3r. Park & Recreation commission Minutes dated April 25, 1995I 3t.
' CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
' REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 25, 1995
' Chairman Andrews called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Andrews, Jan Lash, Jim Manders, Fred Berg, and Dave
' Huffman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jane Meger and Ron Roeser
1 STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Recreation Supervisor /Senior Coordinator
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
' Berg moved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission
dated February 28, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Lash moved, Berg seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission
meeting dated March 28, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Andrews: I believe we have one person that wishes to speak to us right now, is that correct?
Hoffman: Correct. Jennifer McCarty was not able to make it this evening. Mary Bensman
is here in her absence. Mary.
Mary Bensman: Hi. As he said, my name's Mary Bensman and I'm Chairman of the
Shorewood Park Commission. And I'm here tonight to offer you an opportunity. We've been
going around Shorewood improving the parks, particularly the playground equipment. And
have done two playgrounds in Freeman Park, a playground in ... Park and a playground in
Silverwood Park. And the next two on the agenda are Badger and Cathcart. Cathcart has
been moved up in fact because the playground equipment at Cathcart Park was set on fire by
vandals and most of it was taken down because we felt it was unsafe. So at this point we're
planning to invest $25,000.00 in playground elements at Cathcart Park. And I think that's
pretty exciting. As you know, and I don't know, are you all aware of the joint agreement
between the City of Chanhassen and City of Shorewood? If you're not, I've got some papers
on that.
Andrews: You may want to just summarize what that is for the benefit of those people that
are listening.
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995 '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995 '
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: Todd, I'd like to direct you here. We had talked in the car riding back here about,
when we came up with this Plan C or Plan 3 I guess. If you want to just quickly show what
we had talked about.
Hoffman: What the commissioner spoke of is an alternative, would be to terminate the
parking lot here with a gate. ,
Huffman: Todd, you're standing right in the light there.
Hoffman: And then bring some pull in parking down in this side. At least for the summer '
mnnthe sn we would gate it for the summer months. Put un a basketball hoop. Allow Dlav to
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Lash: I kicked around the idea of, it is a big area. If we put in a basketball pole and then
maybe did some line painting for four square or some kind of things like that.
Resident: Can I ask one question? Which direction or which side of that pavement would
you put the hoop on? Would it be on the west end?
Andrews: We didn't even look.
Berg: You're way ahead of us on that one. _
Lash: Away from the homes.
Resident: As far away from the homes as possible. Only because of the noise.
Berg: Then I would suggest the south so later in the day you don't have to worry about the —
sun in your eyes.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Berg: I'm happy with it. I'm glad that it was something that came up. I wanted, my major
goal was to maintain the pristine nature of that hill, just like I think it was most of our's. All
of our's, and I think this is a nice compromise with the caveat that we have only looked at
this for, you know 15 minutes ago and if something comes up that Todd thinks of, or
whatever, otherwise I'm in favor of it.
Manders: Yeah. I would say that the decision as to where to put the basketball hoops is
pretty minor so, I like this idea.
Andrews: I like the idea. I would like to see us get some drawings done to see how the
parking would work out. I'd like to see enough space for at least 4 regular cars and 1
handicap.
Huffman: After much thought and soul searching, I agree.
Lash: I agree.
Andrews: Make the motion then.
Lash: I move that we, I recommend that we look at Power Hill Park installing a basketball
hoop into the parking lot area and putting that additional four stalls plus the handicap in line
parking on the north side ... And that the money, I'd like to see a price estimate, number one I
guess before I'm going to be totally comfortable with taking this off of our fund, although I
think that we will do that.
' Andrews: You may want to add the chains and posts.
Lash: Right, and to chain off the parking area. The current parking area. To be open in the
' summer, or in the winter, if necessary.
Andrews: So if I understand your motion, you're asking staff then to draw up a finalized plan
for approval.
Lash: Right. With price estimates.
Berg: Second.
Andrews: Okay, any discussion?
E
7
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Lash moved, Berg seconded that the Paris and Recreation Commission direct staff to draw up
finalized plans for an expanded paring lot/basketball court, posts and chains for Power- Hill
Paris. All voted in favor and the motion caned.
Lash: Susan, were your comments about the lower section?
Susan Hurm: Yes.
Andrews: We're going to be talking more about the lower section, was it also next meeting?
Is that correct? Because we're going to have some staff information back about drainage. So
we may not be able to do much action right now but be happy to listen to what you have to
say. It's again, state your name and address for the record please.
Susan Hurm: Susan Hurm, 8542 Flamingo Drive. I have a letter that I would like to read in
response to Todd's letter to us.
Andrews: Okay.
Susan Hurm: It says, Dear Mr. Hoffman and Commission members. Thank you Mr.
Hoffman for your three page letter explaining the ... history of Power Hill Park. I'm sorry if
we have been unclear on what we are requesting. When we first moved here our kids were 3,
5, 7 and 9 years of age. They are now all 4 years older. The only real improvement over
that time has been a parking lot on the north end of the park. The park plan has been
downgraded several times. The tennis courts have been removed. The trail has been
removed. Even the backstop at the south end of the open play area we understand has now
been removed from the plan. We appreciate your intentions to install playground equipment
this year. We fully support the request to install a basketball area near the parking lot at the
north end. But our request has been to install a simple backstop at the south end, as
recommended by Chanhassen Park Planner... Perhaps 12 feet wide by 8 feet high with end
posts even several feet higher that could be used as a pick -up softball, baseball, soccer goal or
football goal posts. I talked with Park Planner, Mark Koegler who originally recommended a
backstop and ... fine amenity for such a park, neighborhood park. He has one near his home.
The kids use it, if the kids use it enough that there is eventually grass indentations at home
plate that hold water, great. Your mission has been met admirably. It can be installed for
less than $2,000.00. Let's stay open to creative, inexpensive ideas that will give the kids who
have outgrown playground equipment, before it is installed, something to do. Hopefully this
clarifies our request. I'm sorry I cannot attend the Park Commission meeting this evening. I
have to be at Shorewood Park Commission meeting at the same time. The commission's job
is a tough one. You can't please everyone, especially those who purchased a house near the
park who feel they need to protect, be protected from park amenities. You need to make a
8
L'
F7
L
I
t
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
decision to provide recreational opportunities for the good of the neighborhood and you have
our support... We hope you see the need and the logic for a simple, inexpensive request. We
thank you for consideration. Now since then I see you have been very creative and I love
that. I totally support what you're doing up on the upper bluff. I also wanted to respond to
the comment that the neighbors didn't really agree, and we didn't sound like we agreed at
first. I think ... come to agreement that meets everyone's needs. I did go collect a support
survey. I had 143 adults and children on Flamingo and Bluebird and Heron, and it was just,
I'll give you a copy. I asked that in ... whether they could put playground equipment. I told
them that there would be two phases and that the ages... didn't know how old kids were and
how many kids. I asked if they supported the basketball court and they ... We asked them
about the creative idea of using some kind of a backstop... And when we were over in
Bluebird Trail, which is on the west end of the park. The ... they have no way to get up to the
new park we're talking about putting playground equipment and that was a real concern of
their's. They have a trail that deadends inbetween the two pond areas and I know we talked
about that in the first meeting. That because that was going to be filled. Kind of a
dangerous thing ... but they have no way of getting to that other park area unless they go
totally around, up Flamingo and then into that... So I would like us to look at some way of
getting them up there. I know we have a sidewalk but they can't get to it and I only got half
of that street. I did not cover the whole area. I did it last night ... and then after work today I
went for a couple of minutes but like I said, we don't even ... totally support the basketball
court and we'd like you to look at some way of being creative down in that lower area and
giving the kids something to do there.
Andrews: Okay, thank you. As I stated, we're expecting to have the city come back with an
estimate of the cost of providing drain tiling which might allow us to do something quite a bit
better than just a backstop but I guess my personal opinion is, before I would even want to
consider spending money on anything, I want to hear that information next month because
that lower field, if it's properly drained could be really do a lot of things with that so.
Susan Hurm: There were a lot of questions about what, you know we wanted something
down there for the kids and they asked about playground equipment and ... maybe too old for
that but... anything we want done in that area so kids have something to do. And there wasn't
anyone who refused to sign up or...
Andrews: We really appreciate what you're doing. I mean it shows a lot of pride in the park
and that's what's important. That's what makes things happen too so.
Lash: If we get that on our agenda next month, I think we will, won't we Todd.
Hoffman: Yes.
we
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Lash: We'll be able to look at that and I think realistically, I don't think that we'd be able to
tackle that this year. That might be something to look at for next year and work on it into
our budget for next year once we get some price information and then we'll all work with the
neighbors to find out what they want to see...
Andrews: Thank you again. Todd, before we move on here I wonder if we might. Oh I'm
sorry, another one.
Resident: I have one clarification I guess on the first motion that you made. At our last
meeting you also included picnic tables for that field area up on top.
Andrews: That's sort of in a catch all. We've got general budget money for that.
Resident: Okay, so that's going to happen?
Andrews: Yes. Very good. Todd, I guess because we're running a little behind and I'm
concerned that some of these issues that are administrative issues for us may take quite a
while to get through, would it be okay to just get a feel for what people might be here for.
Hoffman: You bet.
Andrews: Is there anybody here for the trail bond referendum discussion? Anybody for the
rec center operation discussion? Didn't think so. Land development proposal for that office
site? One there. Selection of vendors for Power Hill Park? Okay. Alright. Actually what
are you here for?
Resident: Will we be noticed Todd about when you plan to do something about this and you
said next month's meeting was to discuss just the plan?
Andrews: Yes.
Resident: So that would be something that I should...
Andrews: My guess is probably not because my guess is all we'll get is, we'll get fed some
information about what it costs. We'd probably then schedule a meeting after that to talk
about, knowing what the costs are, what can we really do. I think that's the normal way we'd
handle it.
Resident: So what would be my best way to keep informed about it?
10
L
[I
L
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Andrews: Give Todd your name and address and we'll make it his job to notify you.
Lash: There's always an agenda in the paper too.
Andrews: Well I'd like to jump around here just a little bit to accommodate some of the
people that are here for special items here, if that'd be okay. I'd like to move ahead to item 5.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE/
INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REZONING FROM A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 59 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS
AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY ON 46.27 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT
8470 GALPIN BLVD AND LYMAN BLVD); SOUTHERN OAKS, SHER-BE R
PARTNERSHIP PROPERTIES.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: Is it appropriate for us to make any comment about the recommended change of
the Comp Plan here?
Hoffman: Sure.
Andrews: Okay. Does the applicant wish to add anything to this?
John Bergh: Board members, my name is John Bergh. I'm from Louckes and Associates.
