 year increment.
Mady: I know it's going to be a tough decision for the Council. The Task
Force, we haven't had a meeting for about a month or so but the last meeting
with the architects, I carne away feeling that geez, we're all still looking
~ everything and wanting to spend well in excess of what the City really
. .'1 afford at this time but that will probably be scaled down when it gets
, the next meeting. It would be real nice to get it all right away. These
are one of those decisions that have to be made almost jointly. I think
it's important to get all the trails in the northern half of the city as
soon as possible because that seems to be the area that's developing the
quickest. If Lake Susan Hills West comes in, the way it looks now they will
have their own trail system in place or pretty much most of it and if we
could tie in, that will give us a good start for the south.
Mark Koegler: It depends on the timing for that development too. It may
take 3 to 5 years before you would see a trai 1 segment in there which would
tie in fairly nicely with this whole line of thinking. Maybe we should
carry this a step further and talk a little bit about breakdowns. In
talking about 5 year plan, taking that maybe to a one year. This
incidentally is based upon looking at the entire system which would now be
Exhibit A. New A. Old B, new A. Originally when we went through this and
looked at it we thought there essentially were kind of three phases. We
weren't trying to tie those to any year designation but there just seemed to
be a hierarchy that some them are a bit better than others. The ones that
are in this kind of Miami Vice teal blue kind of color are the first phase
trails. These are the ones really concentrated more on the existing
developed area or they made connections to existing trail segments or they
were to leave generally acknowledged safety problems that occur right now.
Phase 2 then seemed to be something would compliment behind that and make
some additional connections down to the Arboretum or around this portion of
~~n along more connections to Eden Prairie. The third phase then being
ad of in fill and picking up again this southward movement as we carne
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 15
through. Those three phase breakdowns, again based on 1.3 million, gave us
for phase 1 which is all of the blue, regardless of the pattern, is about
$65","""."" in construction. phase 2 is about $3"","""."" worth of
construction and Phase 3 is about $4"","""."" worth of construction. So.the
$65",""0.00 that we ended up in ballpark figures seemed to be pretty close
to what we ended up with with a modified referendum proceeds of $500,"0".0"
to $600,"00.0". Somewhere in that general range right now. So we then
looked at taking those Phase 1 segments and breaking those into three
different years. Tried to capitalize on the improvements that are going in
right now and linking those to improvements that actually exist right now.
Therefore, the first phase, first year would be essentially around the
downtown area. The second year we would pick up some of these links going
around. The third year then make some of these connections to allow
movement from TH 5 on out to Minnewashta and make that connection. Second
year also occuring across the north so we initially have a movement down
in this direction. From there then keeping the 4th year and 5th year
segments which now become the last phases the same. TH 101, TH 41 being
second and then this area being the last segment. Those are really thrown
out only for discussion to see what your thoughts are. There's nothing that
has to be sacred about any of those designations but in terms of the dollar
designation and the allotment over the time period, it seemed to fit fairly
well with the pattern of a $500,000.00 to $6"0,000.00 referendum. That
means we get in there and we do these segments in the first three years.
Maybe some of that is accelerated. It becomes a question of how much
asonably can we accomplish in one year. How big a contract can we award?
~w much spread out do we want to be in terms of construction?
-'
....."
Hasek: Is it also a fact that I would think that construction might be one
of the easier things than getting some of those easements and acquiring
property might one of the more difficult.
Mark Koegler: There is time involved in that also. Probably not as
significant on these segments because there's been discussions with the
County that if we can the trail within their right-of-way and they're
amenable to that. TH 1"1 is a different matter. What this does then is it
allows the bank account if you will, of the trail dedication monies to build
over the 3 year period so we have some of those proceeds available as we
begin then to enter into these segments. Bear in mind that some of these
were actually financed with tax increment so we're funding a portion. That
seemed to be a reasonable way to allocate phasing which again is a part of
the Capital Improvement Program.
Hasek: Explain to me again, I missed it just because I was trying to keep
track of year 1 and 2 and so forth, the open green squares.
Mark Koegler: They are third year.
Hasek: Okay, so all the blue is the first three years and brown is the
fourth year and the other is the fifth?
-'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~gust 4, 1987 - Page 16
Schroers: That also seems logical in serving the more populated areas first
which I think the residents would be in favor of.
Mady: It's important if we're going to go with the referendum to be able
to show some immediate results. If you're going to deal with policy, you're
going to have to show them that there going to need some of that money right
away and not 5 years down the road. I like the phasing as it stands.
Hasek: Another part of the phasing which I like, and I'm speaking strictly
from a westside of Minnewashta home almost in victoria resident, is that it
tends to serve the existing residents before it serves proposed new
residential areas or very new residential areas which I guess in looking
from a standpoint of being a resident and paying taxes seems to be in favor
of.
Mady: I would also think that even though the west side of Minnewashta is
actually shown as year 2 of the Phase 1, because of the degree of difficulty
of getting some of those easements and deciding where the trail is going to
go is probably going to work beyond year 1.
Mark Koegler: Definitely yes. There are segments such as that that even if
the land is available, are trickier from a design perspective because we've
got so many obstacles in that corridor. I think Ed's comment is a real good
~ though that this does link some of the existing residential areas and
ybe it doesn't pay as much attention to like Lake Susan south area which
_..J it develops will have trail systems. An example of that that is near and
dear in my heart is Kurvers Property over here in Kurvers Point but that's
an example of as that develops will have one just as Saddlebrook has one and
I think you will see those pieces start to join this system so I think it's
reasonable that the philosophy kind is that those people to a certain degree
pay their own way now that the pattern has been established and the pattern
obviously has been established even though it hasn't been adopted yet
because the trail plan has been used in some of the development reviews that
have occurred.
Watson: How will our money be so that when we're doing year 1, will we have
the funds available to purchase the engineering and doing year 2 so that
when year 2 actually comes we're actually building trails. We're not being
in negotiations or is that how it's going to work?
Mark Koegler: That's the intent of how's it going to work. The mechanics
of that, I would be less than honest if I told you we knew exactly how that
was going to function. The intent is that if there is a referendum and it
is successful, that creates x pot of dollars that is available. Either
available immediately or depending upon the bond sale, funds may be
allocated to start things from another source and then replaced if you will
with referendum proceeds. So the intent is just what you described. To
have a sum of money that's available there to begin the platting,
~gineering and so forth that's necessary so that we can get the actual
. 1struction going as soon as possible.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 17
watson: And our money should come in increments so we're able to build part -,.
1 and get ready for part 2 and build part 2 and get ready for part 3?
Mark Koegler: Yes. You would actually sell bonds to have $600,000.00 in
the bank, if you will, earning interest. But that's the intent exactly.
That the funds will be there.
Watson: So we will stay on schedule then?
Mark Koegler: There would be no reason financially you could not. Be it
political problems or weather delays or something, that's another factor.
Watson: Yes, but I mean technically speaking we should be able to plan 5
years and at the end of 5 years be done.
Boyt: I have a question about something that happened while I was gone.
There are trails that are on road and trails that are off road. Can that be
changed?
