The URL can be used to link to this page

1l Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COURTYARD CONFERENCE ROOM MARCH 15, 1999 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:' Mayor Mancino; Councilwoman Jansen, Councilman Engel, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager; Anita Benson, City Engineer; Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent 1999 BOARD OF REVIEW, PRESENTATION BY ORLIN SHAFER, COUNTY ASSESSOR Odin Sharer updated the City Council On the 1999 Board of Review process. Mr. Shafer explained the methods used in determining the 2000 market value and which parcels were reviewed for taxes payable in 2000. The meeting schedule for this year's Board of Review is as follows: · Monday, April 26, 1999, 7:00 p.m. in the City Council ChamlO~i~Worksession with assessor's office) Monday, May 10, 1999, 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (regular city council meeting) PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON LAKE LuCY ROAD FROM GALPIN BOULEVARD TO TH 41 Staff presented the concerns broughtup by Mr. Kerkvleit, a resident along Lake Lucy Road in Woodridge Heights 2nd Addition, regarding no parking on both sides of Lake Lucy Road. It was requested that the City Council consider allowing' parking on one side of the roadway. Council directed staff to inform residents directly accessing Lake Lucy Road between Manchester Drive and Highover Drive when this issue will be brought to a regular City Council meeting for consideration. It is desirable that a consensus be reached as to which side of the road, north or south, parking should be allowed. PARK AND RECREATION ITEMS: OUTDOOR FACILITY SCHEDULING PROCEDURE Jerry Ruegemer presented a report detailing the outdOor facility scheduling. Staff will present a report at a later meeting on the percentages of Chanhassen kids participating in our local association and then allocation of fields based on the city's CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 15, 1999 PAGE 2 established field policy. Staff will also rePort on the percentages of growth per association and growth projections in 5 years. NEIGHBORHOOD PARK MAINTENANCE City Council and staff discussed the merits of various levels of volunteer park maintenance. City Council gave direction to the Park and Recreation Director to work with the Park and Recreation Commission to develop a program which focuses on trail pick up and special projects. Councilman Senn also requested that staffand the commission explore the concept of"privatizing' park planning and maintenance by giving neighborhoods more control of the parks. REFERENDUM LAND ACOUISITION The City Council was presented with a history of the referendum open :space acquisition efforts made to date. The City Council gave direction to staff to pursue acquisition of parcel 1A (a portion of the Frank Fox property). INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TASI~ FORCE The council interviewed the following people for the Citizen-at-large position On the Law Enforcement Task Force: John Hull, Kenneth Block, Miles Lord, Robert Wold, and Brent Polivany. The council will appoint one applicant On March 22. VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION DINNER The council would like to host a volunteer recognition dinner on July 10th at eii her Lake Ann Park or City Center Commons (tent would be required at this location). The park and Recreation Department will coordinate the event. Council requests each department to compile a list of volunteers, including a short description of their volunteer service. TASK FORCES Sixteen applications were received for the computer task force. Staff asked if the council wanted to interview all sixteen or how they wanted to narrow the field to 5. Each cour eil member will review the applications and rate the candidates in order of preference. The cou acil will then compare scores to determine if there is a consensus among the ratings. The co' tncil will meet at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, March 29 to review the ratings. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager Prepared by Norma Schuller CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 16, 1999 Mayor Mancino called the special meeting to order at $:45 p.m. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Engel, Councilmember Labatt, Councilmembcr Jansen, Councilmember Senn. Councilmember Senn left the meeting early. COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None SEARCH FIRM TEAM PRESENT: Bob Benson and Mark Sathe from Sathe & Associates, Inc., and Harry Brull from Personnel Decisions International City Manager Discussion Each Council member stated that she/he was ready to make their selection of our new City Manager tonight. Topics of discussion among Councilmembers included: · The need to put together a compensation package. Mayor Mancino and. Councilmember Labatt volunteered to work with Bob Benson on this. · How excellent the two final candidates are and how hard it is to make the final decision. · The concern of the vote appearing in this week's edition of the community newspaper, because "reporting on how the vote went could prejudice the eventual winner or the runner-up if the winner declined the job", and the process of choosing a City Manager could start over again. In addition, Councilmembers felt uncomfortable discussing strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. · Councilmembers thanked both Bob Benson and Mark Sathe, of Sathe & Associates, for the amount of work they had put into the search and the quality of the finalists. Each Councilmember gave a written statement to Mr. Benson suggesting who they wanted to offer a City's Manager's contract to. Mayor Mancino, Councilmembers Engel, Jansen & Labatt suggested Mr. Botcher, Councilmember Senn suggested Mr. Mielke. The Special Meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Nancy Mancino Mayor CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 22, 1999 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, CouncilWoman Jansen and Councilman Labatt COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Engel STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Anita Benson, City Engineer; Charles Folch, Public Works Director; Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager; Harold Brose, Equipment Superintendent; and Roger Knutson, City Attorney Public Present: Name Address Patsy Bemhjelm Bob Ayotte Phil Gravel Bob Benson 9380 Kiowa Trail 6213 Cascade Pass 2335 West Hwy. 36, St. Paul Executive Search Consultant CONSENT AGENDA: a. Aoorove Plans and Soecifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids, 1999 Sealcoat Pro|ect 99- 2. No questions asked. b. Soringfield 6th Addition, Lund~ren Brothers: Final Plat Aooroval and Aoorove Addendum B to the Develooment Contract. No questions asked. d. Avvrove Bids for Ac~luisition of Remainin~ 1999 Vehicles and Eouioment, PW016GGG. Councilman Senn asked if some had been approved earlier. Charles Folch clarified that only pieces of some equipment were previously awarded. Councilwoman Jansen asked for clarification of the bid amounts to the estimates. Councilman Senn asked about the tractor for Park and Rec. Todd Gerhardt stated that the funds for that item had been transferred from Fund 410 to 950. · e. Authorize Preoaration of Soecificafions and Advertisin~ for bids for a 250 KW, Mobile Generator. Charles Folch handed out an accounting of Fund 710 numbers and clarified the information for the Council. Mayor Mancino asked about paYing cash versus bonding. Charles.FOlch stated that City Council Work Session - March 22, 1999 "technically yes", the Council could pay cash versus bonding. Charles Folch also explained about the NSP refund. g. Aooroval of Bills. Councilwoman Jansen asked for clarification on payment for a culvert repair. h. Aooroval of Minutes. No questions asked. i. Aooroval of 1999/00 LRiuor Licenses. Councilman Senn asked about the Chanhassen Bowl liquor license. Roger Knutson explained that they can't be closed down regarding the liquor license because they're involved in bankruptcy proceedings. i. Aoorove Resolution Authoriziw, Particioation in MnDNR Metro Greenwavs Planning and :Land Acauisition Grant. Kate Aanenson made a brief presentation to the Council explaining the matching funds and cash contribution from the city for this project. k. Aooroval of Release of Site Plan Permit No. 9%7. State Bank of Chanhassen. No questions asked. 1. Anorovai of One Day Beer & Wine License Request, Chaska Arts Council. No questions asked. Public Hearing: Aoorove Feasibility Reoort for Lake Drive West (Powers Boulevard to Audt~bonl Road). Prolect No. 98-16. . Anita Benson passed out a handout regarding this item to the Council. Mayor Mancino asked for clarification on the process. Anita Benson stated that on April 12, 1999 the Council would be presented with the financial options and the preliminary plat for development. Public Hearing: Aoorove Feasibility Reoort for Stone Creek Drive (North of Coulter Boulev~d). Proiect 98-15. Same process as the previous item. FinanCial optiOns will be presented at the April 12, 1999 Council meeting. Consider Aooroval of Trunk Highway 212 Memorandum of UnderStanding. PW290E. Anita Benson passed out a handout with citizen comments from the previously held open house and a report regarding noise decibels. City Council Work Session - March 22, 1999 Aooointment of Citizen-at-Large and Public Safety Commission Members to the Law Enforcement Task Force. No questions asked. Additions to Agenda: Mayor Mancino asked that an item 8 bc added under New Business. Review of the new City Manager Contract. Bob Benson handed out a copy of the contract for the Council to review and made a clarification in thc 2"d sentence of paragraph 4 and asked if there were any questions. Mayor Mancino mentioned an article regarding Edina's liquor licenses and the percentage of food versus liquor requirement for the Council's information. Mayor Mancino closed the work session at 6:05 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt Acting City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 3 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22, 1999 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Flag. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Engel, Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Jansen STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Anita Benson, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson and Harold Brose APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the agenda as amended to add item 8, Review New City Manager Contract under New Business. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Plans & Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids, 1999 Sealcoat Project 99-2. b. Springfield 6th Addition, Lundgren Brothers: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approve Addendum B to the Development Contract e. Authorize Preparation of Specifications and Advertising for bids for a 250 KW Mobile Generator. g. Approval of Bills. h. City Council Minutes dated March 8, 1999 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 23, 1999 i. Approval of 1999/00 Liquor Licenses. j. Resolution #99-21: Approve Resolution Authorizing Participation in MnDNR Metro Greenways Planning and Land Acquisition Grant. k. Approval of Release of Site Plan Permit No. 97-7, State Bank of Chanhassen. 1. Approval of One Day Beer & Wine License Request, Chaska Arts Council. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 D. APPROVE BIDS FOR ACOUISITION OF REMAINING 1999 VEHICLES AND EOUIPMENT, PW016GGG. Councilman Senn: As far as that goes, I really don't feel comfortable going ahead and approving any more vehicle acquisition until we complete the discussion that we had at budget time in terms of follow up on vehicles and a vehicle policy so at this time I'm not going to be voting for it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then may I have a motion please? Councilman Labatt: I'll make a motion we approve item number l(d). Mayor Mancino: And a second please? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Resolution #99-22: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve Bids for Acquisition of Remaining 1999 Vehicles and Equipment, PW016GGG. All voted in favor except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR LAKE DRIVE WEST (POWER BOULEVARD TO AUDUBON ROAD}, PROJECT NO. 98-16. Public Present: Name Address Mike Forkins Don Patton 7600 Charles Riggle 8461 Patsy Bernhjelm 9380 Bob & Sherry Ayotte 6213 John Hull 1421 Greg Doeden 8480 Roger Benson 8461 Don Kilian 8471 Phil Gravel 2335 Parklawn #200, Edina Bittern Court Kiowa Trail Cascade Pass Lake Susan Hills Drive Swan Court Swan Court Swan Court West Hwy 36, St. Paul Anita Benson: This is a public hearing on the feasibility report for Lake Drive West street and utility improvement, Project 98-16. The proposed project was petitioned by Eden Trace Corporation and Redmond Products Inc to construct Lake Drive West from Powers Boulevard to Audubon Road. The project consultant engineer is here this evening, Mr. Phil Gravel, and he will give a brief project summary and address any questions you have on the feasibility report. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Phil Gravel: Thanks Anita. Good evening Mayor and Council members. Tonight we're having a public hearing for the Lake Drive West project. I'll give a brief presentation of the elements of the project, 2 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 discuss some of the costs and assessments. Then we can open it up for public questions and at that time you could close the public hearing for council discussion and we can proceed from there. There will be another, this issue will come back at the next council meeting with more financial information and authorization to proceed to the next step if you so choose to do so. Mayor Mancino: And just so everyone knows, the next council meeting is Monday, April 12th. The second Monday of the month. So this will come back in front of us again. Phil Gravel: Okay. As far as the elements of the project, the sanitary sewer for the project was installed in 1992 under a previous trunk project. This project will have some minor sanitary sewer elements, including relaying some of that pipe that was installed in '92 because of some grade changes, and also providing some stubs for the adjacent properties that were not installed in '92. The watermain for the site was not installed previously and that's included with this project and is shown on the screen. The watermain will consist of a 12 inch trunk facility extending from Powers Boulevard on the east to Audubon Road on the west. And along that alignment there will be fire hydrants and stubs for the adjacent property... Other elements that are included in the project include trail, street, lighting, landscaping and some specific things to discuss. The alignment of the road was determined during a previous platting process. I'm Irish and I'm from St. Paul but I'm not responsible for this curvy nature of the road. The plan as presented tonight includes a trail on the north side of the roadway, which is on the left side of the picture on your screen. That will connect existing trails on Audubon Road and Powers and also provide an access to the Sunset Ridge Park. The road section will be similar, or is identical to Coulter Boulevard and a number of other roads in town. It's a 36 foot face to face street with lighting and landscaping proposed to be mostly completed by the developers. There's some city owned property at each end of the alignment that would include landscaping under this project. Two real unique elements to this project include a retaining wall that's necessary at the west end on the south side of the road due to grades. There's an existing drainage pond there and we don't want to have any impact on that pond so the thought is that right at the right-of-way line at the property line the~e'd be a retaining wall to avoid any filling on that site. There's also a couple of trees that exist there and we haven't done any detailed design yet but we'd like to try and save those trees or else we'd have to relocate them or something. Mayor Mancino: And the retaining wall and the landscaping won't encroach on the neighboring back yards at all, correct? Phil Gravel: Correct. It would be on the city side of the right-of-way line. Another element, Todd has had, the parks department has had a master plan prepared for Sunset Ridge Park. I think that was done a number of years ago and one thing that's shown on that plan is a parking area so we were asked to try and incorporate that into the plan and prepare a cost estimate for that. That's shown here on the screen in green. It would be a parking area for approximately 18 stalls and the cost of that would be a city cost. Other than that, the developer will complete the grading and then the city will just do the project as normal, which leads us to the assessments for the project. The project is proposed to be 100% assessed to the benefiting properties. The area has been previously partially assessed for trunk sewer and water. With this project we'd make up any shortfalls we have for trunk sewer and water assessments and the street assessment would be shared equally on a per foot basis and the other assessment that would be involved would be a lateral benefit watermain assessment to adjacent properties for lateral benefit they receive from the trunk watermain. The total project cost is approximately $1,456,100.00. The total assessments are approximately $1,691,467.00. That produces a net positive revenue in this case of around $235,000.00. Again the positive revenue comes from the trunk area assessments which is a fixed City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 policy that the city has to generate revenue for trunk facilities such as wells and towers and larger mains and pipes. With that I think we could open up to any questions that people might have. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Phillip. Any questions from council members at this point? Okay, this is a. Councilman Senn: I have a real quick one. Mayor Mancino: Go ahead. Councilman Senn: Phil, YOu said that the overall project is what again now? One million. Phil Gravel: $456,000.00. Councilman Senn: 100, right? Phil Gravel: Yes. Councilman Senn: And what were the assessments? Phil Gravel: $1.691 million. In the report there's a Table IV. Councilman Senn: money, correct? Okay. And of that $1,691,000.00 in assessments though, about $325,000.00 is city Phil Gravel: Yes sir. Mayor Mancino: 324. Councilman Senn: Sorry for the round number. Next time I'll be more exact... Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And 20 cents. Councilman Senn: 27 actually. Okay.' Alright, thanks. Mayor Mancino: Okay, we'll open this to a public hearing. Anyone wishing to come and address the council, please come forward and state your name and address. Up to the podium please. Love to hear from you. Roger Benson: Hi. Roger Benson. I live at 8461 Swan Court. My property is to the south of the retaining wall. Just a question concerning I guess the proposed parking lot at the park. How did it come up? Why did it come up? Some of the neighbors have some concerns about weekend activities, etc. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anita, can you answer that please. Anita Benson: To some degree. That was as Phil said, taken from the park master plan for Sunset Ridge Park that was developed through the parks department. We can research that further as to why that was included in the master plan but we're just taking something that was already in the park plan. 4 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Park master plan. So you can come back on hopefully, yeah I can. I think we can hear you. Anita, when we get this back again, when we see this again on April 12th, can we see a little bit more about the parking lot? Where it's going to be approximately and how many stalls it will have. Phil Gravel: ...appropriate to include that in the discussion with the development itself as well. Mayor Mancino: With what development? I'm sorry. Phil Gravel: When the preliminary plat is approved and the site grading plan and things like that. You'll be seeing this at the same meeting. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So at the same meeting on April 12~, two things are going to happen. Number one, this will come back before us again. We're just okaying the feasibility study. Number two, there will be a plat to review that went through Planning Commission last Wednesday night from the Eden Trace Corporation on this roadway. So you'll be able to see the buildings that are going to be going in on the north side and also at that time we will show the parking lot in the neighborhood park. And I'm not sure of this but, how many parking spaces do we usually have in neighborhood parks? I mean isn't it like 6 parking spaces or something like that. 6 to 10 maybe. It's pretty small. Phil Gravel: I think it might be appropriate if at that meeting we get, have Todd bring a picture of it's concept plan because I think they've got some amenities shown and I think the number of stalls was determined on that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. There is a new park, a new little neighborhood park on, north on Galpin Boulevard just north of Highway 5 and it's on the west side of the road and it's about a quarter mile west of TH 5 and you might look at that park and see how that's done. And I think, I would think it's going to be somewhat the same. Without my not being the Park and Rec Director but, anyone else wishing to address the council on this? Chuck Riggle: Chuck Riggle, 8461 Bittern Court. I recognize that this will be coming back around again. I'm hoping that by my words that we can get a little bit more detail regarding some of the details on the wall that's proposed. My residence is to the west side of the road, on the other side of the existing pond and my specific question is in regard to the methods or details in the proposal for insuring the integrity of the existing water way there and that there is no additional water coming into that area. Mayor Mancino: Good. Good question. Phil Gravel: We could probably answer some of that this evening. The drainage to that particular pond by the site grading. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me, can you hear? Okay. Phil Gravel: The grading to that particular pond by the site grading as is proposed now by the developer will actually decrease the runoff into that pond because a lot of the stuff that presently drains from the north is going to be redirected northward towards the railroad tracks so I think we're going to be less. As far as more details on the wall, it's kind of hard to have more detail at this point because a design process hasn't been through or... Mayor Mancino: And when will we have more details on the retaining wall? 5 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Phil Gravel: At the time you get approved plans and specifications. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Phil Gravel: You know we can say that it's going to be offthe private property and be on the city property and that we don't intend to fill the pond. The pond area so other than that I don't know what more we can say at this time to help. We'd certainly meet, as a normal project, meet with the people involved and discuss some of the aesthetic designs and some of the landscaping and the wall at that time. It will be a modular block wall... Mayor Mancino: And I'm sorry, when can you meet with those interested neighbors that would like to and find out a little bit more about the wall? Phil Gravel: From a timing standpoint it will be more appropriate to do it once we are into a design process and had more information. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So once the design, they get into the design process and how will they know? Anita Benson: We will be looking for authorization for preparation of plans and specs at the April 12th meeting. After that we will, once we've started the design, communicate with the property owners. Mayor Mancino: So Chuck, after the April 12th meeting when we authorize for, to go ahead with the design, please you can either come or you can certainly call City Hall or leave your name and address and say please give me a call. Leave numbers so we can call you. Anita can call you and have you come up to meet at City Hall with you and any of your neighbors that would like to also know a little bit more about it and have some input. Okay? So again, that will be after April 12th and the person to call would be Anita Benson. 937-1900 extension 156. Anyone else? Don Patton: My name is Don Patton. I'm representing the Lake Susan Hills Partnership. 25014022. One question that I had asked Phil that I didn't quite understand on the trunk assessments on Appendix C. It only shows one for the park although the exhibit says there's going to be two for public spaces. Is that just to give the city a bargain? Mayor Mancino: Trying to keep us honest. Phil Gravel: You could certainly assess yourselves two units for that if you wanted. As I mentioned to Mr. Patton, that won't affect anyone else. Don Patton: I was just, if it gets spread around more, you know we just feel better since we always have to pay our part. The other question that I had on Exhibit C on the trunk. The $161,568.00 trunk cost. We recognize that there's going to be considerable units on that. The property is in green acres. Is that something Phil that can be not assessed at this time and be done when the property comes in for development? · Phil Gravel: Well that's certainly a city call and actually I think a more appropriate time to discuss that would be at the time of assessment hearing. Don Patton: Fine. We just wanted to register our concerns and reserve rights as it goes forward. City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Mayor Mancino: So it's in green acres right now, It's being farmed? Don Patton: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Please come forward. Bill Webber: Bill Webber, 1290 Lake Susan Hills Drive. Just a couple of questions regarding the Lake Susan partnership. There's a fairly large wetland that is behind our property that I believe is bordering the Sunset Ridge Park and the Lake Susan Partnership. I'm wondering how much of that is going to be retained, if any of it, and what the plans are with the Lake Susan for just the development of that wetland area. Also the second question would be with regards to the industrial area beyond our property. Are you planning berms similar to those that are adjoining...road or what might be the plans in that regard? Mayor Mancino: Okay, let me try and answer both of those for you ifI can. Number one, is the wetland that's behind your property, is that on your property? Bill Webber: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. What will happen to that, I'm not sure Lake Susan Parmership has not come in for a plat approval or to develop it at this time. So we have no Way of knowing what will be developed and whether the wetland, what kind of wetland it is or if it's been delineated. So you won't know that until they do come in for development, if it is on that property. The property on the north side of the road which you asked I think about berming correct? That will come in on again on Monday, April 12th and you'll be able to see and respond to all the landscaping and the site plan at that time. And we have not seen it as a city council. The Planning Commission did see it last Wednesday night and I don't know if you were able to go to that meeting and attend that meeting. There was a public hearing so again what you could do is between tonight and when it comes in front of us on Monday, April 12th, you may certainly call the Planning Director here at City Hall and ask to review the plans because they do have them. And the person you should contact is Kate Aanenson at 937-1900 118. And then she will get you in contact with the planner you need to see and all those plans are here at City Hall for your review. Aanenson. Thank you Bill. Anyone else wishing to address the City Council on this? Good questions. Okay, I will close the public hearing and comments, any discussion from council members. Anyone have any comments or discussion? Can we have a motion please? Councilman Engel: Move approval. Mayor Mancino: Second please. Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Resolution #99-23: Councilman Engel moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the feasibility report dated February, 1999 (revised March, 1999) for Lake Drive West Street and Utility Improvements, Project No. 98-16. