1e. Park & Recreation Commission minutes dated January 25, 1994CHANHASSEN PARK AND
' RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 25, 1994
1
le
Prior to the regular meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission heard a presentation
by Bill Livingston of Earl F. Anderson and Associates, Inc. regarding playground safety
from guidelines to standards.
Acting Chairman Andrews called the regular meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Andrews, Jan Lash, Jane Meger, Ron Roeser, Fred Berg and
Jim Manders
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation'
Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berg moved, Manders seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated December 14, 1993 as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
Roeser: Recommendations?
A. SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE- CHAIRPERSON.
Andrews: Sure. That's what we're here for.
Hoffman: Unfortunately you do not have your seventh member so that person will be at a
disadvantage obviously.
Lash: Do we know who the seventh member is?
Hoffman: No. They've had one interview to date and the others will be completed on the
31st of January.
Berg: Do they have our recommendation as well?
1
E
I I
L
1
,' Hoffman: Yes.
' Andrews: Well I'm interested in chairing if anybody's interested else, please speak up.
Roeser: No, I would nominate Jun Andrews for Chairperson.
' Andrews: Anyone else that would like to do it?
Lash: I'd do it if nobody else wants to. If Jim wants to, that's fine.
Manders: What's the seniority?
' Andrews: We're the same. We started at the same time, didn't we?
Lash: No. I started before you. I completed a term and I was reappointed at the same time
' as you ... but if you're interested, I wouldn't...
Andrews: Okay. Are you interested in Vice Chair?
' Lash: Fine. Unless somebody else wants that.
' Andrews: Anybody else interested in that? I think we should have it in the form of a
motion. If somebody would make that motion.
' Berg: So moved.
Andrews: Okay, the motion is that Jim Andrews would be Chairman and Jan Lash would be
Vice Chairman. Is there a second to that motion?
' Roeser: I'll second.
Berg moved, Roeser seconded to appoint Jim Andrews as Chairman and Jan Lash as
' Vice Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission for 1994. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
B. ADOPT RULES OF CONDUCT.
Andrews: Item 2 is to adopt rules of conduct. I guess I'm not sure exactly what that means
' other than I think it means that we're adopting Robert's Rules of Order on a somewhat
informal basis. And that would be as in the past.
Lash: So moved.
Berg: Second.
N
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
Lash moved, Berg seconded to adopt the Robert's Rules of Order for the year 1994. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. '
C. 1993 ATTENDANCE REPORT.
Andrews: The 1993 attendance report I think is informational only. We'll move on that ,
item.
D. 1994 MEETING DATES AND TIMES. '
Andrews: 1994 meeting dates and times. That is something we've looked at in the past, '
particularly relating to certain holidays. How we fit in around those dates. Take a minute
now and look at how those dates are on the calendar. See if you have any suggestions on
how those might need to be changed. And we had discussed earlier that we were looking at ,
continuing our fourth Tuesday official meeting, second Tuesday work sessions.
Hoffman: Correct. '
Andrews: Okay. '
Lash: I would move that we accept that schedule.
Meger: Second. ,
Lash moved, Meger seconded to accept the 1994 meeting dates and times for the '
Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission as presented. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
E. SCHEDULE OF ATTENDANCE, CITY COUNCEL MEETINGS. ,
Andrews: Item E was the attendance at the City Council meetings. That's informational ,
again I would say. Is there anybody that has a date on there they know for sure is already a
conflict?
Roeser: Yeah I do for I believe February 28th. '
Andrews: I'll switch it because I'm going to be out of the town on the 14th. So let's you '
and I switch. Any other dates that need to be switched at this time? If not, if you're aware
of a conflict, try to bring it up and we'll see who we can just arrange a switch. There are
lots of issues that will be coming up with all the developments that are going through here '
3 1
i Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
that we need representation so. I did attend last night's Council meeting and really nothing
' too major there happened as far as parks, other than the approval of the rezoning of the
school but that was sort of a foregone conclusion so. Let's move on to item 5.
' Lash: Can you give me just one minute? I wanted to tell Todd this before I forget. I have a
new phone number and I'll give it to you after the meeting.
' Andrews: Actually I do too. Why don't we do that now on the record too just so it gets
printed.
' Lash: Mine's...
Andrews: Okay, well I'll give mine. My work number is 476 -0933.
1
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 37 ACRES OF
' PROPERTY INTO 57 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS
ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, HARSTAD COMPANIES.
' Public Present:
'
Name
Address
'
Paul Harstad
Sue Morgan
2191 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton
4031 Kings Road
Linda Scott
4031 Kings Road
Harold Taylor
3861 Stratford Ridge
Keith Bedford
3961 Stratford Ridge
Allin M. Karls
3920 Stratford Ridge
Doug Reichert
3901 Stratford Ridge
'
Janet Carlson
4141 Kings Road
Stan Rud
2030 Renaissance Court
Todd Hoffman presented the
staff report on this item.
' Andrews: Todd, if you could do one thing. On the blueprint up there of the development,
could you just point out the area that we're recommending as the park area?
I Hoffman: Yep. On this plat the applicant has shown the proposed park dedication in this
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994 1
area. It's a portion of the Headla property. Totaling approximately 2.42 acres. The 10 acres
which the city is looking to encompasses approximately this type of configuration. ,
Andrews: Okay. So approximately from the road to the east.
Hoffman: ...this road and then back down. That's—park site. Plan A encompasses.
Andrews: Okay, thank you. I
Paul Harstad: Sorry I missed your presentation but I guess our view of this one is that when
we originally, or when the developer originally came to the city, there was a lot of discussion
'
about where the park would be located and we went through a couple of, apparently there
were a couple, two or three different proposals and we agreed to go for the one up in the
northwest side. And then apparently that fell through with the negotiations with that
,
landowner or something to that effect. And I'm here as a representative of our company. I
admittedly am not real familiar with the project but I do know that out stance is that we do
not intend to give that land to the parks commission for development of a park, and the
,
reason simply is because it would destroy the entire plat. That is far and away the most
valuable of all the land on the plat and to create a park there would more or less ruin the
property. So if the parks commission still recommends denial of the plat in the event that we
,
do not give that land to the parks commission, then the next step for us frankly is, it's out of
my hands. Of course it's still in my company's hands but it just goes to the lawyers from
that point.
'
Andrews: Okay. I
Paul Harstad: If I can answer any questions, I'd be more than happy to.
Andrews: Okay. Is there anybody here from the city of Chanhassen, any residents that wish '
to state their views about this application for plat approval? Please state your name and
address for the record please. '
Janet Carlson: Janet Carlson. I live at 4141 Kings Road. I have some questions on the park
like how many parking spots are they planning on? '
Hoffman: I believe we're at about 12 to 16 parking stalls.
Janet Carlson: Okay. Now I didn't hear everything that you were saying but did you plan on '
having swimming there also?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
�J
Hoffman: The lakeshore potentially could be developed into a public swimming area.
Janet Carlson: What are you going to do with all the cars? You're going to have cars upon
cars upon cars. We've lived on Kings Road for years and when Leech's lived there, there
were many days you couldn't even get home. And believe you me, I will not ever go
through that crap again.
Hoffman: The decisions or the process of designing the park involves the neighborhood. At
tonight's meeting we aren't even obviously at that point. Reached that point but if the
property were to be acquired, then the commission would hold neighborhood meetings.
Design input meetings where the neighborhood has a say in how the property is eventually
developed.
Janet Carlson: But then I mean we could all have our say but it's you final people that make
up the decision and say what we're going to have anyway, right?
Hoffman: Your appeal would certainly have to be made both to the Park and Recreation
Commission and City Council.
Janet Carlson: But what I'm saying is regardless of how we feel or what we say, you people
make the final decision and do what you want anyway, right?
Berg: Well that's, excuse me but that's sort of throwing it in the face of how the system
works the way I understand it. As servants of the public I understand that we listen to input
and that becomes very valuable. I don't think we make a decision in a vacuum based on
what we want. We're concerned what the citizens of Chanhassen, particularly this
neighborhood, what so no, that's not the way we make a decision.
Janet Carlson: But when you consider at the most 16 parking spots for a park, for that many
' people, that doesn't even make any sense does it?
Berg: I'm not hearing that the 16 or any number is a set in stone figure. What I'm hearing
' is I think we're a long ways away from that.
Janet Carlson: Okay but this is one of our things is the traffic. This is one thing that we
' really are concerned with because it's just going to be a mess. That road from Minnewashta
Parkway is far too busy now, you know ... and we're really going to have a mess on our hands.
I Berg: Let me ask you if I could, if I could ask you a question. Is there, and I'm not asking
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994 1
for any specifics because it's too early I'm assuming for you folks too to have any elaborate
plans laid out. Is there a sense that there could be an accommodation made where we can sit
and talk to each other and come up with something that could be mutually agreeable?
,
Mutually agreeable is not even the right word because it's you the folks that have to live with
the park. Are you saying that a park here is impossible? That's what you're saying?
'
Janet Carlson: Yeah, I really feel that way because anyway at one time I know, one of the
first plans were for a ball diamond or something in there, you know. But not to hold ball
games and this sort of thing. Just for the neighborhood people to come and play ball. There
just isn't going to be enough parking spots. Just parking with ... and I know this is a city park
but across Lake Minnewashta is this huge park. Hundreds of acres and hardly any of it is
'
used for anything. So I guess I kind of look at that you know. But then if we put this one
here, then everybody's going to be their's is going to have a swimming beach and it's just
going to be a neighborhood. But it's not going to just be a neighborhood deal. You'll have
'
more stuff there and it's just, the road is too busy to have a park right there I feel. But that's
what I feel.