Mark Koegler: Yes. Nothing has been officially adopted to date. Do you
have a specific area?
Boyt: Frontier Trail. I can't imagine putting an on road on Frontier
Trail, it's a mess. I haven't looked at the whole plan but...
~ ;hroers: The general consensus was that we were going to go wi th an off -'
road trail wherever it was feasible. Isn't that correct?
Mark Koegler: Yes. We face two obstacles with that. I would totally agree
where we can get an off road we've got to do that. The problem is getting a
6 foot trail through an existing single family neighborhood.
Boyt: Well it doesn't have to be 6 foot though. We've talked about
different widths.
Mark Koegler: Talk about 5? 5 is about as narrow as you get. That's a
typical urban sidewalk.
Sietsema: The trail to Lake Ann is a 5 foot.
Hasek: I think the reason we decided with a 6 foot was for two reasons.
One, we can get a mat width now of 6 foot wide. They make a machine that
does that. They don't make a 5 foot machine or 4 foot machine if we had an
aggregate trail so we're kind of limited there. The second thing was to be
able to maintan it. A 6 foot would accomodate a vehicle to maintain it.
Watson: Is that going to be like a sidewalk along Frontier Trail?
Boyt: It's on the road which I think that's a hazard on Frontier Trail and
- think we ought to look at an alternative and any other area that's on
ad, try as hard as we can to get it off the road.
.....""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~gust 4, 1987 - Page 18
Watson: I wonder what kind of luck we would have acquiring.
Mady: You'd get my piece of property. I 1 ~. want a trail going through
my front yard.
Watson: I mean a sidewak kind of construction like what's going through
Saddlebrook, I think you might be able to sell it. If it's just sort of
something that's a bituminous piece of whatever going through somebody's
yard, you're going to have people along there saying thank you but no thank
you.
Boyt: It's not as aesthecially pleasing.
Watson: Right but a sidewalk kind of section.
Boyt: Do we need to have a machine to plow them? I don't think we have to.
That was another question that we talked about before.
Hasek: Plowing wouldn't be necessary but it would be nice to have a vehicle
that could go down the trail system and do maintenance. We have a problem
if we have a washout in the middle of 2,000 square, I guess the one I'm
thinking about is between TH 41 and CR 17. A piece like that, if you had
~me problems in there getting to it.
yt: Frontier Trail you've got the road there.
Hasek: Obviously you're right. We would like to have them off street if
they absolutely, positively could but I think if we can stick with a 6 foot
design which from a design standpoint is more aesthetically pleasing.
Something you feel inside to be more comfortable with than 5 foot. Even two
people walking in opposite directions on a 5 foot of sidewalk will have to
walk on the outside of the sidewalk.
Watson: How wide is a sidewalk? Standard sidewalk?
Mark Koegler: 5 feet.
Watson: You see on Frontier Trail, if you put in a concrete sidewalk that
could be maintained from the street because the sidewalk think is going to
abut Frontier Trail and on a street like that where the street is so narrow
and a lot of those front yard setbacks aren't real big so you're going to be
coming in a ways, couldn't we maybe go for 5 foot there and maintain it
because our vehicle could work from the street because it would almost
immediately adjacent to a trail section?
Mark Koegler: The discussion of sidewalks opens up a whole new cost which
the Planning Commission is intending to open I believe as part of their
discussions but trail has a different meaning usually than sidewalk to a
~rtain degree. First of all you can construct a 5 foot sidewalk and that
uld be assessed 100% to the abutting properties. Now you know how
.ccessful that probably would be. Typically that's how cities build
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 19
sidewalks and that's how they maintain them. Actually snowplowing and on
going maintenance, sidewalks are done by the property owners.
....",
Watson: Now Mark, let's just say that it won't be the first time we've
created our own definition. If a trail happened to be a sidewalk section
and we were not going to assess but that was our choice in trails in certain
areas...we'll call ita trail and the people will call ita sidewalk and
they'll be happy to call it a trail when they find out that we will assess
them for it if we call it sidewalk.
Mark Koegler: I think the actual design of materials of it has a different
connotation to the homeowner in the area. If you say a 5 foot concrete
sidewalk, it reads to you sidewalk. If you see a 6 foot bituminous rivet of
asphalt, suddenly that's more of an intense trail. You think bikes can go
on that because it's smooth. There's no expansion/contraction joints. Lake
Drive East, right now that's on there as existing is sidewalk really. It's
concrete so higher cost is a factor on that but I think that has a certain
scale and it has a certain look that is much more residential perhaps than
the rivet of bituminous even though that is more efficient.
Hasek: Are they now laying concrete sidewalks with continuous process like
they do? I know they're doing it with curbing.
Mark Koegler: Curbing certainly. I have not seen it on sidewalks. They
'e always formed.
'""'"
Hasek: To me it would make sense if they could create a machine that would
form it all in the same time.
Mark Koegler: Look at how many cities put in sidewalks these days. There's
not a great demand for that machine.
Hasek: Maybe par t of the reason tha t tha t might not happen is because they
would have to wait for the road surface to go in before they could do that.
Otherwise they have no place to run the machine and it would have to hang
off the side of the machine otherwise they would have to grade everything
above the curb where they don't have to do that...
Mark Koegler: If it's the interest of the Commission, we certainly can look
at changing that and upgrading that to an off road segment.
Robinson: I would say we should not do that. Not even look at it. I can't
see where that is that big a problem on Frontier Trail.
Mady: I do. There's no way. An on street trail on Frontier Trail is just
ridiculous right now.
Boyt: Right now the road isn't wide enough.
",dy: I walk that probably four times a week and I have to be watching both
rward and backwards.
..."",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~gust 4, 1987 - Page 20
Robinson: I walk every morning though on the streets uptown from West 77th
Street in very little sidewalk and sure I do but on the same token I would
never ask for a sidewalk or an off street trail.
Mady: On Frontier Trail we have the situation with some severe curves, a
lot of hills.
Boyt: A lot of children. I would like to at least have it looked it as a
possibility.
Mady: I'm looking at this the same way as we do Laredo and that's got to be
off street too.
Mark Koegler: That is shown as off street right now.
Mady: There's no doubt in my mind to get those two pieces in.
Watson: Do we know how much more it costs to make a sidewalk? Are we
talking twice as much?
Mark Koegler: Are you defining a sidewalk as being a 5 foot concrete.
Watson: I'm trying to define a sidewalk as being a trail only it's made of
~crete and it's off the street.
_ Asek: Concrete trail as opposed to a bituminous trail.
Mark Koegler: We have not looked at that before this evening. We can look
at that cost.
Watson: Just so we have some idea. Are we talking about something that's
going to throw our entire project off because the dollar amount is going to
change. Even actually change our phasing because Frontier Trail is quite a
long section.
Mark Koegler: Yes it is. It might change the phasing.
Robinson: It would be totally incremental wouldn't it because you would do
nothing to make an on street trail on Frontier Trail, is that right?
Mark Koegler: Signage. Some striping.
Hasek: How wide is the surface of the road right now?
