Loading...
PRC 1987 09 08 ,.... I j CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING QEPTEMBER 8, 1987 Chairman Lynch called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Curt Robinson, Mike Lynch, Jim Mady and Larry Schroers MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Hasek and Carol Watson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, ~and Rec Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mady moved, Schroers seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated August 28, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. RECONSIDERATION RECOMMENDATION ON LAKE RILEY MEADOWS SITE PLAN. --- -- Lynch: We had our own look tonight. What's the consensus? Boyt: It looks like the trail would cost too much to put in. $10,000.00. ,... Sietsema: On the cul-de-sac do you mean? J:3oyt: Yes. The trail on the cul-de-sac. Mady: When I read through this and starting thinking it through real well, at $10,000.00 ...ask the developer to put that in because the City can't afford to do it right now either. However, I would still like to see us keep the right to do it. I think we can do that in an easement to put it through. Sietsema: There's plenty of room in that easement to put an off-street trail at the time that that would go to an urban section. Boyt: I think that's a good idea. Keep our option. Mady: Tell them we'll take the $1,190.00 or whatever it is and put it in our fund. At the time that it becomes urban, which we don't know when that will be, will be a good time to put it in. Sietsema: Okay. What about the trail along pioneer Trail? I think that pretty much we agreed while we were out at the site that it wasn't unreasonable to put the trail along the north side all the way to TH 101 to the br idge and I would 1 ike us to stay as close to the right-of-way as possible. If we can use that last 8 feet of right-of-way instead of using any of the developer's property that would be optimal but I would still like us to reserve a certain amount of an easement just in case we have to 'eviate from that. But take it as an easement rather than a dedication so lt doesn't affect his lot sizes. The minimum lot size is 2.5 acres and he's r ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 2 at 2.5 on those lots close to the road so if we took it as a dedication, he would actually lose lots and he's only asking for 11 lots so if it's not necessary I would like to see us not do that. Mady: The right-of-way is actually 50 feet on both sides because the state aid reserves 42 foot. Sietsema: The State requires that you keep 42 feet on either side of the center line for out of control vehicle deviation or something like that. Maneuvering I think is the word they used so that would leave us 8 feet on each end of that 100 foot easement that we could put the trail in and the County agreed that that was fine with them. Mady: I would like to reserve the right to put it either way once we come to that point in time, 10 years or whatever the years is, because my feeling is that house 10 years from now may not be there. Mr. Vogel was in here last time suggested he may be looking at putting a house down by the lake and selling that as a hobby farm. If that's the case, the new owner may decide that that's the property he wants to build his home and I would think at that time he would probably want to build a little further from the road. Boyt: Wouldn't we have the trail put in when the development goes in if it's on the north side. ,..... '1ady: We suggested earlier at the last meeting to not put it in at this time becuase there is no other place for it to connect to. Sietsema: The City would have to pay for it going in because there's not going to be enough fees for him to be credited for anything. It's the same price along that stretch as it is for the inside stretch and with only 11 homes at $138.00 a piece, we're not going to generate enough trail dedication fees to pay for it and that's what is going to be the case in most of the rural subdivisions is we're not going to be able to generate enough money to pay for the trails going in there. That's why they're in the second or third phase in the trail plan because the City's going to have to pay for those themselves. The thing that we do give credit for is if we're going to actually acquire land and take a dedication so it is no longer in their ownership rather than an easement. Boyt: I don't think we need a dedication. Lynch: I would like to go with Jim's suggestion that we not specify at this time because I still have a large question as to whether the State will view that house... Sietsema: If we're going to get an easement, it's got to be now because it's got to be put into the development contract but that doesn't mean we're locked into building within that easement. We can still build within the road right-of-way. That 8 feet. ~ ......, Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 3 Mady: On the south side of pioneer Trail, it's only that one lot, his own home right now is there. That's the only piece of development that's on the south side of the road. Sietsema: On his development but there's a number of other homes, there are 3 or 4 other homes before that place and that's the other reason why it would be beneficial to go to the north side because we have less individual homeowners with existing homes to deal with on the north side. There's nobody. We've already got the big piece from Gagne. We could get this piece from Vogel and then we would have to deal wi th the Doug Hansen property and then we would have it in that stretch between TH un and the bridge. We've got the Gagne piece on the south side and we would have the Halla piece but then there are a few individual homeowners on the south side that we still have to go get it from them. But there's a trade-off to pay. You have to cross the road at some point if you're going to connect to Eden prairie's because theirs is already built on the south side up to CR 4 I think it is. Mady: At some point in time I would guess that TH un and pioneer Trail intersection is probably going to become a controlled intersection just because of the amount of traffic when it develops will generate there so it probably won't be a problem to cross the road when it's a controlled intersection. ~ynch: Turn it around. Mady: There, the bridge itself is going to pose a problem. ....." Sietsema: The bridge is pretty wide though. You can walk across it. You just can't build anything on it. There's nothing that says anybody can't walk on it though. Mady: We couldn't put our line down on the edge and say bike trail on there. Sietsema: I don't know about that. I don't think that we probably could. Schroers: I think if you just ran the trail up to the bridge on both sides, people are just going to go there. You don't have to have a sign telling them. Sietsema: They're not going to walk on the, you can tell what's shoulder and what's road by the stripes that are already there. People aren't going to walk down the center line. Mady: I think we need to have, just for future reference, a copy of the State or County, whoever we have to contact, find out about the possible variances to the ordinance that they have for the 42 feet from the center line. Road use situations like bridges and where we're coming across the ;teep terrain where they've got bridges and culverts in or just topography co do with cliffs on the side of the road or whatever. ...." IfII""'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 4 Sietsema: I will be meeting with the Carver County Engineer about trails in general and take our trail plan and say this is where we would like to have trails and get his agreement on certain areas where we can bench them into the existing right-of-way rather than taking additional property so I can ask him that question at that time. Did you want to get the additional easement, like 1~ feet or something on the north side then? Mady moved, Robinson seconded to reconsider the motion from the previous meeting to recommend acquisition of a 1~ foot trail easement along the north side of pioneer Trail's right-of-way in addition to the present 5~ feet from the center line. That the developer not be required to build the trail within the 9~~ foot cul-de-sac within the development but that City retain the right to build that trail along the road right-of-way at a later date. That the City accept park and trail fees in lieu of land and trail development. All voted in favor and motion carried. Boyt: Instead of saying that we reserve the right, should we ask for an easement along the cul-de-sac? Mady: The 6~ foot road right-of-way. Boyt: So there is enough room? JI"" Sietsema: That will be plenty of room for an off-street at the time it goes co an urban section but it's not enough room for a rural section and I don't feel that we'll probably need a trail there given the amount of population until it does go to urban. Mady: A point of reference, we still have in your earlier motion the policy that we will go off-street wherever possible? Sietsema: Right. Robinson: I've got a problem with that because we've already got a deviation then. Mady: No, because we're not building a trail. What we decided is we're not going to put an on-street trail either at this time. Sietsema: When we build it will go off-street. Lynch: We do have the easement. Robinson: Okay. ~ PLAN REVIEW ON KERBER ADDITION. <)ietsema: This subdivision is approximately 4 acres proposed to be oubdivided into six single family lots. It is located on the southwest ,..... ....., Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 5 corner of Lake Lucy and Powers Blvd.. The existing parks in the area are across the street and over here a little ways there's the Curry Farms and Centex Homes park that will be built with that development and then Carver Beach is over to the east a ways. The Comprehensive Plan has identified this area as a low priority area for the park plan. It is close to the MUSA line and the trail plan calls for a trail along Powers Blvd.. If you recall, when we reviewed the Saddlebrook development, we asked the County at that point in time if we could build a bench in the trail within the Powers Blvd. road right-of-way and they are allowing us to do that so what I'm proposing is that we try to do that all the way up Powers rather than try and cross that road at any point so basically I'm saying, let's just collect park dedication fees and trail dedication fees in lieu of trail construction or park acquisition. Boyt: Is the trail that's going on the east side of Powers Blvd. going to be off-road? Sietsema: Yes. It's outside of that 42 feet. I don't know if that's State Aid or not but it's off-street within the road right-of-way. I don't know if Mr. Kerber has any additional comments or not. Larry Kerber: No, my only question is, what is the park and trail dedication fee? Sietsema: Park dedication fee is $415.99 per single family unit and the trail dedication fee is $138.99 per single family unit. Larry Kerber: What time is that paid? ...." Sietsema: At the time you are issued a building permit. Larry Kerber: So it's paid as I get a permit for each lot. Like the developers like at Centex addition, was that fee waived on all of theirs? Sietsema: That was reconsidered. I believe it was on all of theirs because they're building trails along all their major streets and they are dedicating parkland. Larry Kerber: On a small addition like this, what would it take to get any of the fee waived? Sietsema: You have to dedicate property or construct trails. Larry Kerber: Would you consider anything like that in a small addition? Sietsema: No, because we don't generally take parkland less than 5 acres. Larry Kerber: So then really I have no choice on that? Sietsema: No. Our general policy is to keep our parks at a minimum of five acres so this would take your whole development so on a case like this, no ...." ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 6 you really don't have a choice. Schroers moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend approval of the Kerber Addition Site Plan and to accept 100% park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land or trail construction. All voted in favor and motion carried. PRELIMINARY 1988 CIP DISCUSSION. -- Lynch: Did everybody have a chance to look through the proposed budget items? Do you want us to just take them one at a time to see if there are any additional comments? If1"""""' Sietsema: Yes, we could. I just wanted to go over a few prices of things. I didn't have those at the last meeting. For instance, in the Minnewashta Heights, the park shelter you talked about a plexiglas windbreak type thing and Mark seemed to think that informantion that he had, that we could probably get by with one for about $2,000.00 or probably less so I didn't think that that was too unreasonable. Herman Field, I just left it with getting the access. If we get the feasibility study approved and make a selection on the site for the access this fall yet, then we could go ahead and construction that access next spring or summer. Carver Beach playground, we talked about new totlot equipment. Generally in the past I've only allocated maybe $3,000.00 for totlot equipment and it's really not enough. We can just get the main structure for $3,000.00. We hardly get any attachments to it that make it a fun deal so I thought the $5,000.00 was a minimum that we really want to go and even though there is some existing playground equipment out there, I was just reading an article in the Park and Rec magazine and it was dedicated to playground safety. There is a handbook that has guidelines for park equipment, play equipment and they said it's supposed to be just guidelines but if you get taken to court and you aren't complying with that handbook, they pretty much throw the book at you. You don't win. Lynch: Do we have the handbook? Sietsema: No. I sent for it but they had a bunch of exerpts and I think that Carver Beach is probably in violation pretty heavily. Boyt: Then so would, I would think the Chan Elementary. Sietsema: Chan Elementary probably is too in number one, the play surface underneath. Boyt: The jungle gym out there that's 12 feet high. Lynch: I don't think those merry-go-rounds are. gietsema: They say they're alright as long as there is a lot of space dround them so if a kid goes flying off, they don't hit something and they ".... ...., Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 7 have sand or pea gravel or woodchips underneath so they don't crack their head open when they actually land. Boyt: There was a case in the newspaper this weekend about someone suing a city park because the kid fell and broke his arm and the court said, too bad. You're at risk when you play at a playground. Sietsema: Well, they probably had their safety. Boyt: They said what it came down to was the base. The playground base. Whether it was concrete or pea gravel. Sietsema: I think we're doing good putting our peat gravel base in and that's been pretty standard for the last two years now to do that so that's another reason why that jacks the price up because the border that goes around the pea gravel is quite spendy too. That usually costs about $1,500.00 alone. Then on North Lotus Lake, it was the windscreen, the boardwalk and the boardwalk came out to be, 100 feet would cost that much money. It depends on if it's premade or if you get the lumber and have the city staff put it all together or not as to how far that much money would really go and the open shelter with the fireplace. That was just four beams with something similar to what we have out at Lake Susan minus the wellhouse addition. ~ynch: That looks awful low for a fireplace. Mady: The fireplace itself is going to be $5,000.00. I have a problem heI~ with putting a fireplace in there. That's going to look kind of funny to the Council. They're nice, but I don't know. Sietsema: But if it's used a lot and I think that the one out at Lake Susan is. They approved that one. Do you want to up that amount then? Lynch: I think we better because I know a pretty minimal grade masonry fireplace and flue and chimney are going to cost $3,000.00. You don't have to go very high with it. That cuts down the cost somewhat but I just had one pr iced last summer for my house and wi th me doing a lot of the work it was $3,500.00. Sietsema: So we should double that you think? Lynch: I think you better put it at $5,000.00. Schroers: Can I ask the purpose of this fireplace? Is it both for heating and aesthetics? Is there any accomodations for cooking on it or in it or anything like that. Lynch: I think you're talking popcorn and weiners and things like that. Schroers: It doesn't have a grill that goes with it? ..."", "",..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 8 Sietsema: No, but there will be grills out in the park though but there wouldn't be on that fireplace. Lynch: The State puts a number of pivot grills on their existing buildings with large fireplaces. They bracket the size of fireplace and put pivots in and out, adjust up and down and they're kind of slick. We use them all the time when we cross country ski to these places. Schroers: Is that the kind of thing we want to look at here? Lynch: I think perhaps if that use, if we ever enclose for the winter that we would want to put maybe a pivot grill in. They're cheap. For $100.00 you can put one of those in but for summer use we want to encourage them to keep their cooking mess out at the charcoal grills that are located outside. Schroers: Okay, so the main purpose of this fireplace is just going to be enhance the looks of the whole structure and provide heat should we decide to use it in the winter? ,.... Lynch: Right. You know too, whe~ that goes in, let's make sure, if it goes, anything like it, we keep the same things in mind that we did with the clear shelter, the plexiglas shelter, make sure it's situated so you can see right through it so when the police go by to look, the blind wall isn't at them and they don't have to walk around and look inside. I would also like, in any of these future shelters that are put up, I'm fighting this in the scout camps right now, that the buildings were not constructed to ever be easily enclosed. Once we've looked at the older buildings, we're putting in some new ones now, in designing the eaves and several other things so that later on you can make easily moveable partitions. Set them in place in the winter, and have a door in one of them and some windows and you can pop them down and put them in a barn in the summer when you don't want the enclosure but it's got to be looked at when you design the thing. You can't just pop up a pole barn and expect to be able to enclose it later on because of the length of the spans between the poles and a whole bunch of other things. Do you guys enclose in the winter, any shelters? Schroers: We do in certain special areas but what we have done is we have adpated to existing buildings. Buildings that were already pretty much on the site when we acquired the property and like in some of the groups camps at Baker or something like that, our carpenters went in and put sliding doors on and partitioned it off so half of it is storage and the other half is suitable for a group area in the winter. We haven't built any new structures with that in mind. That type of a thing, the new buildings that we are building are recreation centers and they're new buildings that have everything and they're enclosed all the time. Lynch: We just looked at some, I just took a course in camp facilities management. One of the items they were showing us was the new building they put in down at Fillmont and it was the size we're talking about here and one ~nd did have a fireplace and the other end had a little maybe 6 foot service room that was lockable. Then in the center, on both sides of the center, ,.... ...." Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 9 were double and a half wide garage doors, fiberglass garage doors. I think that's probably what our scout camp will go to because that's a really true multiuse building. You can open it all the way up. If the wind is strong you can put one side down. The doors are lockable. You have a security room on one end. You have a fireplace on one end that can be used. It's just a big flat slab, you can put about 8 picnic tables in there and it looks real nice for that but again, if you don't build the eaves in the proper hoisting, you can't get those doors in or moveable partitions. Sietsema: Okay, then Meadow Green Park we've got open shelter, paving the parking lot and tennis windscreens. Greenwood Shores, hand launch to Lake Lucy and I just put a nominal $500.00 because that will more than likely be an in-house deal or scout project or something like that. Lynch: Just brush it out. Sietsema: Yes, unless we wanted to put a concrete slab in or something than we would have to put more money in but for a hand launching type deal I don't know that we would need that. Schroers: I think it would just be nicer to have it not commercial. We're not encouraging speed boats to go in there. Lynch: Put a couple of ties in right next to the shore so you don't have to ~ade out into the mud. Schroers: Keep it as natural as we can because that's a nice area down ~ there. Sietsema: The other money I put in there was to landscape the parking lot should that be approved to open it as a parking lot and the totlot equipment. Lynch: Where's that sit right now? Sietsema: We're supposed to be monitoring what's going on out in the park this year to see if the problems are under control and readdress it next year. Mady: This $1,500.00, is that comparable to what Mark had in his plan with bollards and all of that? Sietsema: Yes. Mady: I also remember from that discussion, one of the residents asked that it be paved because he was concerned about dust and things blowing across the road into his property. Sietsema: I don't know if we would want to do that the first year but it ~ould be a consideration I think for future. .....,,' ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 10 Schroers: ...going through there are going to be upset and I don't know if Lori or Todd may get some phone calls on that but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if somebody decided to open up that chain. Sietsema: Because that's the only way they can get to Lake Lucy is through there. Schroers: They're going to want to park there. That's the situation. They're going to want to park their cars down there. I was down there myself last year and it was used quite a bit. Robinson: So are we saying we're going to leave the landscape parking lot in there? Sietsema: Yes. Lynch: So if the Council approves it next year. Sietsema: So we have the money to landscape that area should the parking lot get approved and if it doesn't, than I think we should go in there and landscape so it's not there and that's more useable. Robinson: So either way, there's going to landscaping. ,.... ~ietsema: Because Jerry certainly doesn't need that much gravel down there co get to his lift station. We might as well dig that out and put black dirt in there and put the totlot there or something. Chan Pond, parking. Put in parking off of Laredo Drive. Implement the master plan and purchasing benches. City Center Park, we're going to need... Mady: On Chan Pond, I notice now they're putting in the trail. They started last week putting in the gravel. Sietsema: Off Laredo? Mady: Yes. Sietsema: They're going to be paving that. Mady: I'm concerned about when we put the parking in there that we do it so the trail will fit in so the cars are not blocking the trail. That we have the trail going into the park is not going to be blocked off by cars trying to park there. Lynch: Is there going to be some kind of a bollard or large curb or something to keep them from driving up in there? Sietsema: Yes. We'll have to have a gate or something so the maintenance people can still get down there if they need to service the dam or whatever '1ut keep everybody else out because it is going to be tempting for them to Jrive right down that path but we will have some kind of a gate in place. ".... .....