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR STONE CREEK DRIVE (NORTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD), PROJECT 98-15. Public Present: 7 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Name Address Jim Sulemd Liv Homeland Patsy Bemhjelm Bob & Sherry Ayotte Phil Gravel 730 Vogelsberg Trail 8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie 9380 Kiowa Trail 6213 Cascade Pass 2335 West Hwy 36, St. Paul Anita Benson: This is a public hearing on a feasibility report for Stone Creek Drive improvements, Project No. 98-15. This proposed improvement project was petitioned for by the Bluff Creek Partners and Family of Christ Lutheran Church. The primary project element consists of a similar project as Lake Drive. 36 foot wide street. The project cost is estimated to be $312,000.00. If at the close of the public hearing there are no relevant questions or concerns which require further investigation, it's recommended council formally approve the feasibility report. It is staff's intent to request authorization for plans and specifications at the April 12th meeting. And at this point I'd like to tum it over to Phil Gravel once again to give a presentation on the project. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Phil Gravel: Thank you Anita. As Anita mentioned, this project is similar to the Lake Drive West project. This project is a lot smaller in scope however. It's only around 600 feet long. The stubs for this project were put in place when Coulter Boulevard was constructed a couple years ago. The city's project will consist of extending sanitary sewer from along Bluff Creek on the west, eastward to Stone Creek Drive and then in Stone Creek Drive a portion of the way to serve the adjacent properties. Watermain would be installed from Coulter Boulevard northward to the north end of the road, which is planned to be extended in the future. Storm sewer would be constructed from Stone Creek Drive and will discharge to the west into a pond to be graded by the developer and the street, as Anita mentioned, will be a 36 foot wide street with street lighting. The landscaping and sidewalk on this contract would be completed as part of the adjacent developments. 100% of the cost are proposed to be assessed to the adjacent properties. These properties were assessed for their trunk area charges under previous projects so the only assessments involved at this time are the project. As Anita mentioned the cost is around $312,000.00. It's proposed assessed half of that to each property on either side of the road. With that can I answer questions? Mayor Mancino: Is there going to be a cul-de-sac, a temporary cul-de-sac atthe end of the road? Phil Gravel: That's not planned at this time. It's at the north end where the road ends there will be driveways going east and west but it certainly could be, a temporary one could be incorporated in. Mayor Mancino: Okay. This is open for a public hearing. Or I'm sorry, any questions from council members? This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the council on Stone Creek Drive improvements. Seeing none, let me bring this back to council. Or hearing none, bring it back to council. Any comments? Any questions? May I have a motion ' >lease. Councilman Labatt: I make a motion to approve. Mayor Mancino: Okay, a second please. City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Councilman Engel: Second. Mayor Mancino: A motion on the floor is to approve the feasibility report for Stone Creek Drive improvements, Project 98-15. Resolution #99-24: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the feasibility report dated February, 1999 (revised March 8, 1999) for the Stone Creek Drive Improvements, Project 98-15. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, PW290E. Public Present: Name Address Chuck Dennis Patsy Bemhjelm Sherry & Bob Ayotte Bob Smithburg Marcia E. John Hull Roger Gustafson John Siegfried Michael Ladd A1 Klingelhutz Brad Johnson Fred Corrigan Richard Chadwick 8556 Chanhassen Hills Drive 9380 Kiowa Trail 6213 Cascade Pass 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North 1421 Lake Susan Hills Drive 600 East 4th Street, Chaska 55318 600 East 4th Street, Chaska 55318 1070 Hesse Farm Road 8600 Great Plains Boulevard 7425 Frontier Trail 672 Transfer Road, St. Paul, MN 55114 Chamber of Commerce Anita Benson: I just want to note that in addition to the packet that went out on Friday to council members, I received additional letters from residents in the area. One from Mr. Raymond Ortman, 8698 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. One from Debbie Kelly, 8790 North Bay Drive. One from Earl Milrick, 7662 Prairie Flower Boulevard. And one from Richard Chadwick, Chair of the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce and those were handed out to council members this evening. We're here tonight to consider approval of the Trunk Highway 212 Memorandum of Understanding prepared by the Southwest Corridor Coalition. Originally a draft memorandum was prepared advocating acquisition of all remaining right-of- way for new Highway 212 from Interstate 494 to Norwood-Young America. It was presented to the City Council in June of 1998. The City Council outlined issues of concern with regards to the construction of new Highway 212 through the city in September. In response to the concerns expressed by the City Council, two work sessions have been held along with a presentation at a regular City Council meeting. Additionally a public open house was held on MarCh 17, 1999. The draft MOU submitted in June was revised in response to comments received by MnDot, Carver County, Hennepin County, and the City of Chanhassen. It is important to note that the objective of the MOU is to achieve a general consensus from all communities which can be presented to the Minnesota legislature in April of '99. In attempting to incorporate all the concerns submitted by the various agencies, it is also important to note that some concerns conflicted with those of other agencies. The constraints under which each agency has to work, especially as it affects MnDot in committing funding for projects not within the current transportation system plan, affect how concerns are addressed in the MOU. MnDOT's transportation system plan... 9 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Highway 212 to the new Highway 101 interchange is programmed for post 2010. Transportation system plan will be reviewed and updated by MnDot in 2000. Prior to MnDot updating their plan, the Met Council must update their transportation policy plan which will be occurring over the next year as communities submit their comprehensive plan updates. The City of Chanhassen has submitted it's updated comprehensive plan to the Met Council for review and approval. The transportation section of the city's comprehensive plan includes new Highway 212 as a principal arterial. Both the Chanhassen and Carver County Transportation plans indicate that without the construction of new Highway 212, a considerable amount of expansion of existing roadway facilities within Chanhassen will be required as traffic levels increase. The updating ofMnDOT's TSP in 2000 has a potential to provide for construction of new Highway 212 through Chanhassen prior to 2010. However, since the transportation plan has not been updated at this point MnDot cannot legally commit to funding of construction of the entire 212 corridor through the city of Chanhassen as desired by Chanhassen Council. Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition MOU however does include a recital indicating the city's desire. MnDot and city staff are aware there still exists many concerns regarding design details which the city will be involved with MnDot in addressing as the design for the various segments occur. It is anticipated that the further open houses similar to the one held on March 17th will occur as the project moves forward to solicit resident input and encourage participation by those affected. In an effort to assist council members, I have included in the packet a comparison of the Chanhassen MOU concerns and the revised memorandum. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff at this point? Then let me open this to comments on the 212 memorandum from people in the audience. How many of you, just a show of hands, how many of you were able to make it to the open house on March 17 ? Okay~ Well please come forward. State your name and address and please give us your comme.o.[_~.~night. Bob Smithburg: Madam Mayor, council members. My name is Bob Smithburg, 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. I'm here tonight to share my concerns about Highway 212's construction and it's impact on Chanhassen. Road congestion and subsequent road congestion relief are problems that need to be addressed in our greater metro area, our state and our nation. It is universal. One way we attempt to relieve congestion is by building more roads which in turn accelerates sprawl which increases congestion. How we deal with this issue will change the face of the communities all across America. At the March 17th MnDot open house, MnDot pointed out we will never build our way out of congestion. What I am asking you to do is not accept a 40 year old plan which does not serve it's original purpose. We need to take a new approach and explore all of our options. There are still many unanswered questions and concerns about the construction of new Highway 212. By not signing the Memorandum of Understanding you will not be stopping the construction of Highway 212. You will be taking control and deciding what is best for Chanhassen. I have given...information on this dilemma and if you'd follow through with me, I'll do this as quickly as possible. It opens up with the January 25, 1999 article. It's a national publication from Nations Cities Weekly. Do widen roads create their own gridlock? Build it and they will come. New roads just trigger more congestion. There's no way to build your way out of highway gridlock. And as an example Interstate 270, a 12 mile stretch outside of Washington D.C. suggests so. They had incredible gridlock. They added 12 lanes.' Now less than, 12 lanes. It's like a 12 mile road like we're dealing with now. Now less than 8 years after the expansion was completed, the highway's again reduced to what one official described to the Washington Post as a rolling parking lot. Experts now are calling this induced traffic. The theory, widened roadways create excess capacity. Drivers anxious to cut their driving time switch from other roads. Where roads like 1-270 lead to less developed outer suburbs, home builders see opportunity. There's a rush of residents out of the city and older suburbs and congestion mounts. For every 10% increase in new lane miles generates a 9% increase in traffic. The availability of transportation acts as a catalyst for more movement so that more roads, the 10 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 more roads we build, the more places we can drive, the more we drive. Longer commutes and trips end up generating more congestion, more energy consumption, more pollution. But highway departments anxious to justify road expansions are rarely willing to feed induced travel into their calculations. Engineering driven, developer and road builder backed, these agencies use an elaborate set of outdated models and design standards to deliver pre-ordained answers. And evidence is just not generated in the United States. A British team found based on analysis of 60 cases worldwide, that where roads have actually been closed or their capacity severely reduced an average 20% and as much as 60% of the former traffic disappears entirely isn't even siphoned off onto other road~. Closures in Manhattan, San Francisco freeway due to the earthquake and a Portland closure concur these facts. But at least we need to ask much more critically about each piece of highway construction or expansion. What will it really achieve? Could we use the money better for transit for example or for subsidizing housing so that moderate income folks don't feel forced to move to a less expensive, far out suburbs. Next I included a map. You might have to go back out. This says destination. This is basically the highway grids in the Twin Cities metro area. And I guess I want to start off with on this map, to follow 494 and I want to say Highway 494 is not a destination. We need to concentrate on moving vehicles and products to their destination points. MnDot has said that commuters are now traveling from point to point rather than just going to a downtown or central location. As I stated last Wednesday night at the MnDot open house, our farm products need access to the market which has moved south of the Twin Cities to Savage. We need to address bridging this route from existing Highway 212 to the new Highway 169 bypass south of Shakopee. I know Roger talked of this. We talked to this, the 41, extension of 41 and/or 17 road. I feel that we should bridge 212, if we could look into this, I think it would make much more sense a feasible 212, existing 212 to the new 169 bypass. This would reduce the amount of truck traffic moving through all of the southwestern communities. This route would also move vehicle traffic to multiple north/south roadways to better spread out the congestion and accommodate more direct point to point movement. Including access to north or south Highway 169, 35W, Cedar Avenue and 35E. Several metro attractions have also been built south of the metro area since the project was first planned, including Mall of America, the Minnesota Zoo, Valley Fair and Mystic Lake Casino. And how many commuters could use a less congested route to the airport via existing Highway 212 to Highway 169 bypass, 35W or Cedar Avenue North. So the dilemma is 494. You will find included are the figures, time tables, statistics for 1- 94 reconstruction project, 1-394 Minnesota River MnDot figures. Chanhassen residents need to understand that Highway 212 will not resolve the congestion that we already, that we are already experiencing on our existing metro roadways. Current plans to add the third lane, resurfacing existing lanes and bridge reconstruction is just a temporary bandaid. Costing taxpayers $198 million, and this is already up from the figure of $121 million. Congestion will not be eliminated by this interim build. It will take the ultimate build, and funding is not in sight for what is referred to as the ultimate build. This $1 billion project would add elaborate bridge configurations, causing the relocation of 70 businesses and 29 residential buildings along the corridor. Funding is not in MnDOT's budget out to 2020. Although I do believe MnDot is working on an alternate plan to reduce the projected cost to improve the level of service on 494. And speaking of 494. There's an article included dated March 18th. It was an insert in the Eden Prairie News... This is called, "Transportation, is there hope for 4947" Yes, but there's no one solution. And Ross states, actually the original capacity standards to which 1-494 was built were exceeded by 1988 and the 1-494 corridor is carrying about 25% to 30% more traffic than what it was originally designed to accommodate. Also the 1-494 Corridor Commission, which he is a part of and chairs, faced a bitter disappointment in 1995 when the Minnesota Department of Transportationremoved 1-494 from it's 20 year plan due to a lack of transportation funding. MnDot estimated the cost to add a third lane to 1-494 between Highway 77 and 1-394 at approximately one billion dollars in 1995 figures. The annual MnDot construction budget of approximately $500 million could not support the reconstruction of either 1-494 or 1-35W. And both projects were permanently removed from MnDOT's priority list. As Eden Prairie's final stage of development takes place and as additional development 11 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 occurs in the region, congestion will increase. Eden Prairie's final development south of Pioneer Trail has traffic pattems feeding onto County Road 4, then onto new 212, then Highway 5 which is already congested. Because of this Highway 212 could reach maximum capacity sooner than expected. Even the current designs for reconstruction, if built, would leave 1-494 well below the capacity that will be needed to handle predicted vehicle trips in the not too distant future. It will take a multi-modal approach, including such things as van pooling, transit, telecommuting, and more. Ross also states in Eden Prairie News, Thursday, September l0th. This is 1998. An article entitled "Bus Tour Serves to Dramatize 1- 494's Needs" by Mark Webber. Development and redevelopment is continuing along the stretch of 1-494 that commission members are seeking to improve from the International Airport west and north to Maple Grove and so local residents can count on more traffic, more congestion and slow travel ahead unless changes are made. Although piecemeal improvements to the southern and southwestern 1-494 corridor are planned or underway, the ultimate plan with a price tag approaching again one billion dollars isn't foreseen until at least the year 2020. Development and redevelopment along the route means attention to 1-494 is paramount. It's important for leaders to know that there's a cost associated with ignoring 1-494 according to Thuriston. Increasing congestion means mounting costs to businesses and the public. The commission chairman warned recently as a region we are paying the price of congestion on 1-494. This is where our efforts should be focused. Why aren't we signing a Memorandum of Understanding in support of funding ofi-4947 And on a regional issue, congestion on 494 far outweighs the 212 issue. So to conclude, from the 1997 Carver County survey of 1,700 randomly selected residents, this is what was stated in terms of growth and this is something to think about. While the majority of residents believe the projected growth would affect them positively, 69%, most agreed with policies which managed this growth such as directing growth to cities and away from the rural area. 57%. Preserving agricultural land, 87%. Preserving open space between communities 89%. And preserving the value of wooded or natural areas, 96%. And in transportation, congestion on roads in the county was rated as highly severe by a third, 35% of residents. Perhaps prompting a majority, 53% to indicate they would use alternate modes of transportation, buses, car pooling, if they were available. And 60% were unwilling to pay additional taxes to improve transportation. And they felt public money should be used to protect natural habitat areas. That would be 80% of the respondents. There is, and I also have included, it is a perspective on the Met Council. There is a new wave of interest nationwide...metropolitan areas to grow and prosper. Conserving open land and clustering development at the fringes, for example while rebuilding older cities and suburbs. Public money that might have gone for new sewers and roads onto the metro fringe for example might be used for land assembly in cities and inner suburbs where infrastructure already exists. So according to Mayor Jean Harris of Eden Prairie, we need to be more efficient in our land use, water and air. She said, we need to rethink our using the automobile all the time. We're entering an era when we're going to want to think smaller, more compact in urban areas. So I feel if you need to sign onto something, sign the Chanhassen September 30th Memorandum of Understanding. Don't rush Highway 212 when the infrastructure isn't in place in the metro area to handle the additional congestion. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to address the council please. Richard Chadwick: Good evening. My name is Richard Chadwick. I'm a resident of the City of Chanhassen for some, almost 30 years. I'm a land owner. I have about one acre that may be included in the proposed 212 new highway matter. I'm a businessman in Chanhassen. I'm presently the Chair of the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce. We come to this juncture after many, many studies and many committees have long recognized the need for the new Highway 212 limited access road through Chanhassen. There has already been approval of this route by the State Highway Department, the Federal Government, as to it's design and it's location. It is supported by the County Highway Department, the City of Chaska, the City of Eden Prairie and I believe generally by the city 12 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 administration in Chanhassen and overall by the residents of Chanhassen. There's little doubt that Highway 212 will eventually be built in the corridor presently set aside through Chanhassen. Over $55 million have already been committed to the project. It's already at our door step. We need it and it will be a waste of time and money to further delay this. I personally, and the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce strongly support this project and emphatically request the City of Chanhassen City Council to endorse the Memorandum of Understanding proposed by the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition. We ask that this council do whatever it can to expedite this road system through the city of Chanhassen. We need to show solidarity with our neighbors in this regard so that we don't miss this opportunity to obtain state and federal funding for this road at the earliest possible date. I'd like to give you some of the ideas why the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce, myself and others support this program. We believe that the early completion of the 212 system through Chanhassen is important to Chanhassen itself. It is critical to the safety of citizens. It is critical to the preserving of our way of life and promoting the economic development of our community. Our Chamber of Commerce surveys tell us that transportation is the number one concern of businesses and residents alike. They want safe and rapid transportation and is one of our highest priorities. They support all modes of this transportation. Light rail, bus and Highway 212. This is the last link in an important corridor that connects us with our neighbors to the east and west. All the way to Glencoe, Minnesota. As you may already know we have traffic dumping into us from Eden Prairie on the east and also from the communities to our west. The program on the east of our Chanhassen is already a done deal .... on our door step and into our ill prepared east/west road system within a couple of years. Chaska's ready to move with 80% to 90% of it's right-of-way already purchased. As some of our people may know, and some may not, there's already a divided four lane portion of Highway 212 about 5 miles around Cologne, Minnesota. And another divided four lane portion of 212 about 15 miles long between Young America and Glencoe. Now is the time to protect Chanhassen. We need the new roadway to eliminate or at least reduce the substantial congestion that is coming. We need this limited access route to allow the rapid building traffic to come to and pass through our city safely and in a manner that is the least disturbing to our way of life and to reduce the noise, the congestion, the pollution that stop and go traffic will produce. We need it for our businesses to provide for the reverse commute to our industries. We need it to prevent paralyzing congestion on the county and city road system. This is already a problem and will continue to get worst. Studies by the county indicate that without the new Highway 212 project, another 20 to 30 miles of roadway in our eastern Carver County, which is Chanhassen, will be badly congested. We need this route for our residents to bring business to the city and to bring business to the city of Chanhassen as a destination point. Visitors from the west will be able to easily slip off the new 212 at Highway I01 or other exits and go to our Dinner Theater, stay at our hotels, to visit our shops, to take side trips to Mystic Lake, Canterbury Downs, the Mall of America, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Excelsior, Wayzata. This is no longer a farm to market problem. This is a local metro problem which Chanhassen finds itself. However as...this is a regional transportation corridor and it services a large pie shaped area to the west, south central Minnesota not served by other routes. As you may know Highway 169 and 60 go mostly southwest on the south side of the Minnesota River to Mankato. Not out west. It goes on down to Blue Earth and to the Iowa border. When we follow Highway 60 from Mankato at it's junction With 169, it goes southwest to Highway 90 and Worthington. Highways 7 and 12 extending west go out through Hutchinson, Litchfield and join together near the South Dakota border at Ortonville. This leaves a wide pie shaped area of over 115 miles apart at it's western end. There is no other good east/west route from Minneapolis/St. Paul through this southwest area. It's going to come through Chanhassen or through this area in any event we have to be prepared for it. Minnesota Highway Department describes this as a vital link necessary because the present 212 is economically not practical and environmentally unsound to upgrade to meet the growing needs of our southwest metro area. The Chamber of Commerce supports this metro regional highway for Chanhassen. Not for any other area. We believe it is needed as early as possible to enhance our tax base. To take advantage of what has been set aside for many years. We need 13 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 it to allow our citizens and business people to move reasonably within our community and to destinations without horrific traffic delays. These are all time consuming, energy consuming and pollution producing. We support Highway 212 project for the long term property owners who have had their land tied up since the early surveys that were done probably over 30 years ago. These landowners continue to pay taxes on their land that they cannot make good use of. In many cases their land has been divided and what is left will ultimately be in or near freeway, which greatly diminishes their value. Let this project move forward so that these good people, such as our former Mayor A1 Klingelhutz, can get on with their lives. We support Highway 212 project for Chanhassen to help with the orderly growth and prevent urban sprawl off of our county roads here and to the west. Instead we want to move people at reasonable speed to plan to growth centers. We are not going to stop development. Eden Prairie is almost full. Chanhassen will be fully developed by the time this road is completed, even if it is approved and funded by all of the government units immediately. Development is going to continue into the western cities. And these cities have already been approved as centers of population such as Victoria, Waconia, Chaska, Cologne, Young America, and even Glencoe. We're not preventing the sprawl by the use of MUSA line and it's gradual movement out. Even our inner cities are continuing to grow in population and the inner city property values continue to increase. We are not faced with an uncontrollable exodus from the inner cities...our inner cities. As you know, because of our lakes we have no throughway east/west roads in the northern part of our city between Highways 7 and 5. Traffic on Highway 5 is already quite congested. It is too fast. It is unsafe. And with more traffic and traffic lights contemplated, there will be more traffic coming from Eden Prairie on the east dumping into our limited east/west roads. There will also be more traffic coming from the west, Victoria, Waconia, Chaska, Cologne, Young America. In addition there is the rapid population growth in Chanhassen itself. We need this new roadway. In the south half of our city we have Pioneer Trail as the only through road between Highway 5 and the old Highway 212. Pioneer Trail at it's intersection east of 41 is already congested during rush hour, as is Lyman Boulevard between 41 and 101. In 7 to 10 years our county east/west arteries as well as our north/south arteries will be thoroughly clogged and dangerous with stop signs and semaphore lights every few blocks unless we build 212. The cost of trying to maintain and upgrade the present system will be extremely costly and a great burden to our citizens. In the beginning, some 30 years ago, former Mayor Klingelhutz and many others including myself were against this route and it's intrusion into Chanhassen's rural way of life. However, we are in a new era. We have seen the studies and the relentless development ever accelerating. As we move into this new millenium we now agree that for Chanhassen's sake we must get on with this part of our transportation system. This does not mean that we are against the light rail system to Young America, Glencoe, etc. And we are certainly not against the Southwest Metro bus system. The relentless growth in our metropolitan area, which is the result of our high standard of living in Minnesota and our unemployment, means that we need all of these systems working together. The people moving both into the metro area and in surrounding communities are entitled to rapid transportation in and through our area as much as those of us who have ours now. They need there's too. Cost of the delay. Early purchase of the right-of-way is needed because of the rapidly raising cost of land. Each day of delay will cost our citizens more in tax money for the ultimate purchase of the right-of-way. If we do not move forward our citizens will also be heavily taxed for the county and city in it's significant improvements in the existing roadways and the makings of those existing roadways which can only be relieved by this new system. I do believe that the council was acting properly last fall when they stepped back and expressed their concerns about this proposed development. However we have a unique opportunity at this point to work with our neighbors to move forward and hopefully get some funding from the state and federal government to acquire the land that is necessary for this corridor. We want this construction moved through rapidly and the city council expressed that. We want it through from Dell Road to Highway 41 and that has been recognized. I'm sure we will do all that we can and the Highway Department will too, although it's not something that's guaranteed but at least the council's position has been recognized. We do need a comprehensive regional plan including the rapid 14 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 transit bus and light rail system. This comprehensive plan is being considered on all levels of government. The city council's concern is being addressed. We do need an upgrade in the traffic flow from Highway 212 and 5 as it moves into Highway 494. These upgrades are in the works. The council's concern has been addressed. Being addressed by the Highway Department, Hennepin County, Carver County, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. However now is the time to seize this window of opportunity to join our neighbors and neighbor cities and county to obtain state and federal funding. This is not a time to put this southwest corridor on hold by yet another referral to a citizens committee. Even though you may not have unanimous consent on the council, I ask that you step forward and do what is right and necessary for our safety, our way of life and our economic development. Please sign the Memorandum of Understanding. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council? Two hard acts to follow. Please come forward and please give us your comments tonight. Chuck Dennis: Mayor, council. My name is Chuck Dennis. I live at 8556 Chanhassen Hills Drive South. I'm fairly new in the community. I've been here about 10 months. The first I heard of it was when I read it in the paper a couple of weeks ago. It's rather overwhelming to somebody that's new, not familiar with what's going on. But I do want to, I wrote each of you a letter and the point I tried to make in my letter was, I picked Chanhassen as a place to raise my family because I really admire the way Chanhassen takes care of the community. If this highway is going to happen, and I can literally stand in my front yard and throw a rock and hit the cars going by I'm sure when it's done, I hope that Chanhassen continues to exert it's authority to uphold the standards that have already been set. I don't think that the federal government and the state and the county plowing through here is an excuse to do anything. It's the responsibility of the city and the councilmen to make sure that our rights are protected. And so I hope whatever you do that it's done with that thought in mind. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you. Earl Milbrandt: Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, Earl Milbrandt, 7662 Prairie Flower Boulevard. I first began involved with this issue through the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce, but tonight I want to speak to you as an individual. As a new resident of Chanhassen since last August. As a business owner here since 1995. And as a person who's experienced the multimodal transportation within a city in which it is inadequate, even though it's multimodal. We lived in London at the beginning of this decade for three years. Today the time it takes to travel across central London is the same as it was 100 years ago before cars because of the congestion that exists. Because of the lack of adequate roads. In spite of the subways. In spite of the dramatic bus systems. The congestion is still there. I commuted 25 miles. I could do it on three trains in about 2 ~ hours. I could do it by car and after that I left at 6:00 p.m. I could be home at 8:20 or 8:30. IfI waited until 7:00, then I could also be home at 8:20 or 8:30. Today we have a business across town as well in Roseville. The greatest congestion that we face today when we're coming home from there is when we leave 494 and come onto Highway 5 and travel to the western side. And we're not talking about 212 to be completed in the 5 years or 10. Unfortunately, it's probably going to be 10, 15 or 20. Even with the action that you can take tonight. And I also, in listening to the members of the Southwest Transit Coalition, it's never been to the exclusion of completing the additional lanes at 494. There's a recognition that that is absolutely critical. The quality of life in this city will deteriorate dramatically over the next 5, 10, 20 years if we do not have adequate transportation systems. And that includes cars, it includes buses. It may include rail but the only real viable alternative today to meet the people's needs are cars for the most part. Buses will serve many needs but we are still a society that depends greatly on our automobiles to reach our work, our play, our schools. To reach market. Whether you are carrying farm goods or commuting to Mall of America from southwest Minnesota. The 15 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 traffic is still there. The congestion occurs because of the growth of population and without adequate infrastructure. And so we encourage you very strongly to work in concert and cooperation with the other communities because only by working together will we be able to get the resources, the very limited resources that are available to meet the needs of this area. Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Michael Ladd: Mayor and council, my name is Michael Ladd. I live at 1070 Hesse Farm Road and I want to thank you for the open house the other night and I want to encourage each of you to support this freeway coming through the city and relieve some of the traffic in it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Thank you Michael. Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm sort of here as three different individuals this evening. In one role I've been a member of the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition for about 15 years. At that time my interest was enticed when the lady who was a teller over here at the Chanhassen Bank was killed on the highway while she went to get a pizza to bring home to her kids. I've personally seen four other, mostly women in a hurry to get home to see their kids, killed on Highway 5. We have a rule in our particular house that the kids be very careful on Highway 5 and if possible never take it. That's the personal side of it. I'm also a member of the school board and we were talking about this the other night and I never had thought about it the same way. We have not come to you with a proclamation. We may. If in fact there is.~.2~1~2, remo~ some of the traffic on roads like Pioneer Trail, Lyman, Engler roads that we're all l¢~m~ mr with. Lake Susan, where our kids. I don't think too many of our kids. One of the reasons we moved here was we could walk, our kids could walk to school but, and they did until they had to go to middle school but it's a fact that all of our children, .most of them take buses. I think we've written you letters, it's a fact that even things like cul-de-sacs kind of foul that all up because the kids have to walk to the end of the cul-de-sac in many cases or we get cramped or the kids, you know we have a problem just getting kids to school quickly. We have a very large district. If in fact anywhere near the numbers of cars end up on Pioneer, Lyman, 101, you know all the roads that are going east/west, north/south. We have a real problem with safety. Most of our pick-ups are on the more active streets like that or at the end of that so I think that's an issue I never thought about until they were talking about the traffic issue. Those are two things. I think the previous speaker to me said it all, and I appreciate what he had to say. We do have a response from the Southwest Coalition. Fred Corrigan who is our, one of our representatives would like to address you at this time. Fred. Fred Corrigan: Thank you Brad. I'm Fred Corrigan and I'm representing the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition and actually I'm representing Bob Lindall who's sitting on a beach in Florida right now. Mayor Mancino: I wonder what the traffic's like there. Fred Corrigan: And I guess I would just like to wrap up what you've heard tonight With kind of while we've heard a lot about sprawl and all of the kinds of things that this region, this city is going to deal with in the coming years but really what this Memorandum of Understanding is about tonight is to secure the land for a transportation corridor through this city. Whatever that corridor may look like when it's finally completed in 5 years or 10 years or maybe even 20 years, will probably be dramatically different 16 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 than what your predecessors thought it might look like 30 years ago when this project started. My role for the coalition is to identify ways to purchase this property and with the rapid inflation of property along this corridor to do that sooner than later because the cost is adding up by the millions of dollars every year as this property inflates. There have been at both the federal level and state level new tools made available to cities like yours, to counties like yours and to departments of transportation like the Minnesota Department of Transportation which will allow for accelerated purchase of this property. They include new revolving loan funds that the legislature has an opportunity to fund this year for the first time. That would allow the purchase of the remainder of the property probably within the next 18 to 24 months through bonding essentially. There is also bonding bills that, or new bonding authorities that will allow for purchase in addition to these kinds of things. It will allow the residents who have been mentioned tonight waiting for a number of years to sell their properties and get on with their lives, the opportunity to do that. And I think that's what the memorandum was all about. We certainly all of the communities did and in the recitals, in the memorandum that you've looked through, there are lots of ideas and plans and concerns that are cited in the memorandum, but the agreement part really deals with the Memorandum of Understanding and dealing with the increasing costs and to achieve that. What this corridor looks like eventually, I know from the discussions that have occurred at this council and in the city over the last few months, will be exciting but I think you need to understand that this corridor will be with you for probably centuries. What it will look like the first time it's built may not be what it looks like the second and third time it's built. And what you are doing as you've done with your parks is preserving a transportation corridor through the community. The discussion of what it will look like the first time it's built will continue and the discussion of what it might look like for future generations will probably continue as well so we hope that with your input this document represents the kind of future that you would like to see. Thanks. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Fred, you're going to stay around as we have our discussion right, because I will have some questions a little later, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council? On 212. Okay. Anyone have any new thoughts on 2127 Could be an underground tunnel. Okay, thank you. Seeing no one else that would like to give us any comments, we'll bring this back to council. Couple questions before we do. I just want to make sure Anita that what we have, the Memorandum of Understanding is this page 2, 3, 4 and 5 and page 2 starts with 1.i0. The recitals at the top. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. Anita Benson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: It says received January 28, 1999 at the cover letter. And it has 1.10 through 1.23 and then it has the Part II is an agreement but there really isn't a Part I. And then the last of it is just signatures so I'm wondering if we're missing something. We're not? Anita Benson: Part I is the recitals and from your question that was earlier today, you had asked about an Exhibit A. That is the second page in, the second or third page in the handout I handed out tonight with the letters. Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, say that, what is Exhibit A? Anita Benson: I gave you a handout tonight that had letters I had received up through 4:00 today. Mayor Mancino: Okay. 17 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Anita Benson: MnDOT's layout of Highway 212 and a status sheet included in that. I believe it's a third page. Councilman Senn: At least in the copy we have your recitals start at 1.10 rather than 1.01. That may be the issue in terms of are we missing something. Whereas all your other sections started at 2.01, 3.01, or whatever, etc. Councilman Labatt: Yeah I think we are. We start on page 2. Brad Johnson: Yeah, there's a page 1. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well we don't have it. Mayor Mancino: Oh yeah, we don't have that. Can you make copies and bring them down to us, if you don't mind, as we look at it for a second. Does anyone else have that page 17 Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Mancino: We'll be on hold here for a minute until we see page 1 of the memorandum. Patsy? She's going to go make some copies. (The council took a short break at this point in the meeting.) Mayor Mancino: Let's reconvene please. Thank you for getting page 1 of the recitals for us. Bringing this back to council. Councilmember Jansen, comments? Councilwoman Jansen: I guess as I went through all of the different issues involved in this monumental project, I really broke it up into three different parts as I was trying to consider what it is we're trying to accomplish. And the first one that I really looked at was the whole right-of-way acquisition since that is such a significant immediate issue as far as taking that burden and uncertainty off of the property owners in Chanhassen and I guess as far as the next step in this process, I'm looking at the Memorandum of Understanding which covers a lot more points than just the right-of-way issue. If we're wanting to make that the significant...different segments as to the priority issues. A significant amount of the purchase falls under priority three. Priority one being purchase of right-of-way for segment 2, which is Lyman to County Road 4 in Eden Prairie. We then shift to priority 2 being the design of segment 2, stage 4. We don't get to the remainder of the right-of-way until priority 3 for segment 2, stage 5, which is Highway 41 back to Lyman. So just in looking at that as an issue, again if we're trying to prioritize getting the right- of-way purchased as soon as possible as inexpensively as possible and getting the burden off of our landowners, are we accomplishing that with this list of priorities. That was one of the issues that stuck out in my mind as I went through the memorandum. And then as we were addressing our questions to MnDot them were a couple instances that if we address those design issues and for one meaning we would be moving, hopefully, if possible, 212 out of the gorge area. Shifting it, if possible, to the north. If we start purchasing land before we're able to sit down with MnDot and walk through some of these issues, are we able to purchase the right-of-way property properly if there am things that we might be moving to reduce impacts? I don't know that we've got our whole answer on how we're impacted by a potential Highway 41. I know that was one of the questions that I sent back to Anita saying can we see that mapping. Is it something we can discuss, and I know Roger's hiding in the back over there. I don't know if it's an issue that he'd want to address as to whether or not there is a mapping for this potential future Highway 41. But again I think that affects the right-of-way purchase. So that being the number 18 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 one part of the equation, I moved on to the number two being the whole design and the impacts of the current construction plans. The right-of-way we need to do. I fully back getting that done as expeditiously as possible. I don't know if we get that done losing that in the rest of the memorandum verbiage. Is there a way for us to really emphasize that that's what we're trying to accomplish. Then moving down to getting all of our questions we've asked them, we don't have the answers to the numerous of the questions that were posed. The public brought numerous questions to us. We haven't answered those yet. So timing wise I'm feeling like maybe tonight is coming earlier. It's following up the public input a little too quickly. If we sign this memorandum, and as we all know how things work, once you sign something you've given up that urgency to get something done. Are we giving up the opportunity to really have the focus put on this plan under the known information that we have now and I'm referring to the '96 Bluff'Creek Watershed plan that designated the sensitive areas that this is going through so it's new since the original mapping of the 212. Significant enough that it seems like we should be addressing it. And it seems like it should be now before we do the right-of-way purchase or are we purchasing the wrong properties? Are we locking ourselves in? And then really being able to address big picture. Once we've done all of this, let's then sit down, big picture as a community with the rest of the county, the rest of the community's that are being impacted and really look at the transportation plan. Again, there's been so much change within how transportation is going to be handled going forward with the new administration. Going through the whole commuter rail feasibility study, and I realize that everything is saying that it needs to be a total transportation package. Knowing how priorities get placed on the current administration's focus or pet project, however you would want to word it, are we at the tail end of what was highway construction and at the beginning of the new era for this metropolitan area of transit of commuter rail. We have Tom Workman to thank for the fact that he did get our rail line put into the stage 2 scoping of whether or not it was feasible. We don't fall in stage 1 or 2 as far as the funding but the timing of those rail lines is that they're looking at having stage 1 and 2 I think done within the next 5 years. Moving on to stage 3 within 10 years and then our line. So if we're talking that 212 is out to 2010, that's when commuter rail is going to be moving then into stage 4. So wouldn't it behoove us to try to jump on that focus and the impacts on this community could be significant. As far as making sure that we have ourselves positioned to get into one of those lines because what if they shift away from funding highways? Then we've lost 212 and we haven't gotten on the rail movement as far as making sure that we're positioned for that. Mayor Mancino: Can I ask you a few questions about what you said or just discussion? You know certainly I'm a real proponent of multimodal too and I think of multimodal though as base multimodal as having roadways. And then adding the light rail, the commuter rail, the buses, etc. Are you feeling that we can't be parallel tracking that and then just getting 212 going and at the same time as a city, as a council, getting in gear and looking into commuter rail and making sure that we stay on top of that and again that we have focus on the commuter rail aspect of this corridor? Councilwoman Jansen: I think whatever we end up doing with Highway 212, we will at the same time be gearing up for the other. And maybe in the course of that transportation task force, as we've talked about it, as they're looking at all of the current information that's out there, and there's so much that's pointing and I know a lot of people don't like to talk about urban sprawl. They're talking about the, oh what's the term they're using? Induced traffic. Build it, they will come. All of the studies that are coming out right now, and these things didn't exist back when we were planning Highway 212. Now as soon as we put that in, there's nothing to say it won't follow the same pattern that all of the other highway systems have and that's that it will very quickly be over congested. And shoUldn't we be going to MnDot from what Mr. Smithburg was showing us on the map, if instead of trying to focus all of our traffic that's coming in from the west onto on ramps that we all sit on now, waiting to get into the parking lot on 494. Instead of shifting all of that traffic to those same on ramps on 5, because it does merge onto 5, what if we're 19 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 bridging them over to 169 and then they can pick from multiple avenues or highways to be able to head north/south. Closer to their points of destination which is what MnDot is emphasizing is that the way we travel has changed. And the southern location, it just seems like we need to take those things into account because the 494 ultimate build isn't going to happen and I did call Scott Sanus. I don't know if I'm pronouncing his last name correctly. On Friday, .just again to clarify that 494 number because even though we are adding that third lane and doing the bridge work and doing the pavement upgrades, that doesn't answer the congestion piece of what they're trying to solve. That is, as it was referred to by his predecessor to me last year, it's a bandaid fix and it was at that point $121 million was the projection. They've now moved it to the $198 million and they can't obtain the billion dollar fix that would be required. He liken it to just massive bridges at the 35W and the 494 interchange and that's the only way that they can fix that. And the only thing visually that I can use to try to imagine what they're trying to accomplish is over by the Mall of America where you've got all those huge looping bridges. Well they can't do it without taking out, it's like 70 businesses and 30 homes and that's where it ends up in that billion dollar figure. So though we've got this carrot hanging out in front of us, it's still only a bandaid fix. It's not correcting the congestion and MnDot is still trying to figure out, they're going back to the drawing board. They're trying to come up with a lesser expensive. They don't like to use that term ultimate anymore because they know they can't achieve that billion dollar number but they're still trying to come up with what the reconstruction cost would be to make it so traffic can flow on 494. So we're adding to it. We're making that our destination point with 212. Instead of bridging over to where, and I think no matter what we do, we do need to be true to the original goal and I can appreciate the fact that this farm area in the west of the state is significant. I went so far as to pull up the ag web site just to see what it was we were talking about, and that's when I started looking for the grain elevators to see where they were actually going. But it's a significant business and we're not getting them the most efficiently possible to where they're going, which would be the same for the rest of the traffic. When you look at the maps it gives them multiple north/south options instead of just going to 494 or through Crosstown. Because those fixes just, they're not planned yet and that's the concern. If we're just building one more route of congestion, we're not doing what we're trying to accomplish for the county or for Chanhassen because the vehicles are going to come right up to 5 and as they're trying to merge onto 5, it's going to turn into a parking lot again. So I guess those are my concerns. But that's the big picture step. That's let's get the right-of-way done. Let's get the answers to our immediate design concerns and then let's take that leading step. Let's maybe be the community that takes that step to look at the big picture transportation and get everyone around us to participate so that we can all make sure that we're in line to be, you know we don't want to fall from number 4 in the commuter rail funding. You know right now we're in that fourth stage but if we're not clamoring for it, we could even fall from there. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I can think of few issues in Chanhassen over the last 6 years that how would I say, been as ongoing as this issue is and one which has been so free to solicit comment from so many people. You know this issue's been ongoing for at least as many years as I've been on the council, over 6. It took an interesting right hand turn when a toll road proposal came on line. But the interesting part in that 6 years is I've never once seen anybody really come to the City of Chanhassen and say, you know how can we design or what can we do with this roadway to make it more acceptable to your community. The current memorandum as is before us is really not any different than the previous memorandum before it. I have a really hard time, or...there's no way, at least in my mind that I can support that memorandum. Could I support the memorandum that we put together from the city? Yes, I could. But there's some real fundamental differences between them. You know effectively our position, or our memorandum that we put together said yes, let's proceed with the right-of-way purchases and that's where the money should go. But at the same time let's get the design issues resolved up front so as we pursue that right-of-way 2O City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 acquisition, we are acquiring what we need and where we need it. The memorandum that's before us now has the different, but same at least in this content, the priority that it's always had. I don't really see that answering the, again the community. You know in over 6 years it's been real interesting. I mean there's always the side that says yes, let's just get going with the freeway full speed ahead. I don't think that's realistic anymore these days. There's also the side that says, let's stop 212 and have no roadway and I don't think that position's realistic anymore these days. But I think there is very definitely a middle ground in relationship to a roadway in what's now referred to as the 212 corridor. Does that roadway need to be a freeway? No. I don't think so. Does that roadway need to be there? Yes. I mean we're ultimately going to need that roadway. Does that roadway you know need to be, I guess what I call a kind of unrestricted freeway? No, I don't think so. Does that roadway need to be more of a restricted roadway? Yes. One thing that I've never been able to figure out and fathom on the whole thing is why you would create effectively at least what I call an unrestricted freeway to dump into and merge with Highway 5, which is what I call a restricted highway more or less. It's got intersections at grade and light and all that sort of thing. More or less providing some slow down or control or delay or control traffic. Merging those two together and then effectively dumping them to 494, which can't handle the traffic it's got now or later, at least with any fixes that has been even remotely proposed on it. You know it seems to make a lot more sense to me to have two, what I'm going to say, restricted traffic types of roadways that are less intense than what they push that way merging and dumping into a freeway system that can't handle it. I think a lot of the objections from one group in the community which is let's not cut the community in half with a major freeway go away when you start talking about you know a roadway more akin to a little lower, at least for the Chanhassen portion, a lower speed you know parkway type of design or at grade design like, you know like we've seen at 62 and other places. At the same time, you know how would I say this? I have a real hard time with hundreds of acres being tied up for major, major intersections you know effectively eating that up, taking it out of the city to again create this you know free dump or I don't know what you'd call it but I mean this unrestricted access you know effectively a freeway, you know again dumping nothing into more than a bottleneck. Especially when those hundreds and hundreds of acres are coining out of our community or out of our city. You hear a lot of discussion about well let's just kind of go ahead with this because it's what we've got and so be it, it's a 20 year old concept or whatever. And I hear a lot of discussion about how even if we do proceed, it's going to be many years before this roadway is done. I think that the wave of the future are coming that way. I think more mass transit, more multimodal forms of transportation are going to be necessary. And I think that's a key because I know of few situations in the country where they've ever been thrust upon anybody. Mass transit or multimode of transportation generally has been the response to a problem that's gotten so bad that it needed something else to help fix it. Now I know there's a lot of debate over how much it helps fix it. But most of the development of those types of systems never occurred because everybody was having an easy time of it. It's a substantial public investment for people to go along with that kind of substantial public investment they need to perceive the problem. Mayor Mancino: They have to feel pain. Councilman Senn: No pain, no gain or whatever. And I think it's kind of foolish to keep trying to design a system, at least on the fringes that simply provides an easy going, free flowing type of access only to end up right back in the middle of the same thing when it seems to me a more responsible approach could be taken up front. I think the time to rethink and to relook at and to redesign this roadway is now. I think then yes, we need to all get behind proceeding with acquisition as quickly as possible. It is definitely the next step. Then as funding can be made available to construct it, go from there. Again, that's very different in relationship to what's before us now and I would much rather see us proceed with again our endorsement of effectively our initial response to our existing memorandum that as a city put together back some months ago. 21 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I've got a lot of rambling thoughts right now and I tried to condense them into six points I've tried to note here. And I may wander a bit on this but it's like Mark said, I've only been on this council for a couple years now. This issue's never left. It was here when I came. I'm sure it's going to be here when I leave. And same is tree for probably everybody up here. Before the first car ever drives on a 212, and I think there will be a 212 regardless of what we do here. There's a reference to Washington D.C. and the subways. I used to live in Washington D.C. I used to take the subways. I didn't have a car for the few years I lived them. And it was very interesting the guys who would drive in, I was an infantry soldier. And the guys would drive in to the post would have to leave at various time depending on where they lived. And I always asked them how come they just didn't take the subway. I didn't have a car and thought it was a great tool. But I never really used it in the city. It was great to get to Georgetown. Great to get anywhere you wanted in the city when you were them. It was a little bit different when you were out and you were trying to get in. And that was a beautiful subway system. You've never been on, it's clean, it's big. It's wonderfully designed. It's a great system. It really is. But I remember reading the articles at the time when I lived there. The impact on existing highway connections was so slight as to be zero. I remember 1 to 2, maybe 3% impact on a reduction in traffic. And I remember Mayor Mancino, you passing out some information on studies like that from other subway systems just a little while ago. Maybe a year ago now. And they found some of the same things. Whenever they built them, when you studied the traffic flow, there's very little impact on the actual reduction in cars on those roads and I always wondered why that was and I think, I've come to the conclusion that's somebody's coached me on it that everybody wants those things built so that everybody else can get the heck out of their way and they can drive their Suburban right down th~'~l~road full sveed And I think that's true of Americans just in general. We want other pe6~e t0 get the heck out of our way and so they'll use those public systems while we get free access everywhere we want out of the way. That's my experience with the subways, and I love them. I mean I used that thing all the time. So I'm not opposed to them but I just don't know if this is, it's not the panacea that some people may think it is. And then the toll road issue. This came up last year and when I ran that was the hot issue. And I resisted that toll road because to me it was the state ducking their responsibility to fund back to an area which has provided an enormous amount of tax input to this area of the city and state in general, and it was due it's share back in infrastructure and I felt a toll road was just an easy way out for the people controlling the legislature to duck that responsibility and I disagreed with that. So that's why I opposed the toll road. I have always thought 212 was going to be built. I think it is inevitable. There will be a road. Whether we have light rail or not. If we have light rail and if we have a great bus system, we will still need some road down there in 212. I don't think these designs are final by any stretch of the imagination. I think the environmental impacts as are discussed in this recital from staff'will be addressed so I don't think we're not sinking a stake in the sand so deep hem that we can never turn back from. And that would be a very large concern for me if we were. I don't think we're anywhere near that. I don't think the first car's going to drive down that road and all of us are going to be off this council. Even if we move this thing up by 2-3 years from the proposed 2010 completion date. The down side on this is, as one of our residents stated, absolute gridlock. I mean it is bad now from a lot of people who I hear driving the road. And I usually drive in pretty early in the morning to get around it so I don't see it as bad as I used to. And I tend to come home a little after it's done. But I hear the horror studies and I participate in them on some days, so the down side is real. I don't know how good the up side is. I really don't. I don't know if anybody really does but I know the down side's really, really bad. And if you think it's going to be bad for these houses, I know if you're near it I think it's going to be especially bad. But for those in every other home in this community, it's going to be very bad if we don't have access in and out of here better than the current Highway 5. As we grow, and that's to say nothing of what happens to Chaska, Victoria, 22 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 and Waconia. They're going to put that pressure on it whether we do it or not. Whether we quite developing or not. That pressure's coming. There's not much we can do to stop these other communities from putting it on us. So I defer to prudence at this point. They're going to build this road. I don't know when they're going to start it and I don't know when they're going to finish it but that land is getting more expensive every day and everybody in here's a taxpayer as is everybody in this council and I think you buy the land now and you work out the details later. And I think that land's got to be bought because it's getting ridiculously expensive. I'm sitting here wondering how to buy parkland and I'm looking at our options and I'm disgusted with our lack of options. That disposing of 1.3 or so million dollars in park money. You can't feel any better trying to buy land for right-of-way so I say you buy the land now and work out these details as we get our chances. And I don't think this is your last chance to work out those details. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I can actually concur with parts of Linda's and Mark Senn's and Mark Engel's. I've never been opposed to the road, Highway 212. During the campaign, I'm not here to stop the road. I have portions of the roadway that I'm concerned about and more concerns were brought up in the March 17th open house that.., think need to get discussed with MnDot this week. I never heard definite answers from them. Some of those concerns I understand were the 5 homes...Chanhassen Hills and Lake Susan Drive that are built in right-of-way of Lyman Boulevard. What's the plan for those residents? And I'd like to see a map from either Carver County or MnDot showing the overlay of the right-of-way as it...property lines and their houses. They brought up the 41 alignment. Realign 41. Pushing it to the east. In essence bring it up to what appears to be Carver 17. Councilwoman Jansen asked for... I think what I can understand is they're building of Pioneer and 212 interchange, according to what 41 is going, how it's going to impact that corridor. So I think we're not seeing, we're not getting all the pieces of the puzzle there. We need to see what 4 l's going to do. How it impacts that area and how it impacts Chanhassen. And with the North Bay development, I can't recall the lady's name. Noise mitigation for their, according to MnDot there's really no plan. They do have a berm. The lady who spoke, it was supposed to be a 8 foot berm but she spoke and she's 5 feet 4 inches and it wasn't over her head. And Evan Green from MnDot said in the Minutes here, on page 33, that they had looked at putting up walls or berms to mitigate the noise for existing or approved or zoned developments in the area. Chanhassen Hills was there. That's why they were going to be getting a berm. In the 1988 Environmental Impact Study, Figure 7, Mission Hills, or North Bay is zoned on this Environmental Impact Study. So they it was going to exist down there according to this study. Now it appears as though that MnDot is trying to back out of it. Of helping out those residents down there. And a big part is with the gorge. I have a problem down there. The design of the roadway right now somehow passes right over the gorge with no plan for a bridge. I'd hate to, are we locking ourselves into not having any control over how it impacts the gorge area by signing this agreement tonight. I am not against, I'm in favor of buying the land up before it costs us any more money. I agree with Mr. Engel on that one. That we do our due diligence here as a city by working with the state and public corridor to get the land... So those are just some of my brief comments for now. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. My comments are two. Number one, keep 212 going. I mean I think that we need to get in here. I think we need to, Fred actually if you could come to the podium and I Could ask you some questions about the Memorandum of Understanding. And councilmembers please react to what I say. I think that you hear a consensus in and what we wrote in our memorandum in September was that it is important to note that Chanhassen does support the future building of Highway 212 transportation corridor. That we made that statement in our September 30, 1998 letter to Bob Lindall. With that, and I'm just going to be real practical here and go directly to the Memorandum of 23 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Understanding. On page 3, under number 2, Agreement. What I'm hearing councilmembcrs say is that we have priority one, purchase of right-of-way for Segment 2, Stage 4. Priority 2, design of Segment 2, Stage 4. I think it would be a priority of Chanhassen to have Priority 1 be design of Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5. Because that is the area that goes through our city. Linda? Councilwoman Jansen: On the priority 1. Stage, would there also be Stage 4 and 5 as far as making the right-of-way. Mayor Mancino: Well that's why I was going to say priority 1 would be design of Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5. Priority 2 would be purchase of right-of-way Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5. So that again we take the whole area that goes through Chanhassen and number one, we look at some of those design concerns that we have as a council, and those design concerns are ones that we put in our Memorandum of Understanding for September 30th. And they really have to do with the appropriateness and design of the current proposed interchanges, environmental issues involved in the area of the Bluff Creek corridor, especially the gorge. The location, number, design and functionality of noise walls proposed along the corridor. The overall use of landscaping within the corridor and implementing multi-modal concepts is appropriate and I have that kind of written out for you. So I'm wondering if we can take this Memorandum of Understanding that you have given us and do some changes and work with you in the next week and come back to the council on next Monday and go forward with it. Fred Corrigan: Madam Mayor, this document was intended to reflect the community's desires. If it is, this document is not your desire and you vote it down, we have nothing to work with so if you are proposing to change the language, while we hoped we had it right, we'd certainly consider those changes. · Let me see ifI understand what you're saying. Priority 1, you would change, and what I don't, I haven't got clear in my mind is it purchase of Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5 or design of?. Mayor Mancino: Design. Fred Corrigan: I believe the concern, and Roger maybe you could help me. But the concern at this point is it's tough for MnDot to go ahead with design for property they don't own. Mayor Mancino: So first they have to purchase the right-of-way and then do the design? Roger Gustafson: That's my understanding as far as the procedure... Mayor Mancino: Fred, what if there's some changes in the interchanges and we change those locations, is that a problem once the right-of-way is purchased? Fred Corrigan: Oh I think you find as these projects are built the right-of-way at the end of a typical project is sold off as the project is actually developed and was completed and changes were made as they got into soil testing and doing some of the things they needed to do in final design. So clearly, I mean you could run into just problems building this highway the way you have shown it to you today but certainly, and they would have to make those changes. And the same would occur if in the discussions with the community that the community expressed a different design that might be more appropriate and could be less expensive. Who knows. I mean I think they're open to doing that. What they've shown you today is a pretty typical freeway design. And with some recognition of some of the multi-modal aspects that they're trying to incorporate in the designs now. I think it's important and I know Councilwoman Jansen understands it but the Ventura Administration has signed this Memorandum of Understanding and given that, I know that Mr. Tinklinberg who I used to work for and Mr. Mondale are 24 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 committed to continuing to improve these designs as they go. How quickly they can get that done, they've certainly made that commitment but at the same time they recognize they need to set aside these corridors at the best appropriate time. Councilman Engel: How much addition would it to be to buy the right-of-way for TH 5 in Priority 1 ? Mayor Mancino: Well there are six parcels left to be acquired in Chanhassen. So where I was trying to get to Fred was that Priority 1 would be to purchase all of the right-of-way in Chanhassen at one time. And using the transportation revolving loan funds for that purpose. Fred Corrigan: I think, let me just explain the reason for purchasing the right-of-way outside of the MUSA line was to deal with that, those prices outside of the MUSA line as quickly as possible. And you probably have a better feeling for it than me on how quickly that MUSA line may change. Maybe that's not as urgent as we thought it was but certainly every time that MUSA line changes, as it affects this corridor, the land dramatically increases in price. That was the reason for putting that area outside the MUSA line has a higher priority than the remainder of the property within the MUSA line. Mayor Mancino: Absolutely and that's why I've got Stage 5 because in Stage 5 from Lyman Boulevard to our west is outside of our MUSA line. So the reason why I included Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5 is that in both of those stages there is land outside of the MUSA line in Chanhassen. Because Stage 4 according to the map I have here is Lyman Boulevard in Chanhassen, which is 101 east to County Road 4 in Eden Prairie and then from 41 in Chaska to 101 in Chanhassen. I cannot tell you Fred whether in Stage 5 that land from TH 41 in Chaska to our city line is in or out of the MUSA line in Chaska. But I can tell you that the land in Chanhassen from CR 17 east is outside of our MUSA line so now would be the time to acquire it. Fred Corrigan: Roger Gustafson seems to be indicating the land in Chaska is inside the MUSA line. Roger Gustafson: I think most of that portion of the corridor has already been acquired. Mayor Mancino: Okay. But again, just making sure that the land in Chanhassen that's in Segment, which is Stage 5 is acquired at the same time as the land in Chanhassen which is in Stage 4 and that's all outside the MUSA line. I'm just trying to group it together. Fred Corrigan: So Priority 1 with a purchase of Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Fred Corrigan: And then Priority 2 would be design of Segment 2, Stage 4 and 5? Councilman Engel: Yes. Just eliminate number 3. Put it under 1. Fred Corrigan: Okay, and 4 is also up in 1, is that correct? Councilman Engel: Correct. Fred Corrigan: And then 5 would become a new number 3. Councilman Engel: Yeah, it just got simple. 25 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Fred Corrigan: Makes it easier. I don't see why that would be a problem. Mayor Mancino: There are for me in some of the different recitals again a few little tweaks that I think could be made. Do you want to go through those? Fred Corrigan: We could do that or you could submit those. The recitals were intended to gather all of the comments we had heard from all of the communities to just reflect what we had heard in this discussion. And that's why the recitals in the agreement is much shorter. I should also mention, I think you're also aware of this but that the agreement part of it before MnDot or the Metropolitan Council to be able to sign this, it has to fit within their current plans and this is all that does fit within their current plans. If we were to extend the construction or even the preservation of the remaining right-of-way or construction of number 2, Stage 4, is outside of their current plans so we're putting MnDot and the council, they have a very limited amount of time or space that they can move in this discussion and this document reflects what the current plans call for. Now that may change in the 2000 but we were trying to write a document for today. Mayor Mancino: Let me ask council members at this time. I would certainly be willing this week to sit down with Fred and another council member and go through the recitals with him and to pull out from our original Memorandum of Understanding that the city wrote on September 30th and pull out those things that are important to us and put in these recitals also and next Monday bring it back to the council for a vote. Councilman Senn: You know our recitals in ours were pretty much what we kind of wholeheartedly agreed with and we pulled out the other recitals. Mayor Mancino: And I'm saying let's integrate ours in with these that we agree with, because I have no problem with a lot of the recitals that are in here. And bring it back to the council with kind of an integration of what we felt were the key points in our recitals and put it into this Memorandum of Understanding. And also some of the questions and some of the concerns that we heard at our public hearing on Wednesday. Councilwoman Jansen: I'd be willing to work with you on that. You know I don't know if anyone else wants to volunteer but. Mayor Mancino: The two of us. Councilwoman Jansen: As far as having discussion as to who the other party is but then also when you started to speak to the questions that had been asked. If we can address those before next Monday as well and primarily the ones that were voiced by the residents especially. If we can get back to them on those issues as far as the sound barriers and such that Councilman Labatt mentioned and the possibility of getting the design configurations on Highway 41. And I know I had faxed, or e-mailed everyone my list of questions and requests that I had sent into Anita. If we have those things I would feel more like we were addressing the issues prior to taking the next step. And if we're reworking the memorandum at the same time it certainly seems to fit in timing wise. Mayor Mancino: That's fine. I don't think we'll have every single thing answered and I want to stay still pretty big picture so we can move forward with this so I would certainly like to work with you. I don't 26 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 know other council members, Councilman Labatt. Do you feel comfortable with that and coming back on next Monday night's work session? We'll just table it and continue the meeting. Councilman Labatt: Oh yeah. I'd support Linda working with you. Councilman Engel: I'm okay with that too. I just want to know is there an understanding that we're moving forward. Mayor Mancino: Forward. Councilman Engel: With'the purchase of right-of-way. With some enhanced language. I'd like there to be a consensus about that. Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Engel: We want to move forward with it and we want to work out the details with the language and get that taken care of next Monday night. Councilman Labatt: Can we have MnDot here? If we have questions that we need addressed. Mayor Mancino: Would it be possible? We'll just have to check with Evan and see if he can be here and Roger next Monday night. Anita Benson: I can check on the schedules if you give me the names of the people that you would like to have there. Mayor Mancino: So again the end product is that we have a Memorandum of Unde'rstanding. We want to move forward with the right-of-way acquisition and have the priority which we just talked about. Fred Corrigan: If I understand what you're discussing, I think that would work as long as we don't broaden this agreement too much. I think I'm hearing you say that you want to include more things in the recitals. It would be difficult. The Highway 41 is not even going to be looked at. Councilwoman Jansen: That's just a question to have answered, sure. No, I understand. Fred Corrigan: Because that design won't even be looked at for 20 or 30 years probably. Councilwoman Jansen: Sure, yep. Understood. Fred Corrigan: But certainly the noise mitigation and those kinds of issues in the recitals should properly be reflected in those recitals. But it would be difficult for again the Department of Transportation to make any commitments in the agreement itself in Part II. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, understood. Councilman Senn: Do you want to go over your priorities again? Councilman Engel: 1, 2 and 3. As condensed. 27 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Fred Corrigan: As I understand them? Councilman Engel: That probably would be best for him to reiterate what he thinks he heard. Fred Corrigan: As I understand them, priority 1 would be the purchase of Segment 2, Stages 4 and 5. Priority 2 would be the design of Segment 2, Stages 4 and 5. And priority 3 would be the old priority 5 or purchase of right-of-way in phases of the new Highway 212 within Chaska and Chaska township. Councilman Engel: And that's as I understand it. Mayor Mancino: Exactly.' Councilman Senn: Okay but in that then there is absolutely no, okay there's no mention of or whatever any local control or approval of design issues. And until that's there I don't. Well then let's put it in the memorandum if it's... Mayor Mancino: That's what we can go over when we meet this week. Anita Benson: MnDot is required to attempt to gain approval from the local jurisdictional authority. However, if they had one local community saying no we flat out do not want the road. They could take it to arbitration. Councihnan Labatt: What they do first is make an attempt to come to us with a design. Councilman Senn: That's the word attempt. Mayor Mancino: Fred, if you could write down some possible times that you would have this week to meet, that would be great. Thank you. Fred Corrigan: Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks. Mayor Mancino: Any other comments'from other council members before we kind of go into, Councilmember Jansen and I meet with Mr. Corrigan this week and go over. Any other comments that you'd like to make? Councilman Engel: I made mine. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then may I have a motion please? Councilman Labatt: I make a motion that we table this item number, what? 4 to next Monday night's meeting. Roger Knutson: Mayor. What you're doing is. Mayor Mancino: You're continuing it? 28 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Roger Knutson: Continue this matter and at the end of this meeting you will continue this meeting, will adjourn this meeting to Monday night. Councilman Senn: Yeah, there is no tabling. Councilman Engel: It's no table. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much Roger. Appreciate everyone coming tonight. APPOINTMENT OF CITIZEN AT LARGE AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEMBERS TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE. Mayor Mancino: We had wonderful applicants for the citizens at large task force. Five people that we interviewed and I think that was at our, was that at our last Monday meeting? Our work session that we interviewed the five citizens at large for that law enforcement task force. And I think all of us, it was hard to choose. Is there a nomination for one of those applicants that we interviewed for citizen at large? Councilman Senn: I'll nominate that we appoint John Hull. Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to appoint John Hull as the citizen at large member for the Law Enforcement Task Force. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mr. Hull is the new Law Enforcement Task Force person. And you're going to have to work very, very hard. Okay. Now as far as public safety commissioners. Now we have two of them to pick for this law enforcement task force. What does maybe by Jim Sloss mean? Councilman Engel: We were just talking about that. Mayor Mancino: Do you know who called or who said, why he said maybe? I did try and call him and ask him what that meant. Todd Gerhardt: Well I talked to him. He has some additional commitments in Richfield through his work and so he was leaning more towards no than even maybe. And I had not heard back from him. He was going to contact a few other members to see what their interests were. So I left it with my last conversation with him so it was a yes/no so I made it into a maybe. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. And does this have to do with, because he works during the day at Richfield. Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: And he's taken on some additional commitments there and had mentioned that his Chairmanship would have been up in January so. 29 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Well we're not trying to force him. He was just so nice at the meetings that he did attend to and said that he would love to be part of whatever so that's why I wanted to make sure. He just said whatever I can do and any way I can help out so that's a question. Not so much that we're going to make him be on it if he doesn't want to. Any nominations for the public safety commissioners.9 It seems like most of them would like to be on it so it's kind of an open ticket here. I know that both. Councilman Senn: I'd like to nominate Jim Sloss and Colleen Dockendorf. Councilman Labatt: Jim's saying no though. Mayor Mancino: Jim's saYing no though. Councilman Senn: I thought he said maybe. Councilman Labatt: He said no but he's leaning more towards no than maybe. Councilman Senn: Well, he's the Chairman. I think we should encourage him to do it. Councilman Labatt: He doesn't want to do it Mark. He doesn't want to do it. Councilman Senn: Well, I think it's important that if he's chairing it, that he should be. Councilwoman Jansen: But they just said that his chairmanship would have been up in January. And then he made these additional. Councilman Labatt: His chairmanship was up this past January. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, we understand. You know I kind of think since he's not really sure he wants to I feel a little, if we want to or if somebody wants to make a call. I actually tried to get a hold of him on Sunday just because again I wasn't sure what maybe meant and he had offered prior to this in January and February to help out in any way possible. But I feel uncomfortable if he wasn't sure he really wanted to do it so. Councilman Labatt: I'd be comfortable with Colleen and Greg Webber. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other discussions? Councilman Engel: I'd like to see Colleen on there if for no other reason than distinguishing qualifications, she's not a police officer. I know that may sound a little oxymoranic but Steve is and Greg is. I think we'd have a couple. I don't want all, I don't want us all to have law enforcement on there so I'd like to see two law enforcement professionals on there, citizen at large and then a couple of appointees, although they are coming out of this group. I know they've still got a lot of public safety background there. Mayor Mancino: Well we have Steve too from Council. Councilman Engel: Steve brings a lot of background in criminal justice. Councilman Senn: You're not on that, aren't you on that? 3O City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Mayor Mancino: No, I'm a member. Councilman Engel: Are you a member? I didn't know that. Councilwoman Jansen: We already have our two council members. Mayor Mancino: Whoa, she got rid of me quickly. I understand that both Jim and Colleen are not police officers so I understand the thing there. Why don't we do this. Is there, listen to this consensus. Why don't we go with Colleen and Jim. Todd, you make the call one more time to Jim. If he doesn't want to do it, he can say no and then go with Greg. So that then we do have a combination of you know, lay people and police officers on it. Councihnan Senn: I'll amend my motion to make Greg an alternate. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. So say the motion one more time. Councilman Senn: Motion was to appoint Jim Sloss and Colleen Dockendorf and amended to make Greg Webber the alternate. Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to appoint Jim Sloss and Colleen Dockendorf and Greg Webber as the Public Safety Commission members to the Law Enforcement Task Force. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: Oh, I want to go back to our citizen on the task force. I would also, you know I make the recommendation that we do use Miles Lord as a consultant or kind of an honorary member when he wants to come because I thought it was great that he applied for it. I think he's going to be real busy too. Councilman Engel: Well it does bring a little qualification, I will say that. Mayor Mancino: So and again, the task force whoever you want to bring in to interview and to do work with, that's at your discretion. REVIEW CITY MANAGER CONTRACT. Mayor Mancino: We have a contract here for our new City Manager that we need to okay and feel comfortable with and that new City Manager is Scott Botcher. And Roger, do you have anything that you'd like to go over with us in this agreement? Roger Knutson: Nothing in particular Mayor. I would just point out that the form of this agreement is fairly typical, although the numbers obviously are different. That it's common for city managers in the Twin Cities area. Throughout the State of Minnesota. In reviewing this contract, where he is now, many of the provisions are also similar. What really struck me as strange is the language is similar from Wisconsin and I thought I wrote this. Councilman Senn: You both borrowed it from the same place, right. 31 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Roger Knutson: It basically goes down through, what his responsibilities are and what his compensation is. Mayor Mancino: Sure, question. Councilman Senn: Roger, this is for you since it's your form. Typically in terms of employment agreements, I'm not used to seeing language like in 10, 11 and 12 that's totally open ended and broad and basically leaves all the decision on the part of the who, you know on the part of the person you're hiring. I guess I have a problem with that especially in relationship to the public sector and you know the reviews that that gets. I don't think that we should be putting ourselves in a position where that's just simply an absolute. Whatever they say is necessary to get. Roger Knutson: You certainly could put caps on it. Whether in terms of prior approvals or in terms of dollars. But I'd point out maybe three items. First, he's working for you and he'll be under your supervision and I would doubt he wants to do anything stupid to jeopardize his employment with the city. Second, you approve the budgets and it's unlawful to spend unbudgeted money. And third, you review all claims for payment so I'm sure if you see anything you think is inappropriate, or an abuse, you can point that out to him and based on past experience you've never been none too shy about doing that. But having said all that, if you want to put caps in there or some other limitations, that's certainly appropriate but I have seen this in many other contracts and I've never heard of anyone on either side having an issue with it. It's probably self policing in a sense that. Councilman Senn: Well if I'm hearing your reason right, you're telling me ultimately the decision lies with the council anyway. That supercedes the contract to pay them whatever budget decisions we make or whatever. Roger Knutson: You have to budget the money for these things and if it's not in the budget, he can't spend it. Councilman Senn: Okay, because I mean the way the contract implies we don't have that choice and that's why I'm asking the question. Roger Knutson: State law prohibits you, anyone from spending unbudgeted money. Mayor Mancino: We always have that choice. And you know, but that's good because at the beginning of the budget for 1999, at the end of 1999 we can ask for these. We can ask for line items if you like. Roger Knutson: I know my experience in most communities where we work is, I know for example if a manager wants to go to an out of state conference, they usually check in with the council and find out if the council's...and whether that's appropriate or not. And if you want to go to one, you know it may be okay. If you want to go to five, it probably isn't. It's your call but they will, anyone who's going to be in this position I'm sure would want to check with you. But if you want to formally put that in here, then that's fine as well. Councilman Senn: No. If we're covered and that's really what my question was is what supercedes what. So if that ultimately rules. The other question I had was in relationship to the automobile allowance. Where that's something we had never discussed before and I just wondered where that was coming from or how that related. That seems like a pretty substantial allowance for a job that's primarily you know. 32 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Mayor Mancino: That's what we do right now. That's what the automobile allowance is right now. For our city manager. Councilman Senn: Yeah, but there's some history as to how, why that was the way it was relating to some policing and automobiles and then purchase out ora lease and there were a bunch of things that went into that. Mayor Mancino: I don't have my metropolitan guide but I know that I did give it to Mr. Benson to look at the car allowances within our class of cities in that whole data source. I think it went all the way from $400.00 to $600.00 a month ifI can remember, but I don't have it in front of me. Councilman Senn: I asked Bob that question this afternoon. He said it went from $150.00 to $500.00. Mayor Mancino: Not in our class that I know of. Councilman Senn: Well I just asked him for city managers. I did not ask for our class. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And they have it pretty well divided in different classes of cities so we can look at cities that are around our same size. Roger Knutson: Yeah, just so you understand. Councilmembers. I took the, I didn't have any input on the numbers in this contract. I just wrote them down. It is my form but I just wrote down the numbers. And I don't know what typical car allowances other than the last time I did a contract for someone it was $500.00. Mayor Mancino: Does anyone else have any concerns with that? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any others? Councilman Senn: No other questions, no. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there anyone here tonight that would like to address the council on this employment agreement? Bob Ayotte made a comment from the audience that was not picked up on tape. Mayor Mancino: Alright, well let's go ahead and pass this. Sure. Absolutely. State your name and address please. John Hull: John Hull, 1421 Lake Susan Hills Drive. Has Mr. Botcher accepted this job? Mayor Mancino: Well he will once we formally accept this. John Hull: Is he basically in, in other words I want to know can I tomorrow morning put this on the news and say Scott Botcher has accepted the job? Or he's been offered the job or how should that be addressed? 33 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Mayor Mancino: formally. John Hull: Okay. Mayor Mancino: please? Mayor Mancino: He's been offered. John Hull: He's been offered. Then it will, in other words, see I don't want to get into the same. Mayor Mancino: It's one of those people until they sign you know, sign the paper. John Hull: I don't want to do the same thing that the newspaper tried to put you guys through last time so. Is this reportable? ... Mayor Mancino: Yes. yes. He's offered it. He knows the agreement and feels very fine, very comfortable with it. John Hull: Okay. And he's the guy from Wisconsin, right? He's the guy from Wisconsin. We had to wait until we formally adopted it. To offer it So I have a scoop on the newspaper, thank you... Call me at 7:20 in the morning and we'll talk. Thank you John. Can I have a motion Councilman Labatt: I'll make a motion that we accept the employmen.,~,~e..ement fo'~cott A. Botcher for our new city manager. Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to accept the employment agreement for Scott A. Botcher for the new city manager. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mr. Ayotte please. Bob Ayotte: Bob Ayotte, Cascade Pass. I know you're all tired and thank you for indulging me just for a moment. A couple weeks ago...I asked if there was any potential for an ethics subcommittee... Councilman Engel, O Guard? Councilman Engel: Yep, Honor Guard. Bob Ayotte: ...guard. Councilman Engel: That was it. 8~ and 9 Marines on the other side. Bob Ayotte: The thing that I asked... Mayor Mancino: All decisions are made by a majority of council. Bob Ayotte: I understand. I'm sure you all noticed that in looking at the numbers, we have 161K for...amortized with Mr. Folch's cost of 75K... Colonel Patton, almost General Patton, the gentleman 34 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 you met earlier...Maury Smith who died of Agent Orange not too many years ago. One of the things that impressed me about Maury was his quiet professionalism. Young Todd Gerhardt has demonstrated quiet professionalism... Ms. Benson's gone through hell. Charles Folch has...the council has but you folks volunteered for it and they have, they put a cap on and worked hard. I'm requesting that the council this time get back to me about whether or not...some sort of incentive for people who have survived...but when I take a look at the skew of the salary, I think it would be more than appropriate that select...monetary or otherwise. I would ask that you talk with your new city manager when he starts in May I believe, correct? As to whether or not something can be done to...see whether or not something could be done for those people. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Todd, you have gotten together, I know that Mr. Ayotte has said two or three times tonight on the not getting back to him. But you have started to put together some information on the ethics committee, correct? Todd Gerhardt: That's correct and I think we do have a program that just keeps, it falls into our work session items which I think is coming up either towards the end of April or May is when it's programmed for. Mayor Mancino: So that will be on the agenda and Mr. Gerhardt has been gathering that information from other cities, etc and it will be on in April or May. Bob Ayotte: Preferably April. May's the opener. Mayor Mancino: And as you know our work sessions have been so full as of late. Thank you. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Mancino: Council Presentations. There is nothing. I can tell you, and I will probably have to write it now because I have really forgotten. I go to a Southwest Metro Transit meeting on Thursday so I think next Monday I'll give you a little bit ora background on the two meetings that I've been to now and it mostly has to do with they're starting the development of that transit hub site and what they're going to do there. So that's basically, and I will try and put something together on Monday night for you. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION: Mayor Mancino: What do we have in Admin Section? Councilman Senn: ...budget. Todd Gerhardt: I believe it is. Mayor Mancino: Yep. In fact we, I think it Was last, at our last city council meeting we approved the bleacher budget. And this was at our last city council meeting. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, it was approximately $12,500.00, if you look at Todd's recommendation. $4,000.00 to the year 2000. 35 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Councilman Senn: The numbers weren't ringing a bell. That's why I was asking. Mayor Mancino: You know I think it was, remember when Todd came back and asked us for, he had the overage and I think he had allocated $15,000.00 for bleachers Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I don't recall seeing that in the Minutes. Mayor Mancino: I know we've had it in the last, either in the last meeting or the meeting before last. Councilwoman Jansen: I think I was here for that so it had to have been a meeting ago. Mayor Mancino: Two meetings ago. Okay. And you remember that? Councilwoman Jansen: I do. Councilman Labatt: The only comment I want to make is the two letters from Mark Littfin about the city employees who are fire fighters and the relationship with the job sharing that their supervisor allows them to be on fire calls. How they're...house fire down on TH 5. And just pass along my thanks to those people. Mayor Mancino: Also an update, Todd you want to give us on sirens and siren installation, just so everyone knows. Todd Gerhardt: Well if you noticed the yellow one at the main fire station is now gone and they've replaced it with a new silver one. I met with the siren installer today to relocate the one down at Bandimere. The one which will be located out at the public works will start either tomorrow or the next day. And the one out at the Arboretum Business Park will also go in this week. The only one that we have left after those two is the one at Minnewashta Regional Park. Those lands were bought with money from Met Council so we need Met Council's approval before we can install one on that property so we're still waiting their approval. Mayor Mancino: How long do we think that will be? Todd Gerhardt: I would hope that we could have that. Councilman Senn: Probably the same time line as our comp plan approval, right? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. It's probably 2 to 4 weeks out. Councilman Labatt: ...working on this since fall then...getting approval? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Councilman Labatt: Alternative site in case... Todd Gerhardt: Well I tried to pick an alternative site. We looked at where we're installing Well No. 8 but you've got at least three or four $400,000.00 homes probably less than 200 feet away. 36 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Well the park is such a perfect site. Yeah, so I mean if we have to wait 2 to 4 weeks, as long as we can just put some pressure on them to decide. Todd Gerhardt: We'll do that. I'll call Terry Kaiser over there or Tom and see what I can do. Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks. Mayor Mancino adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt Acting City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 37 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 1999 Chairwoman Lash called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Fred Berg, Ron Roeser, Pod Franks, Jim Manders, and Dave Moes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Howe STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent (Taping of the meeting began at this point in the discussion.) VISITOR PRESENTATION: MARTY WALSH, CARVER COUNTY PARKS DIRECTOR, LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK. Marty Walsh: ...What's done at this point is primarily the grading for the beach and the sand's been installed...in this area that's been allowed to dry so if you go down to the beael~ you'll see that there's some... Any questions that you have... Lash: You're eliminating parking? Marty Walsh: They're reducing parking. At this point you still have overflow parking located up a ways. That overflow parking's been under utilized at this point. And we really do need the green space down there. The parking...give us more green space and kind of buffer between the parking lot and the beach area. Franks: When are you looking to do this construction? Marry Walsh: The beach work has already begun. Franks: On the parking lot? Marty Walsh: On the parking lot? This fall. IFbids are good, it will be this fall. Franks: Will that close access to the beach o~ parking lot at all? Marty Walsh: It will haVe, this parking lot area will be closed during construction. The overflow parking lot will be accessible. Lash: But you're not anticipating starting until fall so it's not during peak. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Marty Walsh: Our contract will likely read no sooner start, no sooner than August 15th and complete by October lSt... There is a permit application. It's a rather lengthy application that's applied both to the DNR, the City of Chanhassen. The Corps of Engineers has review of it and the Watershed District has some authority in there, although it's somewhat limited. So there's quite a lengthy permit review process that you go through. And there's some justification as to why it is that you're wanting to expand the beach there .... and I don't have a color rendering of this particular building. It's a rather small building...25 by 25. The building itself...automated concession stand. It will hold up to six machines and they'll be enclosed behind a block wall with a metal roll up door. Coin operated machines. Two picnic tables. I know you can't see that from where you are...kind of break up that large kind ora garage door look. It's look much more prominent in this picture here but that is actually set back about another 18 feet from... Lash: It's set back 18 feet? Marty Walsh: About 25 by 25 foot building. You can kind of see a side view here. This...concession machine. There's an access door, service dOor on the side. And then a large room...The next building, park activities building. ReallY what that is is a large group picnic shelter. Holds up to 150 people... This will be a second flush toilet facility in the park...the primary function of the building will be to service the large picnic groups. Our current facilities are smaller shelters. They maybe comfortably seat 75 to 100 people. This will comfortably seat up to 136-150 people... Lash: Will it be available for rental? How much? Marty Walsh: Right now how much we anticipate renting...that rental fee would be. We haven't decided on a rental fee for this at this point. Our existing rental reservations are, range from $50.00 to $75.00 depending on the time and number of people that you have in the park area. Lash: And then there's a gate fee. Marry Walsh: There's a gate fee. Yes, $3.00 vehicle permit fee for each vehicle that enters the park. We take tallies, if you have a group that's coming in, we'll take the tally for them...in the process of awarding the bid for that and hopefully construction activity will begin in... Manders: Most of that structure where the tables are, that's all open? Marry Walsh: It's open underneath. There's a vaulted ceiling. Manders: So those pieces'are just the restrOoms? Marty Walsh: That's correct... Vaulted ceiling. It will look something similar to actually the texture of this ceiling... Talk a little bit about the pavement end of it. We hope to get this under construction...parking lot facility. There's also some more funding if approved by the LCMR 2 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 that could extend the paving in the park area. So that right now that hasn't been approved. As they go through the legislative process we would anticipate approval but we won't get that until June or July. We could do up to another maybe half mile pavement of the park. That's one of our biggest complaints at this point in time is the lack of pavement in the park and it does cause us some maintenance problems. And the other thing that's kind of exciting that we've been working on, on the comprehensive plan...interesting things that I thought having lived here, it's taken about if you want to call them 200 or 400 years', whatever to get a population of about 40,000 people in Carver County. In the next 20 years they expect we'll get that. Kind of the 40,000, 60,000 people. Populations of Chanhassen, Chaska and Waconia and Victoria combined in the next 20 years. So if you think about infrastructure and the amount of housing that that's going to take place in the next 20 years. We really need to be kind of up front if we're going to start looking at other areas. If you've been out in the rural parts of Carver County, most of this area up here is agricultural land. There isn't much in terms of trees and forests and other sorts of resources and where there are, the county allows for kind of cluster housing development to take place when a lot of that is really already happening. Areas that would have been either significant wooded areas or along what there is for some of the lakes in the western part of the county. What's been identified here are some search areas. An area between Watertown and Mayer, along the...River. At ...Park, we'd like to expand that facility because particularly...if we could find a farm that wanted to partner with the county in terms of providing some historic interpretations of agricultural practices. We'd be looking for significant historical buildings in the farm and that kind of stuff. There might be a petting zoo, that kind of thing...at this point there's only one house that's near the lake so that has an...It's also situated next to a decent size wooded area and it's very rolling topography...west side of Lake Waconia...offers some very mature oak and maple area. Unlike the regional park here that's planned on the south side of the lake when that gets developed, this particular site here offers views to the city of Waconia. Views to the Waconia Island. Offers a mature forest that we won't offer at the regional park and we're going to offer, or would like to offer, if approved, a service that's significantly different in terms of the amount of development and activity that would be placed there at this particular point. Other areas. We show the seminary fen as an area that the county may have some development. I know Chanhassen's been very active in trying to work with the DNR and acquire land around the seminary fen. The county may have a role in interpreting... It's also next to the regional bike trail so it may make a very nice recreational facility. Other areas shown. The green area is the...Creek. They're still very safe, full of wildlife. There are water quality issues with that but there may be some partnering with a number of different kind of county programs whether it's water quality, erosion, those sorts of things where we may set aside some land for public use. And then the bluff area is the last portion that we have identified and if you've been in Chaska and certainly Chanhassen, as you go further down to Carver, the development of the bluff has really taken shape and there isn't there that much undeveloped bluff land left in the county so our feeling is that we'd like to offer some sort of a scenic overlook of the Minnesota River valley. Allow people to kind of picnic in a safe environment a little different than what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife is doing down there where they're offering hunting and so forth. But may be located in the proximity to that to take advantage of what they are doing down there so we have that area identified as well. The little pine trees shown all across the...significant remaining wooded areas in the county of about a 100 acres of larger in size and at this point they're on our, if you want to call it, radar screen as development starts to go into these areas. The effort to Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 preserve maybe a large, significant wooded spot in the county is something that I think we'd be interested in doing... Hoffman: There's no 100 acre stands left. Marty Walsh: There's actually very little. I think the planning and zoning has showed there's less than 10% of the native environment left in Carver County... Berg: We have a dream list too of what we'd like to acquire. How much of this is practical that the County? Marty Walsh: Well initially when we went into the county board we had kind of a thought they might tell us to get out of the room. They didn't tell us to get out of the room so we're hopeful. We're hopeful that they really are going to see the need for this kind of...really emphasize that you're going to have an increased population growth here. Something that you really haven't experienced in the last 20 years. The opportunity to do this is probably just a very small window...settle in with several of the commissioners and surprising even the commissioners on the western part of the county where they have all kinds of open space have indicated that there is support out there. Obviously when it gets down to talking dollars and cents, that's when we really are going to know about...number of open houses. The majority in favor of this. There's been about a 4 to 1 ratio. Survey work in the county has indicated that people are willing to spend dollars to preserve existing natural open space area and look towards the future for additional park areas as the county grows. So we think there's public support for it. We haven't at this point haven't encountered any real negative reaction to what we've indicated. The founding fathers as they are now, we hope they'll see this opportunity and begin making... There are some opportunities that are actually...The county at this point, since this is not an approved plan at this point, has not taken any action to acquire any. Lash: How far west does Carver County go? Marty Walsh: ...regional park and it's roughly 4 miles to the county line. Norwood-Young America's right here at this intersection...about 25 miles west of here, if that gives you a better idea. Lash: No, I just needed some kind of bearing because I...how far it went. Marty Walsh: Any questions with regard to? Then the last plan, trail vision plan. This too is... active role in the development of trails or maintenance of trails. This plan indicates otherwise. This indicates that we'd be maintaining regional trails. It indicates that the county may have other roles with regards to trails throughout the county. Those at this point in terms of what the county's actual defined role will be have not been stated. Whether it's acquired right-of-way to make sure that the trail happens or it's the actual development and the construction of the trail. Whether they're on road or off road trail. As railroad corridors become abandoned, if that would happen again, the county I think has strong interest in making sure that those stay in the public domain. 