Mark Koegler: I don't know how wide it is throughout all that segment.
Hasek: It must be something less than 30 feet otherwise there wouldn't be
the concern for it.
,....,
jy: Yes, if you parked on both sides you can get one car through but
.a t' sit.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 21
...,.,.
Hasek: That would be another option to limit parking to one side of the
street and use that piece for trails.
Boyt: Right now there is a lot of limited parking on Frontier Trail because
of the curves. That moves from side to side on the street.
Hasek: But we could restrip the road to accomodate for that.
Schroers: I'm in favor of staying as consistent with the type of trail as
we can. I think even for resident use of the trail, it's a lot easier to
identify it as a trail when it's basically the same. If the trail is
bituminous ribbon stops here and turns into concrete, how are they going to
know that that is still part of the continuing trail?
Watson: We could still use signage couldn't we?
Mady: There's that piece of hesitation and there's also that psychological
break there if you cross a trail. Bituminous on one side of the street and
concrete on the other side of the street. Do you relunctantly ride your
bike on the concrete or do you stay on the street thinking you can't ride
your bike on concrete.
Watson: You would have to sign it.
'sek: It definitely would have to be well signed. Especially as it went ...,.,.
..rough neighborhoods.
Schroers: Continuity is aesthetically more desirable I think.
Watson: I agree. I just think that some areas the trails are going to go
through are going to be very heavily residential kind of areas and others
are going to be less like that.
Hasek: What is the speed limit on Frontier Trail right now?
Mady: 30.
Hasek: And that road can't handle 30?
Boyt: In many areas it can't. It has reduced speed in many areas.
Hasek: Is it legal in this state to post a 20 mph or 15 mph?
Boyt: No. 30 is as low as it will go.
Watson: Well now, Pleasant View Road is posted at 25.
Hasek: You can't get tagged for going 30 and that's the same thing. When
they've got 15, posted 15.
yt: It's a recommendation.
....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ust 4, 1987 - Page 22
Hasek: I agree with the problem you've got. I've driven only twice down
that road and I know what it's like when you're trying to look houses, it's
kind of difficult to stay where you want to stay. What kind of problems has
Minnetonka had with their on street trail systems? Are you aware at all?
Mark Koegler: Not specifically no.
Hasek: I know I've heard people say they've had problems but I've also
heard people who use the trails say they like them a lot so it might be
interesting to see if they've got some areas that are similar and how
they're working.
Robinson: Is that TH 101, is that on the highway?
Mark Koegler: No. It's adjacent to but it's off road. There would be a
separation there.
Schroers: Is Kerber Blvd. going to stay on street trails?
Mark Koegler: I haven't seen the plans for that. I assume it's going to be
just very similar to what it is up in the New Horizon area where there is a
bituminous ribbon that's off street separated by a couple of feet or so or
,,-..,ybe ad j acen t .
yt: It's a good size street.
Schroers: Basically the way it is right now up in this section of it is on
street.
Sietsema: It's going to be off street though.
Watson: What about CR l7?
Mark Koegler: It will be off. The only segments that are shown to be on
street really are the segment that comes out of Greenwood Shores which is a
low traffic. This particular link.
Watson: I think it's interesting we picked that.
Mark Koegler: We did that because it has the trail connection.
Watson: I understand because it comes off Kerber but the natural flow is
they cut across their own neighbors. They come across the backs and they
come straight across. The most direct route.
Mark Koegler: We're going to change the travel"pattern. There are other
examples. Lake Lucy Road is one where it's on and immediately adjacent to
the street.
"""
sek: But that was because we had no choice. It was too late.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 23
.....",
Schroers: We're getting back to where we were before. I think we should
stick to our guns and say, wherever possible we want off street trails and
that will simplify things.
Mark Koegler: I think that's been the philosophy that's been followed. Now
again, I'll use my favorite project Kurvers Point. That 6 foot trail that
you required and the Council sustained, they did allow us to put it wherever
we wanted. Either in the street or adjacent to the street depending on
grade and tree cover. We asked for that flexibility because we're trying to
save trees in there and it may be more adv i s'able ra ther than add i ng 6 foot
to the paved width of the street to set it off the street and go around some
of the trees. So we don't know what the form of that will be but again,
that's not a major trail segment. I think the point is Larry that that's
been the philosophy that's been followed. Wherever possible, unless there's
a reason.
Hasek: Getting back to the discussion on concrete, just to put my view on
it, a lot of the Eden prairie trail system they put them on both sides of
the street, they're continuing with bituminous and doing it very nicely.
They're doing a very nice job of it so it blends in well. It's not just
putting some gravel down and throwing it on and how it blends in with the
adjoining property, so be it. They actually sod up next to it so they're
actually blending in well.
'dy: It's not going to be that difficult to sell as long as you're doing a ..""
JJod job. If you're just throwing it down and there's going to be a big lip
in somebody's front yard.
Schroers: That basically the state of the art in trails right now, that's
the way everyone wants them and they didn't see any reason to be different.
Mady: I think we have to make sure, if and when we go that that point gets
shown because otherwise if you look at the older trails that are existing
that most people are familiar with the older ones like in Eden priarie where
the gravel extends beyond the bituminous and then there's a bunch of weeds
and they go 6 foot further the grass starts. I don't want that in my
front yard either.
Watson: On Frontier Trail it's not so much that it has to be concrete, just
off street. If we can make it aesthetically pleasing and use the cheaper
version.
Mady: Most of the land is conducive to put a trail on it. It's not going
to take a lot of expensive grading as long as you get the easement.
Mark Koegler: That will become, in my mind, the most difficult segment to
acquire and build. More so even than TH 101 potentially because of the
number of property owner that you'll be dealing with. Frontier Trail. TH
101 is a long expansive trail but there aren't as many property owners and
, will have to secure easements or acquire easements or condemn.
..."",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 24
,...,
Hasek: How wide is the street right-of-way there?
Mark Koegler: I assume it is, particularly on the northern end, is 50 feet.
I don't know if it is along the southern portions or not. Some of the older
segments. It may be. We would have to look at a plat map.
Hasek: You don't think it's possible to get it inside of the right-of-way?
Mark Koegler: The potential is there. I don't know in some areas again, it
mayor may not be. We may be able to get it solely within the right-of-way.
Mady: The bulk of the houses are set back from the street considerably.
Boyt: Up to Laredo.
Hasek: There has to be what, a 35 foot frontage?
Mady: In our Covenants they're 40.
Mark Koegler: They're probably about 40. 30 foot setback and about 10 feet
hopefully to the street edge and right-of-way.
Mady: Mark, what are we looking for?
".....
rk Koegler: We need two things really. First of all is I think some
_ .neral direction. Not maybe a definitive action but some general direction
on the dollar number that you think we should be planning for a phase 1
segment. Should it reflect $500,000.00 to $600,000.00 referendum or should
it reflect an $800,000.00 to $900,000.00. Then I think we also would like
general concurrence with this kind of phasing scheme, if you want to alter
that by saying look at that but also look at Frontier Trail and we'll bring
back next time specifics, chart form, of this would be year 1. This is the
cost. This is how it's funded. This would be year 2 and so forth. With
regard to Frontier Trail, if you would include that, we could show you both
ways. How that works with it or without it.