First of all I'd like to show you a little bit larger scale plan. I did this one purposely just so
everybody could get a better view of it. Sometimes those that are folded up get some
wrinkles... First of all, the reason we decided, with the owners to try and do a single family
residential site here is because of the topography. It goes up and down. To give you an idea,
there's approximately 50 to 60 feet of relief in here. If you're going here to do some kind of
a commercial /industrial site, you're going to wipe out all the trees that are in here to level it
out. It currently goes up and down by 10 to 12 feet. For example, from the top of this hill,
it goes down about 12 feet. Comes up. Goes back down. It goes back up. Goes back
down. It's that leap frogging type thing that happens all over. That's the reason that we
decided to try single family in here rather than some commercial /industrial concerns. What
we've done is try to make a buffer between Trotter's Ridge and Stone Creek in the industrial
area down in here. We've done that by making these lots deeper. We've done that also by
creating some berming and ponding down in here along the Lyman Boulevard. What that
does is now it takes this integrity of this neighborhood to this one and creates the buffer and
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
natural transitional zones. The next issue that we had, or actually the only real issue that
we've got is, if we would, we've already dedicated approximately I think it's 7 feet here for
additional right -of -way. If you would grant another 10 feet. It starts to get to the point
where the actual granting or giving of the land is not the problem. The problem you've got is
from this point here. From this point here down to here, it drops 28 feet in about 90 feet.
Now if you try to move, and I understand Galpin Boulevard is going to be expanded and
widened and the trails put in in the next 1 to 3 years. If you try to adjust the road over in
here, what happens now is you start filling wetlands because of the slopes that are required.
The trail would be another issue that if you move the street and put the trail out here, you
have the same problem again. You've now got to have a land use site on the outside of the
trail. Again you're filling into the wetlands. You're destroying this buffer of trees that's in
here. The ideal thing would be to have the trail on this side. Now whether the city deals
with this or the county or whoever, I think this is an issue that's got to be brought up and
make sure everybody is aware of what's happening over here. The best case scenario in here,
it only drops 20 feet. Worst case, it drops about 29 so, and it's a very steep hill to deal with.
I know the Trotter's Ridge, they added an extra 10 feet on this side. I don't know if the intent
of the trail is to be on this side or this side. Nobody is.
Andrews: We don't know ourselves.
John Bergh: I did talk to the County. They have got no plans at this present time. The idea
of a trail coming down the western side is going to be a little bit prohibitive because of the
fact that this is a large wetland in here. There's some in here. And as you come down you're
going to run into a large wetland down in here. If there's a trail over in this way at all,
without going into Chanhassen, you're almost going to be forced to keeping all your trails
over here. I don't know where you get through here. I designed this industrial park. I know
exactly what's over there. This is real garbage and it drains out at this point. As a matter of
fact ... Dave Hempel asked me would I design this to make sure that our drainage came down
over in here because there's such a problem with drainage over in this area. So that's just a
couple of issues that I think should be brought up as to why this plan was done as it is and
why I've got a little problem with this and I don't know to deal with it.
Manders: This is Chaska right here then?
John Bergh: Yes. This is the border right here. ...which we constructed is right here.
There's a ponding area in here. This pond drains into that pond. This is a major basin in
here. As a matter of fact there's problems already with water in here that's not big enough.
So if you try to build a trail in here, you're going to create more problems.
Andrews: Well I don't think we were looking for a trail on the west edge, were we.
12
E
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
John Bergh: I thought Todd mentioned a trail along the west side.
Lash: I think you were talking about the west side.
John Bergh: Were you talking the west side of Galpin or the west side of the project?
Hoffman: West side of Galpin.
John Bergh: I didn't know that for sure. I didn't catch that before. So in essence I guess
that's the only issue that I can see that's a real problem is going to be how to address this, and
I don't know how and who addresses that issue but I just wanted to let you know why we
came up with the plan and all the reasons for it.
' Andrews: I've seen the Keystone brick walls deal with much more severe grades than that
with very successful results. Along the frontage road along Highway 7 near Minnetonka
High School. They had some real severe grades to deal with. Much more severe than this.
So it can be done. Obviously it costs money.
John Bergh: Oh yeah, and we did a rough cost estimate in here and to build a retaining wall
' along here, it runs about $12.00 per square feet. If you take 25 -28 feet times the 700 feet, it
gets to be pretty expensive.
' Andrews: Okay, thank you.
Lash: I had a question, and a problem I guess. I was looking at the recommendation about
' the park property and I guess my first question is, what do you estimate to be the average lot
size?
'
John Bergh: I think it was just over 15,000 square feet.
Lash: So like a quarter acre?
John Bergh: Excuse me?
'
Lash: About a quarter acre?
John Bergh: Yes.
Lash: Yeah, okay. I guess I'll ask Todd and maybe get input from some of the other
commissioners on this. I think to consider the elementary site as easily accessible for active
' 13
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
use is too far. And the wetlands in the northern, the future wetland base park site at the
southwest corner, I mean that's nice if you want to take a little walk through a natural area
but it's not an active use. And I originally thought it would be okay to have it there with
Stone Creek Park but from the sounds of it, and I don't know that we have a plan for Stone
Creek, but what did you say is going to be the actual usable size spot in that park Todd?
Hoffman: Very small.
Lash: Very small. So if you look at this plan of the city and you look at this site with 60,
roughly 60 homes, and you look at the one across and we just drove down there tonight. We
were talking about those houses. There's a lot of houses back in there. Lots of houses back
in there and I don't look at a small site in Stone Creek as filling the need for this part of town
right down there. And we've got Trotters Ridge. They're a little closer to the elementary
school but unless there's something else over in this area that's got some active use, I just
don't think that small spot at Trotter's Ridge is going to cut it. Anybody else have thoughts
about it? I can be convinced one way or the other.
Andrews: I'm going to jump out of turn. I had a concern both about what Jan's, sharing her
concerns as well as a concern of the Comp Plan itself and that would be, you know I'm a
taxpayer and a homeowner here and have seen property taxes continue to climb here. I think
most people would say we would prefer residential development to commercial development
but commercial development keeps taxes down. Provides jobs and allows our city to provide
other services for current residents so I do have a concern about the change of zoning itself.
Although if I were the person living next to this, I would just rather see a house built next to
me than a tip up concrete building. But I also understand that as a city we need a proper
balance so I guess I would hope that the city would be very prudent and careful in it's
consideration of the changing of the zoning and if the Planning Commission were to
determine that this site is more appropriate for residential development, I guess I could live
with that but I have a concern about that. As far as the development itself goes, I do feel that
the trail easement is necessary, even though it might be more costly. I've seen too many
instances where we have given up a trail because a developer or landowner has convinced us
that it's just too tough to do and then 4 years later we are here pulling our hair out and
spending 10 times the money we would have spent trying to find another way to do it so I do
have a concern about that change. So as far as an active use park, knowing how much land
we could get out of this on a dedication, I don't think that's going to do us much good. I do
feel yes, we're on the fringe of what the school could provide as far as active uses go but at
the same time the school would be a far nicer active use park than most citizens would have
and the intent here would be that we'd have very high quality trails linking us to the school
within a relatively short time so I guess I'd feel it'd be a better use of our money if this were
to be built as a residential property, to consider the school to be the active use site. So my
14
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
' position right now is that I'm concerned about the change of zoning. If the Planning
Commission sees this as an appropriate use then I would recommend we follow staff
recommendation and look for the trail easements and take the fees.
' Lash: What could we get for land dedication, 2 acres?
Hoffman: 2.5.
Andrews: It's a play lot. That's about what we'd get out of it.
' Lash: That's bigger than what we're putting across the street.
Andrews: Well Dave, if you want to jump back in here.
' Huffman: Well I just, I get nervous about giving away land that I think we can build parks
in, even if it's small. I mean we've heard the story before and I don't want to be a militant
' park board member but if we give it away, we can't get it back and we're trying to ask people
for more parks and for more land. I would definitely like to see the easement for the trail
without question and you do have bigger lots in there. Bigger yards for people to play in.
' That sort of thing and that becomes an advantage of one way or another but I would not like
to see the easement given up at all.
Manders: Yeah, there's no question in my mind that we have to have that easement.
Whether we use it or not is certainly another issue but we've got to have the easement. As
far as a park, I guess I'm not in favor of having a small 2 acre park. I don't want us to have
' a bunch of fragmented, small parks around so I personally wouldn't in favor of it.
Berg: I'd like to look into the idea of park dedication of land. I'm more concerned about the
' trails I guess at this point. My only request would be that we make sure that the trails are on
the same side of Galpin Boulevard. Maybe that's a statement of the obvious but that we're
not going from this development over to this side and having kids crossing a 3 or 4 lane
' highway all for the sake of maybe a little extra expense because there was a drop off.
Andrews: Or building half million dollar bridges to get us across.
Berg: Exactly.
' Andrews: Well we need a motion here and it sounds like we've got a real division, which
will be interesting here so.
15
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Lash: Well I guess I'd have to find out from what the developer said, it sounds like the
topography there maybe wouldn't even be conducive for us to try to get something to turn
into a little neighborhood park. I just, after hearing the people here earlier tonight, and you
hear how important that is to them and how badly they want to have something there for their
kids to do, I just have a problem with not trying to put something in here knowing that across
the road, that one is fairly accessible but it's so small. If that was a bigger, the site itself is
big enough but if we can't do anything with it, then it's not, I don't think it's going to fill the
need and we just.
Huffman: Well we also heard a group tonight say, they don't want anything on a piece of
property. I mean they just want an open space. And what's wrong with having 2 acres of
open space to go whack the ball, kick, I mean soccer is the game I'm hearing constantly now.
It's driving me crazy but what's wrong with having an open space? Because the topography
does play a factor in that and if that, to smooth it out and do, but you know, kids don't need a
flat place to play all the time. There's nothing wrong with actually doing things like
exercising and running around at a park. It's a novel concept. Playing on trees. Jumping up
and down. Swinging off stuff. Having fun. I need to think about it more and hear more
discussion from people but I sort of, if we give it up, we don't ever get it back.
Andrews: What we need to do here is we need a motion and then we can vote on it and that
way we can decide if we've got any direction. Otherwise we could all talk about.
Lash: Okay, but I guess I want to know, if this site isn't even worth taking a couple of acres
on, we should just know that up front.
Andrews: Okay, that I agree with.
Huffman: And that's fair.
Andrews: Do we have any topography information here?
Hoffman: Oh sure, you have it in your plans. They'd be perfectly able to find a spot for park
purposes. You have the option of, the application as it sits today at 59 homes would owe you
about 2 1/2 acres if you wanted to take dedication. That will go down slightly obviously
when you take 2 1/2 acres out of it so you end up to 2.2, 2.3, somewhere in that nature. And
for that you're by- passing $50,000.00- $54,000.00 in park fees so those are your two issues.
And that's about all. I mean they can certainly find a spot here but what you would like them
to do.
16
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
' Lash: I know that this is smaller than what we usually have as guidelines. We usually don't
like to get little bitty neighborhood parks all over everywhere like this to maintain but I think
' this is kind of a secluded part of town. It's right down on the border of Chaska.