4 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Roeser: They sure blew it between Victoria and Waconia. My god what a mistake. Marry Walsh: That's the recent one but. Roeser: Every time I drive from Waconia to Victoria I look at that and what a trail that would have been you know. Marty Walsh: ...Victoria here where the wetlands just west of the Arboretum. There's some constraints there that may be actually a barrier... Lash: What's TCW? Hoffman: Western Railroad. Lash: Okay. Marty Walsh: We've indicated the three major railroads in the county if they become abandoned, we do have cross sections that would indicate, even if they are not abandoned and there's an active railroad, we can negotiate with them. Right-of-way in most cases is sufficient where you could have combined use. Roeser: Yeah the Dakota rail, that's not being used anymore is it? Marry Walsh: It's being used on a very light. Roeser: It's still a rail, it's a railroad? Marty Walsh: I can't tell you how many times a car goes up but it's not... Manders: ...stops in Chaska now. You're showing some extensions there that's... Marty Walsh: Actually those are very realistic. Carver County at this point has not been an implementing agency for regional trails. It will, if the county decides to do this, be an implementing agency for regional trails... Manders: The roads that are basically proposed... Marty Walsh: ...that's all I have for you outside of this...I'll give Todd some brochures here. Hoffman: Great, thanks. I've known Marty for quite a few years in our association and I wanted him to come and speak to the commission. I think he's going to be a real champion for parks in Carver County and he's breaking new ground and there's a lot of things to be done so we're glad to have him in the county and Minnewashta Regional park is jUst one of the examples and we 5 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23,1999 happen to have that in town so we're blessed with that. It's nice to see the improvements and we're glad to be working with him. Marty Walsh: It was a pleasure to be able to make it. If there are other things that you'd like me to come back for in the future, let me know. Hoffman: So this is from Baylor? Marry Walsh: From Baylor. Specially bottled. I had a sample one before I came so it was good. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Lash: Thanks Marty. Okay, I was just going to see if we have any other visitor presentations this evening that are not on the agenda. Seeing none, we'll move on to approval of our minutes from February 23rd. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berg moved, Franks seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated February 23, 1999 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CHANHASSEN ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION REQUEST TO OPERATE.~ONCESSIONS AT LAKE ANN PARK AND THE CHANHASSEN RECREA::F. tt}N CENT'~R FOR THE 1999 SUMMER. Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item and asked for any questions. Moes: What is the net on each sale? I know it's probably going to be different by product category. Frank Scott: ...it holds twice as much. And then that would be most of our only expenses would be for food and stuff. We would haVe to get some refrigerators for both sites but, so I guess I don't know what the wholesale prices are for pop. So a quarter I suppose or something like that so it'd sell for 50 cents. But we're not going to do anything, I guess with the Department of Agriculture we could do sandwiches and stuff that goes in a microwave without exceeding and having to go to the Health Department but I'm not sure we're even going to go to that extent this year unless we get a lot of requests for something like that. So I would guess we're just going to double the wholesale price. Ruegemer: Just for the commission's information too.. This shOuldn't cut into the city's concession operation at all. We close down our operation at 6:00 daily where the CAA then would start essentially their operation so they will have a captive audience up at the ballfield area. I think it will be a good operation for them. Lash: Okay. Any other questions? 6 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Moes: Yeah, can I make a comment on the recommendation at all? Knowing that the CAA has their fund raisers, at the same time they do put a lot of the money back into the city programs and everything. I throw out, I mean I'd feel comfortable with the city requesting 10% you know of the net sales and let them keep a few more dollars for enhancing their programs. Kind of like what they did with the bleachers. I think they came up with a good proposal and everything. So I'd just throw that out. Lash: I want to make sure that we're covering at least the cost of having that refrigerator plugged in. I have no idea how much that would cost to keep a refrigerator going in there all the time. Frank Scott: I would think that the trash thing's going to be the most expensive. I don't know how you guys do that but I think electricity is going to be minimal. But we will generate a lot of trash and we'll try to keep the aluminum cans separated so we can do some recycling but you know people will only do so much as far as, you can mark the cans and say cans only but you don't know if that's what they'll do. Manders: That brings up a good point as far as policing trash or garbage. Frank Scott: When we leave at night we'll, we have in the past, always just picked up the stuff and got it in there. I'm not sure we'll have time to run around and pick up all the paper but anything that's left on the ground we will. Yeah, they would usually do that. Lash: Well I think this could be a good trial year. Just go with staff's recommendation and kind of just keep an eye on it and see how everything balances out and then if we want to, I'm assuming you'll want to do it again next year. Frank Scott: Yes, and I think for soccer we're going to want to, especially for soccer because we do that on the weekends and that's even better so I think we'll be back in for soccer. Lash: You talking about for fall? Frank Scott: Yes. Franks: I'd personally be okay with having one report at the end of the season but is broken down by month. I don't know if we need to get that information every month. Lash: Actually I'd be, I would have been okay with one check at the end of the season too just to make it, I think this is a trial to see how much work it is for everybody to do this and if we want to simplify it more the next season or get it broken down more or whatever, I think Jerry's got a pretty good plan here to get us started and then we'll keep an eye on it. Anybody else comments or questions? Hoffman: We're glad to have them. As vendors. Lash: Yeah. Is there a motion? 7 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Manders: I would move to accept staff's recommendation. Lash: Is there a second? Moes: Second. Manders moved, Moes seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the request from Chanhassen Athletic Association to operate concessions at the Chanhassen Recreation Center and Lake Ann Park. The City will request 15% of the net sales and the payment made by the first of each month throUgh the duration of the operating dates. All voted in favor and the motion carried. LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW-REQUEST FOR REZONING OF 6.39 ACRES FROM 1-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONCEPT AND PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL OF 6.39 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 10UTLOT, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF STONE CREEK SUBDIVISION, LYNMORE SUBDIVISION, DAVE MOORE. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Manders: I apologize for not being here last time...as far as how this map lays out and the existing trails. Franks: ...looking at, is that the type of a use that they can do with that property? Hoffman: Sure. They can't build buildings in it and those type of things. Franks: Can they clear the property? Can they. Hoffman: Rod, your thoughts are... Preservation easement, the fact that you have one... The Stone Creek Park aligns right along this boundary. That's our common borders and presently the trail which was constructed as a part of the...At one point we talked about a connection, it was very difficult with the grade that we were going to make that happen. There's a bridge... Manders: Is it all along that treed area? Hoffman: It's on the opposite side. This is Galpin Boulevard right out here and the entrance to, it's called Trotters Ridge. That's the entrance to Trotters Ridge. This is all south of the Bluff Creek Recreation Center. So there would be a possibility to run some kind of a trail loop through. here. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Lash: But really no access up into the development you don't think? Hoffman: No. Lash: Because I was thinking that would be nice access for the people in Trotters Ridge to come through there. Hoffman: When we reviewed this initially last year, that's the plans that we had.., some kind of trail. This ravine would need to be bridged... Manders: The only reason for the outlot is because it's not... Hoffman: The reason for the outlot is that it's wholly within the Bluff Creek preservation area. Lash: So they can't build on it. Hoffman: Otherwise they would put a road down here and they would put what he thinks would be four $100,000.00 properties. Lash: So, here's the alternatives. Let me just make sure I understand. We get the land in exchange for park fees. So that would then become a part of Stone Creek Park. He keeps it and it's an association owned land for those new homes or he tries to sell those to the people in Stone Creek so they have bigger lots? Hoffman: Correct. And the last two... Lash: Okay. Commissioners comments. Manders: So the area then. Hoffman: Meandering boundary. Up to 100 feet or more depending on the sensitivity of the land. Manders: And so...as far as losing this if we... Hoffman: My opinion is that if they will deed this property to the city for the $8,400.00 it's a worthy acquisition. Currently I had talked with quite a few property owners in that area that deal with children in the park. Within the park. Young children within the park and they Use it a great deal for exploration and we can allow a certain part of our community to have access to an area of open space to explore, that child I think for $8,400.00 is a pretty good buy. Lash: Ron? Roeser: I agree. I think we should try and get it for $8,400.00. See what they say. 9 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Berg: How much more are we willing to go? Roeser: Well they won't do it without us talking to us anyway. Berg: I just wanted to get it on the record. Roeser: ...Have you offered this to them yet? Hoffman: We have made the suggestion that we would bring this to the attention of the Park and Recreation Commission. Lash: I would agree that I think it would be worth pursuing for the $8,400.00. We'd still be able to collect trail fees, correct? And I mean ultimately it stays empty no matter what. However, I think to cover our own basis, I mean this Bluff Creek corridor thing is big right now but who's to know in 30 years or whatever, you know that whole thing could go down the tube and then the association owns it and they decide they want to put whatever there they can so I think it would be in our best interest to try and acquire it if we can to protect it. For generations to come instead of giving up the chance. Franks: I think it's a good idea. My only concern, and we might just have to be prepared for that is so that this falls within the watershed, the Bluff Creek preservation district, and we're going to be paying somebody their fees for property so I think we might have to remember the circumstances here that they started the application process prior to the new zoning so, because we could have everybody then coming in and saying well, even though this is within the district we want our money so I think we'll have to be ready for that but I think this is a little bit of a different circumstance. Lash: The other thing is we'll end up owning it where in other situations we wouldn't necessarily own it. It would just be in preservation. It would be not a big deal to build on it but we're actually, because it abuts a park it would make some sense for us. Franks: Right. But I think we should go forward and say that's our formal recommendation that that occur. Lash: I don't think this sets a precedent for future associations. Franks: Well not to us but I'm saying that every developer is going to see that and they're going to look for an angle so. Lash: Yeah, but I think we can make a pretty clear case that this is, you know it's a case by case situation and this one would benefit the adjoining park where other ones probably. Dave. Moes: Yeah, I think it's appropriate to move forward with'the $8,400.00 amount there and see what their take on it is. 10 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Lash: Okay. Anybody else? Okay, no other comments. Can we have a motion? Roeser: I move we accept staff's recommendation that the City offer the applicant full park fee credit of $8,400.00 in exchange for fee title ownership of Ouflot A. Lash: Was this discussed March 17th at Planning? Hoffman: Yes. Lash: Anything we need to know about that? Hoffman: No further updates than that. Lash: Okay, is there a second? Moes: Second. Roeser moved, Moes seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City offer the applicant full park fee credit of $8,400.00 in exchange for fee title ownership of Outlot A of Lynmore Subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried. INITIATE UPDATE OF 5 YEAR PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item and asked the commission for direction on how to proceed with this item. Lash: In the 1999 column, is that our current budget and direction for things for 1999 or is that not accurate anymore? That's not accurate? Hoffman: Our 1999 CIP would supercede that. The one that we have approved and was approved by the council. Lash: So really then for 2000, 2001, anything that's on here is. Hoffman: Still accurate. Lash: Okay. Hoffman: It's still accurate. It's still... With 2000, 2001 you have some sort of forecast of what you were thinking down the road. Obviously we've taken into consideration the master plan so we have master plans on the record for each of these sites. 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Lash: Do you want us to start, should we just start at the top and go down and sec if anybody has anything immediate that pops into their head. Hoffman: Great way to start. Lash: Okay. So I'll just call out the name of the park. If you have something right off the top of your head you know you want to throw out; throw it out and Todd will make a list and then we'll go from there. If we start with sort of our wish list and then maybe next time we can go through and prioritize where we want to place it. Or would people rather just shelf the whole thing and do a work session? Fred. Berg: Sure, I've got a couple items to just throw out that could fit in any places probably. Lash: Okay, well let's just start with Bandimere Community Park. Anyone? Berg: We talked once about some barbecue stands or whatever they wOUld be called. This would apply not just to Bandimere but wherever else we thought it might be appropriate. Lash: Are you talking like concession stands or. Berg: No, a place where somebody can actually barbecue. Hoffman: Grill. Lash: Oh grills. Oh, okay. And then we didn't put play equipment in there, correct? Hoffman: No. Lash: Maybe that's something, we'll probably need a Phase I and a Phase II. Anything else really outstanding that we know. Hoffman: Shelter building? Roeser: There's no shelter building at Bandimere? Manders: Put it on the list. Roeser: Yeah, that's got to go. It's got to happen. Lash: Okay, what else did we takeout of there?~ We took tennis out. We took ice out. Hoffman: Tennis, yep. Franks: Work on the silo, was that? i2 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Lash: Oh yeah, put that on. Oh, good. Hoffman: Concession. Concession stand for the ballfields. Or else that Could become part of the building itself. Lash: Or maybe we want a small, I liked his little plan for that concession stand with the garage door. You know something like that by the baIlfields but then more of a covered shelter area by the picnic. Two projects instead of just one great big. Okay, so we talked about ice and tennis are both things that got cut that really still were in the master plan, were they not? Hoffman: Yep. Lash: Anything else? Bandimere Heights. That's kind of combined now, isn't it? Hoffman: Yeah, combined by the trail but those people still consider it their neighborhood park. What you will see happen is the discontinuation of the use of the field as a soccer field and then that neighborhood maybe come back and see... Jerry brought up a good point. Lights at Bandimere. Lash: We're going to have to bite that bullet one of these days so that's all there is to it. Berg: Maybe the city council can free up some of that extra. Hoffman: That's a good way, when you look at the investment that you make in land acquisition and development and instead of starting all over and building more green space, you put lights up. You add value to what you... Lash: Well we pretty much spelled it out in the beginning. Roeser: I don't think it's going to be a big surprise. Hoffman: It won't be a big surprise. It's the number one issue that people call and talk to us about who are in that area. Lash: Okay, Bluff Creek Park. That's the ravine, right? Hoffman: Yes. Lash: Anyone? Carver Beach Park. Hoffman: The up top. Lash: That's the up top one, okay. Berg: Is that the mini beach? That got a lot of work with the referendum. 13 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999. Hoffman: It's an area where operation and maintenance is pretty much... Lash: Can anyone think of anything else further? Okay, how about the, what's the next one supposed to be? The same one. That's still the top one too isn't it? Parking? Hoffman: Yeah, that's a clerical error. Lash: Okay, and then the next one is the mini beach, right? How about that trail connector thing over to Fox Hollow or Fox Chase or whatever it was? Hoffman: Fox Chase trail connector. Lash: Would that fall under there? Hoffman: It would. Lash: Playground, Carver Beach playground. We had talked about putting in, didn't we talk about putting in some plantings or something along that new trail that went in? Didn't we talk about that one night? I think to make it just look. Along the road or something. Some plantings. Anything else for Carver Beach playground? Does that have lights over there? Hoffman: No. Lash: Even one? Not even one? Hoffman: There's a street light back in... Lash: How about Chart Estates Park? Is that. Franks: By McDonald's. Lash: Is that the mini park or is that the other one? Hoffman: Mini park. Franks: Didn't we talk at one point of putting a curb cut in? Hoffman: Parking lot curb cut. Vehicle access of some kind. Franks: Of some kind. There really is no room for a parking lot though. So is that something you want to consider? Lash: I can't imagine anything more... 14 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Hoffman: Put in playground equipment and a basketball court. Lash: Chan Hills, skating light. We've already got that in, right? Is there anything else? Are we pretty much done there? Phase I and Phase II? Hoffman: The playground? Yes. The wood structure is serving as... Lash: Master plan. Hoffman: It originally had tennis. Back out. It has volleyball. It has basketball. Franks: Trail improvements were completed. Hoffman: ...parking lot. Franks: One of the other things to consider long range planning though is how the park will be impacted by new 212. Lash: I was just thinking that. Some major screening there would. Franks: There's going to be a noise, a noise barrier wall's going to go up. Manders: There's quite a few trees on that ridge already out there. Hoffman: Yep, it's already been started. Franks: Right, it's already been started. Lash: Put some landscaping probably wouldn't hurt. Franks: See what MnDOT's plans are. MnDOT said that they're willing to work with the areas in putting up their sound abatement. Include the design of the wall. What type of materials are used and some landscaping too so that's what they're saying at their informational meetings so we might want to be sort of proactive when the time comes that we're working with them to...next to our park. Lash: Do you feel like there's enough landscaping? How about Chan pond Park? It's pretty much done isn't it? Hoffman: ... Lash: Kerber Pond, correct. Berg: That might be a spot for a historical monument. 15 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Lash: Yeah. Also Bluff Creek Park. There's no access but could we put something like by that one. Hoffman: There's really no public, well you could put it up on the trail. Lash: Yeah, out by the golf course or up maybe up on the trail or somewhere where you can look down in there, yeah. Hoffman: Those are mostly a plaque, like the state parks. Lash: Something there that would be kind of cool to put is what this is and that it's preserved and natural vegetation that you could find or rare species of wildlife that you'd find there. Those kind of things are kind of cool for people, it' might lure them down in there. Hopefully not to stomp all over and kill everything. Oh, the Rec Center. Franks: Grass. Hoffman: It's going to be coming. One year. One calendar year. Lash: How about the playground that was supposed to go in out front? Franks: Has it come yet? Hoffman: No. Franks: There are trees there. Ruegemer: The playground at the Rec Center? Hoffman: No, that's the Lion's playground. We set that out to help with the cash that... Lash: So do we need to add another playground over there somewhere? Hoffman: That's a good question. Lash: The only playground is the school one, correct? Down at that one end. Hoffman: You would build a playground at Bandimere long before you would put one there. And you would put a playground in any other location that didn't have one so it would be a long time... Roeser: If there's already one there, there's Plenty inside. Lash: And that's irrigated already right? Okay, so we did that. 16 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Hoffman: Last fall. Lash: Anything else that we need then out there that you can think of?. Hoffman: Not capital wise. We have some maintenance items...and we need to get that. Other than that, it's a good facility. Lash: How about City Center Park? That should be done. Hoffman: Done. Lash: You know I was thinking about that when I drove past the other day. That's just going to be a nightmare for the school this spring. Have they contacted you already? Hoffman: Oh yeah, we've been talking with them. We will fence the entire area off from the school so they can play on the hard surface basketball and the two playgrounds. Lash: But how about for their track and field day? Hoffman: It will be off site. Lash: Be off site? Hoffman: It will probably be either in front of City Hall or another park facility. Roeser: They could do it at Lake Ann. Franks: City Center Park skate park. Skate park. Hoffman: Had three youths of the community call me out to the park bench this afternoon and ask about the skate park and he wanted a whole pile of my business cards because it's time to write some letters he explained. Lash: Who was this? Hoffman: A young man. Three young men of Chanhassen. And they were talking to the police and they police told them that's where it was going to happen. I said at the present time it is not, the city council has not given the go ahead and if they want to voice their opinions they should write those. What started it? Oh, the three young men stopped up at City Hall at the .front desk this afternoon and asked to see the parks director to talk about the skate park. Berg: I've got 10 to 20 kids that would be willing to come up and start working. Franks: Are we going to have a skate park discussion some time? 17 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Hoffman: Well currently it is the $15,000.00, it's in the CIP for this Year and I've asked the council for the go ahead. They have denied waiting discussion of their strategic plan. So we're in a holding pattern. Franks: Let them... Hoffman: ...then you would be the implementing agency for the skate park. And there would be a city formed grass roots committee and people... The items in the packet, those are turn key. You come up with the money and you call them up and it's built. Lash: It seems to me like in City Center we made some nasty cuts of some things too like some landscaping and want to have some trees along some of the trails and talked about the seniors and kind of a little garden area or whatever across from them and was there not supposed to be some kind of a shelter too and we nixed that? Hoffman: bench and more than Yep, park shelter. There was an arbor that was part of the plan. Landscaping and seating and council has voiced an interest in that as well given the fact that it was a passive... Lash: Can you think of anything right off, anything else that we axed from the plan? Hoffman: No. Those were the major items. Shelter...some of th~,~l~king an~encing. And the skate park not being completed. Lash: The warming house. Hoffman: Yep, shelter, warming house. Lash: Oh, so that's a combo thing? Okay. So would, see I like his little garage door building. But could something like that work for the warming house too? That door. Could you just close it and then heat it. Hoffman: That building would be too small. 20 x 25 and then it has. Lash: But I mean you know, that kind of a style. You know in the summer you whip open the doors and it's a little covered shelter. You can throw picnic tables in and in the winter you keep the doors shut and turn the heat on. Franks: Like pull the insulated garage doors down on the sides and it's an insta-building. Berg: There's a park near where you and I grew up in Boston that did that. The warming house there. Franks: That warming house at Boston. 