Hasek: I have two quick questions. One of them is a cost per year. You're
not prepared wi th that. That's something you're asking or you're going to
prepare for next time?
Mark Koegler: I ran through that verbally. You don't have the cost per
year for the first three years is in the neighborhood of $250,000.00 per
year.
Hasek: But it's not year by year? You don't have one for year 1, 2 and 3
of the first three years?
Mark Koegler: Not really. Year 1, 2 and 3 lumped together is $650,000.00.
~e split that's there though is roughly even. That's the way they were
'>portioned.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 25
.....""
Hasek: So we're looking at $200,000.00 per year. My second question, how
do we see this affecting other potential plans for the parks? Is this going
to impact on, I mean we're talking about taking $200,000.00 worth of park
funds and pumping it into this. Is this going to affect what we're going to
be allowed to do or are we just going to fish that much harder for outside
funding for things we want to do in our parks?
Mark Koegler: The only assumption we've made in this is that we will
utilize the $138.00 per unit trail fee not the park fee so the park monies
would still be there for whatever park improvements or acquisitions you
would care to make in the future.
Watson: I guess I would just as soon go with the $500,000.00 and
$600,000.00 just because if we're looking for success, and you combine it
with that community building, I think we're going to be talking about an
awful lot of money. If we're hoping not to shock people too much. I think
the trail people want the trails and if they aren't an overwhelming portion
of that referendum, I think we're going to do that. I think it may help to
pull the whole thing through.
Hasek: I tend to agree with one except i on and tha t would be tha tis it
possible that we could recommend, this is a decision, the referendum's a
decision that's going to be ultimately made between Staff and Council.
.- 'rk Koegler: Specifically the Council will make that ultimate decision. ~.
Hasek: Okay, but the staff is going to have a lot of input into what's
going on. They're going to be the ones that put the numbers together and
everything so they're going to be the ones who are pushing one thing or
another based on some feeling or whatever as to how they see things coming
down. Is it possible that we could ask for the sky and accept something
less than that if it has to be and allow it to be a staff decision? We can
made the recommendation that we would like to see as much as possible done
if it's possible. If not, we're willing to take whatever we can get.
Watson: Yes, this would be the best case but we can go with it too.
Schroers: But if we say we're willing to accept whatever we can get, they
may say...
Hasek: I didn't say what we can get. It would be (a), we'll reference them
to the graphics. It's that simple. We want old Exhibit B, new Exhibit A.
Mady: My line of thinking on this thing is right now the community center,
we haven't decided whether or not it's going to happen. If it does, what
it's going to be. As far as I'm concerned, at this point in time, I would
rather ask for the whole thing on and if the community center comes in, we
decide that we're going to build 1.3 million or 2.3 million, whatever it
comes in at, at that point we can then scale back this if need be.
...."I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~gust 4, 1987 - Page 26
sietsema: I think this body has to make a statement to the task force too
to let them know that this is the trails that we're going to need and this
is how much money we're forseeing that we're going to need too so they are
aware that when they are looking at a community center, the ultimate amount
that we can go for referendum is 2.5 million and-we want.5 million for
trails that they can only build a 2 million dollar facility.
Hasek: I guess we've got a voice there for sure on the task force and I
think Jim's right, I think we ought to ask for as much as we possible can
get with the understanding that if it is scaled back that we're not going to
take this or nothing at all. Everything or nothing at all. We're willing
to scale back along with everything else.
Watson: What happens to us if there's no community building? Then we go
for our own?
Robinson: Is the community center a Park and Rec decision?
Sietsema: It's a task force decision and they will make a recommendation to
the City Council.
Robinson: But then we're throwing the trail plan in with the community
center.
,.......
it: We have to.
Sietsema: If the referendum is going to be for a community center and we
want to include monies for trails, the people that are looking at the
community center should be aware of that so they can take those costs into
consideration too.
Watson: When they set the amount for referendum.
Boyt: But they don't want to go through two referendums. One separately
for trails and one separately for community center.
Watson: Somebody's going to lose.
Schroers: So what we're saying here basically is what we want is new
Exhibit A and if we can't get it, we may be willing to settle for new
Exhibit B.
Robinson: But at the expense of a community center?
Schroers: No. In addition to.
Watson: As part of that referendum.
~etsema: They won't be competing against each other at all. They would
:lude the trails to help sell the package.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 27
.....,1'
Robinson: But if the magic number is 2 million dollars and a referendum
won't go over 2 million and if we go with $868,000.00, that will put it at
2.2 million, we've probably just killed the trails and the community center.
Hasek: No, no. That's what we're saying. If need be we would be willing
scale back.
Schroers: We're leaving ourselves some room to work.
Robinson: To some, whatever you feel is the magic number.
Hasek: Then I would hope at that point if it was something less than
Exhibit B coming back or that we have to go for it, that we're going to be
made aware of it before that decision is made. I certainly hope that would
happen.
Sietsema: You're not writing anything in stone or anything.
Mady: Curt, the way I feel, since I'm on the Task Force, when we start
talking about that, one thing we want to make sure the task force
understands is that when the survey that we had done was something like 85%
of the people want trails in this community. It was less than 60% I believe
that wanted the community center so to me the trails are probably more
important to the people of this town than I think a community center. We
y be willing to scale this back.
....."
Hasek: We may not have to at the same time.
Mady: 20% but I don't see us, we'll only take half of it since you were
building an extra racquetball court in your community center. That isn't
going to happen.
Hasek: I think what the survey tells, at least what it indicates to me is
that the people may be willing to spend a few more dollars if the trails are
included than they would be if they weren't included. I mean, our project
might in fact help sell the community center and they should be grateful.
Schroers: So are you looking for more of a recommendation from us Mark or
an approval of Exhibit A or B or something like that versus a motion?
Mark Koegler: I really think all we're after is a consensus of the
Commission right now. I don't know if that has to be in a formal motion
form but just to take this to the next step is to bring back the detail for
the CIP and that we will base that upon the discussions we've had tonight
with the exception that we'll look at, as an alternate, at this stage.
Frontier Trail and let you weight the aspects of that and that we have begun
to define some parameters for the referendum of somewhere between
$500,000.00 to $600,000.00 to $800,000.00-$850,000.00.
"~sek: Was it as Larry explained. We want to shoot for the new A and use
w B as an alternative. ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 28
"",....
Watson: It can be somewhere in between there too.
Schroers: But we wouldn't want to go back further.
Watson: Any further than that.
Hasek: Right, and if there are any major changes that drop below new figure
B's grahic that we would be the first ones to know about it.
Mark Koegler: Can I just interject one thing. The only complication that
causes is what do we want to base the capital improvement program on? A or
B?
Hasek: I think we would like to see A to start with.
Watson: We're saying we're willing to compromise but this is what we really
want.
Mark Koegler: That's fine. Just so long as it's clear that part of the
consensus base it on A.