Andrews: There is a flat area in that park across the way. It's there. How far away are we
' again from the school site, distance wise?
' Hoffman: Just over half a mile, which is 2,500 feet.
Huffman: If you can't walk 2,500 feet to go run for an hour. Like people parking at a health
' club.
Berg: See that's a long distance for little kids.
' Lash: Right, right. And that road is ultimately going to be busy. You know even with the
trail there, they're going to have to cross it to get to the school site and ultimately that's going
' to be a pretty busily traveled road I think with all the homes there and.
Andrews: I have a tough one with this because I look at, we've got half a dozen other park
' sites that are, that need stuff and I mean it's always rob Peter to pay Paul and we're always
doing it and I also start thinking geez. Go back the other way which is 2 acres of land. Boy,
2 acres of land a couple of years ago was $8,000.00. Now 2 acres of land is $50,000.00.
' Which way are we better off? I guess I personally feel that with a small park nearby, which
again granted isn't ideal, and with a first class active facility 2,500 feet away, I have a tough
time telling another neighborhood you can't have a park or you can't have your play area
' because we spent it here. That's just where I stand so.
Hoffman: You could ask to take a second look. This thing is going to get molded by the
' Planning Commission, City Council and a month, month and a half from now it may not look
anything like this. It may in fact go back all commercial. It may be half and half. When
they originally came in with a proposal, they wanted a convenience store type of application
' in the southern corner there so it's changed already and it's probably one to go future change
so if you want to look at it in May.
' Andrews: Well I asked you the question in the beginning would this come back.
' Hoffman: It will not come back, but if you would like it to come back, you can table it today
and ask for it to come back.
Huffman: But by the time it comes back.
J
17
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Hoffman: Changes may or may not be made.
Berg: It may become a moot point if the Planning Commission doesn't rezone.
Manders: Could I ask a question on the park that we're talking about? The small one that's
in there. What's some of the history behind that decision? I guess I don't recall.
Hoffman: Sunset Ridge? Or excuse me, across the street in Trotter's?
Manders: Yeah.
Hoffman: Trotter's to the north. Stone Creek. There was a long winded debate on that
parcel as well. It's the Hans Hagen Homes dedicated about 8.6 acres of land when they really
only owed the city about 6 acres of property. It's a mature creek property. Mature wooded
creek property and then it comes up and it has some street frontage. Small flat spot on top
and then a slope down to the bottom.
Manders: So the size of the park is how much?
Hoffman: The size of the open area is an acre. But again it has a severe slope right in the
middle of it.
Lash: So ultimately what are we going to be able to put in there? Some playground
equipment?
Hoffman: Picnic tables and playground equipment. It has some trail connections which go
through it. If you recall, there was a heated debate over whether or not that park should be
moved out in the middle into more open space so you could create a larger neighborhood
park and then it was back and forth, back and forth. This was the selected location.
Lash: Well I think at the time we wanted to take advantage of the wooded area and some of
that for the natural beauty there, which I still agree with, but then we've got to have the
balance. And I don't know that we're getting the balance now.
Berg: I would move that we table this item until at least the May meeting or the Planning
Commission has made a decision on rezoning.
Lash: Second.
Andrews: Any further discussion?
18
7
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
' Berg moved, Lash seconded that the Paris and Recreation Commission table action on the
land development proposal for Southern Oaks, Sherber Partnership Properties, until the
Planning Commission has made a decision on the rezoning. All voted in favor, except
Commissioner Andrews who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
SELECTION OF VENDOR POWER HILL PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.
' Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: I've got some questions. Just to refresh my memory as well as to educate those
that may not have known. Which of these vendors have we dealt with before and what has
been our experience, if you want to summarize that, in your opinion.
' Hoffman: The city has purchased equipment from three of the four vendors. Earl F.
Anderson. The city has a majority of landscape structures, equipment within the city. It
' started with the redwood play equipment, which most communities and landscape structures
in the south ... most parts of the city switched with that trend to the metal pole systems and we
have 3 metal pole systems from Earl F. Anderson Landscape Structures as well. The product
and service have been good. Not any real issues. We have the one that's located at the
elementary school site, which is the green and tan piece up here and so that piece lies in the
school district. We also have the second vendor, Flanagan Sales represents Iron Mountain
' Forge. The city purchased through that Community Development Block Grant funding the
piece which you saw over there which was yellow, orange, blue on the playground to the
north of the school. That piece of equipment has been maintained since that time by the
' school district so other than the loose grab angles on it, I can't tell you a lot about
maintenance. They sent down a company representative to work with, the city did install the
equipment and they sent down a representative to do that. The third vendor that we've dealt
' with directly is Value Recreation and their equipment is similar in quality to Earl F.
Anderson. At least that's what their representatives tell us and from what we've seen in the
parks at Pheasant Hills this evening, I think you'd probably agree. The fourth one is Piece of
' Gametime, which the city has not directly dealt with. The school district, through an APT
group did purchase a piece from Gametime equipment which you saw again at the school. So
we've dealt with 3 out of the 4 and I believe the Park Commission's...
' Manders: Where was the Gametime at?
Hoffman: Gametime was the piece, the second piece over at the school, on the side.
Lash: Closest to the street or closest to the tennis courts?
19
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Hoffman: Closest to the street.
Andrews: The one the kids were playing on. Well I hate going through these process
because it's such a subjective decision as to what you like and what you don't like and being
that I'm a little bit older than most of the users of these pieces of equipment, I think it's hard
for us to really judge what's really best. I guess the most frustrating thing, and I'm sure Jan
will agree with this, is that every year we get less and less for more and more and it's
frustrating to see how little we can buy. My only preference, and it's only by design, is I like
the Flanagan design just because it presents a circular path which I think a lot of kids would
turn into a game of tag or adventure on some sort of a spaceship or something. I don't know
what but that's really it. I mean I think all the equipment that we've seen has been fairly
good equipment. As far as service goes, I think we've been able to get the service we require
and to be honest, we can't really predict for sure what the future may bring so my preference
is only just I think it's a neater looking design so that's it. So let's start to go around.
Manders: I think I can rank 1 and 2 and then the other two I don't think, I'm really not as
interested in them. The one that I would put number 1 is the Minnesota Wisconsin one that
maybe has some question in terms of it's layout and meeting ADA guidelines but I think we
can work around it. And the reason that I like it is, I think you get the most for what's
offered and I think there's the most options. It just seems to me it provides you the most for
your money, in my opinion. The second one that I would consider would be the Earl F.
Anderson would be number 2 and then the other two would be, I guess I wouldn't consider
the other two.
Andrews: Okay.
Berg: I don't know. I look at this like Jim. I look at bang for the buck and Iron Mountain
sort of struck as me the same way.
Andrews: Which is the Flanagan piece?
Berg: Yeah, yeah. But I could be swayed in either direction probably—As much of a variety
as possible.
Manders: So which one are you in favor of?
Berg: I'll falling down on Iron Mountain, Flanagan.
Lash: Okay I would, my first choice would be Minnesota Wisconsin for a couple of different
reasons. I like the configuration compared to the parking lot and the homes. Here we've got
20
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
' the swingsets nearest the homes. The least, probably the quieter of the activities. I think the
other things get a little noisier and I like the, there's some things here I haven't seen on any of
our plans in a long time. Things like a chain bar. A turning bar. Some of those kind of
things. The track ride I think is very popular with older kids and some of the other structures
didn't have a track ride so that was the deciding thing for me. One other one had a track
' ride, and I forget which one it was but I thought that it looked like we were getting more
equipment for the money with Minnesota Wisconsin. My second choice, the Iron Mountain, I
guess I like the circular thing like Jim said but I don't see a track ride on that one so that
' wasn't really in the running I guess for me. Really none, this was my favorite. I'm not even
going to give a number to. How's that? That will make it easier for me. You guys can
finish arguing. The other thing I was going to say is, with today's children, they have total
lack of upper arm development and this one I think provides more upper arm apparatus. With
the track ride, the chinning bar, the training bar, the horizontal loop ladder, the double trapeze
' ring. They can, that's a lot of upper arm strength.
Berg: Does losing the swings bother you?
' Lash: The what?
' Berg: Losing the swings.
Lash: No, because it still ends up with 4 and that's what all the other ones had anyway so
' this one had two extra.
Huffman: That does bug me. I like the swings. I think it would cut down on swings.
' There's more small kids up there that like to hang around swings. Swing for hours. Flanagan
or Minnesota Wisconsin.
t Andrews: Okay. I had one more comment which is, as a businessman, when you put out
something for a bid and the bid is sent in that doesn't meet the specs of the bid, to me that's a
major black mark. These people are professionals. They were all given the same
' information. Three out of the four found it within their ability to provide a plan that met the
specifications. To come back and say, well this is our bid but it's really not our bid, we're
going to change it, makes me nervous. I just, those kinds of situations often times turn into
' headaches so that's the reason I didn't consider Wisconsin. We need to make a
recommendation on this decision and it's not going to be an easy one.
' Huffman: I'll make a recommendation for Power Hills Park, we look at Flanagan Sales.
' Andrews: I'd like to second that one. Any more discussion about that particular plan?
21
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Berg: I find myself, I'm now arguing against myself.
Lash: I thought I was the only one that did that.
Berg: Well no Jan, sometimes I wish you weren't here.
Lash: Sometimes I do too.
Berg: Because I wind up with this, I remember having this discussion every time we look at
park equipment. I get to this point and I've got my mind set and then I look at the person
who uses play equipment every day in her job, and I think she knows more about it than I do
I yield to your expertise on this one, if you're willing to address being an expert in play
equipment.
Lash: Well gee, you flatter me Fred and I work with littler kids. You know this is the next
older age bracket so I can't.
Berg: But you know what kids like.
Lash: Yeah. I know what gets used. The swings get used. I'll tell you what is really
popular and I'd like to see us put in every one is a tire swing. I mean the kids love tire
swings.
Huffman: They sit on it for hours and hours and hours.
Lash: Yeah, so you know I wouldn't have a problem at all with putting in 3 belt swings in
this plan and a tot swing and maybe in a year or two put a little extension and put a tire
swing on it. I think it would be great.
Hoffman: You can put it right back on where you lost the two.
Lash: Yep. I'm looking at bang for the buck here. What I think looks like more equipment
and I agree. I want to express disappointment in anyone who sends in a bid who doesn't
meet our specs. That turns me off immediately too but part of me says, I have to overcome
that and try to get on with trying to get the most we can get for our money and the biggest
variety of things and I think this has a nice variety. It's got several slides. It's got a lot of
different climbing things. It's got a clatter bridge. It's got a crawling tube.
Andrews: You're referring to the Wisconsin?
22
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Lash: Yeah. And it's got a lot of equipment to build upper arm strength so I think it really
has a nice variety here.
Berg: Do we know anything about their track record Todd? Is there information available?
As to how reliable.