,
e er: I have a question for Mr. Harstad again. The area that's identified on this plat, is.
g
that, there's a thin strip there. Will that be a swimming beach as well for the area, for the
new residents?
Paul Harstad: The city code prevents us from allowing that as a swimming area for the
residents.
'
Meger: So it would just be an open area. It wouldn't be identified as a swimming area?
Paul Harstad: As I understand it, correct.
Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road which is this parcel right
'
here. I am really confused. I know I stepped out and came back in and I missed the
introduction of all of this but in following the figure plan that was presented by Gardner
Bros, is this the same plan? Are you from Gardner Bros or who do you represent?
'
Paul Harstad: I'm not from Gardner Bros or Heritage Development. I'm from Harstad I
Companies. We essentially re- submitted the same plat.
Sue Morgan: Okay, you re- submitted the same plat that was declined? '
Paul Harstad: That's correct.
i
1
J
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
Sue Morgan: Why are we re- creating...?
Paul Harstad: Well because we've looked into the legalities of it and we feel that this is
essentially going to be a taking and this has become a legal issue.
Sue Morgan: Okay, so basically what we're talking about is, what the city had wanted was
the frontage area along Lake Minnewashta?
Paul Harstad: Correct.
Sue Morgan: And you guys are still wanting the park back here?
' Paul Harstad: It's not only that we are still wanting it back there. It's also that the, again as
I understand it. I'm not ..from some of the literature I've read on this development, the city
and a previous developer agreed that would be the location for the park at one point.
' Apparently that was contingent upon sale of that land which after 2 years of negotiations it
fell through. By then we had invested, well essentially the developer had invested thousands
of dollars into this, the design of the plat.
Sue Morgan: It was my understanding as well that this whole development was declined
because they were squeezing too many houses on too small of lots. The lot sizes were too
small so it's like it wasn't only the park over here that was an issue but the whole layout. So
what you're doing is you're just coming back, bringing it back ... so basically we're spending
our time and money as taxpayers, we're spending their time and money and you're just
bringing back the same stuff. So what you're saying is, this is what you want. If they don't
give it to you, you're going to sue? Is that what this is all about is the legality?
Paul Harstad: There are in fact more issues than just the park. The issues that you're
referring to about lot sizes are without question ones that you can resolve and this parks
commission is not meeting because of those other issues. They're meeting specifically...
Sue Morgan: For the park.
Paul Harstad: The location of the park, yes.
Sue Morgan: Okay. So this is the first step in the process then. If the parks commission
pushes, if they still want the park here, then the ball starts rolling as far as legalities and...
Paul Harstad: That's correct.
8
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
Sue Morgan: So you're saying that you feel that you're going to be losing valuable property
by turning that property over to the city of Chanhassen? You won't be able to get as much
for your development or it won't be worth as much or whatever if that property's turned into
a park?
Paul Harstad: Well I am saying that had we known that the park was going to be there in the
first place, again I didn't... originally but the original purchase agreement on the land would
have been a lot different and chances are very good that we would not have even proceeded
to even consider developing this land. So it really is an issue between the people of
Chanhassen. What they want to have on that location, the developer and the city and what
they had discussed with us at the initial stages of this development.
Sue Morgan: I guess I...the whole situation is that I would like to not see that whole parcel
developed at all but we know that's not realistic. In living directly across from the area in
question, I assume that the park would go from about here to about the street?
Roeser: About the street, yeah.
Sue Morgan: About here, okay. That would tend to increase my property value. I guess I'm
for it. I'd like to see a park in that area. I think that it's needed and I think there's a lot of
activity along Minnewashta Parkway. People are kind of hanging out and need a place to go
and I think there's a benefit to the neighborhood. I don't know how far away would be, the
park would draw from. I don't know, was it Carver Acres or whatever that area is called ... I
think that'd be a good idea. But I hate to see so much of our time wasted in kind of
rehashing this over and over again. I don't know what it's going to cost the city of
Chanhassen or it's residents in legal fees... something you guys have to decide, but I'm in
favor of the park. Thanks.
Keith Bedford: Good evening. My name's Keith Bedford. I live at 3961 Stratford Ridge. I
represent the Stratford Ridge Homeowners Association, which is on the north side of this
development. And of the 15 property owners there, we were able to contact 13 of them and
they've all opposed the park being up in the northwest corner of that development because of
it's remoteness. I think with all the activities that take place in parks in late evenings, it
would be better down in an area that is more visible. Where there's more patrol. Where
there's more people. Also, we have the amenities of the lake to consider and if it can't be
utilized for the development, this is an opportunity to utilize that lakeshore for the people of
the development also. I think you would make a grave mistake by not having it in any other
location than where ... Thank you.
Berg: Excuse me sir, where is your development in relationship?
Z
1
F —
L
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994,
Keith Bedford: We live on Stratford Ridge. This development here.
Berg: Thank you.
Allin Karls: My name is Allin Karls and I live at 3920 Stratford Ridge Drive and I would
just like to briefly speak in support of the location that's recommended by the staff. Mainly
for the same reasons. It is better visibility. A remote park in a total residential and rather
sparsely populated area doesn't seem to be as wise as one that is close to the parkway itself
and there are a lot of cars going by so you can see. It's easier to get to. I realize for the
developer, it's never desirable to lose those front lots because of course those are more
expensive lots but the rest of us have to live there for on and on and on and on and it is
much more desirable to have that park accessible to more people in Chanhassen so I think the
location is a good one and I would support that.
Doug Reichert: Hi. I'm Doug Reichert. I live at 3901 Stratford Ridge. Same development
as spoken from the last two gentlemen. We just moved down last June from Brooklyn Park
and so we have an interesting perspective I think on what you're doing with parks down here.
First I guess I'd like to say, I think the community is best served by putting a park where
you're recommending, down by the lake. You've got lakes down here that you're really
proud of and that was one of the things that drew us to the community here. I don't know
why you want to stick a park back hidden, tucked away someplace. It's a community park
and you need to be proud of it. Put it down where it is accessible from the bike path. Where
it's easily patrolled, and I guess that patrolling part I don't want to gloss over quickly either
because in Brooklyn Park they had an award winning park development program but some of
the parks were tucked in areas that made them not easily patrolled and the things that went on
in those parks were a great headache to the Brooklyn Park police department and the
patrolling that they had to do. The problems were very, very difficult for the community and
for the police department. So I think you want to make a park where it's visible... drive a
great distance but this is going to be a small community park where we can walk down to or
bike down to and so I can't imagine that we're going to be having traffic over flow problems
where most of the access is going to be from those who are very near by. Then as far as the
development, the balance of the development goes, I would think that would be a great sales
feature where you've got this park that now a community property and all the homes that are
being developed back there have the opportunity to go down and share in this property and
can look at the lake and enjoy the access, the swimming beach. Whereas if you've got
private homes there, the other 35 homes in back, what do they get out of it? If you can
develop this property and off that to them, then here you've got this 10 acre park for the
recreational enjoyment of all the people who are going to be moving there. I kind of think
that might improve the value of those other lots that are back farther. I can't believe that the
net result would be a loss in the value to development. So I guess I can't help but see that
10
Paul Harstad: I think it's probably got to do with visibility of the development. Certainly we ,
don't intend to create a residential development that ruins the natural beauty but you cannot
see the lots from the main road, Minnewashta Parkway if the city has a park there. People
aren't going to know that there's even a development back there. And again, I apologize. ,
11 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
this is a, that your recommendations, or what I understand that your conversations from the
past...I don't see any reason that it wouldn't go there. It just seems like the best place for all
concerned that that's where the park belongs. Thank you.
Andrews: I want to make one comment. We haven't decided there is a swimming beach yet
so, that hasn't been decided.
Harold Taylor: My name is Harold Taylor and guess where I'm from. 3961 Stratford Ridge.
,
We were here last year, or it probably wasn't a year ago but basically it seems like all this is
just kind of a rehash. The parks was adamant about they wanted the location. I think the
citizens in general are behind the location and then it's like the priorities or the sequence of
'
approval of what goes first in the development, other development to me is a little bit
confusing. I mean we're talking about the parks and location of the parks and it was all tied
together but until, I don't really know if the park issue is the first issue or, it seems like you
almost have to consider all the issues before you can approve the development. But with
regards to the park, I think to the families, that we're for the park down at the lake. That
would give the most access to it. Our area in general seems to have a lot of joggers from the
'
Red Cedar Point area and so forth like that and there seems to be a lot of biking and the new
trail system along the road there that we all went through to put that in. Basically it seems to
be very well utilized so I can't see why the park wouldn't be a natural addition to go right
'
along the roadway there. The pathway rather than hike back to the top of the hill towards
Victoria. So that's kind of where I'm at Thank you.
'
Andrews: Is there anyone else from the audience that wishes to make a comment? Okay.
Seeing none, why don't we start. Jan, if you want to.
Lash: I had a couple of questions. First, well... I guess my question for the developer. It's
not even a question. It's just my own personal opinion is I can't imagine that the lots that
are the closest to Minnewashta Parkway could possibly be your most valuable pieces of
property. I would think that they would be, with the frontage on Minnewashta Parkway
would probably be your least valuable. That's one of the reasons why I thought this would
'
be a better option for the developer is to take the ones that are on the busier the road would
be easier for you to accept. Although I do think that this is the preferred location and I
would be in favor of that. Can you explain to me why those would be more valuable? If I'm
'
really off center.