Hasek: If we're doing it we might as well try to connect ourselves with our
abutting communities and part of that program is indicated as your year 1
~aphics. We might as well try and get it included.
,binson: Did you say you would go look at Frontier Trail?
Mark Koegler: Yes.
Robinson: Did we have a consensus that we want you to do that?
Hasek: I think it's important that everything has to be looked at and as
time goes by here we might get feelings that there are other sections that
we are going to have to be looked at more closely. Obviously Mark isn't
able to drive every road out there but their perception might not be our
perception.
Mark Koegler: I think though in specific response, I guess I am hearing the
maj or i ty consensus to look at it and come back with the numbers so the
decision can be made and that's only in that context that we'll take it to
that next step.
Mady: Is there anything else?
Boyt: He wanted to look at phasing, if you agree with the phasing.
Mark Koegler: Now the phasing that's up there does correspond to new
Exhibit A. We'll take that then and translate that into the numbers and
charts.
,-..,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 29
.....",
Hasek: Do me a favor Mark as you go along, will you please try to keep in
the back of your mind the possibility of pieces or sections of this thing
might be able to be dropped in a different scheme for Exhibit B. Just in
case. If there might be something all of a sudden we say we really don't
need this coming through here, maybe we could drop that.
Mark Koegler: There are some and I think we had shown that the first time
through with the segment that goes down behind Chanhassen Estates somewhat
duplicates the Lake Drive East movement for example and that could be
deferred to a later date. The same thing with the two parallel ones that
run down Lake Susan and CR 17. Certainly the eastern most one could be
omitted. Particularly if the western one came in as a part of the
development. There are some of those that I think sort out logically then
there are some that are more difficult decisions. Severing one of the
connections maybe to Chaska. You don't want to do that. You may have to do
that until later.
Sietsema: Were you going to talk about the updating process?
Mark Koeg ler: Yes. The only other topic to address tha t we will back with
you next time as well is we've gotten site direct on trails and trails have
consumed all of our discussion and not it's time to get back to the issue of
also updating the rest of the recreation chapter of the plan so that will be
coming back to you with draft information on it for the next go around.
~
CONSIDERATION OF ACQUIRING ~ !! ACRE PARCEL ADJACENT TO LAKE SUSAN HILLS
WEST.
Hasek: Lori, generally speaking, is this piece that we're looking at below
the Hills?
Sietsema: It's the flat area that was below the hill. That actually is
like a valley. The park comes down and they show a portion of that flat
area as being part of this development, the PUD, and then the rest of it and
then it goes up to a slope.
Hasek: This is actually finishing off the bottom and going up the hill?
Sietsema: Right. I'm fairly confident that we'll be able to acquire an
adequate amount of parkland from the Lake Susan West development to serve
the neighborhood park needs within that development. However, consideration
should be given to the fact that this development could potentially
represent 25% of our population. 3,~~~ people will considerably increase
the use of our existing community parks as well. If our existing facilities
are meeting our current needs, it stands to reason that our community park
needs will need to be increased as the population grows. This is why I
brought this before you for your consideration. I feel that we'll need to
determine whether the park proposed will be adequate enough to meet the
r~mmunity park needs. League play, league softball games, softball
actices, Little League games, where the Pee Wee go to play. All those ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 30
,....
~~nds of needs. Right now City Center Park is used pretty much to capacity
in the evenings with our little kids and the Lake Ann Park is used
completely to what we've got time for in the evenings with softball and it
continues to get even more use in the fall with the fall activities and Todd
is talking about starting a fall softball program as well so we're really
running out of, we're at capacity right now. Like we talked about before,
the tennis courts are being used on a consistent basis. The totlots around
are being consistently used and I think tennis and totlots are more of a
neighborhood use but when I'm talking about community use, I'm definitely
talking about more organized play.
Boyt: We would like a Little League, Babe Ruth area for the kids somewhere
in Chanhassen. Centralized.
Mady: One thing I liked about this particular parcel of land, provided we
can find access to it, is that it is fairly close to Lake Ann and that with
softball league as well weekend tournaments, you can go from one to the
other without having to drive a great distance. It's fairly easy to get to.
The only thing I would like to talk about is there is an easement proposed
that gets people into this piece of property somehow or another. Right now
I'm not sure where it is. I think it's important that if we do do something
wi th increasing the size of the park...part of the Lake Susan Hills West.
there's another access besides through Lake Susan Hills West because there
is not a real direct road into that subdivision.
,....
.=tsema: There are two accesses to that but you're right, they're not off
of a major street. They're residential streets.
Mady: If we want to make this into more of a community type park, use it
for active leagues, I know as a resident in Chanhassen, I wouldn't want my
street to be used for softball games coming back and forth through.
Sietsema: We'll have the same problems as Lydia Porter in Meadow Green
Park.
Mady: Maybe we should try to avoid those so if we can get an access from
Audubon Road or potentially our of Lyman Blvd. directly in that would be the
forum I think just to alleviate some potential problems. If they do
subdivide the property, they will have to I guess provide some type of
access into there anyway.
Sietsema: I think before we get into that much detail we need to determine
if the parkland that's being posed to be provided by the PUD, if that will
meet, will that 18 acre park in itself meet the additional needs that we may
have? Maybe that's sufficient. Maybe we don't need anymore. What I'm
proposing is that we authorize Mark to go and do a sketch concept,
preconcept plan of the parks that they are proposing. They're talking about
a 5 acre park on the east side of Powers Blvd., 10 acres on the north end by
the multi-family and then the 18 acre park below and have Mark come in and
~ yes, you can get this, this and this. Maybe we don't need it. Maybe we
1 use a portion of that 18 acre park as the neighborhood use area and the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 31
.....",
rest of it for community use. If we don't need it but then there is also
the issue, maybe that is only going to be adequate for neighborhood parks so
before we go ahead and look into purchasing it, I don't even know if the
people are willing to sell. Right now there's a purchase agreement. The
Rime people are trying to sell it to somebody else contingent on being able
to subdivide it so that person may be willing to sell a portion of it or all
of it. Maybe we don't need all of it. Let us determine what our needs are
going to be down there. There is a possibility that we may be able to put
this cost back on the developer. .
Hasek: I think I saw this issue before the Council. Is that correct or did
I see it before the Planning Commission?
Sietsema: It did go before the Council. They took the restriction off so
that it would be a buildable lot and they did not at that time direct Park
and Rec to look at it. They left it up to Park and Rec whether they wanted
to or not.
Hasek: I was talking about the Lake Susan Hills West project.
Sietsema: That was before City Council as well.
Hasek: You were there won't you?
Ady: I've been there for two of them. A week ago yesterday the Council
looked at it again still trying to decide whether it's a PUD or not.