-I. Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - page 11 Lynch: We're going to get that paved on top. Did the master plan happen? Sietsema: It's underway. Lynch: Does it come through here? Do we have a picture of it? Sietsema: Not yet. It's being developed. Lynch: Oh, okay, so you really haven't done it. Sietsema: We had to figure out exactly where we're going to be able to put the trails. If we're going to go into the easement or not and it was determined that we didn't need to and since that was a problem with the developer. Lynch: You're talking conservation easement? Sietsema: Yes. He wanted us to redraw the lines so that we didn't go into the easement because he thought that there would be a liability problem. It's been determined that we don't need to go up into that easement. We can our trail, there's plenty of room for the trail and we still won't be too close to the pond to inhibit nesting or what not so we're in good shape there. So we just need to get it exactly where the boundaries are and the contours and everything else. Put that all together. .:.ynch: Now what's the deal on the north end? We have piece down there we're going to trail over to the cattle culvert. ~ Sietsema: The west end. Lynch: The west end, excuse me. And on the northwest corner, we're going to try to go up to Kerber on that. Does that conflict with that conservation easement at all? Right on that corner? Sietsema: No. He dedicated that. Mady: We asked for that, remember? Lynch: I know we did. Sietsema: We've got it all the way up to the road on that end. Lynch: And are we anticipating, when I say we, did we ever really talk about it? Did I miss a meeting that we were here or is staff just laying ideas out for that now because there are a number of things we could do on that west end. What's being considered right now, just to run trails through there for now? Sietsema: Mark is going to come back with a park plan and you'll be able to look at it and decide if you like, want some changes, hate it or whatever. Just like every other master park plan that we've ever had done. He comes ..",." IfI"""'. Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 12 back pretty much with what he's heard the Commission say that they want to see and presents a couple of different sketches and then we give him our critique. Then he comes back with the revised version and we vote on it and send it off to City Council for their approval. Right now he's in the process of putting together that plan. That master park plan so I don't know. Lynch: I didn't know where that was. Do you know when that's going to be? Sietsema: within a month. Lynch: One thing I would like everybody to think about, we had talked originally in that park about major promoting ideas and when Dr. Cooper was here we discussed with him an area like that, he says we're going to have to have an area of mowed grass. The geese have got to have that if you're going to have any ducks connected with goose population, you need that. We've got a goose problem already in town. I want everyone to think about whether we're going to put in something like that and mow it to attract the geese or we better leave it the way it is but that's going to be a question I'm going to bring up when we look at that master plan. Boyt: Larry kind of brought that up in another meeting about encouraging or feeding wildlife and nests. ,..... gchroers: Especially if you're feeding. Right at the site of the feeding location you usually have such a congregation of animals that it basically gets looking like a chicken yard in very short order. No grass will grow there and also, what you're going to have with water the size of Chan Pond is what they're running into down at Lake of the Isles. The water gets so contaminated that they have to treat it with chemicals to keep dogs and people from getting ill from contact with it and I don't think we want to promote anything like that. Lynch: look at. There's a lot of those side questions that we're going to have to I just thought I would throw it out. Sietsema: Mark will be in contact with State Agencies and naturalists so if he has any questions that he isn't real comfortable with answering himself, he'll get the answers to those so he knows. He'll be considering that because he knows that we want it to be a wild area or a natural area but he also knows that we don't want a wild barnyard either. Schroers: If you just leave it natural, it will support whatever population that it will naturally support and that won't be too much but if you try to put a feeding station there, then there will be more goose population than the area can readily support and that's when we run into problems and also you encourage the geese to stay here over the winter. They learn real fast when they've got things good and easy and they'll just hang around. If people see them there and they'll say, the poor geese, they must be cold and ~ungry, I'm going to take them some food then you've got the problem year cound. """"" ....",." Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 13 Sietsema: Any other questions on Chan Pond? City Center Park, tennis wind screens, I talked to Dale about what we could do around the hockey area and we've got to have that area open because that's where they throw the snow off the, we're talking about between the hockey boards and the ground. When they clear the rinks that's where the snow goes. Some kind of fencing. Mady: Just a 4 feet high chain linked fence. Sietsema: Whether that would be something you'd want to see up there. Mady: I think we have to do something. Lynch: I think your liability there is a little extreme. Sietsema: Okay, he was going to look into that and I did put some money in there for whatever. Mady: If nothing else maybe just a split rail fence. Something that marks that as an area you can't go through or something. sietsema: Chanhassen Estates, develop a master plan. Basically I put that in there, the original intent of that park in the Comprehensive Plan it talks about building a nature center there. Having boardwalk out into the marsh area with interpretive signage and that kind of thing which is a great i.dea and I don't think that we want to not do that by any means but it is 1" expensive deal but we also want to know exactly what we've got down there and a master plan to look at, to show us exactly what we've got and what ..."., we're dealing with. Where the high water is and what the contours and what we're dealing with is a nice thing to have so I put that in there and we can work with that a little bit further. The parking lot there, I also put in money to pave that parking lot. Lake Susan, a master park plan that would include the additional 8 acres that we acquired this year and put in $12,000.00 for a temporary access road that we would could use until Lake Drive East eventually goes through. I don't know when that will be. Don't even ask me because I've been told next year every year I've been here. Mady: The temporary road, would that just be upgrading the present road in? Sietsema: This price reflects just widening the existing road and that would require us to get an easement from the landowner which I think is Opus to do that and I don't know that that would be a big problem. Maybe more than that if we wanted to go along our property line. Mady: Anything it takes really to get that in. If we have to lease the property from the present owner to do it. Maybe put a snow fence around so we guarantee that people don't go into his cornfield but I think it's important to get that park opened up. I get a lot of off-hand comments from people I know saying, gee it's a nice park over there. How come we're paying for it when we can't use it. ..."" ,.., Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 14 Robinson: $12,000.00, if it's just a temporary thing and once we get East Lake Road in, which maybe next year will be the year, then that is quite a bit of money for a temporary road. It's in here, we could make that... Sietsema: Right. If it looks like Opus is going to go through, then we wouldn't need to do that but you're right, it's going to be all graded over when Lake Drive East goes through. Robinson: Let's leave it in here. We've got it and when it comes up next year sometime, we don't have to... Mady: All we really need to do I would think is just put in 20-30 loads of gravel, smooth that out and that would be sufficient. We would probably get that done for a third of this. Sietsema: It's a long ways. It's quite a distance so it would take some grading. Schroers: Is there anything we can do as a group to encourage something be done in the reasonable near future with that? ;"'. Sietsema: Not really. Don is in contact with them on a regular basis and they know that our access to that park is dependent upon their putting that road in and it's just a matter of when they can get it developed because ~heY're not going to put the road in until they have someone to pay for it. I don't think there is anything that we can do. We can send a note in our Minutes or what not to City Council to let them know that we're getting anxious about it but I don't think they're any less anxious than we are about getting access to that park. Robinson: But it would show our concern. Schroers: If we could do something like that, I guess I would be in favor of that. Just let them know we're in support of getting that in. Sietsema: I can just drop a memo to Don stating that and include your Minutes just so he is aware that there is concern. Boyt: Should we have it sent to the Council too? Sietsema: Yes, he would include that in the administrative section then of the City Council packet. Bandimere Heights, I put in there a master plan so we know exactly where our boundaries are and what the contours are within that and where we'll most likely feasibly put the parking area. The totlot equipment is on order and will be picked up this week so it probably will be installed before the master park plan is completed but I don't think, given what we saw tonight that it's going to impact, that we're going to have too much of a problem unless we decide someday to put a tennis court over that area or something. But I don't think we're going to do much more, at least ~rom what I've heard from this group, that we're going to do much more than ~hat is there in the near future. South Lotus Lake, it was the intitial I""'" ....", Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 15 intention to put in a ballfield in the upper area between TH HH and the parking area like a backstop for pick-up games and to have totlot equipment and have that serve that neighborhood as a neighborhood park there. It was also talked about on the wellhouse site to put tennis courts so I put that money in there. Mady: There's no street parking down there if I'm not mistaken is there? I'm just concerned about where people will be able to park to play tennis. Sietsema: I believe that Bloomberg dedicated a triangular piece that's adjacent to the wellhouse site so we would be able to park on that and use that as well. Schroers: I think they also allow parking on the side of, is that Erie Street? Robinson: 77th. Sietsema: There will be parking allowed on that street. You just can't park with a trailer. Robinson: On 77th there's actually a cul-de-sac at the dead end there with nothing. ~oyt: Chan View deadends there. Mady: As long as they can put a graveled area in. ...."". Robinson: Yes, there's a little one right by the wellhouse. Sietsema: I haven't talked to Jerry to see how feasible it is for us to put something like a tennis court on that site. How much that would affect his wellhouse. That's something we would have to check into because he's got first priority obviously. Robinson: You said there's another little triangle piece and I think that's adjoining the wellhouse site. Sietsema: Yes, it is adjacent to it and I can't tell you exactly how big it is. It's not an acre. It's about the size of a lot I believe. Robinson: I guess before we do anything, we could leave that in there, before we do