Hoffman: Nothing totally objective.
Lash: Well I'm assuming you wouldn't have sent one to them if they had a terrible record.
Hoffman: The equipment which I purchased in Shorewood is Gametime equipment. The
plan that they had down before you. You saw the piece, we did have the experience at the
elementary school with the arched bridge ... at the well. That piece of play equipment there so
that was an issue. That's an older piece of equipment as I mentioned.
Lash: How were they as far as, I mean were they willing to help repair it? Was it under
warranty or was it way beyond that?
Hoffman: No, it was way beyond warranty but they certainly came down and took it away
and repaired it as an embarrassment.
Huffman: Where are all the neighborhood residents now? We need them. You demanded it.
Now what do you want?
Andrews: I guess I'm asking as a commission member, what's your opinion of some of the
alternatives here we talked about?
Huffman: Have you seen the pieces? Did you see them when they looked, I mean from
' nobody's going to identify you. This is Mike, right? You know, what did you see? What do
you like?
' Mike Korth: I'd have to take a closer look at it I guess.
Lash: You know given the fact there's going to be another phase down the road. Not next
' year obviously but in a few years, that would be a scaled down version for younger kids so
you would have more of a totlot type thing and then this is geared more for 5 and up.
' Andrews: This is supposed to be targeted at what age?
' Lash: 5 to 12.
23
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Mike Korth: I guess I really didn't get too much of a recommendation or input from Todd. I
don't think he ... detail of a lot of these. I'd like to take a little bit more...
Hoffman: The method of awarding playground equipment, I'll be quite honest with you, has
changed in the city of Chanhassen and I have removed myself from it for a variety of reasons.
In the past I was accused of conflict of interest in making recommendations on playground
equipment so that has changed. If the commission would like to reconsider that approach and
if you do not feel comfortable selecting vendors, you can ask me to make recommendations.
I will do that. You can also ask that the vendors themselves, the representatives of the
companies are more than willing to come in and give you their half hour proposal, 15 minute
proposal on each piece of play equipment. The companies who you are not considering this
evening will certainly tell you that they are being beat out based on quality and on service.
Not on some of the finer points of the playground equipment and I'm sure you recognize
those issues but when it comes right down to it, when people call and I express what I
believe the Park Commission will be selecting equipment based on, it is on the bang for the
buck. The most equipment from, these are all national vendors. Certainly they're not going
to be in business in doing considerable amount of business in the playground field if they
don't provide some essence of quality so. That's what I can offer.
Huffman: I don't have an issue saying we shouldn't decide. I don't have an issue with that. I
mean I think what we're looking is, Jim and Jan have both hit on it. You spend so much and
here's what you get. So I guess what we're trying to get is every penny of value that we can
get. Now we're guessing for x number of residents. We're not trying to throw away the
decision and lay it off at somebody else's doorstep I don't believe, but if there is a mitigating
circumstance that would weigh heavily in favor of somebody or not on somebody...
Mike Korth: One thing to keep in mind, I keep hearing you're getting more bang for your
buck.
Hoffman: Mike, could you come up please.
Mike Korth: You keep saying you're getting more bang for your buck and I know the
Gametime play structure.
Andrews: Excuse me, you need to give us your name and address please.
Mike Korth: Mike Korth. I'm one of the vendors, Value Recreation.
Andrews: Thank you.
24
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Mike Korth: I know that it looks on there like you're getting a lot of play equipment. Keep
in mind, if you see where the line cuts through there, you're losing at least a third of that and
then they're going to have to reconfigure it and I'm not sure what they're going to be left over
with after they're done. The second thing, if you went and visited those sites, if it comes
down to one of the two that you're looking at right now, I know a lot of the people up in that
neighborhood. I think you're better off serving them by going with Iron Mountain Forge of
the two. Their equipment is far superior than Gametime Equipment is. If you look at that
equipment over there, the paint's faded. The plastic's are faded. That's fairly typical of their
equipment. It looks great in the catalog but over time it doesn't hold up. I don't know if
that's appropriate for me to say that but you're not looking that seriously at my proposal so at
least I'll step in and tell you which one, the equipment is better on Iron Mountain Forge. On
both of them I think what you're seeing, Todd had mentioned earlier that the quality of our
equipment is similar to Landscape Structures and I believe that's true also. I think we're
considered a Cadillac I guess in the playground industry. When you say you get less, you
might be getting more in quality. The stuff may hold up longer. Your plastics are better.
They're not going to fade. They're not going to break. Moving parts are going to hold up
longer. The swings that you're getting on I believe both of those proposals are what's called
standard swings. Those are swings that maybe are sold a lot at daycare centers and high end
residential. They're not heavy duty swingsets with only two legs at each ends. So those are
little things that I'm not sure if you've looked at as far as what you're getting the bang for the
buck. We've cut back on some things to give you more on your design but if you are looking
seriously at those two, that's fine with me but of the two, you're getting a lot better equipment
with Iron Mountain Forge.
Manders: And I guess the question I would have for Todd is, is the kinds of things that we
maybe had pointed out when we're down at Pheasant Hills and we're sitting on the swing
seeing it rocking a bit and maybe the comment that this gentleman made as far as the
equipment maybe having the outer finish looking good but you know, underneath how sturdy
is it. Those kinds of opinions are what I'm really after to see, is the swing made out of a 3
inch pipe instead of a 5 inch pipe that's going to stand up and stay there or is it going to fall
over in 2 years. And if that's what this Wisconsin one is, then I have less enthusiasm for it.
But on paper it looks like the variety and the things that Jan point out in terms of options, I
think are very appealing but is it going to stand up and that's where I'm not sure.
Hoffman: Again, and to clarify for Mike. The plan that they have excludes that second
phase. It's not in their drawing on gametime. The one I showed on the board had the second
phase. The plan they have doesn't have it. Doesn't show the second phase. The large plan
that you have.
Manders: Right, it doesn't.
25
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Hoffman: Yeah, it doesn't have that second phase. In regard to the quality and the durability.
Again, the equipment, the field visits we took tonight was an attempt to at least have you,
give you the opportunity to take a look at that equipment which has been out in the field and
I pointed out some of the issues when we were out there. We didn't have a lot of time. The
best way to hear about quality is to have those vendor representatives in and I guess whatever
decision you make tonight, I would like some additional direction in how you would, since
we are seemingly struggling with this, how you would like this process handled in the future.
I can sit here and if you want an opinion, my opinion on quality, I can give you that opinion
and the opinion you receive from the vendors will be different in certain instances. Now
again, if you want to ask for that, I've given that in the past and when I say in the past, that's
been 3 or 4 years since I've made a recommendation on a selection of a vendor for
playground equipment. And we don't have to go into detail why that process has changed. I
think you're all aware of that.
Lash: Can I ask you a quick question? And you maybe told me but I forgot. Do we have
Gametime anywhere in the city now?
Hoffman: Not that the city has purchased but the piece that we looked at.
Lash: And that's the one closest to the street?
Hoffman: Correct. And then Shorewood has it at Freeman and at another park.
Lash: And I'm assuming it comes in a wide variety of colors so we don't have to go, we
wouldn't have to go with that.
Hoffman: All of them come in a variety of colors.
Lash: Well part of me is willing to try new things, and I think we tried that at Pheasant Hills
and I hate to see us get locked in with the same vendor all the time and never try other
people and we might find something new that's better. We might make a mistake too and
find something that's not as good, but I guess sometimes I'm willing to take that risk. I know
there's a motion already and I think it's for the Flanagan one so maybe we need to call a vote
on that and...
Andrews: Yeah, I was going to say, let's clear that one up.
Huffman: Yeah, I'd like to go ahead and just, for the Powers Hill Park, that we use Flanagan
Sales as the vendor.
26
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Andrews: We've got a motion, and who made the motion? You were. And I seconded it so
we need somebody else to call the question. Somebody please do that so we can at least get.
Lash: Okay, I'll call for a vote.
Huffman moved, Andrews seconded that the Paris and Recreation Commission accept the
proposal submitted by Flanagan Sales for the playground equipment bid at Power Hills Paris.
Andrews and Huffman voted in favor and the rest of the Commission voted in opposition.
The motion failed.
Andrews: Okay, that motion's defeated.
Lash: Okay, I move that we accept the bid from Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground given the
alterations that will need to be done for Power Hill Park.
Andrews: Is there a second to that?
Berg: I'll second.
Andrews: Again, I'm going to ask for discussion. I guess I'd want to make sure that they do
comply with these verbal updates that were given to us. It does bother me that a company
does that. Any other discussion?
Berg: What kind of warranties do we get with these things?
' Hoffman: Warranties are all fairly similar. There's copies of the warranties on each of the
proposals.
Manders: Some of them said up to 100 years. On hardware.
Hoffman: 3 to 15 years on the Gametime.
Andrews: Okay, we have a motion. Is there any further discussion?
Lash moved, Berg seconded that the Paris and Recreation Commission accept the proposal
from Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground for the playground equipment at Power Hill Paris. All
voted in favor, except Huffman who opposed and Andrews who abstained, and the motion
carried.
27
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Lash: I'm going to make a suggestion that we go with a color combo similar to what we
have at Pheasant Hills,
Andrews: I agree. Kind of natural colors.
Lash: Right. Especially in that spot.
Andrews: Todd..suggest we come up with a different way to approach this. I don't know of
any good way. I've been thinking myself, you know point system but I can imagine how
cumbersome that could be. I also understand the predicament you get yourself in if we throw
it back to you as to finger pointing or accusations of unfair or unpublic treatment. I don't
know what the solution is.
Lash: I don't have a problem with this process. I think this is what we're here for. We need
to argue it out trying to do the best job we can and I don't think Todd needs the aggravation.
Andrews: I agree. This isn't fun but we've got to do it.
Huffman: Thank you very much for your help and insight. I really appreciate that. It's a
tough spot and thank you for your help and cooperation.
REVIEW LIST OF POTENTIAL PARK AND TRAIL BOND REFERENDUM ITEMS;
FINAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Lash: If these sites are outside of the MUSA line, say we were to acquire one, like we did
Bandimere, and then the MUSA line comes through there, does that property automatically
end up with sewer and water service and then the city would be responsible for those
assessments or how does that work?
Hoffman: No. The sewer and water line would assuredly cut through this piece, or be
adjacent to it. It's probably be going up and down Audubon. We would just purchase a
single connection for the park building or we would tap into the water source for irrigation
Lash: No, I understand that but anyone with property, when sewer and water comes through,
gets assessed usually a significant amount for that. So would the city then be responsible for
paying that assessment or is that, I'm not sure how that works?
28
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Hoffman: In many cases would be. The city is assuming a portion of the assessments at
you h'
the Harstad property in Minnewashta. You're certainly, if somebody petitions for utilities,
you're not going to run it through this entire piece to get to their parcel if there's another
alternative because you do want to escape those costs for the city. Protect the city's interest.