18 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Berg: It was a big open thing and they had I think three dOors that shut. It accomplished it very well. Hoffman: Yeah, it's such a...there's a company that does just that. Lash: So I don't know would it be more expensive to do that or would it be economical to do that to be able to combine your warming house with your shelter? Hoffman: It's one of those, you go anywhere from $50,000.00 to $200,000.00 depending on what you want. Lash: No but I mean is it one end or the other? What I'm looking for is it more economical or is it more expensive? Hoffman: More economical. Lash: It is more economical. Hoffman: Sure. Oh sure. Lash: Okay. Can anybody think of anything else for City Center? Okay, Curry Farms. I don't think there's anything going on over at Curry Farms is there Todd? Hoffman: Curry Farms... They wanted a dry trail...and more playground. Roeser: I thought maybe it'd just go away. Lash: More playground equipment? Hoffman: Or better playground equipment. They have some of the original wood playground that we've repaired because of the frost heaving that goes on. It's perfectly functioning. Lash: Okay, how about Galpin. Hoffman: Sugarbush? Lash: Sugarbush, yeah that's the name. Frank: Name change? Roeser: Yeah. Lash: That doesn't cost much. That would fit right in our budget this year. Hoffman: The sign is being made. 19 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Lash: I suppose we'd better have some trees. Some Sugarbush. Better put that in. ;.yeah, and we were afraid we were going to hurt people's feelings. Berg: They worked so hard at their name... Hoffman: Future trail connection. Lash: Actually that needs quite a bit. I mean what do we have there right now, anything? Hoffman: Oh yeah. Lash: I mean we've got the parking lot and the little. Hoffman: Parking lot, trail loop, basketball court, playground. Lash: Oh we do? Roeser: Where's that? Lash: Weasle Park. Hoffman: Sugarbush. Lash: Let's just call it what we know. Well we all know what we're talking about... Hoffman: Water tower. Drinking fountain. Lash: That was back when it had a hill and it got carved out. Wasn't that a high spot? Hoffman: Oh, the well. The well house. Went somewhere else. The soils weren't, the geological information did not... Lash: Okay, so if we do the connection. Hoffman: Phase II playground. Maple trees. You'd have a beautiful park. Lash: Greenwood Shores Park. Roeser: Greenwood Shores, I think we should put in a concession stand and probably a slide into the water. Franks: I'd like to charge for valet parking. Roeser: That one needs perking up. It's really quite a dull. 2O Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Berg: I'd like to get more people dOwn there. Roeser: Like can we spend about 60 on that one? Berg: What can we do to attract the city to it? Get them into Greenwood Shores. Roeser: How about a Ferris wheel? Franks: You know though really, I was thinking to be fair we should keep moving the no parking signs from one side of the street to the other like on a yearly basis. Lash: Make people think we're shaking it up... Roeser: Well just let it be then. Lash: Is there anything else down there? I'm trying to think. From a wash out or. Hoffman: ...that big oak tree dies and the docks in good shape. We're going to... Lash: Girls, we put one new one in. It got tipped over. But you know this isn't really a money item either but we've got to come up with a better solution for the picnic tables down there. I was down there one time and. Hoffman: Dale's going to put some new in. Lash: Okay, good. Because those poor maintenance guys were over there wading all over the place and trying to find them out there. Hoffman: They're going to cement them in. Then they can just sit and beat on them and try to... Lash: Okay, Herman Field. We never put in the boardwalk, did we? I think didn't we decide we were never going to do that? Roeser: We've never going to do it, are we? Nobody's ever asked for it. Lash: How does that seem to be going over there anyway? We had another big batch of vandalism didn't we? Hoffman: One small incident. It's going better. I think about that park a great deal. You put $50,000.00 into the entrance road...it should have been part of the regional park to begin with but that didn't happen so we have 12 beautiful acres of open space and wildlife habitat and my, I think there's some kind of...at some point where there's an open field or a ballfield back there that's fairly large and if this is going to be open space in nature, it's pretty uncharacteristic. All 21 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 of sudden you drive into this parking lot and it looks like a ballfield and nobody's ever using it so we should probably study what should we do with that. Roeser: Let it grow. Hoffman: Let it grow back and then you've got the playground back there...it's kind of like a bad, bad side of town you're fighting a losing battle with. And do people want to continue to fight that or do you want to come up with a plan Roeser: Plant wild flowers in there. Lash: Do you have anything from the neighbors? Other than a complaint once in a while. Hoffman: Well we had the discussion on a $16,000.00 addition to the playground. They didn't want to see it happen. The formed a neighborhood watch. That was effective in...some of the vandalism. Their main interest is, and we used it infrequently and... Moes: Sell it or trade it for something. Roeser: We can't give it to Mirmewashta. Hoffman: Could. Lash: It'd be difficult with the access though. Hoffman: You could close that access and they would come into the park. Manders: Hook it on to the other side. Franks: They might have the resources to actually bridge that into the park. Hoffman: It's a long question that needs to be answered. Manders: How close or does it border the regional? Hoffman: Oh sure, the whole border. That's all... My understanding was that Mr. Herman did not like the county board at the time or the county so he wasn't going to give that park or that land to the county. He gave it to the city. Franks: If something like that were to happen, what would be the neighborhood park that would serve it then? Or what would we do? Hoffman: There would not be a playground. Lash: Well the closest one would be. 22 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Hoffrnan: Intermediate school or Minnewashta Heights. Lash: That's a little bit of a jaunt but. Franks: And we just have the older playground equipment at the school. Hoffman: Or they go down to the regional park which is a $100,000.00 playground. Roeser: I mean it's really not denselY populated at all out there. Lash: Well there's a pretty good neighborhood. I mean not right around it but because. Hoffman: Linear in nature. Lash: And with the park on the other side but I mean there's a pretty good neighborhood that could access it pretty easily, even just walking Or biking. Manders: Could but don't. Roeser: I don't think we've ever been out there. It's totally abandoned every time I've ever been in it. I've never seen a person out there. Manders: Is that totally out of the question to transfer? Hoffman: ...well people would have to buy our parks and there are cities... Roeser: Let's just keep it there in case a deal comes up with the county some time and say hey, this would be... Manders: That's exactly it. Just keep it in the back of your mind. Roeser: Just let it be. Manders: Who knows something down the road. Lash: Well with all this that they're doing and they might want... Hoffman: If you're going to entertain the other avenues, then you're going to be most sUccessful if you allow that... They're going to say oh no. We like our parks just fine. Lash: Well sometimes that's maybe what it would take is'well...you guys aren't using it. You don't care about it. Ifnobody's going to use it, we'.re going t° deed it over and then all ora sudden there might be a little more ownershiP and they'll say fine. i. ' 23 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Hoffman: I'll talk with some of the people who are, the chairs of that neighborhood watch group. Roeser: See if they want it, yeah. Lash: Okay. Lake Ann Park. Well we've got the interior road. Hoffman: There's not good news on that. Lash: The trail. Keep seeing concession stand come up even though that doesn't ever seem like it ever goes. Manders: ...doing the trail. Hoffman: Yeah, the news on that. We completed the feasibility report... $340,000.00 on the road, the parking lot and $50,000.00 for the trail. Lash: $400,000.00. So two years. Hoffman: So that will be a work session item for the council. The $150,000.00 which was set aside are earmarked out of CIP will not cover it. Manders: Is that talking like totally replacing? Hoffman: No. Overlay is not cost efficient. That's where we were when we first started this. Lash: How's the floating dock down there? Hoffman: What a cost to begin with but long term it's been. Lash: You know I did have somebody, now that, this just popped into my head. I did have somebody mention to me, ask me the other day if it'd be possible to get one of those over at Greenwood Shores. Hoffman: Floating raft? Roeser: I bet you'd get a reaction though Jan. Lash: From who? Roeser: That live up there. Lash: But that's who asked me. In the neighborhood asked me. Roeser: Yeah, one person asked you...bring the neighbors out screaming. 24 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Lash: But that would eliminate some of that picnic table deal in the water too. That's what they like to take the picnic tables out there for is so they can jump off, dive off. Hoffman: The last time we had that discussion it was because the discussion was at Carver Beach and that...neighborhood and at that time we stated that we have one at the community park. We don't have them at the other...smaller parks. They have it because they want it and doing it so I would think. Lash: Well and it was kind of grandfathered in. That was my response to the person who was asked me that. Hoffman: Yeah, I think there would be some legitimacy for if they wanted to build one and maintain it. I think we could probably approach the commission to do that. Lash: Okay. What else for Lake Ann? Hoffman: Soccer lights. Roeser: Soccer lights? Hoffman: For the soccer field. They want equal treatment... Lash: Would there be any future potential in acquiring more property? I mean will the park expand? I know Eckankar's been approached but how about to the west. Is there potential there to buy more or not? Hoffman: Oh sure. There's potential only being that there is open land to the west and to the east. Both those landowners have plans for their property. Those plans do not include expanding the park... Roeser: Certainly west would be. Hoffman: Yeah the 1970 concePt plan went all the way to Galpin Boulevard for Lake Ann Park. The commission had talked about an amphitheater similar to Starring Lake at Lake Ann at one time. An outdoor theater. Probably the nearest parking lot adjacent to the beach. That little parking lot which is north, or excuse me, the boat access. So as you drive down to the boat access, off to the right there's a small parking lot... Lash: Would you have to take out that whole group of trees? Hoffman: Well they'd work around them or take some of those out.' Franks: I mean it's really nice what they're doing at Starring with all the programming that they do there during the summer. Very popular too. 25 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Hoffman: Outdoor amphitheater and then we've talked about picnic shelters with... Lash: Anything else for Lake Ann? Ruegemer: Do you want to put any money in the reserves? Hoffman: These are acquisitions. Manders: One thing that I think about on Lake Ann... Roeser: I ski in there all the time. Lash: There is a path through there in the winter already that you can. I walk it. Manders: Is that just kind of... Roeser: Well somebody clears it ever year. They go through it don't they? Hoffman: Yep, park maintenance goes through there and clears it. We could advertise it better. Manders: I'm just wondering if there's anything. Roeser: If you advertise it, then you have to almost start grooming the trail or start. Hoffman: Well we'll advertise it as non-groomed because. Lash: But I mean you could easily put up a little sign at both ends. You know is there some kind ora... Roeser: Beautiful place to walk. Manders: I'm assuming when you're talking about trails that you'd finished that little gravel trail thing in the back... It's kind of up to the top of the steps and then stops. All the way around. Lash: It does already go. It goes to the west and then it just goes down the slope and comes out down by the volleyball sand down by the beach. It's not paved at all. Manders: Exactly... Lash: Pave that through the woods? Why would you want to do that? Manders: It gets kind of. Roeser: You could blacktop it from the upper parking lot down to where the lot steps go down. 26 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Lash: Oh, oh. I'm not tracking about the same thing. Manders: Yeah, so it's just extending that. Lash: So more down by the picnic shelter? Moes: At the end of the beach. Hoffman: At the end of the beach there's a trail that comes up the back way. Lash: Yeah, that's what I was talking about. Hoffman: To the parking lot by the trees. It was the signature picture for the referendum. Lash: Well I walk that all the time. Why would you want, I would never want to pave that I don't think. Roeser: Well when it's went and stuff, it would complete the bike route around for one thing. You come up to the little thing there. Lash: That's just a fight with nature. It's such a, it's so. Manders: Then it needs to be upgraded. Roeser: Well yeah, if not it needs to be gravel. Manders: It's muck. Lash: Is it really? See I never walk that way when it's that wet. I walk there more in the winter or the fall when it's not so wet. Roeser: It's really nice in the fall. Lash: It is in the fall...you know the other thing that's scary to me is the couple different culverts that come down and then they just, I mean all the gunk is just flowing right into the lake and I don't know is there any other solution to keep that? Hoffman: The runoff was improved since the lake was taken out of ag2 And then when, if Eckankar develops any further they will be...to manage the storm water.. Lash: It just runs all spring... Hoffman: Yep. The trail needs repair. 27 ? Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Lash: Anything else for Lake Ann? Okay. Lake Susan. We talked about the beach thing. Is that going or is that not? Hoffman: It's going. Lash: It is going, okay. Are there other things for Lake Ann? Franks: You know on Lake Susan, with a part of the Villages on the Ponds development that's on the Lake Susan side of Market. That woods. That woods triangle there where the old farmhouse is. That's slated for townhome development or something, right isn't it? Hoffman: Yep. Franks: There's no way to get a hold of that nice piece of woods. Hoffman: Million dollars maybe. Roeser: Oh where that old beat up house is. Manders: Oh, up there. Franks: From the old beat up house down towards where the trail. Down to the lake. I was just thinking that little strip would be a nice kind of. Roeser: Whatever happened to that? You know we talked about that 2-3 years ago. Hoffman: Unfortunately you won the battle on the east side of 101 towards Rice Marsh with that little, you know the soccer field. On the west side you're going to see a significant change. Not only where the farmhouse is. Then as you move down and you go south of the trail that exist. Franks: That little, teeny triangle. Hoffman: Yep. That little triangle between the trail and creek will be obliviated for storm water management. So the trees will go for a pond. So the view there will change dramatically. At the time that the commission reviewed the Villages on the Pond, it was your recommendation that you preserve that set of trees, preserve everything from the trail to the creek and then on the other side everything south of the trail as well. And it's not just to blame the developer for that storm water pond. That is also necessary for storm water off of 101 itself. So it's a pond that will manage their water runoff and the city's water runoff for 101. But it's disappointing. Right now when you walk through you kind of have that nice woods off to your left. That will be a storm pond. Franks: In some ways to me it almost seems better to have the ponding on the other side of 101 instead of on the Lake Susan side. 28 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23,. 1999 Hoffman: The difficulty creek there... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Lash: Is that something we want at any site? Hoffman: Lake Ann will have two. Ruegemer: We're adding another one this year. Hoffman: So it will have two this year. Ruegemer: We have two... Lash: Are those two the most popular or how about Lotus? Ruegemer: It fluctuates. Lake Ann is number one and then Lotus Lake goes a close second. Lake Susan is always kind of everybody's last choice. Hoffman: We don't have the physical land to put it at Lotus. Lash: How about near the boat launch? Ruegemer: ...for parking. We'd have neighborhood concerns. Lash: How about down by North Lotus? Hoffman: No, the lake. Need a pier. Lash: Okay. Anything else for Lake Susan? Is the pavilion holding up okay? Hoffman: Excellent. Lights for the ballfield? Tree clearing? Manders: Down to the lake for sights. Lash: Oh, along the trail? Manders: Yeah. Lash: Do we need new plantings? How about ballfield lights there? Is that a biggee? Is that getting utilized now or not? I mean for a while it was not that many people, not many kids in that league to use it. Ruegemer: A lot of the youth associations feel that that isn't appropriate for certain age groups because it is more of a full sized type of facility. Or the new Bandimere site nOw is going to kind 29 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23,1999 of bridge that gap for the 13 year olds. But it is getting used 5-6 days a week right now. But is there a long term, like 2003, 2004 potential of lights? I don't see an immediate for that right now. Hoffman: What they'd like to do is move the backstops forward to the lake. It's like a major big ballfield... Lash: What would be the problem with doing that? Franks: It could be one of the temporary backstops you know that we could put up for the season that could be pushed forward? There's still the metal cage that are on like the rollers. Lash: Does that make it more useable? Hoffman: Could. Ruegemer: They're using it as is. I mean obviously that comes up every year. Lash: Well you might as well utilize it as much as you can. Franks: Is the outfield too far for most of the, the outfield is okay? ~,~ Roeser: Yeah, if you ever want a full sized ballfield, you're going to need that. Franks: Right, so I'd hate to see the backstop being moved forward. Moes: If they use it for Legion ball or something like that, it's got to have a backstop. Lash: Okay. Meadow Green. Manders: The only thing I can think of there is trail connector. Berg: Trail connector is all. Manders: Because we've talked about trail connectors down to Kerber Boulevard at one point... going the other way. Berg: It'd be nice to have some trees or something out by the parking lot. It's so garish coming up there. It's just so flat and awful. Roeser: It really is. Berg: It'd be nice if we could do something to dress up the front of the park there. Lash: You know is there a, didn't we do something with the referendum? Didn't we add some? II Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Hoffman: A trail, yeah. Lash: That's on the other side of Kerber or whatever isn't it? Hoffman: No, right through the park. Right through the center of the park. The trail on the other side of Kerber down through the neighborhood is just planned. And there may be room. I've looked at that connection, now that you can walk there it's real easy to visualize where the other connector would go on. There may be room there on the north side of that creek. We'll have to look at the ownership. That's down to Kerber. The compliments on these trail loops, both the long ones and these park have been prettY overwhelming. People really appreciate what the city and trails. They like them. Starting to make use. Adds value to their life. Lash: Anything else you can think of for Meadow Green? What's the playground stuff there like? Hoffman: Oh, that is going to be the first area'to be refurbished. It's the old wood structures that's probably going on close to 12-13-14. It's old. Lash: We should plunk down at least a Phase I. Hoffman: And then...was the other issue but people always bring it up. It goes all the way back. You remember a couple people saying we should cut the sod. Roll it all up and regrade the entire park and roll back the sod down on a weekend so, drainage and turf and the future use of that site, the associations put a tremendous load on it. Our neighborhood, they have neighborhood issues with parking and trespassing. That's one of those things that's almost like don't... If we go in there and start making major improvements to improve use by the associations...so as much as they demand it, I don't think it's very palatable to operate. Berg: It's almost not a neighborhood park now. Hoffman: I'm amazed when I bike or walk by during an association night. That park is just overflowing. Berg: I think if we could close it off a little bit with some trees. Lash: Well that was supposed to be, wasn't that supposed to be our goal when we got all these parks redone was to start taking some of that scheduled play out of, for sure Rice Marsh and. Hoffman: Carver Beach. Lash: Yeah. Once we get City Center up and running and Bandimem up and running, I guess I'd like to, could we put that on for next year about this time? Is them a way that we'd be able to start pulling out of some of those? 31 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Ruegemer: Do that in December or January. Lash: Well make a note so we remember to do that. Hoffman: See Meadow Green is going to, unless you change the laYOut, it's going to relieve that pressure because it is so conducive to field play by it's layout and it's terrain that unless you come up with a change in the master plan to make it more urban in nature or passive play in nature, they'll continue to put pressure on... Lash: Well they can use it I guess I'd say for practices and for things like that on a first come, first serve yep. But not to schedule organized games in the neighborhood parks. We said several years ago we wanted to try to. Berg: It'd be nice to reclaim that for the neighborhood. Lash: You know or set a maximum. Two nights a week or you know something anyway to try and, that was a big point o£trying to do all these projects was to get out of there. Manders: Now are we all set as far as picnic shelter? Hoffman: Oh...picnic tables and there needs to be some landscaping around there as well. Manders: Yeah, I mean those things are a part of putting in the... Hoffman: No... Lash: Okay, Minnewashta Heights Park. We just did some stuff there didn't we? Hoffman: Yep. Roeser: We gave them a light. Lash: We gave them some new playground stuff too didn't we? Hoffman: Laid down a basketball court. Lash: Okay, North Lotus Lake. We put in the shelter. Put in some new trail thing right? Hoffman: One of the nicest neighborhood parks in the city. Lash: Is that, that shelter can't be used as a wanning house though, correct? Hoffman: No. Lash: We'll have to continue to have the portable warming house there? 32 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Hoffman: The long term answer for portable warming houses is something staff is investigating and we'll speak to the commission about. Lash: Anything else for North Lotus? Mocs: I was going to say that I think the portable.warming house works the best there because it gets much closer to the rink where the pavilion is a little bit of a hike. Then you probably have to plow something out to get people up there. Hoffman: As ugly as they are, they're there for. Moes: Very sufficient. Roeser: It's dark most of the time. Moes: They blend real well with the dark background. Lash: Pheasant Hills. Off of Lake Lucy. Hoffman: They have not made any demands. Other than...put in. They put it in this summer. Lash: Okay, Power Hill. That's pretty much done. Franks: Yeah, except for the rope tow. Don't take your kids down there. Berg: One time down the hill, maybe two. Lash: That's why it got called Power Hill. Berg: Oh, that's a killer, let me tell you. Franks: Especially when you've got to pull two of them up in a sled. Berg: Boy that shelter's in a nice spot though. Lash: You know can we schedule in May or something again another tour of some of these, all these shelters we put in and all this. So that one's pretty much done isn't it? Berg: How about working with the basketball court on the parking lot? Ruegemer: Seems to be working. 33 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Hoffman: No complaints. For the most part, yeah. Still differing opinions. Some people...what should happen down there. That's improved 200% since we started down there... They like the, it's one of those love-hate things. They like to walk their dogs out there. Play their golf... Roeser: Put a driving range on the top of that hill. Hoffman: Top of that hill. Lash: Okay, Prairie Knoll. Franks: Is that finished, no? Hoffman: Basketball court in. Franks: Do we have other parks with that kind of edging? Hoffman: Yes. Franks: That are holding up? Moes: The pins pop out. Franks: Yeah, the pins pop up. I mean I've already seen the pins pop up over there. Hoffman: They pop up on all that stuff and it has to do with the frost. Franks: Can you do a regular check and pound them down? Hoffman: They're not pounded down... Berg: Did we ever send a letter congratulating those people on their color selection? Hoffman: I will do that. Berg: I think we should do that. Let's be on record as a commission congratulating them on their creativity. Hoffman: Highly visual site. Franks: Power Hill Park, that nice tan and green equipment they've got over there. Lash: Rice Marsh. Phase out CAA. Hoffman: Shelter. Playground equipment. 34 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Roeser: They don't play any ball down there any more do they? Hoffman: This year. Roeser: Do you really? Ruegemer: Just as a commission update. They have backed down their play time down there for this current year. I think it was just two nights a week. And I think that was only one game so they're really trying to back away from that. With the intention of when City Center and that comes back, I think they're really trying to work towards that goal also. Lash: Okay. So that one's pretty much done. Nothing else to do there right? Round House Park. Hoffman: Oh, long list there. Lash: Round house refurbishment. Hoffman: That should be completed this year. You've got $40,000.00 in there and I talked to two contractors and...get renovated and painted. Berg: What are we going to do with it? Hoffman: Summer playground people will use it this summer. They'll have a playground site there if it's raining or inclement weather, they can move inside. Also I would think we would allow neighborhoods, if they scheduled neighborhood picnics to have access to it in case of bad weather. And in the winter it will be used for the warming house. Lash: I knew that was a great idea... Manders: $40,000.00 will do that? Hoffman: Hopefully, yeah. About $24,000.00 in major renovation. $5,000.00 to $8,000.00 in painting and... Lash: How about, I imagine we have a nice sign or something for there. I mean do we want something landmarkish on the round house? I mean do we want to say Round House Park on there? Roeser: You know the trouble with that round house, I don't know if there's any kind of history to it at all is there? I mean supposedly the guy that built it was the railroad. Hoffman: The committee was intending on putting that together. Valuable piece and I'll have to get together with those people again. 35 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23,1999 Berg: Well we can think of something. Hoffman: At the round house there's a site, a pad for it and the discussion was similar to North Lotus. I would see Round House as a very similar operation as North Lotus where it's a community separated from the rest of the city and tennis courts could be considered there. In line hockey and that was mentioned...but it made the cut on the master plan as you recall. So tennis court on the master plan and in line skating hockey on the master plan. Lash: Did we have ice there this year didn't we? Hoffman: Open skating. And then second phase of the playground would be on a capital plan at some point. One thing that is really nice I think, with some of the more recent acquisitions to these park sites and they put them on these prominent comers or prominent locations, I think that adds a lot of value. What public investment is all about. We sit and we talk about a Herman Field, how do we. Roeser: Nobody knows it's there. Hoffman: How do we make it happen or how do we make it valuable and then you talk about a Sugarbush or a Round House, those sites that are right on, very public presence. It really makes sense. And one where we falter is Stone Creek. Stone Creek, if you recall, we~empted to negotiate with the applicant...to put it out on the main drag where~cybody c~'ld identify with it and he fought that sternly because it wasn't in his plan. He didn't have anything to do, he couldn't use that 7 acres or 8 acres back there. So the theory was he only owed us about four, he doubled that to give us this other land and we took it. But it is back in a comer. It's used but it does not nearly have the presence it would if you pUt it out front. I think that's something to put in the back of our heads because we're not done developing. Lash: I think it depends a little on the layout. I mean if Stone Creek, say it was the same park, it was just in a different location, it wouldn't make any difference. I mean it's a unique layout in itself that it's just got that small little workable piece on top and then the rest of it is all trails and stuff. It wouldn't matter where you had it. If it would be a particular drawing because you're not going to have ponds or people picnicking on the playground, there's just not enough space. But the quiet natureness in back is a draw for people and I think that people who want to use that, know it's there and will seek that out where Round House, you knoTM you've got the beach and, I mean each one is unique in what it can offer. It's not the same, it wouldn't be the same experience if Stone Creek were out right now to Galpin. Hoffman: ...experience but when I talk to neighbors who live outside of that cul-de-sac, they almost feel like they're in a private cul-de-sac park when they get back there. Manders: Along that same line... Lash: There again I think the acquisition of that was a goofy thing with the developer. 36 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Berg: Sunset Ridge too. Hoffman: Yeah, in the back... Lash: Yeah, but we're going to have access now when that new road goes through. So that will have full access then but, and that's going to be utilized big time if that multiple, multi-family stuff goes in. It's a sleepy little park for now but it won't be. Hoffman: To piggyback on Jan's comment. It's as much about scale as location. That's very small and back in a comer. You know remember Stone Creek, we took the traditional lot. They hadn't even had those on it and similar to Power Hill, we should have taken the two lots that are right there. It makes it better for the community. Makes it better for those people. Should have had those. Lash: Well you know I think the thing we need to keep in our mind, and I think the longer you're here the more you see and more you learn and the more you realize. When the developers come in, you have to stand firm on getting what's best for us and you just can't, you can't cave for a second or you end up with some of these goofy set-ups like what we've got in some of these areas that are sinking and spread all over. Roeser: ...park is turning out pretty good though. Lash: Yeah, but we had to fight. That took a lot of fight and you know the best ones, when you think about it were some major battles like Round House Park. We had some major battles with that developer but we stood firm and in the end we're better off for it and I think we just have to remember that. Tough. Make them cry. South Lotus. Not much we can do there. Hoffman: The trail is one, the trail connector is one that we have to go back with the neighborhood. They deleted that from the referendum so we'll have to talk to the people. I'll make contact with that association and see if they. Lash: Sunset Ridge. Hoffman: The park. Lash: With the road going in, will that make impact on what we're going to want to do there or are we done there? .. Hoffman: No, we're not done. That may happen this summer. And as a part of those public hearings, the neighborhood has requested a position paper from the Park and Recreation Commission on how that master plan was developed. How it was arrived at, that there would be a parking lot offofLake Drive extension. And so I will be forwarding that but I wouldn't be surprised if you'll see that back here after it leaves Planning Commission or City Council. The mood is that some of the neighbors do not want to see that parking. 