Basically they told the developer that if he wants to see additional park on
the east side. Right now as it stands right now, the developer is going to
give us 3.9 acres of parkland on the east side of what we would call active
parkland with the addition of some parcels right along the lake but that's
not going to be able to be developed into ballfields but what the Council
was discussing at that time was let's try to increase that to 5 acres so we
have a parcel that's big enough to do something with besides just cutting
the grass. On the other side of the road, my feelings are with roughly 29
acres of land there, we should be able to do something as long as we've got
sufficient trails bringing people back and forth to it. It would be nice
however if they had some additional space along adjacent to the 18 acre
park to put in a couple more ball fields. I think we need, as Sue indicated,
CAA wants, needs some Babe Ruth and Little League facilities. Right now
we're maxed out with softball facilities. We've been talking about a 15
acre park in the southern area of Chanhassen. I think this would be in
addition to that. If CAA needs Little League fields, you can put a Little
League field on a softball field and get away with it but it's not really
the same. You're compromising both and if we can pick up a sufficient
portion of this property to match in with the softball fields and then put
in, get an additional 15 acres down somewhere in the southern area and do it
within the next year or so, find a piece of property, I think we would be
the best of all worlds and have everything set for us.
.....",
.....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 32
,....
Hasek: So what you're directing, what you would be directing Mark to look
at then is really the possibility of not designing so much the small parks
but this larger area that we're trying to grab right here into a ball
complex? Whether it be Little League or Babe Ruth or maybe baseball in
general.
Mady: Either that or softball. I'm not sure which one at this point but I
think we need both.
Sietsema: Why don't we ask him to do the three parcels that they're
proposing and then if he feels that yes, you're right. You probably are
going to need more facilities based on, if what you have now is fulfilling
your needs right now and you add 25%, you're probably going to need 25% more
parkland for community use and this is what we could do with that so we
could ask him to do both. A sketch plan for the parks they're proposing and
also a sketch plan if we acquired all or part of that 14 acres. If the
owner of that property can still build on that property as long as he
retains 2 1/2 acres because it's not big enough...
Boyt: Is there anyway to divide it, if we tried to acquire the property
south of the pipeline and the owner kept the property north of the pipeline?
None of the park then would be adjacent to his backyard.
~etsema: We would take south of the pipeline? The only thing is that's
... ere most of the slopes are. I would like to do it the other way and give
___m the slopes.
Hasek: I can't imagine that we can't put a ballfield on top of that
pipeline.
Sietsema: I'm sure we can.
Mady: One thing also to keep in mind, I think staff was looking at, at the
last council meeting the developer mentioned that the property is going to
drain through the park. Previously he hadn't said that and now it sounds
like it's going to be an active drainage through there. Previously he was
talking about ponding the various places. Holding the water. Now he's
talking about active drainage. If that's the case, if it's an active
drainage like a creek or something, maybe the ditching or something makes it
a little tougher to put a ballfield in.
Hasek: Yes, but it can be done because there's one that's down in Apple
Valley. There's a 6 ballfield complex that has drainage going between
virtually all the fields. It has bridges that cross over the ditches. It
can actually work quite nicely if it's done properly but it takes a little
more engineering to do.
Sietsema: And I haven't gotten on that level of detail. Sat down and
talked to Gary as to how much water is going to be going in there and will
~se holding ponds.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 33
....,;I
Mady: Because I was kind of concerned down at Young Amer ica park, I play
softball down there, they've got a ditch along the fields. In August, that
thing is usually full of water and by that time green is coming and it
actually stinks.
Hasek: More of holding pond than drainage.
Mady:
area,
I'm concerned with that. If that's what it's going to be in this
I don't know if that's what I want for a community park.
Sietsema: That holding pond that they showed there, maybe where they're
replacing a wetland area.
Mady: I would love to see us put in because I know right now we're at
capacity with what we've got. If this development is going to come in with
roughly another 3,000 people and the parks that are shown are great for
neighborhood parks but we're at capacity now with our community park and
this is going to just increase our neighborhoods to the point where we don't
know where these people and these kids going to go to play Little League and
things. I think they actually need us putting in another complex. We put
softball aside because we've got a softball field out here. We can start
restricting that a little bit more to just town teams.
Sietsema: Because we playa lot of our Little League and our soccer sports
. th Chaska, it makes a lot of sense to have that complex with the Little
_ ~ague and the regulation size soccer field in that 15 acre park on the
southern area of the city that you're talking about. This may do it or we
may want to do something in addition but those are some of the things that
we need to just look at. If you want to go with my recommendation, I need a
motion.
""""
Ha s e k : In the me e tin g t hat I saw, a co up 1 e t hi n g s com e tom in d . I t h ink I
might have talked about one of them with you on the telephone and I think it
was the Council meeting that I was watching but whoever was running that
meeting that night was very upset that we're not asking for more land than
we are.
Sietsema: The problem with that was that the Minutes of the Park and
Recreation Commission, it was in the month of June and there were a total of
9 meetings I think in 3 weeks. Normally Nann has 5 meetings so it was
doubling her workload to get Minutes back and the Minutes didn't get back
from the Park and Rec to get included in the packet to the City Council.
lhere was reference made in the planning report what the Park and Recreation
Commission had asked for but there wasn't any minutes to back it up so they
didn't feel the impact of how much we had talked about it. They have since
seen those minutes.
Hasek: The opi n ion tha t I got when I heard tha t was one way or the other,
it was being laid on us and it's up to them to set the policy. It's their
'licy. It's not our policy. We recommend. If they want to change it, let
know. We'll be glad, I'd be more than happy to develop park fees and try ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 34
,...
to take a little more land.
Sietsema: We were talking about a joint meeting with City Council. There's
a number of items we need to talk to them about and get some direction from
them and also to touch base with the new park dedication ordinance, with the
trail dedication so everybody knows what that's all about. I think we also
need to talk about what we're going to be asking from the developer and
what's going to be the basis for credit to the park dedication fees and
what's going to be mandatory.
Hasek: That carne up and the point I guess I wanted to reiterate was that it
is a PUD and based upon tha t, if they do agree it is a PUD, we can ask for a
lot more than we can tomorrow because that's our perogative. At that point,
if they want more we certainly can do that. I would like to see some trails
developed as well.
Sietsema: Next week we will be reviewing the first phase of the preliminary
of their first phase so we will have another crack at it phase by phase
because the problem I see with that is this whole concept has not really
been approved. It was approved as a PUD based on if the developer would
work with Staff on a number of different points. That was difficult for the
developer because one councilman said one thing and the other councilman
said the exact opposite and what's the developer to do. He's supposed to
~rk on all the points that they talked about and they conflicted so they
J have another meeting and I think they gave the developer a little bit
....)re of a guideline of what exactly they wanted them to work on. Since then
I believe the developer has corne in and has followed through on most of
those concerns. Like I said, the preliminary plat of the first phase will
be corning in so we will have another look at it.
Mady: One thing Lori I want to clarify, the way I read the motion right
now, you don't look at it based on Lake Susan Hills West. If it is felt
there is additional park land needed you're going to try and get it from the
developer which would be great but I would also like to look at, just my gut
feelings is we're going to need the space just for the community. If this
development goes through and right now I think it might, my personal opinion
it might, I think it's a great opportunity to tie in, right now we're
looking at one ballfield down there, if we could tie two more in down there
we would have a little bit more capacity to do some things in the community
that we can't right now. We just don't have the leagues available and
facilities available.