' It's something I did not investigate. I could investigate that with the City Engineering
department. They do have a long range sewer and water utility.
' Lash: Okay.
Todd Hoffman continued with his staff report
' Andrews: Todd, do you recall what our little grid came up with as far as property tax versus
total dollars?
Lash: I think at one time we were looking at $6 million, right?
' Andrews: That was the top end.
Lash: Yeah, and what kind of implication did that have? That was around $120.00 a year or
something, wasn't it?
Hoffman: $4 to $6 million, I'll get the chart for you.
Lash: It seems to me that was around $10.00 a month I figured.
' Andrews: I think a little more than that but it depends on what size you're in too.
Lash: Well yeah. You know the average $100,000.00 house in town.
'
Berg: And where are those again?
' Andrews: Which one? My number one priority was the 87 acre parcel. Parcel 3D. That to
me was highest priority and I guess I'd combine that with the improvement of Bandimere
because we cannot go to the citizens of this city and say give us money to buy more land
when we're sitting there with 30 some or 40 acres that they gave us money for 10 years ago
and we haven't improved that. I think that makes us look like fools. But I would say those
' two would go together. I certainly think the Fox property would be a parcel that 30, 40 years
from now, after the city has been completely developed, to have a 40 acre wooded site would
be a jewel that would be envied throughout the whole metro area. I would hope that we
could do that one. My personal opinion of all, and also I just kind of grabbed a number out
' 29
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
of thin air which is to say we maybe need about a half a million dollars or so for the Bluff
Creek waterway. I know that there's several other agencies involved with that project that
have money so I'm hoping that if we have some money there, we could combine and be
efficient.
Lash: I have a question. Can I ask you guys input on this, especially Dave I guess, on Bluff
Creek. As long as we're right there. This only includes from Lyman to Pioneer. What about
all the rest of it?
Huffman: Todd explained this evening that, just ... I heard, he said that most of the acquisition
of it has begun or was taking place north of the Bluff Creek corridor. Is that correct?
Lash: North of Lyman? North of TH 5?
Hoffman: The Bluff Creek corridor you're talking about?
Lash: Yeah. Well on here you have from Lyman to Pioneer so I'm concerned about all of it
that's north of there and all of it that's south of there.
Hoffman: Okay. North of there, from Lyman north, the writing's on the wall. Developments
have come through. The city's acquired land where it could. We've acquired easements in
other locations. South, we essentially have two property owners remaining.
Lash: So north is taken care of already?
Hoffman: Yep. North is taken care of South you have Charles Webber, landowner. Not
interested in selling the property at the present date. Interested in staying in his home and on
his property for an extended period of time and then the city would need to be in a position at
such time as he decided to change use of his property, to go ahead and acquire it. The other
holding is the Bluff Creek Golf Course and it is on the docket for consideration.
Lash: So there's really nothing we can do with any other part of it, at this time? So would
we need to figure money, even though we would have, the city would have access to it north,
how about money to do anything with it?
Andrews: A trust?
Lash: Well, not only that. Not putting in a trail even. Just grading out there. It costs
money to do that kind of stuff so.
30
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Hoffman: Yeah, that's a good point. Since we do have, with the exception of one piece, the
whole puzzle is put together from TH 5 to Lyman. That is a discrepancy on this list. You
could put that in there as a referendum item and within the next year, have those parcels put
together and build that trail from the school, along Heritage, underneath the railroad, down to
Lyman and have a very nice piece of trail.
Andrews: Take a wild guess, how much?
Hoffman: $300,000.00 to $400,000.00.
Andrews: I used $500,000.00 just as a wild guess but.
Lash: For everything on here, for Bluff Creek that we could do. Okay.
Hoffman: Half a million would be better with the bridges.
Andrews: I mean I guesstimated a million for the Fox property. A million in round numbers
for the Parcel 3D. A half million for Bluff Creek, so there's $2 1/2 million right there. I can
only speak for those us that live close to TH 101 that, the frustration of having the ball
constantly passed over to somebody else saying we can't do anything about it because the
State. We're waiting for the State and the State's saying, we don't want it. We want the
County to take it. The County says we don't want it. We want the city to take it. I'm
personally in disagreement that nothing can be done there but we need to do something for
the trail, if nothing else to put money in trust so that when the opportunity comes, we don't
have to at that point say, well now the opportunity is here but we still can't build it because
we don't have the money.
Huffman: Would an effective way of doing this instead of, and again a suggestion. There's
' four specific items here. I think Bandimere is something we can all check off at this point
and just say, that is without question our number one goal. But would it help to go 1, 2, 3, 4.
Go every individual and get an opinion on each item? I'm trying to keep track and I'm going
to have to take my shoes off here and use toes to count in a minute.
Andrews: Well why don't we do that. That's easy enough to do.
Huffman: Jim, you've already got 2 of the 4.
' Andrews: Yeah actually I've said 3 things. The Bandimere. The 3D parcel and Fox I
consider biggies and I guess I see all three of those as things that we ought to do.
' 31
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Huffman: With Bluff Creek?
Andrews: With Bluff Creek, to me the only other issue for me personally is money set aside
for the trails. I personally feel that the Highway 101 trail is different than the other three in
that the other three are all County roads. They're all on a time line for the County to at some
point take responsibility for. Whereas Highway 101 north is a problem that nobody wants to
deal with and I think it needs to be handled a little differently but that's just my opinion. I
personally don't feel that we could afford to buy the golf course, and I personally don't think
the Assumption Seminary is the right piece of property to invest in. That's where I'm at.
Huffman: Okay.
Lash: I did my little $6 million list here. I came up with Bandimere at $1.5, roughly. That
gives us a little breathing space. I picked a number for Fox at $600,000.00 I guess, which is
here or there. Half a million for Bluff Creek. Didn't we kick around $1.7 for the 80 acres?
That's 1B and 3D together. Is that right?
Hoffman: 87 acres. 1.5. 1.6.
Lash: Okay, around in there. And $2 million for trails. And those would be the things I
guess I would list as my priorities and you add those together and it's about $6 million right
there. I guess I disagreed with one of the things you said Jim. At this point, I'm not going to
say I'm going to be closed minded about it. From being at the public hearing, I don't think
that people would think badly of us if we asked them to purchase land, even if we didn't
develop Bandimere. Not that I don't think we need to develop Bandimere but I heard a
message, I thought pretty clearly from them that they thought acquiring land right now was
more important than developing the property that we have because they always see that as
something that can be done down the road. And I think I felt their priority was getting land
now. So I wouldn't, at least point I wouldn't have a problem in seeing these things separated
into 3 different areas. One, development of what we have. One of acquiring new property
and one of trails and seeing what we get.
Andrews: I think your trail dollars are overly ambitious. I don't think we need to do much
on the Powers, Galpin or Highway 41 because I think those all come on the County's money
I mean I know they're up for programming now. It's not going to happen for years to come
but they're talking about it so.
Lash: Well I was looking at including all four. I think with TH 5 having the new trail in all
the way along there, I think having some north /south connections there to get people.
32
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Andrews: They're different problems. I mean the County, those are County roads. The
County knows they have to take care of so.
Lash: Yeah, but if it's not going to happen for 10 years, 15 years, we don't know how long
that's going to be.
Hoffman: If the County ever upgrades them, they'll ask for the city to pay for the trails.
Andrews: Okay, whatever. Let's move on. That's you Dave.
Huffman: Bandimere. Without question. Preserving the lots. Everybody looks, it looks like
if there's a way we can put 3D and 1B together, that looks like a pretty interesting deal.
You're dealing with one individual. One group at least. You've got two uses right next to
each other. You've got a unique pond in the wooded area. I think that as Todd said up north
of Lyman, the Bluff Creek, we're going to get some of it. Some of it we're never going to
see. If we have a segment that we can preserve and hold onto, 10 -15 years from now, 20
years from now people are going to look at that and go wow. Somebody had some foresight
and I think that's pretty imperative that we get some information with that. Mentioned 3D.
The trail segments. Todd mentioned that we've got 9, 10, 11 miles. I know that there are
people on this Board who like to bike farther than I can drive a car somedays but it makes
sense if we can go up Powers and we can jump on to somebody else's trail system or if we
can get up through Excelsior and get onto the railroad bed. If we can get our segments
completed into Eden Prairie. If we can do some things to connect out, nothing wrong with
people parking their car at a park, getting on the trail and riding for 15, 20, 30 miles. It
happens every weekend. Every day. I will be the lone voice in saying, you know special
interest. I think we have a unique opportunity, as many other communities have around the
country, to create. There's nothing wrong with being revenue producing in funding some of
the things we want to do. You've heard my piece before and if we have an opportunity here
and we have a group of individuals in the community who would buy into it, I'll stand out on
the point and say I still think we should consider Bluff Creek.
Lash: I wouldn't be opposed to that if was a separate item on a referendum.
Andrews: That's the golf course you mean?
Huffman: And you know what, I'll let it stand out there. I'll let it stand out by itself.
Lash: I mean if people are willing to pay for it, I don't care.
Huffman: Pick and choose.
33
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Andrews: What does, I don't have a calculator. I'm just not sure of my decimal places there.
If we were to take $10,000.00 an acre for that, what does that work out to be?
Huffman: Too low.
Andrews: Well it probably is but just as a very conservative estimate. Is that $22 million?
Hoffman: $2.2 million.
Andrews: That's a bargain. I'll buy that myself. I'll find a bank.
Huffman: Stand in line.
Andrews: Never get it for that so. Okay. I've already said my spiel so.
Manders: Okay. Couple things that get my attention. Referring back, I can't get it out of my
head when you talk about preservation. To me that's the biggest issue and getting to Jan's
point, I think that's the big thing that I got out of the town meeting. Is preservation. To that
point, are we at all still concerned going back to Lake Lucy, Lake Ann, that wooded area up
there. Is that something that we're not considering here or is being not considered for a
reason? Too pricey? Not likely to happen? What?
Hoffman: It's all with inside the MUSA. No one can predict when the present user of that
property will terminate that use. However it's likely that it will continue for an extended
period of time. It was very clear that the people, they're not going to bankroll you $2 million
for something in the future. Prince Nelson is not selling his property today. So what you're
going to have to wait for is at the point when he leaves the community, the property is up for
sale and then you're going to have to work with either the courting developer at that point, or
you are going to have to go ahead and say hey folks, community of Chanhassen. We've got a
fire sale opportunity here. This has been in our comprehensive plan since day one. Can you
see the vision? Can you see the trail around Lake Ann? Do you want to preserve those
trees? We're going to put a referendum out to you in 4 months. That property will, a million
and a half was conservative so at any time in the future, it will be over $2 million, would you
like to do it. You're not going to buy the property today. Condemnation of the property
would be an option.
Andrews: A nightmare is what it would be.
34
F
L!
L
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Hoffman: It's a nightmare. Hennepin Parks did it for the regional park on Lake Minnetonka
so you have to put your priorities in a row and that item was low on the list of these issues. It
certainly was considered.