anything we've got to probably take that whole piece, the wellhouse site and the Bloomberg's park area. Sietsema: What would happen is in the feasibility study we would look at it really close and see if it's even feasible to do that. That's included in that money. Chanhassen Hills, because it's unclear, I'm not even sure if they'll be down into that phase next year or not, where they're going to be lrading the park but we should be able to determine the boundaries and iigure out what we would eventually like to have in that park. Totlot ...,., ",...., Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 16 replacements, in talking to Dale about the existing totlot equipment down by the beach by Lake Ann and he's concerned with it and feels that it really needs to be upgraded as well. There is some unsafe factors with that and the sl ide may not be as safe as it should be and he would 1 i ke to take a closer look and do some replacement of some of the facilities on that play structure. It's very old. Lynch: Around 15 years. Sietsema: I would guess yes. Mady: The structure that's up by the ball diamond, I know on occasion I've counted the kids playing and there's easily are 25 kids on one of those structures and it's just not safe for that many kids. Can we put some more money to get some additional equipment up there? Boyt: I think with the number of families that are out there during the ballgames. Lynch: Also with the shelter going in there, it's going to increase it. 11"'. Mady: We need to upgrade that thing. Sietsema: Would you like to increase that by $3,000.00 to add on? ~ady: At least. Lynch: Why don't you break down the items too. Show that totlot replacement, beach and throw another item in, totlot addition, ballfields. Sietsema: Okay. And the last item on there is tree farm and with the amount of plantings that we're planning to do in Carver Beach, Chanhassen Pond, landscaping different areas of the old Carver Beach access, landscape the parking area around Carver Beach beach, landscaping the parking area at Greenwood Shores, I felt that we need probably most of that would be done in-house but we're going to need to beef up the tree farm in order to do that so I put in $2,000.00 for that as well. Lynch: I just talked to Dale about that maybe two months ago and he said that the tree farm was at a low ebb. Sietsema: We didn't add to it last year. Lynch: For what we have to do on a regular basis. Small jobs here and there and we're going to start doing all these others and he says he needs a whole lot more trees. One thing I didn't ask him which I should have, who is determining the make-up of the new nursery stock that's purchased? Sietsema: Dale. ~ynch: So he knows what he wants then? ,-, ...." Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 17 Sietsema: Yes. What he would do is take those parking plans that Mark did and look at the planting plan that he included on that plan and he would buy accordingly I suppose. Boyt: Then Mark is going to be meeting with a landscape architect? Sietsema: Mark is a landscape architect. Boyt: No he's not. Sietsema: Yes he is. Boyt: I was told by Don that he is not. him on talking to a landscape architect. landscape architect. That they were going to work with He's an engineer but he's not a Sietsema: We can ask him when he gets here but his card says landscape archi teet. Boyt: I don't know if he has a background in that. Sietsema: He has a degree. I've seen the diploma. Boyt: I don't know, doesn't Don know about that. i.ynch: It might be a good idea since we know or we feel relatively safe i the fact that Mark's going to be doing most of these master plans that maybwll" he and Dale get together on the nursery stock going in because in landscape it took us long enough to know that each architect has his likes and dislikes. Sietsema: Mark does have a list of what's in the tree farm and I update that occasionally. Lynch: And what he would like to see being in the tree farm too. I think he should have a shot at that too. Mady: I disagree with one comment made. At an earlier meeting Sue mentioned something about crab apple that holds it's apples throughout the winter so the birds can feed on it and a comment was made that there are no trees like that. I remember seeing in talking with a wildlife, Lowry had one of those parks that has that type of tree available. Lynch: There are a number of ornamentals that hold their berries. Boyt: That's what I would like to see more of. Mady: For our nature areas anyway. '.ynch: There's the new elm which has been bred to be dutch elm resistant chat they've had out now for 2 years I believe. They should be to the point -' ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 18 now where they're not too expensive but there are a lot of things like that, if Mark is busily into this landscape architect, he's going to know things that Dale doesn't know. Sietsema: That's true and I will make a point that they do get together. Lynch: ...landscaping people now is wait 20 years for the white and green ash disease. This is going to be the next big boom for the architect. The landscapes are because in the 20's and 30's it was the maple volume and then they seemed to feed on whatever is there...so the problem with some ci ties is that they are over specializing again. Everything they're putting in is ash and mother nature when she is going to eat it up so some of those people that are dealing with some real good architects are going in with maples and ash and this and that so they get some variety and some protection in the future. Overspecialization is going to cost the city and there's no sense building that in if we don't have to. """"'" Sietsema: Okay, the total of this will bring the total to approximately $107,400.00. Do you want me to get this all in it's final form and bring it back to you or do you want me to just do what you said and send it on to City Council at this point? Lynch: I guess I would just like to see it bounce off the City Council at this point. Mady: We're meeting with them. Is this one of those things we could put on the agenda. Boyt: They might not have anything to say about this. I think last year, didn't it just go. Sietsema: No, they voted on it. They have to approve it. Boyt: I know but I don't know if they had much to say about it did they. Sietsema: If they had comments? They did on a few things but not a lot. Robinson: In our joint meeting they picked at it. Mady: Let's not give it to them at this point. Robinson: What was our dollar amount for 1987 budget? Sietsema: $80,500.00. The original was $108,000.00 and we cut it back. I can't remember what we cut out. We cut out some trail development because we didn't know exactly what the trail plan would be and a few other things that were kind of... Mady: We had a lot of big items but not a lot of little ones. We had a few big items last year, this year it looks like we're going to spread the money out allover the place. ,.... ........ Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 19 Lynch: For many years we didn't even inflation adjust. We were almost the same for 5 or 6 years. Sietsema: Yes, you were about at $30,000.00 for quite a few years. Schroers: Is it appropriate at this time to interject anything new into your capital improvement program? Sietsema: This is the time if you want to make any additions. Schroers: I've been approached by one of the businessmen from the city and by several friends and they're asking what would be the possibility that we could provide an archery range. Other municipalities that I've lived in have had archery ranges. They get a lot of use. They're pretty low cost, fairly maintenance free item and I think it adds some versity and it's something that would be pretty well received. Boyt: That's something I suggested for Lake Susan because it's a hilly area. Schroers: What you need a real steep hill behind the targets to act as a safety barrier or in many areas what they have is, they have the targets abutted up to a cattail swamp. Just an area that people don't use. I've even seen in one place where a big tarp was spread across the back. Sietsema: I guess basically it's pick a park and if it's got a master pla that's going to be developed in that park we could include it at that time.~ Otherwise, pick the park that you want it in and we'll include it now. I don't know what it would cost. Schroers: Do you know of an area that they think would be suitable where we would have a safe backstop. Lynch: Lake Susan now, across from the shelter, you go down the little drainway down there, is that ours on the other side? Boyt: I don't know. I wonder if it could go near the water too. Mady: We're talking about paddleboat rentals and things like that. The boat access is hilly right there but I don't know. Schroers: Basically what you need is about one acre of open, flat space with a suitable area behind that. A steep hill or something. Sietsema: Bandimere Heights where those two hills came together. Lynch: until they put houses back there. Sietsema: I don't know if that would have the distance because you would have to stand in the soccerfield. 'OIfIItIIII' ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 20 Schroers: You don't really need much more than 40 yards from the point of where you shoot to the targets. Very few people shoot it more than 40 yards but what we would like or what would be desirable would be in a location pretty centrally located. If there was such a place at Lake Ann would be ideal because it has the parking facilities and it's an area that's easily accessible. If you put it in a little community like Bandimere Heights that's back off the beaten path, people aren't going to know where it is and then it won't get adequate use. Robinson: I would suggest we put it in down here without a park identification just like we've got tables and benches. We don't know for sure where those are going to go. I don't think you're talking much more than $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. Schroers: Not even that. The targets for the city to work the best are these bales that are made out of a material called excelsior and you can buy these bales are Tom's Archery for somewhere in the neighborhood of $20.00 to $25.00 per bale. Now if we were going to go and buy say 20 bales... that are going to see a lot of use, I think that's where we would like to have it. Mady: Put $500.00 in for it. ",.... Schroers: And tell them we don't necessarily have to have a natural backdrop because it wouldn't be that big of a deal to get some fill from all the construction that's going on around here and just construct a berm so we could have a real nice facility at a real low cost. Sietsema: It shouldn't run into the conservation easement. How much do you want to add to the budget then? Lynch: $500.00. Mady: need. I think $500.00 should handle the bales. That's basically what we Schroers: I think that might be a little bit low. Maybe $1,000.00. Boyt: In case you have to berm? Schroers: Yes, if they have to truck in some fill or something. Lynch: How long do those bales of excelsior last? Schroers: I know of ones in Bloomington the same bales were there for about 3 or 4 years and if you build a little shelter of some kind of over them or you just put them out there on a seasonal type basis and then take them and store them in the winter, I would think it would be reasonable to expect to get 5 years out of them if they're taken care of. r- .....". Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 21 Lynch: You're going to put them up between two poles that's easy enough to put in a shed. Schroers: You wouldn't even need a shed. If you have like four posts and just nail a little rope over it. Sietsema: Any other questions on the capital improvement program? I'll need a motion to send that to City Council. Mady: What were the additions? Sietsema: The additions were North Lotus Lake, $5,000.00. Mady: An additional $5,000.00? Sietsema: No. Up to $5,000.00 from $3,000.00. For the park shelter with the fireplace. Mady: That's an additional $2,000.00 there. Boyt: And Lake Ann an additional $3,000.00 and an archery range $1,000.00. Sietsema: wrong. I added $5,000.00 instead of the $2,000.00. That's where I went Boyt moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend approval of the 1988 preliminary Cpaital Improvement Program wit~ the noted additions for a total amount of $105,400.00. All voted in favor and motion carried. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. Sietsema: This very memo is going to the City Council on Monday night so what I've suggested is September 29th. What I need to know basically is if September 29th is good for you. What Don and I are proposing to do is present the trail plan to the City Council at the budget preparation meeting which will be on the 21st. That way we'll cut out a lot of that discussion for a joint meeting but they're going to ask them to please hold all of their comments and criticisms and compliments until the joint meeting and then discuss any changes to the plan at that point in time. At the joint meeting rather than the budget meeting so you would be able to hear those. We just want to make them aware of what exactly the trail plan encompasses at this budget meeting. Did you want me to add the Capital Improvement Program to this agenda? Lynch: You might as well. Mady: When the City Council has their budget meeting and they're looking at the trail plan, are we going to be seeing, wasn't Mark going to come back to us with that thing. --' """ Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 22 Sietsema: The trail plan has pretty much been decided. You've all voted on that. Boyt: I think there should be a Park and Rec Commissioner at the budget meeting. Sietsema: I don't want you there to initiate any discussion though because the budget is, we're hoping that they'll keep their questions for the joint meeting. Simply because the budget is pretty intensive and we don't want to get off on that side trip. We just want them to know what it encompasses and why the amounts that are in the budget are there. Is there anybody here who can't make it on the 29th? Okay. DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - RECREATION SECTION. ,.... Mark Koegler: We want to spend a little time this evening going through some background information. As you know quite some time ago we were on the course to update the recreation element of the Comp Plan. We got diverted by a couple of things. The first being the survey and then we got diverted on the trail plan and now we're back to the meat or the substance if you will. It's our intent then to bring back to you next time in draft for really detail review of both revisions of the recreation chapter plan and the trail plan all incorporated as one entity so that you can do your final review of that over however many sessions that may take. Need to get some input from you tonight on one of several areas. The previous discussion we had, and again it's been at the end of 1986 first of 1987, was regarding just really the initial section of the recreation plan. About the first 20 pages and there were some changes that were offered as a part of that. What I would like to focus on tonight is some of the material from there to the rear of the document and specifically some things that I mentioned we would need some input from the Commission on. The plan format, as noted is changing significantly. That comment really goes to the Comprehensive Plan as a whole where you're basically updating where needed. As an example we've got new information obviously that will supplement a great deal of this both in the form of a final census data that was not available at the time that this plan was put together in 1980. Some of the more recent surveys that not only this group has done but the State has done that typically come out as a part of the LAWCON/LCMR rankings that are done by the Metropolitan Council as well so when it comes to demand and needs for types of facilities, some of that new information will be interjected into the text and will be written in accordingly. In looking at the need section of the plan previously, the format was it really went through and defined several different park types. There were labels mini-park, neighborhood park, community park, regional park and linear park. Suggesting that this time around the specific breakout of the mini-park is probably not appropriate for Chanhassen. Let's face it, it's simply integrated into a facility and I think it should be treated as such so when the text comes back to you next time, you will see that particular item omitted and that wording will be woven into the neighborhood parks where most of those facilities occur. What that gets down to, first item of discussion tonight ,- ...,,;' Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 23 is the handout that just went around in front of you. This is essentially an update of the chart that was previously on page 26 of the Plan. There are a couple of items that have gone into this that I need to give you some background on. The previous Comprehensive Plan that this City put together in 1989 held that by 1999 the City's population would be 11,999 and by the year 2999 it would be 17,999. Those are the City's projections. Those are not the projections of the Metropolitan Council. Since that time and more recently, specifically within about the last year to year and a half, as a part of the planning effort, the city did undertake a new demographic study to come up with some what were thought to be reasonable population projections. Those numbers are downscaled. They are not downscaled near to the degree that the Metropolitan Council's are but they are shown on the sheet that's in front of you that by 1999 what was previously called for as 11,999 population is not projected to be about 9,599 and by the year 2999 14,759 versus the 17,999 that was called out before. As I mentioned, those numbers are optimistic still in comparison to the Metropolitan Council's "official projections" which call for a 1999 population of 9,999 and the year 2999 population of 19,999 so there still is a discrepency between what the City thinks will happen and what Met Council is saying is a regional growth perspective. Again, that theme will carry throughout the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Section and so forth will continue to advo.cate that there are a couple of positions that have not come into agreement. Lynch: These are necessarily off the wall numbers because if we would hav~ another interest rate rise and turn it around. If we hadn't had the rise interest, we would have matched the features we had. In the years where w~ had the 4 housing permits per year, wouldn't have happened. If we had had normal growth so you're sort of basing these things as real off the wall estimates I assume. Mark Koegler: We dump treat them as quite off the wall as perhaps you've just paraphrased. There was a fair amount of background that went into the population projection numbers that we've utilized here. That did look at land development in Eden prairie for instance and over the last five years has built up to a significant degree which makes Chanhassen that much more viable for residential purposes. It does take into account in a general sense various cycles. Now that's not to say that back in the early 89's we could have predicted 29% interest rates. That was not felt that that would happen and hopefully that won't happen again but in any plannings that you use a target number and that's what this is. This number has been accepted and adopted by the HRA and the Planning Commission in work that's been done over the last year or so, so these are the projections that Chanhassen is now advocating as the best guess right now at population. The points valid. They may be again modified in another year. I don't know. Certainly part of the Comprehensive Plan is to continue to monitor how closely those projections are being met and if they're not being met very closely, there's a change in order. Lynch: Are these a high end estimate, a minimal estimate? ......,; "'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 24 Mark Koegler: They're an estimate estimate. Lynch: Just an average. It could be either, somebody probably asked you this, what's your probable percentage of error plus and minus? Are we talking l0%? 20%? Mark Koegler: I can't answer that simply because I did not put those projections together. They are the lead estimate that are being used. They are just that. They are an estimate. NObody's claiming those are gospel but at the same time they are a target number. Lynch: Who did put them together? Mark Koegler: Fred Hoisington assembled those as a part of the HRA study that was done for what was termed the Broadened Study Area which was essentially the downtown. Lynch: Now you say that this doesn't agree with Metro's. Where did Fred get the background information? "'" Mark Koegler: Chanhassen has never agreed with Metropolitan Council. Since I first started with the City back in 1978, never ever have I seen much agreement between the two entities so the population forecast issue, you have to keep in mind the Metropolitan's forecasts are very pOlicy based projections. They are looking at sewer controls which they are talking allocations now which is totally a word they would never say 8 years ago. Now they're talking about sewer capacity allocation so they are very politically driven where the sense of Chanhassen's populations have always tried to be more market driven, more if you will, realistic. If you look at any of the southwest area communities, I don't know that you would find total agreement between what the city thinks it's going to do and what the Metrpolitan Council thinks it's going to do so this is not a new situation by any means. Lynch: I guess the question I was asking was, Metro is a large enough body that they have the ability to develop base information. Maybe they use it on a political manner. Where did we get the information base to develop these numbers? Mark Koegler: First of all, their information base was utilized. In addition to that, I know part of the analysis went into what building permit activity has been within this city over the last 10 years. What the general southwest area has done as a whole and what percentage of that growth Chanhassen has traditionally captured and what percentage it might be likely to capture in the future as a result again of things like Eden prairie becoming more and more built up. Those are just some of the kind of factors that were in there. I don't have that with me tonight so I can go into more detail what's there. Lynch: I didn't know if these were pulled out of the air or what. ,- ......., Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 25 Mark Koegler: No, employment projections were a part of that and there was contact made with literally all the major employers to find out what their expansion plans were. Reasonable estimates applied to the industrial growth component and what that would mean in terms of jobs. What that means in terms of percentage of people who might reside within the community depending upon the type of job and wage and so forth so there was an attempt at least to tie as many elements together as could be reasonably done. The reason I br ing these up is because the past plan had done an assessment of present, future and longer term future need based upon the growth of the city anticipated and if you've read the text, and I'm sure you have, there are all kinds of disclaimers in there which will be there again that by all means, just because the numbers say we don't need one thing doesn't mean we don't need it. You have to look at other things other than strictly the numbers but numbers are typically a basis that we start our work from. The bottom line with the information that is on that sheet is basically what this commission has said for a number of year is that by and large Chanhassen has enough parkland to satisfy not only present demand but also demand through the year 2000. There may be some special exceptions to that and we'll get into that