Sietsema: Do you want to modify that motion to include looking at the
overall park needs?
Watson: Based on the new population figures. Based on the potential new
population figures.
~tsema: I don't know if we need to modify.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - page 35
.....",
Hasek: I think that's the whole point that you're talking about. To make
sure we're looking as it affects the entire community and not just because
of Lake Susan.
Mady: It's kind of because of Lake Susan West but it's almost an full
development situation. It's like all of a sudden we're making a leap from
this population in a very short time to another population but we don't
foresee developing to the south where we want to put our second parcel when
we have to relocate one someplace in the interim. That's what this is going
to be.
Sietsema: When you think of it, Lake Susan West, when it's all completed is
going to be a mini-city. It's bigger than Spicer, that's where I grew up.
It's going to have more people than Spicer so it's going to be a mini-city
and they're going to have their own park needs but in addition, as the rest
of the City grows, that means that park will be for everybody. It won't be
just exclusively for the leagues that come out of that area because that
wouldn't be...
Mady: Now have we directed Mark to look at the three separate distinct
parks in that development so we can kind of get a feel for what will fit in
there?
Sietsema: Yes and then I'll ask him also to look at the 14 acres to see
'at, if we were going to acquire the 14 acres or a part of it, what would .....,jII-
_.t there. What would work there.
Mady: 2,000 people they're probably going to need more than one ballfield.
Just for neighborhood kids and pick-up games. What's the motion look like
right now?
Sietsema: It's just as recommended with looking at the 14 acres as well.
Robinson moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend authorization of up to $1,000.00 for the development of tentative
plans for the parcels proposed for park dedication within Lake Susan West to
determine if there is an additional need. Also looking at what the 14 acre
parcel would accomodate. All voted in favor and motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
Boyt: I know we have a problem where we remove the geese and took them out
west and brought turkeys back to Minnesota.
Mady: They exchanged the adult birds that are shipped to Oklahoma, the DNR
exchanges those with turkeys.
Sietsema: They don't put them in the city though.
.sek: That's the funniest thing in the world because that's impossible. ...""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 36
,.....
You take a wild turkey egg, you can buy 100 of them, grow them out in the
middle of anyplace that you want to, the middle of the woods, somebody has
got to feed those turkeys. The first person they see is their mother and
they'll never forget you. You can't get rid of those turkeys. They will
not stay in the woods. They'll be in your garage, on top of your house.
It's the funniest thing in the world. You can't non-domesticate a turkey.
It's impossible to do.
Mady: Wild turkeys, if it is properly done, a wild turkey is considered a
brighter anima1...a person standing in a field that is motionless will think
it's a tree stump. A wild turkey sees a tree stump out in the middle of the
field and thinks it's a person.
Sietsema: Basically the goose removal report was just for your information.
There's no action required on that. Nor is there any action required on the
Council update.
Mady: One thing on that, I was trying to figure out, South Bay subdivision
is the parcel on the southeast side of Minnewashta? In that area.
Sietsema: The very southern tip along TH 5 with that little piece of water
surrounded by marsh.
~tson: And I have another comment, Mr. Owens is a very nice man and it's
~ng to be a beautiful development but Peaceful Hills sounds like a
,~metary and I'm sorry, it just does. I realize he's got Peaceful Lane back
there but I thought that sounded like a nice street to go to a cemetary too.
I always though that sounded just like a cemetary.
Sietsema: The thing from Jim Chaffee was, I just had brought to his
attention the questions on the parking on the grass and basically, if you
can park on the grass in one area, it's not enforceable in another area.
Mady: Just a piece of information, last week at my softball game I got
there fairly early, I got there right around 6:00 and watched how the
parking transpired. The first parking lot that's right behind number 2,
people actually parked in the driveway on the grass before they even fill up
that spot. Not even thinking about going across the street or up in the
overflow. They parked in the driveway before they even go into the parking
lot.
Sietsema: And there are parking spaces available?
Hasek: They figure because somebody else did it, there's one guy, it must
be full.
Mady: It's obvious the lot is less than half full and they're still parking
in the driveway already and I think we should either sign it better or start
~tting, we have a parking problem in that park anyway.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 37
Hasek: I think parking in the driveway is not so bad if you park on one
side. If you stripe it on one side and allow people to park on one side,
it's when they start parking on both sides of that driveway that it really
gets bad.
......"
Sietsema: If there are spaces available, even if they have to drive down to
the third parking lot, the one that's at the end of 3, there's no reason why
they have to park on the grass.
Watson: They don't want to walk from the third parking lot but you're
corning to play softball.
Hasek: There's another thing that happens there though. You've got to
realize that most of the people, there are some young guys that are playing
against old guys leagues, you've got to realize that. The average age of
the over 35 team is 34. However, a lot of those guys are corning right from
work and they'll show up and they're changing clothes as they get there so
they want to park as close as possible. The older you get the more you have
to loosen up. If you're 18 years old, you can show up in a major league
ball game and play ball and not have to warm up. Myself, I have to warm up
and most everybody does so if you're 20 minutes before the ball game, it's
like you're 5 minutes late because you need 25 minutes to warm up. That's
why that happens. I bet 10 to 1 if you go to the younger guys ball garnes,
the younger people that play out there in the younger leagues, that that
esn't happen. The older guys are the ones who are doing that and they
_~rtainly don't want to walk from parking lot 3. That's another 5 minutes .~.
of walking.
Robinson: Are you asking for our input? He says I would feel more
comfortable enforcing parking on the grass under the following conditions.
Sietsema: He'll just leave it at the status quo unless we ask him to do
something different.
Mady: Can we ask him to maybe have his public safety officer be out there
say from 6:00 to 6:15. Just be parked right there and walk up to people and
warn them as they corne in. As people corne in the gate, maybe they're given
a real short rules of parking.
Hasek: I would think if you just say please park in designated parking
areas only. It's not going to happen forever and if you want to enforce it
I think you're going to have to be out there all the time.
Mady: What we can do is educate.
sietsema: Basically all we would have to do for him to enforce the no
parking on the grass is to put a sign up that says parking on the grass in
this area only in the overflow parking because right now it just says
overflow parking and that doesn't say whether it's just on the gravel up
'ere or if it's on the grass up there or what. So if they can park on the
_ass up there they should be able to park on the grass along the road.
"""""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 38
J1Ii""
hddy: We need to do some education.
Hasek: What would you do? Paint signs or would you order the signs from the
sign company?
Sietsema: We would order a sign probably.
Hasek: Maybe there should be several of them. No parking on the grass in
this area.
Sietsema: There are signs along there that say no parking on the grass.
Schroers: Do they say no parking on grass or do they just say no parking?
Sietsema: I don't know. I think it does say grass.
Watson: I think you should be explicit. When I listen to Ed's explanation,
the very people who are doing it are the very people you would expect not to
have to explain it to them.
Hasek: Again, there's a reason.