Lash: And that I think needs to be a high priority but given those constraints, there's nothing
we can do about it. However, I can remember many years ago when we thought getting a
park on Lake Minnewashta was a high priority and we knew it wouldn't be for many years
down the road but we at that time decided it was a priority for us and we started bankrolling
a little money. Every year out of our budget we took a chunk and started a fund so when the
opportunity did come, at least we had a little bit of a jump start on it and we could go to
people and say look it, we've been trying to save for 10 years and this is what we've got but
we haven't got enough and we need you to come up with another a million or whatever it
would end up being. But I think it shows them that we sincerely want that property and so I
would suggest that we keep that in mind come budget time.
Manders: And I think that probably would. What I'm getting at, as much as anything, is not
forget about it but to do what we can to maybe keep the candle lit there.
Lash: It's surprising how quick that money.
Huffman: Where would you come up with some extra funds like that?
Lash: We didn't come up with extra funds.
Berg: We need a revenue producer.
Manders: I'm not so far off center with this idea of the golf course either. I like the idea. I
don't know what the probability is but I like the idea of some thought of paying our own way,
if you will. And again I think it probably needs to stand by itself because if it's included with
everything else, it's liable to cause.
Huffman: I don't want to sink everything for one thing but I will let it float on it's own.
Manders: Yeah.
Hoffman: It would be a different kind of bond. You would apply for a revenue bond for the
golf course. It does not impact your bonding limitations whereas the other bonds and the
general obligation bonds do.
35
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Manders: Then I would concur about a park site. I guess to me the one problem I have is
that it's bordering, it's benefitting Chaska as much as it is us in terms of it's location. I don't
know that we have much other option but I guess I need to say that.
Lash: Oh we have control of it. We have the scheduling so as far as ballfields, we have
total control over there and if people want to go over there and use the playground
equipment, I don't care.
Manders: ...half mile distance that we try to park service, that you lose a half mile the other
way because you're not, but that's fine too. And the final point that I want to make is, talking
about trails, and these are the ones that are identified, are there other segments that Dave
eluded to that need to be highlighted in terms of connectors or things that we can speed up
that aren't necessarily part of trails? And I guess I'm thinking of, I don't know, maybe the
Bluff Creek thing. Is there any things along there that we could put access trails in or new
developments that are going in? Linkage points. I guess my mind running from the hook -up
with Eden Prairie or getting into Excelsior or some other linkage point. Maybe even out in
the western part. Are those trails complete that we're not waiting for road upgrades to deal
with those?
Hoffman: If there was any minor connection points that could happen, you would know
about them because staff would be aware of them and even more so than that, the community
would be asking for them. We're a developing community. Trails, roads, always lag behind
the houses. The houses come in first and then the roads and the trails come after. It's just a
matter of development. Once you get these north /south segments in there, there's going to be
dozens of little connector routes for people to get out of their neighborhood onto these trails
which will come up. And if there is an easement set aside, then they'll come to the fore
front. But the piece, the Bluff Creek trail from Highway 5 go Lyman is a very good point.
The City has acquired easements for at least 20 years in that corridor. The Sun Ridge Court
piece, 15 years. The Sun Ridge trail court pieces is a long standing plat. Way back when
somebody said, you know somebody's going to want a trail along that Bluff Creek corridor so
let's get an easement. And then the other properties came in and there's 6 or 8 properties,
starting with the school and Heritage and on down the line that have come in. The Rod
Grams piece. The Chaska Business Center piece, which we've acquired either, for the most
part outright ownership of the creek corridor so, but there's no funding mechanism for the
trail in there. And Jan is correct, we should consider including that.
Manders: I know I said the last thing but I've got to ask one more question. These are
annual dollar amounts on your projected tax increment. So when you say $5 million at
$100,000.00, that's $32.00 annually?
9M
C!
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Hoffman: Correct. For 15 years.
Manders: Yeah.
Lash: So that one person in town would have a $32.00. That one. Do we know which
house that is Jim? Everybody else would have a $100.00 increase.
Andrews: Fred.
Berg: I, of course support Bandimere. My second priority I guess would be acquisition of
3D and 1B. I support the Bluff Creek waterway over Fox because of cost and because of it's
proximity to the parcel that we're just talking about. To 1B and 3D. But would put Fox right
after that. I think looking at all the trails is a good idea. At the risk of whatever, I guess I
don't have a real big problem with the golf course being a separate item but I'm concerned
about perception, as I said before, and I'm just concerned that there's the perception that this
is, excuse the word, frivolous. Compared to what we're talking about here in terms of selling
this for the next 25 years. That these are needs that we see for 25 years and I see such a
difference between the two. I understand the money making potential and I understand what
you're saying. I'm just worried about the perception. Even if it's a separate item. What were
they thinking of? They're telling us they need to develop Bandimere. They did that for 10
years. We're thinking so long range on all of these other things, and then to put the golf
course on seems to be contradictory to the rest of the items that we're talking about here.
Huffman: Noted. I can go back to last Friday's Star Tribune. Golf Magazine. I out of 9
golfers in America comes from Minnesota. We grew the largest number of golf courses in
the State. We are growing larger, bigger, faster numbers. This is a state that demands and is
working towards it faster and harder than everywhere else, even with less capability of
playing. Again, I will offer this is that I will not stand in the way of these other issues and
items that I believe they are paramount. They are absolutely paramount and I will be willing
to not fight that fight, except I truly believe that because of those other perceptions, there are
and I'll go back to Jan's mission statement when we were talking about the snowmobile club.
Our need is to serve all segments of this community and when I go out to Deer Run and I get
out there at 5:30 on Thursday morning because I'm going to beat the rush and there's 4
groups that have already gone off in front of me, and I go down to Bluff Creek and I go out
to Edenvale and I go to Bearpath and I go to Chaska and Dahlgren and we drive to Belle
Plain now and I look and see, I think that if we're going to explore something, I'm not afraid
to let it stand on it's own merit.
37
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Berg: I agree with you. The other difference I see with what you're saying is all these other
things are things we don't have. I can still go out and play at that golf course, whether the
City of Chanhassen owns it or not.
Huffman: Correct.
Berg: And that's I guess is crystallizing for me why I see it as more frivolous than the others.
Huffman: Correct. Again, noted and accepted and I'll go right back to Jan. We need a war
chest of ..Jim wants. We ain't going to get it from the city government. We're not going to
get it in a budget review. We're not going to get it anywhere else. And Fred, I'm willing to
back down because of the other things, except that issue. If I'm wrong, I'm going to be
proven well wrong but I'd sure like to see it sail it on the river first.
Lash: We have no idea that they're even interested in selling, do we? Of course we have no
idea if any of these people are very interested in selling.
Hoffman: $4 or $5 million, you'd probably peak their interest.
Andrews: I just want to kind of tag on to what Fred said. I would be afraid to see the golf
course and the other bond come up at the same time. I think it would divide the vote and
probably defeat both.
Lash: Even if it's a separate item?
Andrews: Well yes I do. I think it would be a problem. However, I think that we as a park
board could support the idea of a golf course purchase and basically kind of route it back
through the City Council because I look at a revenue bond as a much different thing than a
general obligation bond to buy all these other acquisitions.
Huffman: What about going out? I mean if we're going to get people to come forward
anyway, what better way to get public opinion and find out. I mean I don't want to lose an
opportunity here also. If I can gather these people around in the voting booth, privately and
quietly to get an opinion at least. I mean I've got these folks all in a room. I don't want to
let them get away and then have us just sit up here and think, well maybe yes. Maybe no.
You know let somebody smarter than me tell me. If they're going to come up and vote for
this, it's not that much harder to move your pen down one line. Two lines. Three lines.
38
n
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Andrews: I think the difficulty would be communicating the concept of the revenue bond.
That it would not be funded by an obligation back to the taxpayer. That it would be funded
by revenue.
Huffman: Can we do something then, I mean can we take "a survey" at the same time we're
doing that? I mean would you like to see within the next x number of time, would you like
to see this?
Lash: See I see the City Council having a bigger problem doing two separate referendums.
It's a costly thing to put forth a referendum and if we're going to ask for stuff, I think I don't
know. I see both sides here and I guess I'm willing to go with either way on that. I look at
it that if some of these things are broken down into different groups, people can go in and say
yes, I think this is important. No, I don't care about this. Yes, I like this. No, I don't like
that and then we just take what we get and do what we can. And if the majority of people
want to pay for a golf course and think it will be. If we can substantiate it and say we've
done a lot of research, which we haven't yet but I would insist on having done before we'd
ever put it on our ballot. We've done research in other communities. It can produce x
amount of money. We're hoping that this would be another avenue for us to fund our park
and recreation system so we can develop things faster and say that we had a little thought
behind it. Not that we're just thinking gee, a lot of people like to play golf, it'd be fun for us
to have a golf course. But that we have a certain purpose in mind.
Huffman: We can go back to Lake Ann and say we'll take the $15,000.00. The City Council
won't let us take that stupid sticker off and we will provide the City of Chanhassen with a
$5.00 sticker courtesy of your park and rec department. We're still paying x. I mean
whatever example we want to choose.
Lash: But I think we'd have to build a strong foundation that we had put a lot of energy and
thought into this and that we were in agreement that we think that this would be a productive
thing. If we aren't in full agreement, then we need to know that up front too and we need to
have a lot of good research to back up our stand.
Berg: Maybe we can take advantage of where we are in this process and let the task force
take care of that.
Lash: That could be too, yeah.
Berg: Make sure they understand that if it's on there at all, it would be separate and let the
task force look at it and come back because I don't know if I'll change my mind with what
39
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
they say or not. I'd like to think I'm open minded enough to, if it's something other than I
believe. But maybe we should let the...
Huffman: But you're not required to change your mind either.
Berg: No, I know.
Huffman: I mean you don't have.
Andrews: Let the voters decide.
Berg: Maybe just let the task force tell us what they think.
Lash: And ultimately it's going to be the voters. I mean if it's on there, we've had split
referendums before. A few years ago when they had the one for acquiring Bandimere and
trails and Lake Ann Park and they were separate things and some things passed and some
things didn't. I think that gives people a little more control over how they want to see their
dollars spent and I think we have a better chance of getting some things rather than maybe
losing out on everything.
Manders: I guess to that, another question I have is, how is Chaska going ahead and
spending all they are for that golf course? Something's happening there to get them to the
point where they're at. What is it?
Berg: Is that their utility angle?
Lash: Yes.
Hoffman: For the most part, yeah.
Manders: And maybe they have something that we don't.
Hoffman: And they have the land already.
Andrews: I have a concern, and I don't know if this is what you're proposing Jan but I would
be, and again clarify if you could. Are you suggesting that we would have a series of small
proposals of x for Bandimere, x for Fox, x for Bluff Creek?
Lash: No. I'd have one for park development. One for land acquisition. One for trails.