Paul Harstad: I think it's probably got to do with visibility of the development. Certainly we ,
don't intend to create a residential development that ruins the natural beauty but you cannot
see the lots from the main road, Minnewashta Parkway if the city has a park there. People
aren't going to know that there's even a development back there. And again, I apologize. ,
11 1
n
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
My father who runs this company is out of town so I'm speaking on his behalf. He could
give you a lot more articulate reason for that.
Lash: And is this the original owner? The property has changed hands?
Paul Harstad: It has changed hands, yes.
Lash: Okay. I can't keep all these developers and owners and stuff straight but it's a little
confusing for me.
Paul Harstad: But if I could ask the Park Commission a question. As I understood the
literature, it says something to the effect that the Parks Commission would consider the
location and layout of a park once the developer had come in to the city to propose
development of this area. Is that correct?
Andrews: That's the normal way we have to acquire parkland in most cases.
Lash: And I think that was done with the original applicant and then when we reviewed that,
we decided a different location would be preferred. So I don't even understand where this
whole deal is coming from. If you're not the original owner, what does that have to do with
anything? I mean how can you go back and say that the City is not following through with
some agreement that we made with someone that sold you the property and isn't even
involved anymore. Or sold someone else the property.
Paul Harstad: Why was it originally considered up here?
Andrews: There was a potential coordination with the piece of property to the north that we
were discussing as Todd was saying in the briefing that he read. That negotiation, that was
an attempt on our part to acquire a piece of property that we thought we could buy with some
efficiency and favorable terms so we were looking at a potential coordination there. The way
I recall the facts, I don't recall any agreement being made. I recall some discussions
happening but the way I understand the city functions is that there's no agreement until the
City Council approves something. And that never occurred and that negotiation with Mrs.
Hallgren to the north never materialized into a purchase so it may be a situation where the
original developer came here and we said, well there might be a potential coordination to the
north. And that might have been a direction they looked at but that was never anything that
was definite and it was never.
Paul Harstad: Apparently it was not approved by the City Council...
12
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994 1
I
Andrews: And legally there is no agreement unless it's approved by Council. Legally.
Hoffman: There's final plat approval. I
Paul Harstad: Well in the meantime these plans were made up at no small cost and I'm sure
that it was done in the same process as any other development and we've come back to
resubmit the plans to the city. Regardless of whether it was a previous developer or new
developer, the plans were resubmitted and suddenly the parameters have changed.
Andrews: That does happen occasionally and I could give you many examples of the same
thing happening. ,
Lash: No but the parameters. When you submitted this the parameters hadn't changed
because we changed the parameters with the last developer that was here and then the ,
property changed hands...
Paul Harstad: Well the fact is that the Parks Commission did change the parameters.
Lash: Not since the last meeting. '
Roeser: Not since the new owner came in, we haven't changed anything.
Paul Harstad: This isn't a whole new ballgame? I'm sure that our company was well aware ,
of this issue prior to.
Roeser: Well I think that corner lot was an old ballgame, yeah. '
Andrews: This plat was brought in about a year ago looking like this and it was rejected, or ,
not approved by the Park Commission with the same things we talked about now. That
decision was made before your purchase of this property was made. So those facts were
available to you. You obviously have all your options open to you and we have all our ,
options open to us. We try to act in the best interest of the city. Sometimes there is potential
conflict between developers and city governing bodies. Commercial developers, residential
developers and there are avenues to remedy that and that could include legal action. It could ,
include accommodation. So we listen to all ideas.
Hoffman: If I could ask Mr. Harstad a few questions. The original proposal from Heritage, ,
they obviously had a purchase agreement with the property owners contingent upon approvals.
Is your purchase agreement then with Heritage or with the property owners?
13 1
C
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
' Paul Harstad: To be erfectl honest, I'm not even sure of the answer. I can find that out.
P Y
Hoffman: Because I think that would clarify. Jan, the original property owners still own the
property. Heritage has a purchase agreement contingent upon approvals. Now we do not
know who Harstad's agreement is with but.
Andrew: If it's first party or second party?
Lash: So the Ziegler's and the Wenzel's and all of those people still own this property?
Hoffman: They still own it.
' Lash: Okay.
Y
' Hoffman: And Heritage Development is certainly aware of where the city desires to locate
the park. Meetings were held in that regard on numerous occasions. Mr. Harstad contacted
me the first time and my conversation with him indicated that the city wanted a park on this
' site as Plan A and as my letter to Mr. Harstad in your packet explains, we made him fully
aware upon his first contact to the city.
Paul Harstad: Well at that point it wasn't, while we did feel it was worth our time and... time
to reconsider this, I don't know that the cost of their time. I know the County—there's a very
' substantial fee to get this rolling in the city. But it was not worth our time to ask the
engineers to redraw these plats.
' Andrews: Sure, we understand that. I mean we all have costs and benefits that must be
weighed in economic decisions and many developers come before us with plats that are
critical to their economic needs that sometimes we can work with and sometimes we can't.
' And sometimes those developers go away and sometimes they come back with a new plan.
So there is a give and take.
' Resident: Are you saying that when you had originally met with Heritage, Plan A for the
park was down here?
' Hoffman: When we originally met with Heritage we were still in negotiation on the Hallgren
property. We made them fully aware that that may be a location for a park or it may not be.
So then we stepped up our negotiations with Mrs. Hallgren. Simultaneously we started a
' process which Heritage was fully aware of identifying other locations throughout the property
which could service as a park. So as they went through the process, we went through the
process...
14
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994 1
Andrews: My recollection was that Heritage took the initiative to come back with showing
the park on the northwest corner. It was not our recommendation to them that they come
back with that particular location. So that's what they came to us with saying here's what
we'd like to do.
Paul Harstad: So in other words you didn't at that time have a recommendation?
Andrews: It had not come to us for a recommendation yet. We were not approached prior to
'
the first plat coming in saying you know we've got an idea, what do you think about it? It
was, they just came to us and say here's our idea. We had heard about another piece of
property. Wouldn't it be nice if we put our park, our dedicated land right next to that
'
potential park. At that time we said that potential park doesn't look like it's going to happen.
No, we don't like that idea. We want it down by the lake. So, that's the way I recall the
chronology of what happened.
,
Hoffman: When this came to any formal review by the Park Commission, Plan A was the
plan for the park and the neighbors all said...
'
Lash: That was always our plan.
'
Paul Harstad: When Y ou made your formal recommendation, it was to have it down there?
Andrews: Yes. Jan, did you have anything more to add?
'
Lash: No.
Andrews: Jane.
Meger: I guess based on everything that I've heard here tonight and not being a commission
,
member when the original plat came through, I see us continuing to push for the lakeshore
property and the 10 acres for a couple of reasons. I guess one being the 2.4 acres that's
identified there would not be much of a park and again the remoteness would, I think we've
'
heard a lot of concern about that. I guess, and I don't feel that I would be unique in that
considering the developer that I agree with the gentleman that spoke that I think the property
values would be increased with a park in that location. I think it would be a great selling
'
point. I know it would be certainly something that would draw me to that location so I think
the Lakeshore property for a park is the best option.
,
Andrews: Ron.
u�
15 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
Roeser: Well yeah. It's been designated as a park deficient area to begin with. I really can't
' buy the idea that it's going to destroy the development by putting that park on the parkway.
They've got the nice beach along the road. I would go along with staff's recommendation at
this point.
' Andrews: Okay. My comments would be that if the city were to look at purchase of
property, that we would be paying a fair price for it. That's the way the process works so for
' a property to say that there's an economic disadvantage to selling that property, I don't see
that. I personally live in a neighborhood that has a private park that was purchased by the
neighborhood association, which also has the lake frontage and we do not live directly
adjacent to that property yet that was a major reason that we considered buying into our
neighborhood. And so I look at this as a potential marketing advantage to the properties that
are located away from the lake because those all could be given benefit of the lake frontage.
' In this case through a public park which does not require a private association dues or
maintenance and could be far better equipped than our park is in our neighborhood. Also I
recall very much what happened here about a year ago and our position at that time was very
' strong that we thought that the park should be located near the lake and I support that now
more than ever seeing the pace of development and that the need is still not being met in this
area of our city.
' Manders: I agree. The one point I guess I'd make is that accessibility to the back park area
that's being suggested is just not there and with the trail along the parkway now, it's the
' obvious choice to leave it where it's recommended.
Berg: I don't really have anything else to say that hasn't been said. Just we've identified
this area as park deficient for the last 8 years. Plan A, the lakeshore property is available. It
seems to me that I would still stand behind the original motion. I'd also just like to reiterate
' though when and if it does happen, we really concentrate on working well with the residents
in the area to maximize the use for the park.
' Andrews: That's one point I want to really stress is that that's the way we operate. We are
not insensitive to adjacent property owners or nearby property owners. In fact we go into
great deal of depth to making sure that we are responsible in the park in a neighborhood.
' That we don't have inconsistent uses or over use of the park so I'd agree with that. Can we
have a motion on this issue then?
I Roeser: I'll move that we accept the commission's recommendations.
Lash: Staff's recommendations?
16
E
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994 1
Roeser: Yes.