later and those are primarily more due to geography. When you've got a city that's almost a township in size with a little notch cut out of it, you can't go strictly by the numbers because you may have concentration parks that's not exactly adjacent to where your concentration of people so there are some exceptions to that but again, the general tenant has been that the city has the land, has acquired the land very effectively through dedication requirements, through purchases, through donations and T chink as this commission has done over the last probably 5 plus years, you've been emphasizing more developing with what's happening with the -' LAWCON/LCMR grant applications have been for development not necessarily for property acquisition so the property is there and in many cases it's waiting to be developed. So just to point out in a general sense the amount of land available is still adequate. Particularly more so now than the previous plan advocated simply because the numbers are less. The population numbers were projected to be some roughly 20% smaller. The tone of the text that will come back to you will be along those lines with again, calling out some of the exceptions. Specifically focusing on the parks that are scattered throughout the city now with what geographic areas they reasonably service. We'll get into that a little bit later, in a few minutes. One of the things that the previous plan did that certainly we would advocate we would like to do again is it analyzed a couple of things. First of all it looked in the general sense of what the facility needs were for the community. How many of this do we need? How many of that do we need? Then went on specifically to look on a park by park basis and make some recommendations. Fortunately, many of which, as I reviewed this, have been followed and those kinds of things will need to be updated. I think regarding, it's almost to a certain degree programatic but I would like some input from the Commission on previous page 33 it started talking about various facilities and for example, baseballl, softball diamonds. The existing Comprehensive plan called for the addition of about 6 to 10 diamonds by the year 1990. Again, that was based previously on that larger population. As I reflect on what has happened, I think there have been probably 2 or 3 added to date since chat time and certainly you've added the lights on Lake Ann which in essense ....", "'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 26 have almost given you, certainly additional field capacity. Any of these kinds of topics, like ball diamonds, tennis courts, the picnic areas, ice skating, football and soccer, any comments the commission might have based upon what you've actually experienced. What do you see are the short falls? Are you beginning to reasonably, for the population at least that you have right now, cover the useage for the demand that you have? Do you have holes right now? Are people clamoring for more ball diamonds or tennis courts or what are they? Boyt: Ball diamonds and soccer fields. Lynch: I think right now we could use more adult softball fields. Boyt: And Little League. We don't any Little League. Lynch: field. length. But you've got to keep them separated because they're not the same The same fence, the same structure, the same bases with their "'" Boyt: The little kids, the T-Ball and pee wee can play almost anywhere. They can do it on any diamond but Little League and softball. Lynch: Now the intermediate fields, inbetween the adult hardball field has always been serviced by the Legion up here but that's not going to be there ~orever either and by the time those boys get to that age to play, they need d really good field. That's one, I'm sure one will do the trick but that will have to be down the line someplace. Soccer fields are going to be a problem I think because that's more than it is and as we get more adult interest and more older kid interest. Mark Koegler: Give me your best shot at quantifying present need. Lynch: Start for softball. Three more we could use right now couldn't we? Sietsema: I wouldn't say that's top priority. I would say Little League and regulation size, official size soccer field and Babe Ruth are the top three priority facilities that we need right now. Lynch: We need what, two more soccer, full sized? Sietsema: Yes. Lynch: One Babe Ruth/Legion, 90 foot bases, full sized. Schroers: Field 1 at Lake Ann, isn't that used for... Mady: It doesn't have a grass infield. Sietsema: It doesn't have a mound. ~ady: We're talking about a field that is capable of playing Legion Ball. .r"- """'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 27 Sietsema: They are using it but they can't use it in a sanctioned league. They wouldn't qualify. The league that they happen to be playing in right now isn't sanctioned by Babe Ruth so they're getting away with it. Lynch: I would even put lights on that regulation baseball. Schroers: How much would be involved in upgrading the one at Lake Ann to meet those specifications? Boyt: We had talked at one time about a facility that was aimed more at Little League, Babe Ruth. Mady: Baseball facility. Boyt: Lake Ann is really softball and it's used almost 100% of the time now for that. The only open time is Friday night and Saturday morning. Schroers: So you're talking about a new complex. Boyt: Like at Lake Susan. Lynch: Make a hardball field out that field and the softballers can't use it. So one of those fields. Two Little League and that's regulation Little League that we can get sanctioned on. It's got to have fences all the way around it and than three more softball? Schroers: And one more with lights. ...."I Lynch: Eventually all of them should be lighted. Sietsema: Eventually I think we would have plenty with just the three additional softball fields. I think we would meet what our needs are right now very well. Lynch: Today. Sietsema: Today. That's what he's talking about. Present use. Lynch: As the community develops, especially as the industrial base here grows, you're going to find that's going to be your biggest increase I would think. Schroers: There were also out of town teams that wanted to get into our league here this year too and if we had had expanded facilities we could allow for that. Lynch: I would think you could say in the Comprehensive anyway, three additional softballs and lighting as necessary to increase the use factor. Todd Hoffman: At least one would make that complex more useable in the evening time because one lit field doesn't really lend much as far as useage "-' ."""" Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 28 as far as a tournament. Lynch: Lori one time said that the lighting has the effect of adding a field because you double the time that's it available to use. Boyt: Lighting a soccer field because soccei season here is in the fall so if they're going to play, they're going to play at night. Mark Koegler: How about tennis? Lynch: I think the general consensus was that we may need to add courts to get some geographic spread. For instance, the ones we have planned right now on North Lotus Lake, South Lotus Lake and Meadow Green, I think the interest seems to have leveled off in tennis. We don't hear the driving interest in that except for strictly recreational uses. Mom and dad would like to go down and hit the ball around. Schroers: Wasn't there tennis proposed for Lake Susan Hills? Mady: Yes, Lake Susan Hills has got tennis. So does Curry Farms. I don't remember Chan Hills. Boyt: We're putting them in our neighborhood parks. ,..... Schroers: So I would think that would almost be adequate. Lynch: Tennis, basketball, they only want a backboard on one end playing. Mady: I would like to see the baseball complex go in the southern part of this community. Lynch: I think generally we've viewed those tennis courts as a piece of recreational equipment. Individual recreational equipment whereas the ballfields are for organized programs. Now we have ballfields that we're going to put in that really we don't consider ball fields. They are open to recreational open area because there's been a ballfield and we're looking at Bandimere tonight for a backstop here and that could never be used for anything else but kids who want to play ball on it. Fool around. Mark Koegler: short supply? Any other facilities that you hear from the residents are in picnic areas, ice skating rinks? Todd Hoffman: Picnic shelters. Lynch: You know when Charlis was here, Charlie was always looking for additional outdoor hockey rinks and I can understand that but now, if we have our temporary arena down here for practices, if we wind up with a community center with an indoor facility, it's going to knock the requirement for the outdoor stuff. aobinson: We've also got the survey that says hockey is not a big item. "...... ..." Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 29 Schroers: Just before you came we were doing a little bit of creative thinking and we were thinking that something such as obstacle courses and archery ranges would be nice to have in some of the parks to add a little variety. Lynch: I even have some of my neighbors now asking me about when was the City going to add swimming beach area. Now if we double the population, I don't know if Lake Ann is going to be enough beach. Sietsema: right now. It's probably one of the biggest beaches in the southwest area As far as size of the beach. Lynch: I know but is it going to be big enough? Robinson: Will we have beach over at Lake Susan? Lynch: I don't think that's going to be swimable is it? Todd Hoffman: Lake Ann has enough beach area in the adjacent picnicing areas is in such short supply that that's really the part that gets crowded down there. Mady: Something that's in short supply is parking. Schroers: That's one thing that will probably keep the swimming area in check is there's just that much space available for picnicing and other activities that people aren't going to want to crowd in that much so it ....", would overtax the swimming facility there. Lynch: Is that going to be enough? Schroers: If we double the population, it probably wouldn't be. We would want maybe something similar in another location on another lake is possible. On Lake Minnewashta possibly if we could get something there. Lynch: We've got the Regional facility there. We could say, we'll include that in our resources and say that that's enough swimming. Schroers: It's really important in a swimming area to have quality. Sietsema: Think of what we've got available to us. There is a swimming beach at Lake Minnewashta. There is a swimming beach at Lake Ann. There's a swimming area at Greenwood Shores. There's a beach at Carver Beach. There's potentially swimming, we could have a beach at South Lotus Lake if we wanted to go that way. Boyt: By the boat launch? Schroers: Theres's another option too. At Elm Creek Park up by Osseo, they nave a man made swimming beach that is a round pool, plastic lined, filled with sand and is a very nice facility. People really use that a lot and if '-' ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 30 there wasn't a natural area that was suitable and we felt we need one beach, that would be something well worth checking into. Boyt: Since we have so many youngsters in the community, something some of the Minneapolis parks have are little tot swimming pools. Schroers: Out in Silver Springs, Colorado they have an indoor/outdoor that you swim inside, you go under and you're outside. It's pretty neat. You can swim in an outdoor pool in the middle of winter. Todd Hoffman: Any hill, just looking for special events trying to use the hillside for seeding with an event going on, I tried to think of throughout the parks in Chanhassen, that's not an area that we really have. Mady: We've got a hill available in the pond area. I'm not sure what chance the pond might have. Boyt: I don't know if we could get to the top of that. Lynch: You'd have to put stairs up the side. ~ Boyt: The property owners own the top of the hill. Lynch: You probably couldn't get to the top top. I