And one for, if we have the golf course.
40
G
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Andrews: All as referendums?
Lash: No, separate. With a dollar amount attached to each one.
Andrews: Okay. I guess I could go for it that way. I'd be very concerned if it were
structured in a way of, do you want to buy the Fox property? Do you want to buy the.
Lash: No.
Andrews: Because then people are going to say, I want the one by me but I don't want the
one by them.
Lash: No, right. I'd say land acquisition. Given a dollar amount.
Andrews: I think that's a good way to handle it. Because then people will vote, the citizens
will choose what is more important to them. And rather than say it's a $5 million
referendum, take it or leave it, it becomes a, maybe it's a $5 million referendum for me but
it's a $3 million referendum for you. We get some benefit regardless hopefully in what's
being proposed. I guess I like that idea.
Lash: I think we'd have a shot at least of getting something.
Andrews: I still have concern about putting the golf course issue on the same vote. I guess
I'm concerned about division of, but just a concern and I guess I agree with what Dave said
or Fred, throw it to the task force and let more minds look at it and maybe they'll come up
with a better way or a better angle and perhaps even a better idea of what public opinion is
regarding a golf course. I personally love to golf. I personally would love to see that golf
course in better condition. I guess I'm just afraid that a $5 million price tag or a $3 might be
scary but who knows so. I've heard almost unanimous opinion on the projects that we'd like
to see done, other than the golf course, which was not unanimous but I heard Bandimere,
Fox, Bluff Creek, Parcel 3D and 1B together and the trails. Everybody but me was in favor
of linking all the trails together but I'm okay with that too.
Lash: I'll just say one thing, to help you change your mind. If it was just TH 101 north, the
people who live by TH 101 might like it but who else is going to want to pay for it? So this
way at least you're talking the majority of the city. A lot of voters there. Somebody's going
to get a benefit out of each one.
Andrews: And my concern is just the opposite, which is if we fund them all, including TH
101 and TH 101's still not going to get built, then people will be mad as hell if that happens.
41
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
I mean it will just, that's just a fact. If I see everybody's trail but mine get built, I will be
ballistic. Because that trail's been on the Comp Plan longer than anything.
Lash: Why wouldn't your's get built if the money's there?
Andrews: Because it's a State right -of -way instead of a County right -of -way which we have
no control over.
Huffman: Well there has to be some understanding about that too. I think that's a legitimate
concern. I mean we can all jump up and down and say yeah, you want Highway 101. But if
we realistically look and say in 4 years they're going to tear it out or where it's going to be
abandoned or it's going to be something else.
Andrews: There's no plan to plan. That's where it's at right now.
Huffman: Well that's like 212.
Andrews: I mean it's so open ended.
Huffman: Yeah, it's open ended. Therefore you can't do anything.
Lash: Are you saying that because that's a State road and not a County road, that we can't
put it in?
Andrews: It's a State right -of -way that the State wants to abandon that the County... talked to
you about is going from Kurvers Point north which is wider and more feasible and probably
less risky but from Kurvers Point south, you're talking about some right-of-way problems that
are just ugly. I mean you're going to have lawsuits and lots of other problems but, I mean
those are again issues that can be dealt with. And I do agree with what you said. If you put
it on there as a trail referendum, if you don't make it probably all or nothing, it's probably not
going to go because if you're saying a trail for me.
Lash: I don't care if you have a trail.
Andrews: Yeah, that's right. You're going to say that doesn't do me any good. What do I
want it for. So anyway, that price is out.
Lash: If we stick the golf course on there, we're talking $10 million.
42
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
' Hoffman: I've got $6.7 in trails, land acquisition and Bandimere, approximately and then $4
to $5 million in the golf course.
' Huffman: And the golf course is a totally separate number.
' Lash: Right. Well.
Huffman: Yeah, it'd have to be because that's the way you set it up. It doesn't go into the
regular bond issue.
Andrews: Do you need a motion to make this happen or are you just looking for a
recommendation? Consensus recommendation?
Lash: Can I ask a question now? With all this time and energy that we just put into this and
broke this down fairly detailed, what do we need a task force now anymore for? I mean what
are they going to do?
' Hoffman: They're going to do.
' Lash: The PR?
Hoffman: They're going to do the PR but they're going to do even a lot more legwork in
regards to these pieces of property. You broke down, I mean I put $750,000.00 in Bluff
Creek waterway. Well you're dealing with 5 different landowners there and you may.
' Huffman: We just publically told them we want their property.
Hoffman: Sure. And you may be dealing with preservation easements... acquisition, life
estates. You know these people understand that progress is coming but they want to use their
property until they decide to leave so you purchase it based on a life estate. There's a lot of
work for the task force to refine these. These trail numbers will change. The trail
recommendations may change based on future information. You know if the City Council
authorizes this, we'll go ahead and begin the information gathering phase back with the
County and MnDot and they're going to tell you, well yes, you can do it. No, you can't do it
' here. The barriers and those recommendations will be reviewed by the task force. Brought
back down to the Park Commission. Explain to the public, explain back to the City Council
' and then the process will continue on.
Lash: And you're looking at a potential September?
43
FI
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: And when's the school referendum coming, do you know Fred?
Berg: I don't think they've set it,
Hoffman: September would be the earliest date. In lieu of that, the City Council would
certainly choose to place it on the general election for...
Andrews: I do strongly agree with Jan's idea that a referendum would be presented in a
segment basis. I think that's really smart. Much more likely to give the citizens a chance to
tell us what they really want and willing to pay for rather than us guessing and being wrong
and losing it all because we just, we blew it.
Lash: You know the other thing I think that does is it helps them accept this as something
that they have some choices in and some input into. How their money's going to be spent
rather than us. The perception of us trying to ram, I mean people get that idea. Oh it's
another referendum and they're trying to ram this down our throat. Well just lay it out and
say, these are the things. You tell us what you want.
Berg: I'd be shocked if one of them, at least one of them didn't pass.
Lash: I would be too.
Manders: I think another observation is the administrative packet on the piece on Plymouth's
referendum that you're putting together now, will provide some insights because that's coming
up in May, right? For a vote. And they've got preservation as a big piece of that in trails.
Hoffman: Star and Tribune's picked up on that. They called so you can look for Chanhassen
in the Star and Trib as well.
Manders: Good. So I think there's been a lot of negative publicity about things getting voted
down but, whichever way that goes, I think will be kind of indicative of what we can expect.
Lash: Well we all know the atmosphere out there and especially for the people in the
Minnetonka School District.
Andrews: Although I think the attitude is more anti - school than anti - preservation. I think
you may be surprised.
44
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Hoffman: That was the angle that the reporter took. In these tax climates, how can you even
g p
begin to think about proposing a referendum and my response was, well it would be
' irresponsible not to. It's still the taxpayer's choice. They vote.
' Andrews: Yeah, we have to present it.
Berg: We don't have the right to not give them the opportunity.
Andrews: Todd, did you say you required a motion?
' Hoffman: A motion. I would recommend you go ahead and split it out into the four
categories. State the parcels or the trail segments specifically by those categories and then
give a total dollar figure. Estimated dollar figure for each category.
Andrews: Yes sir. That's what I moved exactly.
' Hoffman: Trails would be all of the.
Andrews: I move what you say and Dave seconds it.
' Hoffman: All five including Bluff Creek for a total of $2.5 million. The golf course would
be a separate item. Land acquisition, and the golf course again I'm just penciling $4 to $5
million. I called them today. Did not receive a return call so I was not able to talk, even
speculative land costs. I will confirm that number prior to taking it to the City Council.
Land acquisition, I have $3 million for the Parcels IA, Fox property, Parcels 113 connected to
' 3D, the Chaska Investment, Wallingford properties at $1.6 million, and the Bluff Creek
waterway of 40 to 50 acres at $750,000.00 for a total of $3 million rounded. And then the
construction of Bandimere at $1.2 so we have a breakout of $6.7 million for trails, land
acquisition and Bandimere. And then the golf course at an estimated value to be determined.
Andrews: I'll make a prediction, just totally off the cuff here. I predict that it will pass
' except for the Bandimere. I think people will vote for the preservation before they'll vote for
the development.
' Huffman: Not if you get all your soccer buddies.
Andrews: Well, I'm going to try. I move that, what you just said and Dave seconds it.
Huffman: I seconded it.
' 45
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Andrews moved, Huffman seconded that the Pain and Recreation Commission recommend
that the City Council appoint a task force to consider the following items for the potential
park and trail bond referendum: All trail segments presented, including Bluff Creek, for a
total of $2.5 million. Land acquisition totaling $3 million for the Parcels 1A, the Fox
property, Parcels 1B connected to 31), the Chaska Investment, Wallingford properties at $1.6
million, and the Bluff Creek waterway of 40 to 50 acres at $750,000.00. The construction of
Bandimere at $1.2 million for a total of $6.7 million for trails, land acquisition and
Bandimere. The acquisition of Bluff Creek golf course as a separate item at an estimated
value to be determined. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Huffman: Who put this together Todd? This is great. You should be commended. This is
an outstanding piece and thank you for your time and effort.
Andrews: I'm going to make a motion that we schedule two meetings for next month if
possible and table the Rec Center operations project until then. I can't see us making a dent
in that tonight with any sanity.
Lash: Can you wait Todd? Are you sure?
Lemme: We're starting to establish some... computer system going in ... and we're needing to
get done some information on the categories but we can take a stab at that and then revamp
that too. They just need to get some initial input.
Andrews: I would guess that we intend to follow Chaska real close, just if I were to guess.
Lash: And I think with our guidelines, as far as the park shelters, I think there's a breakdown
there of resident, non - resident. Resident business. Non - resident business. And there's the
jump in price from resident to non - resident too and I think we put a lot of thought into that so
I, that might help you to figure.
Lemme: That gives us a good start...
Andrews: I don't want to attack this tonight. Well I move to table that with a probably two
meetings for May in order to catch this up. Is there a second to that? I don't hear a second.
Huffman: I second.
Andrews moved, Huffman seconded to table the discussion of the Recreation Center
operations to a special meeting in May. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
46
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Lemme: Is there anything else that you would like to.
' Andrews: 2 weeks.
Lash: Yeah, it will only be 2 weeks. Is that going to help? I mean I hate to leave you in a
' spot.
Lemme: No. No, that's fine. I just wanted to see if there was anything else you want me to
' potentially add to this...
Lash: Well I was kind of thinking if you took some of the information for some of the fees
' and some, I mean you have a lot of information there for us to look at, and maybe put
together something that you think is reasonable and we can look at that, you know based on
Chaska. Based on what we've done for the park shelters and that. The differences between
residents and non - residents and if other people charge set -ups.
Huffman: You've got listed A, B and C and the three categories, hours of operation, room
rental rates. There's a great description of staffs time there. But C is something we should
probably have some information thought of before we come to you then? Use priority.