Manders: Second. '
Roeser moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
the City Council approve the preliminary plat as presented with the inclusion of
acquisition of the 10± acre park depicted in Park Plan A including the Lakeshore
property. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication of '
1.72± acres and purchase of 7.48± acres. This acquisition shall be a condition of final
plat approval. A Purchase Agreement shall be negotiated by the City Attorney
contingent upon City Council approval. Full park fee credit ($38,700.00 on 43 homes) is
to be granted as a part of these negotiations. Acceptance of full trail dedication fees in
force upon building permit application is recommended. Current trail fees are $300.00
per single family residential unit. All voted in favor and the motion carried '
unanimously.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONCEPTUAL ,
LAND DE AL PUD FOR 121 ACRES OF
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, MULTI - FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD '
OFF OF AUDUBON ROAD; CHANHASSEN CORPORATE CENTER, HIGHWAY 5
PARTNERSHIP, RYAN COMPANIES, RLK ASSOCIATES.
a ,
Todd Hoffman stated that this was pulled from the Park and Recreation Commission agenda
per the applicant's request. ,
1994 PARK AND RECREATION GOALS.
Todd Hoffman gave a staff report on this item. ,
Andrews: Are you looking for prioritization of these goals or just additions or deletions to I
these goals?
Hoffman: Additions or deletions.
Lash: I have a question on the very first one. Equip all satellite skating rinks with electrical
service and light. Is that what we finally came up with after, no? ,
Hoffman: Not in '94. In '94 we've identified North Lotus Lake Park as the only one with
the light facilities. '
17 1
�J
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
Lash: Yeah, that's what I thought. So why would we want to put that as one of your goals?
Andrews: Yeah, let's make that goal consistent with what we plan to do.
Lash: I was a little confused by that one.
Hoffman: Well, if you recall we had an opportunity for an additional $33,000.00 in funding...
so these goals were made at a time when the potential to have that additional funding we
could enlarge our 1994 CIP. That's no longer the case so this would be one of those goals
which ... at this point because it's not identified because we don't have the additional money. I
still firmly believe that our rinks are being under utilized because when we're making them,
it's waste because we do not have the satellite warming houses and lights available so staff
feels...
Andrews: Are we proceeding then with North Lotus at this point? That's for summer then?
Summer construction and then next winter use?
Hoffman: Correct. So that goal will be refined.
Manders: I have a couple comments. One on the goal, about 10 or 11 down there it says
double recreation and leisure program registration levels. I get, when you see that, it says
double it. It seems like a lot but it probably isn't. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?
Hoffman: It's a goal which I have set for our park staff. Park and recreation staff in that if
we bring on credit cards and fax registrations right along with increasing programs... We'll let
you know what it actually turns out to be but we really feel when a person will be able to
open their brochure this summer and take a look at a class, pick up the phone at any time of
the night or day and speak into a recording and very easily sign up for a class with a credit
card, that's going to increase. Hopefully we can do a good job of doing that and increase our
program registration.
Lash: And can we handle that?
Lash: Our facilities can handle doubling?
Hoffman: Sure.
Hoffman: It depends on our facilities and staff levels certainly are limiting factors with this.
Meger: Yeah, I think just to kind of tie into that. I was curious about that too and how it
18
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
tied into the abolishment of non - resident softball players. If it would be a balancing there.
I'm not sure how many non - resident softball players we have right now but.
Andrews: She hasn't been here for a softball meeting yet.
Ruegemer: That's going to be ... Chaska has got ... this last summer and I know it's a tough
program to have but I think as our facilities are frequently more and more strained on an
annual basis...
Berg: What do you mean by non - resident?
Ruegemer: Non - resident is anybody not working or living full time in the city.
Berg: Not living or working. So people that work.
Ruegemer: Working inside the city constitutes 35...
Berg: Right. People who work at Instant Webb or places like that.
Ruegemer: Right.
Manders: Then the other comment that I had was a couple lines down. The Bandimere Park.
Initiate tree plantings in areas which will be undisturbed for future development. In relation
to what we've talked about in the past, does that flow with our normal thinking?
Hoffman: ...sell the property there's no need to make improvements.
Berg: It might sell better though if you've got trees on it. It might look better if it had trees
on it though.
Andrews: Todd a couple things I'd like to do more of. Last year we took that trip over to
Shoreview to see their community center. Those kinds of things are really viable to see what
other cities are doing. I don't know if it's even possible to maybe invite somebody from
another city to come here and tell us about their program if they had a different program that
we don't have. I've often said geez, it'd be nice to have some sort of a boat program on the
lake. Well, maybe get somebody here that's from a city that has a boat program and tell us
what's good about it and tell us what's terrible about it. Or other things like that are
valuable.
Hoffman: Okay. We also talked at staff level today that the National Congress is going to
19
1
u
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
be meeting of the NPRA, National Park and Recreation Congress and that's an opportunity
for you as commission members to get out and see the big event. Not just on a state level
' but on a national level. It's being hosted by the city of Minneapolis October 16th.
Manders: Is that the one that was in San Francisco this year or last year?
' Hoffman: San Jose. It's in our back door and hopefully we can get all of you out to at least
a portion of that. Whether it be a half day or full day, a couple days ... have you get involved.
' So you'll be seeing mailings because you're members and go ahead and look through those
and pick out some days or events or workshops which you might be.
Meger: Which days are they?
' Hoffman: Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
Lash: Jerry, I have one for you too. On your's number 15. ...I'm starting to sound like a
broken record on this but we need to talk about that. I have a little 6th grade input just the
other day and it wasn't good. It made me feel bad and.
Ruegemer: For...?
Lash: Well I told my son the teen night was, the last one he went to he said he had a lot of
' fun and then he had to skip the next one and I said, I told him it was coming up Friday and
did he want to go and he said no. I said why not. He said there's too many big kids and the
6th graders, it's not fun to get picked on and it was too rough. So that concerned me when I
' heard that. So I think with the number of kids that we're getting at the middle school, we
need to look at maybe separating it somewhat. And I realize it makes either fewer parties
total or more work to have more parties to be able to still provide that many nights but have
' it separated and I don't know. I know it creates more work for you but when a kid says that
to you, I take it pretty serious because he's not usually a whiner about that kind of stuff.
' Ruegemer: Thank you for your input on that.
Roeser: What made us ever include 6th graders to begin with? You know they're not even
Jr. High yet are they?
Lash: They're at the middle school. 6th, 7th and 8th is at the middle school. But for the
' school dances that they have, and 6th grade is really pretty much segregated during the school
day. They're in their whole separate wing so they don't have a lot of contact with the 7th
and 8th graders to start with and then when they have the school dances, 6th grade is
20
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
separate. And I think there's some sound reasons for that. Behind that and we need to, I can
imagine what they are but I think we need to think about that too.
Andrews: I'd like to expand on goal number 5. This is something I've talked about before.
It still bothers me that all, or most of the published programs are coordinated with District
#112 and for instance the ski trip to Welch Village was coordinated with school times of
District #112. The bus picked up the kids at School District #112. At a building in their
school district. I guess I feel this is a city sponsored program. We need to at least
occasionally offer something that allows access to kids that are in the Minnetonka School
District. If it is a city function, it should be accessible and I don't feel we've done a good
job of that.
Hoffman: Jerry and I talked specifically about that issue in regard to the ski trips and I asked
him to continue to converse with the leadership in recreation in #276. They have, not shut us
out but they offer their ski trips and we want to be able to intermingle and say, youths from
#276 and #112, you're both involved in this but I fully understand when you're down at the
Chaska level and if we want to attempt to do this, we have to get permission from the
Minnetonka Community Education. To come up and do registrations, have pick -ups there.
Andrews: I'm not sure you have to have a pick -up there but maybe an alternate time.
Lash: If it's after school on a Friday after school and it's published in the paper, would we
not be able to just take registrations like we normally would and kids who are in the
Minnetonka School District could certainly register to go and have the bus start in Chaska.
Pick -up the kids from Chaska and then swing over to the Minnetonka Intermediate School.
It's right down TH 41 and then head out from there. And you know rather than canvasing
the whole Minnetonka School District and passing a thing out through school because then
you get all the Minnetonka kids too and then that's, then we're over run with too many kids.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Andrews: ...authorize the goals of item 7 as amended and before it goes to the Council for
their approval?
Lash: Second.
Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission authorize
that the 1994 goals of the Park and Recreation Commission be approved as amended.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
21
1
11
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
PRIORITIZE 1994 PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL
' IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Andrews: I guess one question I would have is, after the presentation we had from 6:30 to
' 7:30, how does that affect this budget? I mean does that put us in a position of total chaos
again?
' Hoffman: No.
Andrews: Okay. Dollar wise, I think we're in good shape there aren't we for total dollars?
Hoffman: Total dollars with the increased park fees, I anticipate sending ... we should do fairly
well. However, we all have in the back of our minds this large dollar figures which we will
' be spending on land acquisition so that money will be dedicated. The list is shorter than in
past years so as far as prioritization.
Andrews: To me Pheasant Hills is one that's dragging.
Lash: Yep. I would put that as number one. And it's a given that we're going to have to
' make a purchase order for a bunch of playground equipment so we should just start reviewing
that as soon as possible and get that order in so we know the stuff will be here in the spring
and then the guys can install it as they have the time. So just getting that order done should
' be in, should be number one. But then I would put Pheasant Hills development there as
number one also. Maybe with North Lotus skating.
Andrews: Todd, do you already have a schedule of the various playground sites as far as our
retrofit schedule of where we're going to fit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and what the costs are going to be
yet or is that something we're just starting to do?
Hoffman: It's been ongoing. In the past I've not brought those changes formally to the Park
and Recreation Commission.
Andrews: Where do those dollars come? Do those come out of a secret fund or how do we
fund that?
Todd Hoffman's answer wasn't audible on the tape.
Andrews: Okay. Just that it sounded like a huge project and if we're doing it sort of with
slush money without it really being on the budget, I guess at least from an informational
standpoint I'd like to know what we're spending. Maybe it doesn't need to be authorized but
22
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
I think, I'm quite concerned after the presentation tonight that that's going to turn into some
huge dollars. And if we need to schedule it, I mean it would seem to be stressed by
Anderson that we needed to have a schedule legally. For legal purposes and that gives us a
way to look at budget dollars again.