don't think you would want to. Boyt: Unless we went up to the little northwest section. Lynch: Did I hear that Wirth had been having some liability problems with their traditional tobogganing hill? Schroers: I think the problem they're having there is not with the traditional tobogganing hill but with the traditional toboggan trains to take their toboggans off the ski jumps. That's the problems that I heard. Lynch: But they didn't close that? Schroers: I really don't know if they did or not. Lynch: Have you heard any backlashes on that kind of stuff? Sietsema: I haven't heard. Lynch: They had a program on TV last winter about the hazards of tobogganing and sleding and they made it sound like a real super high risk operation. Schroers: We just built a brand new sliding hill where I work. As a matter of fact, that was one of my major projects and what we had to do was to make ~ure that we had a nice long outrun with no obstacles anywhere that people ..:ould run into and we made a return area outside of the downhill area so you ",-.. ----" Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 31 don't have upholding traffic and we also lined the sides of it with bales so they couldn't go off. We've done everything we can to make it as safe as possible and we had a lot of good response for sliding hills. That's just something that there isn't a lot of around. Sietsema: Are we answering the questions? I want to try and stick as much to the subject at hand. It's getting 19 to 19 and you want to get out of here at 19:99 and I don't want to leave in the middle of our discussion to bring Mark back in so let's try and stick to the nitty. Lynch: Okay, so what else might we be talking about here for us? Mark Koegler: I think you probably covered most of it. Certainly we're not closing the door on including anything you come up with between now and the time we come back. Sietsema: Is there anything you would recommend that we consider? Mark Koegler: You covered all the topics I had notes on. Boyt: No golf courses in there? Mark Koegler: No, I didn't have golf course in there either and some of those have actually begun to be designed as a part of the park at North ~otus Lake for instance. Not a big one but an area that can be used in the planting and so forth. Talking before about the geographic dispersal of parks versus simply playing the numbers game, the area on that map that's ~ cross hatched in red is the geographic portion of the community right now is technically accessible to a neighboring park and technically meaning they lie within a half mile geographic area of a park and that ignores having to cross TH 5 and things of that nature which were factors and had to be looked at also but in a general sense those are the areas of the community that right now have reasonable service to neighborhood park facilities in some form or fashion. Some of the other lines that are on this map, this dark line right here is the MUSA line and that shows the area that the Metropolitan Council is defined as not having sewer service until the year 2999 for everything outside that line. The other line that takes off here and then it comes across is an area of dispute between the City and the Metropolitan Council, it was on the last plan and I can assure you it will be on the plan update and that's part of the differential in the population projections that are being looked at. Previously the plan got through and identified 6 geographic areas and it talked about some of the shortcomings in each of those areas and I think those really are beginning to show a real positive pattern of change. Area 1 on this map is less than it was on the Comp Plan map due to the inclusion of Lotus Lake down on that end. The area then that remains as a void basically, fortunately is well covered by private recreational facilities and if, and hopefully when the trail link hooks up along TH 191, will have good access to any number of parks from that point. So Area 1 basically has been satisfied. The second area which includes basically all of this area, again has been supplemented to a certain degree by the park that's down in Chanhassen Hills. We've got some , ....., ,...... Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 32 things like Bandimere that technically is set up as a service area. However, you've got to ask what can we do with that and maybe you've answered that tonight, I don't know. That question has been asked for a long time. Then what's not been included in here is the more recent PUD development that I think you've seen plans on. The Park Commission has looked at. The Planning Commission has gone through for I think there are two or three sites and I've got some information on that now that is proposed as a part of that development which really will close this area in hopefully pretty well. Area 3 that was shown really has not undergone any substantial change nor is it likely to just from the standpoint that there is no sewer availability here right now and there's not likely to be much development. Area 4, which is everything north of this line, again you've got a recent proposal which I assume was a preliminary plat that was approved that Centex was doing, the name of the project escapes me at the moment. Sietsema: Curry Farms. ,.... Mark Koegler: I've looked at that one and I know that one has neighborhood park type facilities and that will go a long way towards filling in this void so that has not been factored into this map at this point in time. Area 5, somewhat the same as 3. It doesn't have sewer service. Really though the only areas we're talking about for residential development is down in here. Otherwise we've got the regional park, Camp Tanadoona and then we've got Arboretum land down to the south. Area 6, has not changed significantly. There have been no new facilities added there since 1980. There has been talk and I think it was quite clear at the trail discussion that Minnewashta Parkway was an important trail link from a safety standpoint to help ease the lack of neighborhood park that those areas have and hopefully let them get both north and south and connect onto other facilities. There's been general discussion in the longer term as to what will happen to Lake St. Joe and that area. The possibility of if and when some development occurs there so that lake can be tapped for both active and passive uses. I assume that kind of thinking will remain fairly consistent. There are some larger lot parcels to the north which again mayor may not ultimately develop and there may be some park potential there but there's still that realistically is the major void right now because some of the other ones have been plugged by some of the more recent residential proposals. So the plan language will come back to you along those lines and if you have any specific direction on any of those on how you would like those treated or thoughts on what you would like to do, particularly like with Area 6, as I say we'll look at potential for a new facility there but it's going to be really solely dependent upon what land development practices take place in the future. When those parcels are split or when that area around Lake St. Joe develops. At that time getting a dedication requirement for that plus a purchase to acquire necessary land in that area. Lynch: Mark, where the current western part of the MUSA line? ~ark Koegler: It falls right here. I"""" .....,fIll Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 33 Lynch: So that's not disputed? Mark Koegler: Correct. This area is not disputed. This has full sanitary sewer serVlce available to it. The lines come down to the south and there's no question there at all. All this flow eventually comes back up. Lynch: So we're looking at the higher density development then taking... Mark Koegler: Yes, that's correct. Boyt: Is Area 6 one of those areas we want to look at now in terms of acquiring land before it develops? Mark Koegler: That's one school of thought. The other one is really the central, intended almost as why you do a recreation plan and that's to get it on the map so everybody is aware that the city has targeted that area for park purposes. If you have the funding, by all means it advisable to acquire that. If you don't have the funding right now to do it, at least everyone is informed that when that develops, there will be expectations for park property there. Boyt: Do we know how that is tending to develop? If it will develop in 4 acre parcels or 40 acre parcels? ~ark Koegler: I think we reasonably can speculate on that because the amount of development that's actually there is scattered. There aren't an~ 40 acre parcels by any means. There probably are a lot of 10 acre pieces and a few 5's and maybe a 15 here and there that resulted in some of that scattered land that you see north of Lake St. Joe. Those parcels, in fact I was working with a client a couple years ago that was looking at a piece over here that we had done a sketch plan for for single family housing. It didn't go forward for a variety of reasons but if I remember right, that was in the neighborhood of about 15 acres. I think that's the kind of pattern that you'll see. The exception to that, the only real novelty perhaps was Leeches Resort area which went into the townhouse project. Back when the original plan was done in 1980, there had been a lot of talk. We used to sit around and say, gee wouldn't it be great if the city could acquire Leeches Resort and have a little boat ramp, beach and everything else and obviously that didn't happen. I think we reasonably can look at that and see which kind of pattern is expected. It may not be possible for instance to acquire 15 acres of parkland but it certainly should be possible to acquire 5 which would serve neighborhood purposes. Schroers: Is there funding available right now that would account to acquire like a couple of 5 or 10 acre parcels in Area 6? Sietsema: What would prices be? Do you have a clue? Mady: $20,000.00 an acre. -' ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 34 Mark Koegler: It depends. If utilities hadn't been extended in to a piece of property probably half that. Maybe $7,000.00 to $10,000.00 an acre based on some numbers that I heard recently. As you're aware, anytime a landowner finds out there is interest in it being acquired, the price increases so it's hard to sit here right now. We would have to look at the assessed value on some of those pieces and get a rough idea. Sietsema: There is $100,000.00 in the budget right now but it's allocated toward matching grant funds or debt payoff. We have money in there but most of, at that large of a chunk is allocated there, earmarked for a project or something. Schroers: What is the 1ik1ihood in the foreseeable future that we would have money like that available if no development has started there yet? Could we get our hands on funding? Lynch: The only other funding that we could use traditionally would be with the LAWCON grant because normally the developmental is $435.00 per house. We try to keep that in the area that it came from so if we took developmental money from Area 3 and went over to Area 6 and bought property with it, that might cause a little fuss. ,..... Boyt: I think what we need to know is, we need to see our budget so we know how much money is available in that area because we do have money set aside in each of these areas and we need to see our budget. Sietsema: It really isn't in little pots in every area. It goes into the general fund at the end of every year. Boyt: That's not what Don said last year. Sietsema: Yes he did. He said it goes into each area but at the end of each year. I can tell you at the end of each year how much money we collected from each one of those areas but at the end of that year that money all gets dumped into 101 and those are all wiped out and you start over again. Boyt: In the general fund for Park and Rec or the general fund for the City? Sietsema: The general fund of the City. Boyt: I think we need to know that because we're letting our money escape into the general fund. That's Park and