Sietsema: Listen, when you're dealing with the over 35 league, there's a
lot of things you would think you wouldn't have to explain to them.
.,,-...
.tson: Make it explicit though and say no parking on the grass. No
parking is just too open ended.
Mady: I guess I would like to see a couple signs put in the driveway.
Right now that's the extent of it. At least on one side.
Hasek: The reason is, if they can't park there, that he can't tag people
for parking.
*A tape break occurred at this point in the meeting.
Boyt: Should we make that a parking lot?
Schroers: Overflow parking on grass permitted in this area only.
Sietsema: Do you want to include that in your motion?
Mady: Yes.
Robinson: So basically what Jim recommends.
Mady moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
to have signs placed in Lake Ann parking lot areas prohibiting parking in
,..:..,iveway or grass and also to put the signs as recommended by the Public
:ety Director in overflow area. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 39
Sietsema: The next item is the Park and Recreation Commission attendance ~
record. I was requested by one of the City Councilman to include your
attendance in their package because they wanted to know where you're at.
Our By-laws state that we have to make at least 75% of the meetings in a.one
year period so most of are in pretty good shape. Probably by the end of the
year we'll be there, won't we Carol?
Watson: Sure.
Robinson: The meeting a week ago tonight, is that an absent?
Hasek: No, we canceled the meeting.
Sietsema: I'm not sure how that works.
Hasek: If there's not a quorum, there's not a meeting.
Mady: We do have to do a better job of informing Lori when we're not going
to be here.
Sietsema: That's in there just so you know where you stand before I send it
to City Council.
Mady: And Valhalla has been pushed aside for next time?
_.etsema: Next week. We do have a meeting next Tuesday.
....",
Mady: Are you going to have the information from Roger?
Sietsema: I hope so. I asked for it.
LOTUS LAKE BOAT ACCESS.
Watson: Lori, could you briefly explain what happened at Lotus Lake Park
after the big storm that they wanted the boat access closed?
Mady: Three of my neighbors directly across the street lost sizable portion
of their yard into the lake. As well as the Bloomberg development on the
very southern edge lost considerable amount of soils into the lake. Because
of the unsafe conditions on the sidebanks, just the wave action created by
power boats, it was just pulling more and more into the lake. What they
wanted to do was get the lake level lowered. The lake rose, I estimated
approximately 30 inches. I was watching fairly closely and still am. We
are now down about 10 inches from Thursday nigh's storm. Right now we're
getting pretty close to what it was at the spring level. My understanding
is the City is going to reassess the lake level on Friday but as of last
Monday after the storm, I spent some time at City Hall, Lotus Lake
Homeowners Association called all the members and said don't use your boat.
. , have a real serious problem, don't use it. We did have some problems
.th some of the homeowners not heeding the warning and as a result, it's my
-'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 40
""'"
understanding that starting tomorrow, any boat on the lake will be tagged.
The lake has been quiet now since Saturday. There was one boat out there
Saturday. On Friday they are going to reassess and determine if the lake
has dropped sufficiently. It's dropping right now just under an inch a day.
Hasek: That's draining off then?
Mady: Yes.
Boyt: Did they close the drain to the Chan Pond?
Mady: I asked Lori if the City couldn't close off that since it was running
pretty quickly into the pond. I have not been down to the pond since
Tuesday night I was down there and it was obstructed but it was still
flowing. The pond probably has dropped sufficiently to where the lake is
now dropping on it's own without more water feeding into it. I fully
anticipate that the lake is going to be at a level low enough where the City
can open up this weekend but the lake residents have been trying very hard,
I know Saturday one of the lake residents called the City because there was
a boat running around. They didn't care whose boat it was, they wanted it
off the lake. Hopefully, the water is going to drop sufficiently.
Sietsema: We have been monitoring, having the gate attendants monitor how
~ny people have been using the access. Where they're from. They take down
. : license number. They put down what type of use. If it's a family, if
__IS young people, what kind of people are using it. What type of boat
they're launching so we can kind of document the usage patterns on the lake.
Part of the reason we did that was because at the beginning of the year DNR
got wind that the lake homeowners were going to park their car and trailer
in the boat access parking lots so it would be closed sooner restricting the
access even more than it is. They were pretty upset about that and said,
basically they have said that if we don't comply with the things that we
were supposed to do and if people are abusing making that a more restrictive
lake than what it should be, they're going to open their own access with no
restriction in the parking at all. So we have documented what kind of usage
we are getting and so far this year, from the beginning of opening of
fishing when we officially opened the access and had someone had duty, we've
never had to close the access on a weekday because there's never been 12
boats in the lot and closed it. It's getting toward the end of the season
and one of the gate attendants is left and gone into the service and there
is another on vacation the rest of the summer so we're really short
scheduled and we need the people out at Lake Ann because they are collecting
money there. Because we don't have to close the access, what I'm asking is
that we cut the hours of the gate attendant at Lotus Lake access so they're
not on duty at all Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and just on duty
Friday, Saturday and Sunday when there are more users.
Watson: Did the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, have they expressed any
particular feeling about this?
,,-....
atsema: I haven't told them about anything yet.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 41
Mady: I would suggest Lori that we not announce it to them but that Staff
keep very close records of any complaints that come in and let us know. My
personal opinion is that there's not going to be any problems that we don't
experience right now with a gate attendant. I don't think, as the summer
progresses now the lake is going to start getting green, it already is at
the lake access, and it's going to start getting warm and people just aren't
going to start boating so I don't have any problems doing it right now.
...",
Robinson: Is that gate closed by someone then at 10:00 at night?
Sietsema: Right now the gate attendant closes it but we would have the
Carver County deputies close it. They open up Lake Ann at 7:00 in the
morning.
Watson: What kind of people have they found are using it?
Sietsema:
older men.
It's a lot of families and a lot of fishermen. Just like two
Small boats. I haven't really looked at it lately.
Mady: The power boats that I've seen on the lake this year are a lot larger
than they have been in previous years. There are bigger boats on the lake
this year. We're getting 18 to 20 foot boats on there with very high power
boats and previously you just didn't see it. The lake owners didn't that
big a boat for that lake.
~ .etsema: I'm kind of surprised that they would be going in at that access"'"
though because it was so shallow earlier. It was hard to launch a boat that
big.
Mady: Actually I've heard stories both ways. You can get in easier there.
It depends if you falloff the edge of the concrete.
Sietsema: There are I guess a lot of boats that are being launched at
Outlot 12. Someone was telling me that they went down there on a weekend
and there was 20 car trailers there. Outlot 12 is just below Brad
Johnson's.
Boyt: Isn't there an association?
Sietsema: I think so.
Hasek: Is that the association using that beachlot?
Sietsema: I don't know. It could have been somebody that goes down there
and sees a sea of them, there could be 12 so some of tha t use could be
coming from that area too.
Schroers moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to authorize staff to revise the schedule of the Lotus Lake Boat
'cess gate attendant as recommended by staff. All voted in favor and
,tion carr ied.
.....,I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 4, 1987 - Page 42
,....
Watson moved, Hasek seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
,.. "..
,...