Hoffman: Many of the upgrades were undertaken as a part of a second phase so you
budgeted second phase for North Lotus play expansion, North Lotus Lake. So we say we
have $12,000.00. What are we going to get? $4,000.00 worth of new equipment and about
$8,000.00 worth of refurbishments to bring the equipment to the standards so that's been the
basis to date and we just do that continually.
Lash: So I'm going to go back to the question I asked this guy earlier. Would we better off
just skipping some of the phase two's if that means, I'm not sure ... and use the money to do
new ones to start with instead of having to spend 3/4 of the money on just going back and
moving equipment. Old equipment around and putting in new pea rock, or is it going to have
to be done anyway so we might as well just bite the bullet and do it?
Hoffman: It's going to have to be done. Again it's another very strong argument when we
go back to City Council in 1995 for general obligation dollars to do these upgrades and bring
our current equipment up to standards. The cost of some of these playgrounds, the larger
ones, Lake Ann ballfield, we're working on accessibility this year as far as...
Lash: But that's something we could, I know we talked at our last meeting a little bit about
different funding sources. Is that something that we could generate maybe an ongoing, not a
contract but an agreement that each year we could count on a certain amount of money from
certain sources to use to upgrade playgrounds?
Andrews: I wouldn't even use the word upgrading them. Bringing them into compliance.
Lash: No, that's what I mean.
Andrews: That makes it sound a lot different.
Hoffman: That's been one avenue of the presentation to the City Council is this depreciation
account. They have a vehicle depreciation account. Playground equipment depreciation
needs to be refurbished and replaced...
Andrews: We talked about last year that we need to have our capital improvement fund is
for acquisition, not for repair and we're eating up more and more of it with repair and
retrofit. Jan mentioned it, I mentioned it. To me Pheasant Hill is the top one here.
23
11
1
I I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
Manders: Where is that? I just don't recall.
Lash: Right off of Lake Lucy Road.
Andrews: It's a piece of property that we purchased. I guess that to me makes it higher
priority. We spent a lot of money to get it. Let's do something with it.
Lash: Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane I think.
Manders: Yeah, I got you. Okay.
Lash: Everything else is really very.
Andrews: Pretty minor.
Lash: Yeah, minimal. It's when you get at it.
Hoffman: Between Chan Hills and North Lotus, where do you want to go first in a play
expansion. We've got $25,000.00 total...
Lash: I'd vote for North Lotus first.
Roeser: I think you're getting more heat from Chan Hills though aren't you?
Manders: I mean is there anything out at Chan Hills now?
Lash: Yeah. What do they have, Phase 1 and a basketball court and a ballfield, don't they?
Hoffman: Yep. Chan Hills playground has been in there for a long time and is not, the
playground has been there for a long time. North Lotus was upgraded slightly last year.
Andrews: Yeah, you put a swing up wasn't it? Yeah.
' Lash: Well what if we were to work on the skating rink at North Lotus and the playground
at Chanhassen Hills and then play area, go back to North Lotus and do the play area after
Chan Hills is done. Kind of split that job into two.
Roeser: That makes sense.
' Hoffman: Okay.
1
24
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
Manders: I guess I just have one question that pertains to a letter in the packet about Power
Hills in terms of the park facilities there. What this letter was referring to was access to
some type of a basketball hoop or something. Is that possible or is that just not even
reasonable?
Hoffman: We talked about putting hoops on the parking lot. We can do that. The
commission should take a look. Again, if they'd like to consider that because ... $1,500.00,
$1,000.00 you could put that in there. The flat area where the tennis court was to be, and
that's kind of isolated by itself. The access... putting a basketball court there, you could do
that.
Lash: When we skipped the tennis court idea I know it had to do with the new idea and all
of that but we did kick around some different ideas of something to put up there. I just don't
remember right off hand what.
Hoffman: Park shelter. That was about it.
Lash: That was it?
Hoffman: Yeah.
Lash: How about in -line skating?
Roeser: We've got the trail for in -line skating.
Andrews: For good in -line skating you need either a large surface or a good trail and that's
what you look for. I mean that's the best. Really to me the favorite is good trails but.
Hoffman: You could do in -line skating on the basketball court. Today to get...
Andrews: Yeah, if you made a specific in -line skating you're going to attract people from all
over to once the word gets out.
Lash: I guess I'd want to look at that park plan before I'd want to stick a basketball court up
there just to see if, I was thinking we had a basketball court already. I guess we didn't?
Andrews: We talked about it on the parking lot and decided that was just not safe.
Lash: Oh yeah, you said we can't do that. We talked about that. I'd rather look, before we
25
it
L
{J
I��J
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
just, I think if they want one that's fine and we can probably scrounge up the money to do it
but I'd want to look at the plan before I'd just plunk it in.
Andrews: Would this flat area that you mentioned, Todd would that be as far as security for,
not for small tots but as far as younger kids, would it be visible and safe so the "riff raff"
couldn't snatch any kids there or bother any kids?
' Hoffman: If you've ever been to the park, you could see there's...
Andrews: Okay. Does this need a motion or is this enough direction for you to work with
here?
Hoffman: Enough direction.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: STOCKDALE PROPERTY.
' Hoffman: I keep putting that on the agenda and it keeps bringing Dave out. Not my
intentions but obviously Dave would like to keep up to date as well on what the city's
thoughts... somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 acres of property ... So that's about all I have.
' Letter of December 13th was included in your packet. Letter to Jim Walston. City
Attorney's office from Mr. Stockdale. It references a Mr. Scott Miller who represents Mr.
Stockdale. I spoke with Scott Miller this past week and really in our conversation both
' parties stand prepared to make final arrangements or at least discuss final arrangements about
the property that should potentially be occurring over the next couple of weeks. I spoke to
' Jim Walston today. He is redrafting the original purchase agreement presented by the City to
address these issues and then we'll take it from there. Present those back to Mr. Miller and
Mr. Stockdale. We can go over those with the commission and then Dave, you would like to
' ask some questions as well. The sale of the property must be in conjunction with the sale of
the development of the—That probably land acquisition there would take place through an
agreement between Mr. Stockdale and Lundgren Bros Development. I put calls into Terry
' Forbord this week and when I get an updated feeling from their position. I'm not sure, have
they talked directly with you?
' David Stockdale: We traded phone calls today. That's where we got.
Hoffman: So every time the phone calls get updated, then the phone calls ... take place. Asa
part of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner and Song plat, as you recall. The updated or new addition
to those site plans, those plats in our door and not to anyone's surprise they included a ghost
plat of how that back part of the Stockdale property could be developed into houses as
' they've indicated that before ... How the city can make that contingent upon our approval, we
26
Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 25 1994
g ary
still haven't totally worked that out. We could make our purchase agreement contingent
upon ... it's a very difficult line to cross. We cannot represent Mr. Stockdale to Lundgren. We '
cannot represent Lundgren's position to Mr. Stockdale. We have to be in communication but
we can't be...
' to come through before this deal can o '
Lash: So we're dust basically waiting for that deal g 8
through?
Hoffman: Well, yeah we want to.
Andrews: It sounds like it needs to be simultaneous. A three party arrangement. '
Hoffman: Could be. Or else at least we could sign our purchase agreement contingent
upon ... happens in the next two weeks or month. The ... present terms obviously are we
'
presented our position to Mr. Stockdale of $24,000.00 per acre and that's what the city has
offered to pay and we have not received a counter offer. Identification of said property,
'
specifically the north and west boundary alignments. As I related to Mr. Miller, the north
boundary is adjacent to Mr. Stockdale's home and we don't have a problem moving that line
one way or the other. Dave and I have talked about that. There's some buffering there. The
'
property which would be park includes some trees which we would have in the plan to donate
and to remove so those trees would be in this buffer as well. The west line needs to fluctuate
somewhat because the city wants to acquire approximately 6.2 acres but at the same time we
'
didn't want to push that line so far west that it infringes on what could be developed. It just
so happens that there is a fairly nice break in there. Drainageway if you will at the bottom of
the hill which would be back yards of homes. It comes down and really hits at the bottom of
the hill where the park would be coming in at that point.
Lash: Did you say we're getting 6.2 acres? Is that what the agreement is for? ... And then
'
where are the other acres coming?
Hoffman: The other acres would be the main portion of Mr. Stockdale's property which
'
would be sold to a separate party. So the park is 6.2 acres. It originally started at about 5
but then when—identified the location for a well house or pump, so we want to add about
another acre so we could buffer that. Modification of environmental warranties. The
'
environmental warranties included—were very stringent. Mr. Walston has identified at least
the representative meeting less than those warranties. It's been Mr. Miller's position that they
would like to state that they are not aware of any environmental problems or did not create
,
environmental problems on that property and that seems acceptable to our attorneys. Payment
of pending and levied assessments. Again, this would be a negotiable item. Certainly if we
acquire property which has some pending assessments on it, we could assume those—purchase
'
27 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
agreement you could say those are the liability of the seller. Temporary and permanent
' ingress and egress. Dave, that was in regard to?
Dave Stockdale: It's been a while. I'm trying to refresh my memory on that too.
Hoffman: Ingress and egress is not a problem so usually that's in regard to construction. We
did talk about some easements for utility lines. Dave would hook his household up to city
sewer and water which is...has a direct correlation to item number 4. Pending and levied
assessments. Our agreement was that we would run the water line through our property to his
property line and he would hook up from there—So hopefully Mr. Walston and Mr. Miller are
' standing.... facilitate this thing and ... Dave, did you have anything to say?