' Lemme: Yeah, the only thing ... was the Chaska Community Center on the very back pages.
' Huffman: But we need to be prepared when we come here next time to be able to look at
you and say, have some discussion and be able to come and help you in that. Is that?
' Lemme: Yeah. And Jerry has his priority list. His priorities for the field scheduling and we
want to make sure that we're consistent.
' Lash: Right, because I was going to say, look at that too.
Lemme: Right. There are some additional things on top of what you would do for ... but we
definitely talked that we wanted to be consistent on that. ...doesn't get a break on the facility
but they do on the golfing.
' Huffman: Ooh, Becker has a nuclear power plant. Can we get one of those? It will keep
our costs down...
Andrews: According to me we can move back to item 7, program reports here.
47
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
PROGRAM REPORTS:
A. 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS CONTRACT.
Ruegemer: Does anybody have any specific questions on that? The information's pretty
straight forward.
Lash: I move we accept the contract from Banner Fireworks for the 4th of July celebration
Berg: Second.
Lash moved, Berg seconded to award the fireworks contract to Banner Fireworks in the
amount of $10,500.00 for the 4th of July Celebration. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
B. 4TH OF JULY ARTWORK SELECTION.
Ruegemer: Okay, artwork selection. There are no artwork designs submitted.
Hoffman: What'd you offer them, a free t- shirt?
Ruegemer: No, I offer them $75.00. And they felt that wasn't worth the effort.
Huffman: Go to Chan Elementary and tell them you'll give them, you know the winning
class will get.
Ruegemer: Free t- shirts.
Lash: I'd go to the high school. No offense.
Huffman: You mean Chaska's High School or our high school?
Lash: Well there's kids that go to Chaska or Minnetonka High School, who live in Chan, and
they're very artistic.
Ruegemer: I just ran off a couple t -shirt quotes. I did hear bids for the t- shirts for those. If
the Park and Rec Commission would like, we could go forward with that tonight. The bids
are laid out. 2 out of the 7 did submit bids for that. I don't know if the Park and Rec
Commission would like to accept or not.
.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Lash: Who's the front one from?
Ruegemer: M.A. Apparel, and we've used him extensively in the past with the Lake Ann t-
shirts and also the 4th of July t- shirts in the past.
Huffman: When you're talking about Hanes Beefy T's.
Ruegemer: Beefy XXXL...
Huffman: Any particularly person you're marketing those towards?
Lash: We need one of those?
Berg: There could be a couple.
Huffman: One's for my front side and one's for my back side. Is that what you're saying?
Ruegemer: Well we did contact Mankato Tech ... But the prices are pretty straight forward in
comparison with the two bids and the Park and Rec Commission.
Lash: So do you want us to make a motion to accept one of these, is that what you're
saying?
Ruegemer: Please. If you have enough time or if you have any questions?
Lash: As much as I'd like to give the business to a local, I think with the price discrepancy
here, I'd have a hard time doing that. So I'd move that we accept the bid from M.A. Apparel.
Huffman: How do I object? Or open it up for discussion.
Andrews: Well you need to second the motion and then it's open to discussion. I'll second
the motion.
Huffman: I'd like to discuss.
Andrews: Any discussion?
Huffman: Your choices here are a wider variety of options. I mean I really think you do. It
looks like you're going to get some different sizes. You're going to get a couple of different
kinds of t- shirts.
ME
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Lash: What? I'm not following you.
Huffman: Well, I've bought tons of shirts and hats and stuff in my life and.
Lash: I bet you have.
Huffman: Somebody comes to tons, thank you very much. I picked up on that. Subtly may
not be my forte but I can walk a fine line. I get quality here on the second page. I'm just
getting heavy weight t- shirts on the front page. I know what I'm getting on the second one.
Ruegemer: Basically those sides are units per ounce. Unit per ounces.
Huffman: Yeah, I'm just saying. I'm getting a good t -shirt on the second page.
Ruegemer: Well basically all the ounces are basically the same.
Huffman: But I'm getting a good t -shirt here. I mean I know who that is. I mean I know
who, when you say Hanes Beefy T, I know who that is. I don't know who Heavyweight is
on the front page.
Andrews: We're talking $3.00 a hat difference too. That's a heck of a difference.
Huffman: Well that makes me nervous too. I mean why am I getting one at $5.55 and why
am I getting one at $8.50?
Ruegemer: You're dealing with volume too.
Andrews: Any other discussion? I mean that's good points.
Berg: You get what you pay for. As long as Dave's paying, I say go for the.
Andrews: Yeah, if you want to pick up the difference, we'll go.
Huffman: There you go. I'm buying a golf course, never mind.
Hoffman: These are self supporting... what they costs.
Huffman: Last year, have you sold them all? Do people want more? Have you had prices?
What was the price last year?
50
L
C
L
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Lash: Well I have like 7 of them. I mean I have one from '88 or '89 or something.
Andrews: All the way from Chahassen on.
Lash: Yeah, I have one that says Chahassen. I've never had a problem with them.
Andrews: Basically one week, to be important, you know they look good for one week.
After that, it's sort of like ah. What do you use them for? They say 4th of July '95. Well
there's only the 4th of July '95 once.
Berg: Actually they don't say '95.
Manders: Yeah, just leave the year off.
Lash: The Lake Ann ones were very popular I heard from a lot of people last year so we
want to make sure we get more of those.
Andrews: Any other discussion?
Lash moved, Andrews seconded to award the bid for the 4th of July Celebration t -shirt and
hat printing to Minnesota Athletic Apparel, Inc. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Andrews: To get back to your question on the artwork. Where's the artwork going to come
from? How are we going to do this?
Ruegemer: Well basically right now, since we didn't have any artworks submitted we'll just,
if there's anybody in particular that the commission has liked in the past, we can certainly go
and have it designed and developed.
Lash: What if you sent a contest thing to both Minnetonka High School and Chaska High
School. Give it to the art teachers. The $75.00 prize for the one that gets it.
Hoffman: Great idea.
Lash: I have seen some fantastic artwork.
Huffman: Well the kid who is designing your next year's yearbook.
Andrews: $100.00.
51
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Lash: ....I mean you cannot believe the work he does. I'm assuming there's going to be
somebody at that other school that could do it too...
Hoffman: They'll come cheap. They'll put $100.00 down as a scholarship.
Huffman: Well, award it as a $100.00 scholarship from the Chanhassen Park and Rec Board
to use at the College of your choice. And then you get good works in the paper for awarding
scholarship. See what we can do as a Park and Rec Board in your community if we had
more space.
Andrews: I move that we open a contest to the two high schools serving our city with a first
prize award, or with a selection award of $100.00. Is there a second to that?
Berg: Second.
Andrews moved, Berg seconded that the Pali{ and Recreation Commission open a contest for
the artwork for the 4th of July Celebration to the two high schools, Chaska and Minnetonka,
serving the Chanhassen area, with a selection award of $100.00. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
C. CANDY HUNT EVALUATION.
Ruegemer: The candy hunt was last, April 15th, that Saturday. We did have some
unforeseen severe weather with lightning and rain and the whole ball of wax but, we had to
go with Plan B as far as to keep the area basically inside and quick thinking that day. Just
turned it into kind of a trick or treat type of an atmosphere and hand out candy to people as
they exited out after the entertainment. I was not here 6 years ago and did not live the
experience of having it inside, which I would have tried again but I wasn't there to experience
that. So this really did work out very nice and I think should be a standard practice for future
years.
Huffman: There was no picture in the paper of the Thursday after of the Easter Bunny
wandering around. Was there?
Lash: Yeah there was.
Huffman: Oh I didn't, I was out of town.
Lash: If you look in here, it's in there. Okay, that was a test Dave on who read their packet.
52
C
r
C
C
n
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Huffman: I didn't.
Lash: Obviously.
Huffman: I did not.
D. PARK PRIDE DAY.
Ruegemer: Park Pride is coming up this coming Saturday, the 29th. As part of the Park
Pride Day, we're having groups tune up our parks as well as we're having another, or not
another but a ceremonial centennial tree being planted in the clock tower area just east of the
Medical Arts building. That will be Saturday, approximately about 11:30. You all have, or
will be getting, it should be there either today or tomorrow, letters. Just an invitation
requesting your appearance to be there, if at all possible. We will be serving hotdogs and
sodas and chips and that type of thing just for everybody that will be there. We'll be planting
the tree that was donated by Wilson's Northwest Nursery as just a portion of their support to
the centennial. And also the Chandeliers, the senior chorus group will be there singing.
We'll have the paper there. We'll have all the groups there so it should be a real festive
atmosphere. So if you're around on Saturday, please attend. We'd love to have you.
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS:
Andrews: Okay. Any Commission member presentations this evening? Excellent. Any
highlights to the Administrative section that need to be made?
Hoffman: Motion for a second meeting in May please.
Berg: So moved.
Andrews: Second.
Berg moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission amend their By-
laws to have a special second meeting in May. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Andrews: I have nothing to add here.
Berg: Two weeks from tonight?
Andrews: Second Tuesday of May.
53
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
Hoffman: May 9th.
Andrews: Is that what it is? Okay. 7:00 start again.
Hoffman: Correct.
Andrews: And I guess I'd appreciate keeping that one as short as possible. Yes sir.
Resident: Jerry, how are you organizing the park clean-ups? I haven't heard anything about
that.
Ruegemer: It's been advertised in the local newspaper. The brochure.
Resident: Is it volunteer?
Ruegemer: Yes.
Resident: Okay. And when is that?
Ruegemer: On Saturday, April 29th.
Hoffman: And for the most part, neighborhood activists or community group leaders call in
and say we've got a group who will be willing to participate. The school group is
participating by planting 400 tree seedlings in Chan Pond Park. The Boy Scout troop is
working with Jill Kimsal in Curry Knoll Park to plant about 250 tree seedlings and...
Ruegemer: Yeah, we have different Brownie groups, Cub Scout groups, Girl Scout troops,
that will be participating on Saturday.
Hoffman: So, and then Jerry assigns them a park site for them to go out and clean up. Bring
their trash back up to, this year it's at the Town Square, the clock tower, to collect the trash
and eat a hotdog. The school called today and they're going to have ice cream there. Left
over ice cream. Four barrels of ice cream so.
Huffman: Do you have a list of all the parks taken or not taken?
Ruegemer: Yeah, Rice's taken. Hidden Valley trail is going to be done. Bandimere, the
neighborhood park will be done. Lake Ann, up around the ballfields. Lake Ann's really been
getting hit lately but just around the ballfield areas will be done. Meadow Green will be
done. Lake Susan trail will be done. Carver Beach, inbetween the mini -park and that trail
54
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 25, 1995
along the whole lake will be done. And so we're blanketing I guess or covering a variety of
different areas.
Hoffman: Chan Pond will be cleaned by the elementary school classrooms. They've adopted
Chanhassen Pond Park.
Lash moved, Mandeis seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carded. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
55