Rec money and it's going to the general fund. I would like to see some numbers. Sietsema: I'm not sure on that. I think it probably goes to Park and Rec. Boyt: Yes, I think that's what Don said. ~ --' Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 35 Sietsema: I think you're right on that. I think it does go into the Park fund but there's no way for me to go and say from the beginning, since we've ever collected money, how much we've collected from the Minnewashta, number 6 area but it has been all dumped into the park fund. Boyt: Can we see those numbers? Mady: I guess my way of looking at this thing right now, we're talking to the City Council in the next month about siting some parks. The southern area of the city really needs something and possibly in the community park type. Number 6 looks like we better get on our horse and start looking at some property up there in the next couple of years before something happens that causes that property to go double in value. At least site something up there. Sietsema: On the land use plan, isn't the area around Lake St. Joe identified as potential park property? Mark Koegler: It has been shown as public, semi-public open space kind of property previously but there may be room to acquire land around there. What you're really getting into is the whole area prioritizing what you want to do. Like Lori said, there's a pot of money right now that's used for matching grants and so forth, okay, do we want to match that with money and expand Lake Ann Park or do we want to buy land in Area 6? Those are the ~inds of trade-offs that ultimately you get down to and what will be dddressed as part of the capital improvement program itself which is part --' the plan. Those are the decisions that have to be made. Certainly you nee~ to know what resources are available and we would have that as a part of this. Jim raises the point about parks in the rural area which is another thing we would like to talk about. Specifically, what are your interests in identifying parks? We had gone through an exercise a while back when some of the rural subdivision flood hit the city and how all of those pieces, Halla, Gagne piece and all of those pieces were coming in for development and had looked at those and the potential of those to serve as what we called a neighborhood park. I think we were looking at about 15 acres for total size which really was an expanded neighborhood park and to some degree it might have been a community park camoflagued. I wouldn't deny that but we basically ruled out some of those sites saying seemingly it was possible to identify other properties within the area and either acquire it or whatever. Where does the Commission stand right now on parks in the rural area? What you would like to see as a part of that. sietsema: I think the top items that were mentioned, the Little League fields, the regulation soccer field and the Babe Ruth field would very well fit in that parcel that would go in the south simply because those are the programs that we share with Chaska and that would be a nice area for both people to have to go and take their kids. A nice central location. Lynch: Another reason too I think because the cost of land north of TH 5 ,nd south of TH 5, there's a great diversity. There just isn't a whole lot .)f it left above and why crowd something in next to Lake Ann. Try to ...." ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 36 balance it. Sietsema: So what my point was going to be was whether 15 acres would be enough to accomodate youth athletic field complex or if we have to look at something larger. Schroers: That's exactly where I thought when we brought up the rural area is getting the most parkland that we could get... Lynch: I don't really see it as being park for the people who live in the rural area. We've got two problems there. The rural developments don't really lend themselves to having a neighborhood park because their lots are so large and the lots are far enough apart that how far can they go to get to a neighborhood park but they are an awful long ways from large organized facilities. There is going to be the additional need to look at the community park playground in the year 2000 and you're only plus 2 acres at that point and by the year 2000 that's going to be awfully difficult to go out and find land for a community facility in a town that's going to have 50,000 people in it. There's not going to be 25 to 30 acre plot sitting around somewhere. ,.... Mark Koegler: I'm hearing some comments and let me paraphrase if what I'm hearing is right. The interest in parks in the rural area really stems from first of all the demand for some additional facilities right now that you think could be serviced by areas in the south due to a number of factors. ~ost of land. proximity of users being Chanhassen and Chaska. Some of those kinds of things. There's been debate over the years, there probably still will be, about the level of services that should be applied to people that dwell in the rural service area and this community, for a number of years up until a few years ago, took a pretty staunch position that no urban services were to be available to the rural service area and that no development in fact could occur without sanitary sewer. That was struck down and in court cases, if you've seen the applications for the 1 for 2 1/2 and now 1 for 10 acre subdivisions, I think philosophically the position of the Planning Commission still is that at best the City only owes those constituents certain minimal levels of services. Certainly police and fire protection and public safety issues but beyond that, paved streets, sanitary sewer, parks, to a certain degree, and things that are associated more with, call it higher density, even though it's not higher density than the north of TH 5 portion of the city. There's a significant difference there. What's the Commission's thoughts? Should you be supplying neighborhood parks, tennis courts and things in close proximity to these rural residents or is it reasonable that given their lifestyle they can drive to Lake Ann Park? Lynch: That's what I was trying to point out. The neighborhood in the rural section doesn't lend itself to having a neighborhood park because the lots are so large, the distances are too great, the number of people that can reasonably walk to a neighborhood park, you can't walk that many people there from 5 acre lots. Besides they have a 5 acre lot and they have a jungle gym in the back and a woods for the kids to play in so you don't ,,-. ....."" Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 37 really require that but I think the City does owe them as easy an access to a community area as any other resident because they're still sharing in the cost of Lake Ann and yet it's going to be difficult for them to get to in many cases from the southern part of the city. I know if we did develop a second community area, which I think when you start adding up your ball fields and soccer fields, you're going to see we have to have. That's the obvious place to put it. Now against the river but certainly we targeted something near the corner of Chaska that little northeast corner there. Give our city some balance. Boyt: What's real important there is the cost of land too. It's so much different than inside the MUSA line. Lynch: Cost and availability both. That land is available down there in many cases. Mady: What I've seen we're not only providing parkland for the rural area as much as we're really killing two birds with one stone. We have a need for these additional facilities that will really service the whole community and by putting it down in the southern area, we're also allowing the people down there to have access to parks. We're not really giving them a park because we think they need a park. We're providing the whole community with a park. That's the best place to put it because we can get the land the cheapest, we can provide those people with facilities and we can provide the vhole community with a needed facility. Mark Koegler: And obviously long range you're able to secure large parcel~ of land for future use. Mady: 20 years from now that may not be rural area. Lynch: If you put something like this in the Comprehensive, a theorem for it, be sure to mention that plus 2 acre gap. That's the only thing I see on this whole sheet that bothers me because by year 2000 we're not going to be able to get a large parcel and that's where we're going to be short and that's what something like this is supposed to point out. I don't think it's satisfactory to say to look at this and come up with the conclusion that we're okay all the way up to the year 2000 because these are all pluses. Mark Koegler: I can assume you that won't be the language you see. Lynch: But I know some folks that would look at it that way if they could think about it. If somebody put the bee in their bonnet and point out to them. Mark Koegler: The only other topic we would seek some input from this evening on was there will be again a discussion of existing parks and recommendations as there was in the last plan. I was surprised very 91easantly when we went through there that really a substantial portion of those recommendations have been implemented or are being implemented and I ...." ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 38 toyed with should we run through each park tonight and have you give me your comments on what should go in there or should we give you a third party objective opinion on what we think should go there. I think that may be the better the approach and let you react next time. Lynch: This is next year's proposed budget and that would give you a pretty good lead idea anyway. Other than, when you run through that, our non- developed Herman Field, the original plans for that are still pretty much a ballfield, a picnic area so I don't think we have a whole lot additional to add from what we had before unless Larry's idea of a little brainstorming and thinking of some new exciting things to put in, we're pretty much where we were. Mark Koegler: Yes, there were a number of them, like Herman Field is an example where the plan, the intent still is to follow it and in fact there is a feasibility study pending right now on a way to get into which has been the only obstacle. It's kind of like Lake Susan in that regard. Great park but how the heck do you get there. Lynch: That budget, if accepted, will take care of a lot of final.items which we have in the old Comprehensive Plan. ,..... Sietsema: I do have a question. In our park dedication ordinance, the new ordinance has set a standard of one parcel of parkland per 75 people. Will 1ur Comprehensive Plan be able to reflect that, compliment that or whatever vr are we going to have some conflicts there? Mark Koegler: No, I'll look at that when we bring that in. Sietsema: That comes right out of Lakeville so if we want to get a copy of Lakeville's Comp Plan and see how they've worked those out to coincide, we may want to do that but that's what we've been sticking wi th very str ictly for the last few months anyway with the developments that have been corning through and when the Comp Plan gets down I would 1 i ke to be able to back that up. Mark Koegler: I'll look at that and corne back with that as a part of the text. Sietsema: The question comes up as 1 acre of parkland for 75 people. Does that apply to overall city wide or community park or neighborhood park or what exactly, what standard does that fit? I don't really know. Mark Koegler: I'll have to look again at the detailed language of the ordinance. I think that's given for the neighborhood facilities. That's a synopsis of what I was after achieving. If you've got enough input, the next phase will be to bring you back a graph that you can put your red pencils to and that will occur at the next meeting. I"""'- Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 8, 1987 - Page 39 Mady moved, Boyt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Recreation Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim ....." ....", ..",