Dave Stockdale: My name's Dave Stockdale, Galpin Boulevard. It's been kind of a long
time since we've had conversation and I think probably the biggest reason is the attorneys.
Just the purchase agreement's—and some of the things that I, from a land person's point of
view looked at ... specifically the environmental warranties was probably the most complex part
' of this dance between dealing with the city and dealing with Lundgren Bros and trying to
bring together ... and that's a real complex issue. It's a very balancing act. Obviously if I sold
out right to the city and I had a purchase agreement with Lundgren Bros that didn't come to
' fruition, I'd have ... so it's real critical that ... so you guys can allocate where your park is going
to be. And that's ... new experience for me. It's not as a straight forward process but we're
' still looking.
Andrews: Mr. Stockdale, I'd want to again thank you for your effort here and cooperation.
' This is something that I've not seen from anybody else as a private citizen in our city for
many, many years.
Dave Stockdale: It works good at a certain level but a lot of it has to do with what happens
with the back half.
Andrews: Sure, I understand that and I understand it's a complex problem that you're going
to a lot of effort. And it benefits the city and I'm not an elected city, or an official city
official so to speak but as a citizen I certainly appreciate what you're doing very much.
Dave Stockdale: We'll see if it works out.
Andrews: I hope it does. It may not but I hope it does.
Dave Stockdale: ...real straight forward. Anyone on the commission want to buy it all?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994 1
Hoffman: Thanks Dave.
FIELD RESERVATION POLICY. ,
Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item. 1
Andrews: I'd like to add a couple names there as examples just so they don't come back as
defined as non -local groups. Or at least have it come up for discussion now as to how they
might be treated. One would be Tonka United Soccer which has a number of Chanhassen
only teams. Would they be considered local youth organizations or would they be considered
non -local or how would that be? ,
Ruegemer: That would be based on residency.
Andrews: I mean my intent is not that we would offer Minnetonka resident teams priority,
similar to our own residents but just that there are a large number of teams that participate
that are completely Chanhassen resident teams.
'
Hoffman: That potentially could be one clarification in the distribution of facilities percentile
ranking. Do you feel it should be the entire organization so you take Tonka United's entire
'
membership or do you take the individual teams?
,
Andrews: Individual teams.
Lash: That was my question too. I wrote that on there. Team or group because there's a big I
difference and my understanding from our last meeting was that it was team.
Andrews: Team. That's right. That's exactly right and boy, we certainly don't want to take
the whole organization. I predict that the squeeze for soccer space is going to be
unbelievable. It's going to be just like ballfields. We're going to have people fighting for
practice space and game space so.
Lash: I have a question about number 1. When it says all directly related city of Chanhassen
activities. Is that the adult softball leagues or where do they fall?
Ruegemer: Excuse me?
Lash: Is that for the adult softball leagues? Are they number one? '
Ruegemer: Well that certainly would be a part of that, right. '
29 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
�l
Lash: Okay, so they would have, so all of the adult teams would have first dibs before the
' youth?
Ruegemer: Well to a certain degree, I would certainly be sensitive in that area. I'm already
' planning on giving up some time already for this upcoming year and even made some
changes on Thursday night to open up some facilities. So if you're concerned about the
adults taking everything and not ... that will not happen.
Lash: Well no, I wouldn't expect that you would do that but if it's down on paper, on paper
that the adults get first dibs over kids and if adults start getting turned down and they want to
see how this priority ranking works and we show them the paper and they come back to us
and say, right there. It says we're supposed to have first dibs over kids.
' Andrews: It's a good point because somebody will come back. Somebody will get a hold of
this thing and come back and say you're not following your procedures.
' Lash: I don't have an answer for how to do that but.
Berg: Yeah, now we have a problem and we don't know the answer.
Hoffman: Youth and adults, whether they're sponsored by us or a civic organization should...
and then it becomes difficult...
Lash: What if it's just city offered programs? Because don't you consider these other things
' to fall under city offered even if it is CAA or softball? So if you just combine those two
together.
' Hoffman: We don't hold our programs to a higher standard simple because we're facilitating
it. It's going to get put in the mix. The Athletic Association is a city service ... All the
associations are.
0
Lash: And just knowing the way the people can get real cagey about once things are down
on paper, it takes one season for them to start figuring out the loopholes in the system. So
then are we going to have to worry about or will it come back to us that the organizations
will start within their organization jockeying their players around so where they normally half
of their teams wouldn't be able to play here at all, will they start spreading out their
Chanhassen residents to get them on all the different teams so that all the teams get to have
access to the fields?
Andrews: Then you have that distribution of facilities kick in down below. So if you get too
30
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
diluted, then you lose priority that way.
Hoffman: The bigger issue to worry about is misrepresentation and what percentage is '
Chanhassen residents.
Lash: We'll have to have blood tests.
with the percentages, Berg: With the distribution of facilities, p g , do we want to be concerned at
all about numbers besides percentages? If 10 people want to use the field and 9 of them are
Chanhassen residents, we've got a whomping 90% but if another group of 20 has 15 people
from Chanhassen, that's only 75 %. Are we at all concerned about servicing numbers here or
are we just going to go with a straight percentage? Because people will look at that as a ,
loophole too I think.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) '
Hoffman: ...Chanhassen, you should have top priority...
Lash: So if we had a team of 15, 2 people could be not residents and they'd still fall.
Andrews: Yeah. 3.
Lash: That's okay.
Andrews: That's okay. ,
Hoffman: We handle that one too. Did we eliminate there are going to be 5 priorities up t
there and, however special events...
Lash: So many we should say city sponsored special events number one. Then combine the
other two.
Roeser: Yeah, then put the next two together somehow. '
Andrews: And instead of saying local youth organizations, you might want to say
organizations that serve our local youth. Because otherwise you could be potentially '
excluding an entity that's located outside of our city that serves our city.
Lash: Well how about when you say athletic events, are you talking about like tournaments? '
31 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
If you schedule a 4 day tournament or something? Okay and that would preclude anyone too.
So number one should be that. It's just that number 2 should also be city sponsored adult
and youth opportunities or whatever. Local adult and local youth.
Lash: And local adults.
Andrews: Organizations that serve our local youth.
Berg: I don't want anything that implies that adults have priority over the kids for the use of
the field.
Ruegemer: If that came through, that wasn't my intent in this.
Lash: It didn't but I didn't know where adult...
Berg: No, I don't think it did but somebody else is going to have it come through that way.
Lash: So if we put adult and youth both as number two, and then everything else there.
Manders: How does that work? Is it first come, first serve or how you address adult youth?
Utilization.
' Hoffman: Based on the number of teams and the size of the organization.
Lash: Did we talk to the CAA anymore about, you know they made that generous offer
about helping to fund or install or whatever another set of lights for Lake Ann? Are we
looking into that as a solution to getting another field for another late game?
!�
Ruegemer: ...out of the CIP budget maybe. I think that's what he was referring to as far as
providing volunteers and some free labor.
Lash: So how much would just the lights cost then if we didn't have to have the labor?
Roeser: Yeah, we couldn't have them throwing up poles and.
Hoffman: Their labor would entail...
Hoffman: Yeah...
Lash: Never mind.
32
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
Hoffman: However the Lions and the Legion are courting us in that regard.
Andrews: They have money.
Hoffman: Yeah. We've been waiting the results of the final budget tally out at the '
elementary school site to see what's not funded and then we will get some additional
correspondence back from both the Lion's Club and Legion...
k we can move on. Are there an other questions regarding Ruegemer: Okay, y q g g the distribution
or any more comments about the priorities?
,
Lash: I dust had a quick question as to that whole procedure. If y ou're the coach of a Little
League team and you want to get your kids together to practice some night, what do you do?
Call you?
Ruegemer: I would prefer that ... once we get through this whole process, that the teams go to '
like a facility coordinator maybe through an association. That'd be a lot easier from my
aspect. Dealing with one person from each organization versus having 64 kids or so call me
up. It's hard to keep track for me and that's what I'm going to do. Indicate that as far as the
way I'd like...
Andrews: Send one to Don Kelly. Tonka United Soccer. Maybe just referencing the
Chanhassen teams. That they would have one person contact you. In the past it's been
strictly a free for all. Whoever knows who to call first.
Lash: I had a quick question about the Stockdale thing, just to get off the track again.
Where's the money coming from for that? i
Hoffman: The money would be from the park acquisition fund. It currently is slated, that ■
would be $50,000.00... purchase and then $50,000.00 for the following two years. So in fact
it would take a budget amendment by City Council recommended by the Park and Recreation '
Commission to dip into your fund.
Lash: To come out of our fund that we just looked at? '
Hoffman: Well no. To dip into your reserves.
Lash: Oh, okay.
Andrews: Okay, anything else you need for item 9 Jerry? '
33
n
1
n
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
Ruegemer: Just that ... this would be ... is pretty straight forward. If there's any comments or
concern about that ... pretty straight forward. Cancellation procedures... based on different cities
and what they have done with the Minneapolis School District as far as the school facilities
and that type of thing so I think it's straight forward... questions or comments. And at the
very end just to, you know our liability waiver that we...
Andrews: Okay, let's move on if we're ready to do so.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. BANDIMERE PARK PROPERTY.
Andrews: Todd, you prepared a response to our request to get information about a potential
consideration of sale.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: Have you had any types of feelers or response from any other city officials about
this concept?
Hoffman: Well it's been discussed as a second go around and the city officials... staff
members the feeling is that the margins, when you start to throw in the legal costs and those
type of things, they're considered as small. As the city goes out and intends to look for
property elsewhere, there's not a whole heck of a lot out there unless you identified... property
specifically for this purpose and you want good access and you want flat property, you're
going to pay top dollar. So it's not as if you're going to buy a 50 acre parcel and you're
going to take everything along with it. The wetlands and bad access and those type of things.
That's what you're trying to get rid of. So who knows what we'd get for Bandimere...
Roeser: Why did we decide, what made us think we should sell it in the first place? I guess
I forgot or I don't remember why we.
Andrews: There's a couple issues. One is that we've never been able to fund any
' development of the property because we don't have any money. The second is that in some
ways my opinion, I think the access is difficult to Bandimere. I think those are the two main
issues. Like Todd said, they're the two. It's a potential opportunity where perhaps we could
' acquire a piece of property of nearly equal size that might be better for our needs and put
money in our pockets at the same time.
' Lash: Another potential problem or, it's been worked around I guess but I don't look at it as
1 34
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
being an asset to the property, is the pipeline goes right under it and we have to work around
that because you can only grade and have so much.
Roeser: But doesn't that also make it more difficult to sell to somebody who wants to build
houses on it? If you're going to sell it to somebody, they're going to know about the
pipeline too.
Lash: Well we didn't.
Roeser: And I don't consider it that bad a piece of property. I don't consider the access that,
that detrimental to that property. I think we'd be making, I don't know if we'd be making a
mistake but I really don't, I think we should really look at that before we start looking around
to sell it. And if we don't have anything in mind to buy.
Lash: Before we barely even finish buying that piece, we were already looking at it as being
too small and how were we going to be able to acquire, how many more acres did we want to
get to the north? And what did we get from Lundgren, 5? That brought it up to 35?
Hoffman: 37.
Lash: 37. So, and I don't think that was as many acres as what we wanted to get to start
with and now we know we'll never be able to get any more acreage around it because it
would be surrounded.
Roeser: Yeah, will we be able to get any acreage down in that area at all? And this is what
you want is a park in that area, isn't it?
Lash: Were you here 2 weeks ago?
Roeser: I think so yeah. Yeah.
Lash: When we were looking at some different areas.
Roeser: Yeah.
Lash: I don't even want to, you know the more we talk about that kind of stuff, the more
information that gets out that we could possibly have an interest and then I think sometimes.
Hoffman: It has to happen though Jan.
35
0
1
F
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
Andrews: I guess I think like Janet that it sounds like a good idea but when you start
thinking about all the things that have to happen to make it work, boy it seems like the odds
are stacked against us. You have to sell it. You have to pay the realtor fees and the attorney
fees. You have to find a willing seller of another piece of property and close all that and I
think that's going to consume a lot of the advantage. I just know what a hassle that is.
Lash: I guess I wouldn't want to just give it up because we think it's going to be a hassle. I
' think it's worth continuing to pursue. I don't think it's worth getting big hopes up or
investing huge amounts of time and energy but I'd be interested in getting feelers out on the
two specific sites that we were looking at that we thought would make nice additions and find
' out if it wouldn't be too difficult to work out some kind of deals with those. I still would be
interested in trying to pursue it and try to get it to work out.
n
J
I�
Roeser: And just go at it very easily or very slowly, is that what we're talking about?
Andrews: Yeah, I guess I would agree that we could explore it to that point.
Meger: What kind of anticipated feedback have we received from residents in that area? I'm
unaware of the order in which something developed in that area but again, looking at what we
talked about earlier, if there are residents that bought in that area with the thought that there
would be a park developed in that area, I guess if it was me I'd be pretty disappointed if all
of a sudden I was laying one out for development and I thought my property, thinking a park.
Lash: I don't know that there was any, that there's been much of any building going on
around there. It was a pretty isolated site with the street running right behind it and then
houses there and they were all there... And actually there was some concern, as you can
imagine, from the existing residents about.
Meger: About the park going in.
Andrews: Lights.
Lash: Traffic and ballfields and all the normal concerns.
Roeser: Well somebody had a complete lighting system in there bigger than the Metrodome,
from one of letters we got.
Andrews: I agree with Jan. I'd like to at least make a feeler to the two properties that we
looked at that night we had the maps on the floor and.
36
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
Lash: Well and the one property is already there. There's already something generating with
that so.
Hoffman: ...tomorrow morning. The engineering, planning staff, park staff reviewing the
application. In fact you'll be reviewing the application and the use of the westerly portion of
the property.
Roeser: Is that Halla?
Lash: Yeah. And when did they, so they're only bringing in the west part?
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: And do you know what their future plans are for the east part?
Hoffman: No, but they are consuming the eligibility to build it as rural development with
intensifying that that be ... so their hands would be tied for any development...
Andrews: So they are deteriorating the current property value?
Hoffman: Yeah, you could say that.
Andrews: It could be an opportunity in other words. An economic opportunity.
Lash: I look at that as being an opportunity.
Manders: It'd be a good site too.
Andrews: It'd flat. It'd be nice to pick the trees off there too.
Roeser: I'm sure we get the trees free.
Andrews: Do you have enough direction on this one Todd?
Hoffman: Yep.
Andrews: Okay, let's move on.
C. HIGHWAY 101 TRAII. UPDATE.
37
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
Andrews: Can I make a comment on this? I was at the Council meeting last night. I got a
little upset towards the end of that meeting when the Mayor stated that this is a dead issue
and what I meant to say was that, I was in full agreement. It was a dead issue. That it will
be an issue when somebody is dead and the Mayor misinterpreted that I was challenging that
he had the right to speak, say that it was a dead issue in his own mind. It wasn't the point I
was trying to make. So there are still a lot of people that think there are going to be
bulldozers out there in the spring. I mean I've had people call me and say, when are they
going to start? It's just amazing the amount of misinformation that's been created by people
just talking back and forth so, there are going to be some people wondering what's
happening. And it appears that nothing's going to happen in the near term. That's really
about it too.
Roeser: It's stalled.
Andrews: One of the ideas I had last night when I went home later after the meeting was, I
asked my wife, I said what would you think if instead of trying to build this thing all the way
from down by, I forget the name of the street there. The south terminus. Where the property
lines are tight and the road is close. What would you think of the idea if this trail was built
only from Kurvers Point north to Pleasant View where there's, in most places, adequate right -
of -way to build it. And if not adequate right -of -way, a very low priority that the road would
ever be expanded to the point where it would destroy the existing trail. And she thought that
was kind of a good idea and I kind of do too. I think that would be much more doable. It
still would provide a fairly meaningful enhancement to the people that are landlocked.
There's basically two neighborhoods that are just about completely landlocked. It's Sandy
Hook and Lotus View. There's just no way in or out of those neighborhoods without getting
on that road and it's really dangerous. They both have poor visibility access to the road so
anyway.
Hoffman: Did you understand my description on the tax increment issue? It's not included
in the pot but it's ... now that we have one other potential project, and really two other
potential projects being the road upgrade and the construction of the trail to add to the list of
projects which would likely be completed with tax increment financing.
Lash: When you're talking about the road upgrade, is that on TH 101?
Hoffman: Correct, TH 101 north.
Lash: We just did a whole bunch of work there. Now what does it need?
Hoffman: They did the intersection. Now you need to pick it up from the intersection and
38
11
G
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
go north.
Andrews: Which there's no current plan to do.
Hoffman: Correct. It's currently a rural section. Has ditches so you want to take the ditches
out and widen the lanes. Improve the turning...
Lash: But if there's no plans to do it, then how is it a high priority?
Hoffman: It's a high priority to plan. It's a high priority...
Lash: It's a high priority to plan but not to do? ...planning it even though we know we're
never going to do it.
Andrews: I was at a meeting where we had MnDot, Carver County, Hennepin County, Eden
Prairie and Chanhassen all at one meeting about this road and when somebody asked the
question, well who's going to build it. Everybody pointed and nobody wants it so. I talked
to Councilman Senn too about this tax increment because I heard about that. I thought geez,
this is it. This is our pot of gold. We're going to have money and he said there's already
enough projects already planned that there's virtually no chance of any money coming out of
that but it's given us a glimmer, a potential possibility. It could, that's right so it's better
than before.
Lash: I thought usually trails were done.
Roeser: I think we just have to keep pounding them and talking about it.
Andrews: That's right. Keep it up in front.
D ARTS GRANT, METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL.
Lemme: Chairman and Commissioners. I just wanted to let you know about an arts grant
that was received and it's been deposited in the city checking account I guess for use this
summer to be offering an arts program for youth. We're still in the early stages of planning
the program. We had to do some planning before we applied for the grant but as far as some
of the details, we've not gotten down to that yet ... good opportunity to offer some art
programs, drama in particular to the youth in the area. ...our plan would be to use the
elementary school since it's so close to City Hall ... so we're not sure where this is going to be
yet but it's going to be somewhere.
39
J
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
E. SENIOR LINKAGE LINE.
Lemme: Another item informational. ...but was not sure whether or not the commission was
aware of Senior Linkage Line ... being operated out of the Senior Center. It has been since this
last summer and Kitty Sitter... coordinator of that program. And if you have any questions,
I'd be willing to address those at this time.
Manders: I have to admit that I wasn't familiar with this program.
Lemme: Information or referrals for seniors... because there are so many things out there.
People don't know where to turn to or who to call first and they're getting, and seniors get
very frustrated with the red tape. Even an opportunity to call the senior center, if they don't
get the right line in they'll hang up you know rather than try to call back. So this piece
really is just to try to give people one location to call ... find the information. Return their call.
Maybe follow up with referrals and keep an updated computer system. Places of everything
from nursing homes to where they can get legal assistance. Those kinds of things.
Lash: I think that's great. One of the big ... is for family members to be able to call. When
you're going through that for the first time, you have no idea who to call to get help to look
for... You don't know what's available and.
Andrews: Do you know, is there such a thing as a computer bulletin board for seniors?
Lemme: You mean as far as employment?
Andrews: Referrals. Referrals to the various services just like what we're doing on the
phone. It's becoming such a big thing with everybody. Computers and modems and using
that as a method to communicate. Maybe look toward the future. Next year, year after as to
that's an area of expansion for a program like this.
Lemme: All the information is on a computer.
Andrews: Okay but I mean put it on a computer where people could call in and pull it up off
a bulletin board. Just an idea. ...that's where technology is going.
Lemme: Sure. Yeah, who knows where...
Andrews: But this program looks like it's really being used. Good program.
Lemme: Well we want you to be involved more by getting the information out, especially to
i �,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994 1
the western part of the county...
Andrews: Very good. Any other comments? ,
F. 1994 PICNIC FEES. I
Ruegemer: This went back to the December and just information collected from the
December meeting when the Park and Recreation Commission wanted to indicate different
group rates for residents versus business—and businesses not from Chanhassen. What I
'
illustrated on the next couple of pages here was several options... That's for the Park and
Recreation Commission's consideration and we had talked about, it's staff's recommendation
'
to keep the residents' rates I guess the same. The resident single family or not single family
but single group rate the same and then change the business rate. And then we've got the
Park and Recreation Commission would like to see a higher rate assessed to businesses both
'
from Chanhassen and non- Chanhassen...and we can redo those in a minute. And then also
having these different percentage rates, the Park and Recreation Commission also discussed
then about a voucher and the 50% rule for residents as a result of the new fee structure. So
,
that will be enforced and the Commission... Before we get to the ... we also have another issue
to resolve as far as the ... local church groups. Last year we did have an incident where a
church group felt it was unfair that they were assessed the $200.00 refundable damage deposit
,
in that case and with the specific ... that was unfair and I guess I would like the Park and
Recreation Commission to review the statement and then come up with a policy. You know
whether, do we require local church groups or church groups for that matter to require them
,
paying a damage deposit type of a.
Andrews: That's what our rule is.
'
Roeser: That's right. I would say maintain it. I
Berg: You make one exception, you have to make a second.
Lash: I don't understand at all what the cost is of writing a check and voiding it. I can't '
imagine. Tell them to give you $200.00 cash and then give it back to them.
Andrews: We took care of that item. '
Ruegemer: Okay. Then let's just put in ... recommendation is to accept then a percentage or a I
percent increase that you feel is fair to be assessed.
Andrews: I think 30% because that's approximately what they can deduct on their, the I
41 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
advantage they have on deductions for business expenses.
Lash: I don't have a problem with raising these fees. We don't have a problem I don't think
with booking it so why not, everything else goes up. Why not, we know we're going to book
them anyway. We don't have to be greedy about it but to round things off a little bit if...to
$30.00 for residents and maybe $90.00 for non - residents and I think businesses should be
more than just plain residents to start with. Whether they're local or not local, I think a
business should pay more.
Hoffman: That's what we were discussing.
Lash: Yeah. So I would look at a Chan business. If a resident can rent it for $30.00, I think
a business should rent it for.
Andrews: 30% more.
Hoffman: At least.
Lash: At least. I was going to say $75.00.
Hoffman: It's the difference between one of us calling for our family reunion and holding
your company picnic there. A company makes a big investment in their company picnic.
Andrews: Alright, let's go for it. Let's go 40 and see what happens.
Ruegemer: You want to go 40 across the board?
Andrews: For business.
Ruegemer: So a group resident, you want it for $30.00 and then $90.00?
Manders: I don't follow what you're getting at here.
Lash: If you look at Lake Ann Lakeside Jim.. Before it was $27.00 and $80.00. So if we
bumped the resident to $30.00. I mean $3.00, it's a round number. Makes it $30.00 and
non - resident, I don't have a problem with raising them 10% is $8.00 and then go up a little
bit more to $90.00.
Andrews: I agree.
42
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994 1
I
Lash: And then for businesses, if you look under Lake Ann Parkview, or if you look at the
picnic shelter. I looked at the picnic shelter. I'd be willing to go $90.00 for residents and
$200.00 for non - residents and businesses should be.
Andrews: Plus 40. Just across the board. Just keep it simple. I
Ruegemer: Another question then. Would that $112.00 is somewhat of an odd number. Do
you want to raise that to $115.00? '
Roeser: Yeah, I like round numbers. Round up.
Lash: $115.00 is it's a resident business and how much if it's a non - resident business then? ,
Andrews: It's just 40% up of the base fee and round it out. '
Lash: But that's not, if you look at what the difference is between a person resident and a
non person resident, it's 3 times. '
Andrews: That's okay. I
Lash: And then to have the businesses not be somewhat the same proportion? I mean I
know it can't be $600.00 but if a business, a resident, a local business is $115.00, I think that I
a non - resident business should be proportionately more.
Andrews: We're going to take the non - resident rate and multiply it times 40% so we're just I
going to up everything 40% for business.
Lash: 259? '
Andrews: Where is it? Yeah.
Lash: 260. '
Andrews: Yeah. I
Lash: Yeah, okay. Does that sound just astronomical to you guys?
Andrews: Not for that facility. I
Hoffman: The only one I would question of the whole thing is a non - resident calls up for a I
43 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
family reunion and they pay $90.00 where a resident pays $30.00. That's the cost of doing
' business.
Lash: That's the cost of paying taxes.
Andrews: We've got facilities that we know are going to be used...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS:
Meger: ...designate what the money will be used for and so that's I guess what I would ask.
Is as we're reviewing things, if we can think of something that costs around the $500.00 that
can be pinpointed and certainly justified.
Lash: ...maybe there'd be an obvious connection.
Meger: Aetna. I think Casualty Aetna has plans.
Lash: Getting playground equipment into compliance.
Meger: Yes, they would. Very much be supportive of that. Especially that compliance piece
as well as ADA requirements. We do a lot of talking about that.
Andrews: Something with the seniors.
Meger: Yeah.
Andrews: Great. Fabulous. Any other presentations?
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET.
Andrews: Any highlights there?
Hoffman: No highlights in the packet. I have a couple of minor additions for your
consideration.
Andrews: And those are?
44
it
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994 1
Hoffman: Letter from the...6547 Gray Fox Curve. I think Mr. Kenny's concern originates
from the use of the access off of North Lotus Lake park to the lake in the winter time by ,
snowmobiles. That's prompted him to call. In regard to your request ... city some years back
regarding access to the lake during the summer. The issue here is something of that nature. I
think everyone, the whole community is benefitting from access during the winter. It's his
position that the neighborhood should at least be able to benefit during the summer.
Andrews: That's a pretty boggy area, if I remember correctly. I've stomped around there a
couple times. Close down by the lake. That would be a very difficult area to work. Also, if
you have a pier, we have to provide ADA access, which means we'd have to provide a road.
Roeser: How about wheelchair access? '
Andrews: That's what ADA is, yeah. So that would all be part of the project. I think
there's no way. '
Hoffman: I received the impression that his call was really about snowmobiles and that he
was somewhat disgruntled and that snowmobiles were mowing all the cattails. So I said let's ,
address that issue. We'll get out there and sign it. There's a city ordinance which do not
allow ... and if you'd like to pursue the issue of an access with the commission, you can do so
but based on number one, an access and the remoteness of the site. And number two, the ,
lake...
Andrews: Make sure that you explain the ADA issue is a major issue for any kind of project '
like that. Any other?
Hoffman: No. '
Andrews: I was just looking at the calendar. If we're looking at our usual second Tuesday '
meeting, that would be February 8th. I will be doing some independent study of recreational
opportunities at Winter Park that weekend so, that week so Jan you'll have to.
Lash: Well these are just more informal work sessions. '
Andrews: They're work sessions, yeah. I won't be here for that. Anything else? '
Hoffman: February Festival's coming along nicely. Again we have the Park Commission
down as ... and we've also requested additional volunteers from the citizens...
Meger: When they listed all those prizes on there, they seemed to correspond a lot of them
with the fishing contest. Is that correct? So those prizes that are for the fishing contest and '
45 1
fl
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994
then there's the prize board as well similar to the 4th of July prize board?
Hoffman: You need to buy a ticket to be in the prize board. The prize drawings are all part
of the fishing contest. So if you catch a big fish you win a prize. If you have a ticket to the
fishing contest you're also eligible for the door prize. So you could come down and buy a
ticket for $4.00 or a ticket for your kid for $2.00 and be in the door prize and not fish. We
do not have a prize board similar to the one on the 4th of July.
Lash: And then, I know I asked you about this before but I forget. The snow sculpture
judging. How are you going to do that again? ...some of us work.
Lemme: If you wanted to drive by in the morning or something.
Lash: Next time let's figure out a different way of doing that.
Roeser: Because you want to judge it, is that what you're saying?
Lash: Yeah. I think that would be a fun thing to do. I mean I really would like to do that.
Hoffman: You can go around at night can't you?
Lash: Well it's dark then.
Hoffman: They don't have to be present. We said if you're not there, the judging's
independent so if you would like to arrange some other time for the judging...
Lash: Wait a minute, what day is it? The 16th?
Lemme: No, it's the 10th...
Andrews: Any other business? If not, let's have a motion to adjourn.
Berg moved, Meger seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Coordinator
Prepared by Nann' Opheim
46
�l
1
E
u