37 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Lash: What about the facilities? Do we have everything in there that was on the master plan? Hoffman: No, the hockey arena. The hockey boards. That's the one thing not in. Lash: Everything but hockey is there? Hoffman: Hockey and ice. We did not flood ice because them was no driveway access to flood it. With the parking lot and the ice are what's left. The parking lot will be built as a part of the road project we hope. Lash: Kind of backed away from having the hockey all over haven't we? Now we ended up with, back when that was in the plan we were trying to strategically locate some of those. Well now we've got Bluff Creek Elementary has hockey. And we've got Chan Hills with open skate. Hoffman: Yeah, I would not think a hockey rink Would need to go there. Lash: Personally I don't see why they would even want it. I mean you put hockey and you almost have to put lights in and. Hoffman: Open skate might be, and open skate is an operation too. It's not a capital. Lash: Stone Creek. Hoffman: Playground number two is what they want. Roeser: I thought the trail, was there a question about stability of going down that hill? Hoffman: It's been asphalted all the way down. Everything that was not asphalt we processed a change order, approved a change order to asphalt down the hill. It's in good shape. Lash: Anything else for Stone Creek? Okay. Under miscellaneous things, I can imagine we'll need a bunch of picnic tables and benches for some of these, all these shelters that have been built and along some of these new trails that have gone in. Some benches. Also that 101 connector along 101. Hoffman: 101 connector north and south. The north piece and then the south piece between Bandimere and Chanhassen Hills. Franks: One of the things that they're saying, MnDOT was saying that they'll have a commitment to making sure that any trail that's been'started so, across new 212.' But if we don't have a trail in place then they're not going to feel any obligation to make allowances for that by bridging or tunneling or whatever they would do so. We want to do the south connector on 101, we'll have to start planning it I think. 38 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Hoffman: Garbage receptacles. We'll come back with a recommendation on that. If you recall the history of garbage in Chanhassen, it used to be brown metal barrels and they rust out on the bottom so we replace those with the blue poly barrels. They're inexpensive, in fact free. But then these blow all over the parks and scatter garbage so 10ng term with these trails within the parks, having a concrete pad and a concrete structure...is the way to go. We've been talking about quantity and location for making those... Lash: I would think signage too. If we want to try to get going on some of the historical markers or if we want to have some of those types of things about vegetation or wildlife. If we wanted that at Kerber Pond or if we wanted that by Bluff Creek or any of those kinds of places. Hoffman: I personally inspected the little round signs on top of the street signs in Mankato. They've got them all over and they are very simple. Just two set screws and what they differentiate neighborhoods. Old Town. Uptown... So somebody's making them. They're not... Lash: Other kinds of things. Can they just stay the way they are? ...anything else right off?. Ruegemer: Nature center, interpretative center. Is that long range or the arts? ... some type of money set aside for... Franks: We already set money aside for arts. Hoffman: There's a reserve. Lash: How about, what are we calling this? The O'Shaughnessy deal. That's not on here. Hoffman: No it's not...name it. Well the trails are all going in. Well they didn't want that. It's got to be some kind of reserve.., interpretative center. That's the location for it. Community center. Art center. Berg: Asphalt the whole thing, is that the plan?... Franks: Did we get the parking lot at least as a part of the road? Lash: ...but we should start thinking about what we want to do there. Hoffman: It'd be nice, you know the road's there bUt the preservation to the south is going to be pretty nice. Nice feather in your cap. Hard fought battle turns out to be nice stuff. Franks: Do we have input into the landscaping that will be happening along the road? Or is it all in already? Lash: No. To answer your question, no. 39 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Franks: I was just concemed about with the landscaping being able to maintain the view shed. That would be consistent with what the view shed is from Highway 5. Hoffman: Well the landscaping is urban boulevard. With a twist. It'd be natural. Lash: Boulevard Park. Hoffman: With a twist towards natural. Okay, I've got enough to work with and I will bring that back and we will fine tune it. No special meetings, congratulations. 1999 GOALS. Hoffman: Goals are one thing. Action items are what I need to make them happen. So you can either, I don't care if you do them all or one or two or three but we need some action items. Lash: ...away here. With the very first one. Do we have a work session scheduled? Hoffman: Yep. It's coming up but I think it's going to be moved. They want to finish that strategic plan before they meet the commissions on goals so. It's a moving target... Lash: So it's not next week? Franks: Not next Monday? Hoffman: No. Lash: Okay, well the first one we can work on. The second one is...should be. Arts programming. Berg: Get some ideas what other cities are doing. Chaska's real proud of there's and I hate to ever use them as a model but maybe it's a starting off point. Roeser: I think we should use Chaska as a model. They're very good. They're very good at what they do up there. Hopkins is also very good. Hoffman: 7 million dollar art center. Berg: ...little bit of history on how they got it. Lash: You know maybe, you know we were talking about having display things at the Rec Center and all that but could we, I mean even if we just took little baby steps to get started. Like designate one month a year like in the winter or something and have that be arts at the rec center and have lots of programming where you could have pottery classes and you could have, I don't know...Photography. Just I don't know, see what kind of instructors are out there and have it be. 4O Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Hoffman: Update from Susan. Susan's been working on that. Roeser: ... some kind of effort to put together a community band. I bet you it could be done. There are enough musicians out of college and high school that still like to play their instruments and if you could find someone to put something like Diane Preiditus or somebody to put something like that together I think it would. Berg: That really gives a community some identity too. Roeser: Or community chorus but I mean start with this. Lash: I think the 4th of July it'd be fun to have some of those things. You've got the community band. You've got the choral there. The CHAN-o-laires. What are they called? Okay, long range financing sources. Franks: Is there any way to project what future financial needs are going to be and what current projection of funding streams would be and where they diverge and? Hoffman: I'm thinking along those lines on long range financing to build upon reserves to be a position paper. Something I can be in research, published... Berg: And encourage the council to continue with their plan that they're going to let us know in the fall what exactly their philosophy is going to be towards our reserves. Lash: Actually I, we need to have our budget done before then, correct? Don't we start working on the budget in July usually? Okay. I think we need to have some kind of direction and commitment from them by July before we start this process again. What's the point of starting it again if it's not going to go anywhere. Why waste our time if there are other things we can work on. Trends/needs/strategic plan. Is that long range goals? 5 years CIP? What were we talking about for that? Roeser: It sounds like the same thing. Franks: Identifying like recreational trends. What the needs of the community are and how they apply in helping them. I think that's what was talked about with that item. But do we have the means to identify what the needs of the population are instead of just... Lash: Some of these are getting to be pretty big tickets and there's just no way we're going to get all these done in '99. So should we just earmark ones we think we can accomplish in '99 or do you want to have short term '99 goals and then long term ongoing goals? Some of these are going to be long term ongoing I think. Such as I think arts programming is long term. I think the financing and reserve is ongoing long term. I think the trends and needs is probably ongoing long term and we can start working on them but it's not, curb appeal. That's ongoing. We can look short term what are we doing and what can we. 41 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23,1999 Franks: I like those street signs. Roeser: Curb appeal. I'm not sure what curb appeal. Franks: That's like the street sign idea. And the historical markers and. Hoffman: Landscaping. Franks: Landscaping in our parks. Hoffman: Curb appeal. Franks: Making us look good or making the parks and rec' department look good. Hoffman: Curb appeal is what our, we have a park inventory every spring and we take all of our staff and we go out and talk about what's wrong with this park when we walk onto it. What does it need for turf maintenance, etc, etc. Our only limiting...tool is cash to do that. You know we say we're going to plant trees here and landscaping and then...budgets to do those. Smaller ones, we go ahead and do. The larger ones we have to fit into... So the commission knows. I have a strong conviction, as does Dale, in that it is worthy, it's not worth adding additional land to our...if we're not taking care of what we have to pay. And we are going to be ~4~llenged with the addition of Bandimere Park. If you drive around Bandimere aM,.~u start thi'nking, alright they didn't add any more maintenance staff from last year to this year and now they've got the park which could consume two full time people, five days a week for maintenance. Something's got to give. So we'll continue to ask for that person next year and where we've added is seasonal staff and seasonal staff...get things done. They're also difficult to manage so. Lash: When you guys do that, what do you end up doing with, that's basically you end up with a wish list. Hoffman: Long. Lash: And what do you do with that? Because we don't ever see that. Just try and chip away at...out of that other budget that we. Hoffman: Well it's typically operation and maintenance. So it's Dale and Dean's, Dean Schmieg is responsible for the list. Last year it was over, probably 300 items. It's maintenance and operating. Lash: I mean if you came in and said you know this park is really lacking in landscaping and we need, you know this needs a beauty makeover. You know I see that as something that we could put on CIP. If you guys look at that and you think it's really a high priority and it would enhance that park, I wouldn't have a problem with that coming out of our CIP if that means it's going to get done and it won't any other way for a few years. 42 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Manders: That's one of my listed items here. It's worded differently but it's exactly what I'm, maintenance. Quality of what we have. Trail maintenance. Franks: I hate to say it but when the council's going to hold us to 6% growth in our budget and we've got a 35% growth in the amount of facilities we need to take care of, it just doesn't match up. I agree. I don't know how we address that problem. Hoffman: Lobby effectively for it. We need to discuss it. Lash: Yeah, that's a work session item. Something is out of balance and it doesn't take an accountant to figure that out. Roeser: Yeah you can't spend what, how big was the referendum? Hoffman: $4.9 million. Roeser: Right. You can't spend that kind of money on trails and parks and then just let it be. It's got to be taken care of. Lash: Not have any maintenance money allocated for it. Open space acquisition. That's already programmed... Hoffman: The council has asked us to move forward with the acquisition of the Fox property. Meeting the attorneys. Roeser: Frank's just kicked it up another 10%. Hoffman: We will seek an appraisal of the property. Make an offer and go from there. Lash: Okay, the 101 north trail constriction. I don't see that as being a necessarily a major thing that will take a lot of our time. Roeser: That's really not in our hands anyway. Lash: That's just going to happen when it happens, isn't it? Hoffman: Again we should send a position statement to the groups that are working on it and inform them that it is still the number one priority in the comprehensive plan. Lash: The south trail connector however I think...That's definitely a missing link. If there's a way that we can scrounge up the dough this year to d° that. I mean in our next budget that needs to get done. Hoffman: Just remapped the whole city today. It's amazing what has been added since the last addition of that trail map. And this is the biggest missing link in the whole development. 43 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Lash: Okay, the skate park. Hoffman: We continue to work on it. It should be a work session item with council. Lash: Update the 5 year CIP. We've got that in the works already. Work on interpretative programs. I think we just mentioned the O'Shaughnessy thing. If we start trying to come up with a plan for that and that's mostly what you're talking about there... Berg: We thought of using the round house once for something like that too. Lash: Interpretative house? Berg: Oh, that was one of the things we bantied about... Lash: A library out there too. Getting back to the business of parks. Who said that? Franks: That wasn't me. I haven't... Roeser: Sounds like Rod. Lash: I thought it did. Franks: I think it was Mike. No, I really do. I think it was. Berg: I think it meant maybe a little bit about what you were talking about. Manders: Taking care of what we have. Berg: Taking care of what we already have. Managing what we have. Lash: Okay, so did we give you, it says identify an action step or two. Well we talked about relations with the council. Work session. Hoffman: I've got them. Lash: We're covered? Roeser: You've got a pretty good start there. Lash: Okay, so we'll move on. RECREATION PROGRAMS: EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT UPDATE. Ruegemer: Any questions? 44 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Franks: None. Berg: Go for it. Lash: What time? Ruegemer: Saturday, April 3rd. eightish. 7:30. Lash: 8:30ish. Ruegemer: You can help judge. Lash: Yeah. Roeser: I'll get back to you on that. Lash: Who do I judge with? Ruegemer: I'll set you up. Just use your bestjudgrnent. Okay, anything else for that? RECREATION CENTER. Lash: We got Susan's report from the CRC. Does anybody have comments or questions on that? Hoffman: These will, we'll make a recommendation to increase fees. After our meeting on April 1st, one of the discussion items, item number 5 on there is we're meeting as a staff on April 1st. One of the discussion items is raising fees... Lash: Fees for what? Punch cards. Hoffman: Lash: Oh! Hoffman: Buck and a half most likely. $2.00 to $2.50... Berg: What kind of competition are We expecting from this new place? Hoffman: Oh it will certainly pull fitness users but I don't think...They're going to go down there. Get hooked. Spend a lot of money and they'll find out they can come out for half the price at the recreation center so I see it as a good thing. Berg: Down by the movie theater there's a fitness center. 45 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Franks: In the old frontier building. Lash: What's it called? Roeser: It isn't open yet is it? Hoffman: ...it's a chain across the country. Lash: So is this going to be bumping out this other one that was thinking of?. Berg: That really is big. Hoffman: Nitch market. Lash: Anything else on there? Franks: I do notice that preschool indoor soccer has a waiting list. Lash: It's in full swing. Hoffman: We're bringing that back to the commission as a discussion item as well... We're going to get that burr out of your side and get it out...talk about it. Lash: ...problem talking about it. Hoffman: We know that. SENIOR CENTER REPORT: Lash: Okay, here's the senior center report. Anything on that? Hoffman: Dawn will be leaving next week. Kara will be back next Week. Berg: Thank Dawn for us. Hoffman: Yep, I will... PARK AND TRAIL MAINTENANCE: No Questions. ADMINISTRATIVE: BLUFF CREEK TRAIL: 46 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Hoffman: Informational to let you know that it's still coming. The plans are just about complete and then we will ask Midwest for a price. If we do not like their price, it will go out to bid. Lash: This is the one thing we didn't get done. Didn't get started. Hoffman: Right. BLEACHER INVENTORY: Hoffman: Hottest topic in the state of Minnesota. Roeser: That's going to have' to be something, you're really going to have to change bleachers, right? Hoffman: We will cut these in half. Roeser: You'll cut them? Hoffman: Cut them in half. Franks: Cut them down to 30 inches. Hoffman: Cut them down to 30 inches and make two out of them. Franks: And you can do that? Roeser: And put a railing around it, is that right? Good idea. Franks: Then we can move them around too. Hoffman: You don't have to spend $800.00 to fix them. REQUEST FOR MEMORIAL TO KRISS MAHER, JERRY MAHER. Hoffman: From Jerry Maher. A memorial to his Wife, Kriss Maher. And the proposal Jerry contacted I guess it was a couple months ago I talked With him, with Jan as well. The concept here is to create a walkway off of Lake Ann trail with pavers and some sitting areas and concrete footings. Jerry called in because we had mailed him a copy of the packet and he didn't know if that meant we wanted him to attend or not attend. At that time we asked me what I thought about it and my response was I didn't know the appropriateness of paVers for vandal reasons or... feeling of putting this kind of a statement along the trail between Lake Ann and Greenwood Shores. He's responded with a letter so I'll pass that to the commissioners. The memorial is a proposal, it's not just a tree in a park with a plaque so I think I want to hear the comments of the commission. The Planning Commission and City Council for sure would also want to see this prior to it being approved. I think it's one of th°se things where the commission approves such 47 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 an improvement and it went in and somebody walked by and they would go whoa. How did this get here? So they'd probably want to see it. And I think the real issue is, when these memorials come up we should probably have some parameters in place. This is a great plan. Beautiful memorial but is it something that the commission would like to see... Lash: Okay, we'll open it up for comments. Dave. Moes: The comment that, or the question I have is the only other time that we've done something along this lines was a bench, is that correct so far? Hoffman: Bench or trees. Moes: Bench or trees, okay. That's really it. I'm just trying to stage myself. Lash: Rod. Franks: Well, in a way I'm sorry that we're in this position. I wish that in some sense we can't anticipate everything but we had maybe already created some guidelines because saying no, or potentially look at saying no to something that's very heartfelt to someone and they've got very good reasons for doing it is really tough for me. But I think that it just underscores for me the necessity for us to maybe do some work on this and come up with some guidel~s and what types of memorials we can offer to the public. And maybe even go-a~so far as'to identify sites throughout the trail system or city that be acceptable really to our park system in general. Where they could be located. Then in a sense we're never in a position of having to say no but we're saying here are your options. We're basically saying yes and you can pick rather than having to mm something down, which is a bad thing all around so. But I think this is a pretty significant project what Jerry's proposing here and I'm not so sure that that's how we want to go so. Right now I'm kind of thinking I'd like to come up with something else that we could offer not only Mr. Maher but also anybody else. Lash: I made a note too that, and I know that we discussed this a few months ago that I would like to have some type of a pamphlet or something that we can offer to people who wish to create a memorial and it would have listed, Rod said options. But we'd have to have a major discussion about what kinds of things we'd like to offer so that we have very clear guidelines and suggestions and possibly vendors so that we have maybe some type of consistency or some type of control. I'd be open to having suggestions you know like maybe here, here, here. Different places where you'd like to see something happen but I wouldn't want to be quite so defined about that because if they live in a particular area that those particular people really utilized and it's very meaningful and it wouldn't detract from that site, that we could be flexible enough to say yeah. You can plant a tree here or you can put a boulder here or a plague or a bench or a birdhouse or some kind of thing like that. That we could have some flexibility there but that we do have some guidelines to provide. Fred. Berg: I agree. I agree we should have some standards. I'd support putting this in. It's...what I've always like about this town is the whole sense of here's a community that cares and here's 48 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 somebody who wants to leave this memorial and it's certainly not detracting from, it's adding to the beauty of Lake Ann I think. So I would like to see us set some restrictions but I have no problem with this one. Lash: Ron. Roeser: I agree with everything Rod said. I don't really feel like this is a good idea though. This one seems a little bit over done. A little too elaborate. I think the bench idea is a marvelous, or that kind of thing or something where we can get into some sort of, like Jan said, offering people this is what you can do as a memorial. This thing is, it looks like it could be vandalized in a lot of ways, and it just doesn't I just think it's too much. I really do and if we start letting people do this, then what's to keep the next one from being bigger and bigger and so I agree with Rod that we should probably set a goal and standard. Lash: Jim. Manders: I was set to say that I was for this. But I'm more inclined to follow Fred's. I hadn't thought about some of the...but as I think back to some comments...I would be concerned with vandalism...I guess I'd be inclined to say yes on this. Lash: Just to speak on Jerry's behalf. I mean Jerry's my friend. Kriss was my friend. I know exactly where this site is and he has put a great deal of thought into this and I've tried to help him with some guidelines as far as ideas of you know how he would feel if them was vandalism. I think he's put a lot of thought into how he could do this and get maintenance free and I know nothing can be totally vandalism free. I'm not that dumb but I mean he has put a lot of thought into how can he anchor this permanently. Like the back supports are that recycled wood looking plastic stuff you know so it's not something that could be carved in or burned very easily or picked up and carried, you know thrown into the lake. Everything is going to be anchored into the ground. That's part of his thinking I think with the paver stones is so he can have everything anchored into the ground so it can't be picked up and carried off or thrown into the lake. Those kind of things. So I know he has put a lot of thought into the vandalism and he wouldn't want to see anything. If something did happen I know he'd be the first person down there to fix it. So I think it's a beautiful tribute. I do think it does open up the discussion for us and that, I'd like to have flexibility but I'd like to be able to offer direction to people who come in who may be, wouldn't be as able to devote this amount of time and energy and thought to it as Jerry's been able to do in his time. Right, but if somebody came in and said I'd like to do something, you know my husband died but he loved wood ducks or whatever. Is there something, is there a good memorial and we could say sure. You know at Kerber Pond we have, we'd like to put in wood ducks so we'd like to put up a plague explaining why this is a habitat for a wood ducks or whatever. You know just but to give them some choices and some guidelines and not that it all has to look the same or be a teal colored angle roof but that's ideas and things that we would all find easily acceptable. So no one would have to feel like it doesn't fit in or it's over done or any of those kind of feelings that people might be feeling. You know unfortunately we may have some of those feelings but I don't think we've set a precedent and we haven't set guidelines. Now a position where we have to make a decision and then from that go forward and figure out 49 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 how we're going to, what we're going to do. Didn't you say Todd one time that other cities have programs like this? So could you get some of their information and we could take a look at that and see. Hoffman: Yep. A couple different ways they look at it. They either do one location where there's a tree or a memorial tree garden or a memorial rose garden or they put in, they allow an option to put it in different sites. Moes: Over the years how many tree options or I guess bench requests have we moved forward with? Roeser: Probably two. Lash: I think this is the first one we've had. We did that one for Dave but have we had others? Roeser: We had a bench though. Hoffman: Don Andrus. Lash: Oh yeah, but that didn't come to us did it? It did? Because I don't remember that coming to us. I just heard it went in but I didn't think that it came to us for approval. Roeser: So there hasn't been a lot. There hasn't been a lot of this going on at all Dave. Moes: ...I've been here a short time and I'm wondering you know over the years how many other requests have come up and how they've been handled. Hoffman: There have been trees that have gone in but not to your knowledge. Franks: I'm thinking, my feeling is that, not that we would want to go out and market it but if we have this available I think it would be nice to let people know. I think we probably would get more requests. That hey this is available. What a neat kind of like living tribute or ongoing tribute or memorial to someone and we can have it right here in our city. They might not really even know, or aren't thinking of that as an option. I mean when I walk around like Woodlake Nature Center as an example, all the memorial benches, they look the same but what that does to me is it makes me look around the side of the bench for the plague because I know that this is a memorial bench now and so I want to see what it is. And I don't know if we want everything the same but there's something to be said for understanding what that bench is when you walk up to it. The other thought I had Todd too was to create something like a menu choice. People might even be able to combine...wood duck house or let's have a, and then the pricing is just ala carte so to speak. Lash: Or, I'm just throwing this out. This could complicate it considerably but say they wanted to just start a memorial fund for neighborhood parks knowing that they'd have $500.00 but that's not what they really wanted in their park. What they want in their park is the next phase of the 5O Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 playground equipment or picnic shelter and we wouldn't have a problem with it so they want to start a fund, a memorial fund and once there's enough in that fund the plaque would say, in memory of neighbors, half a dozen names or whatever. We could do bigger items that way. Roeser: Well we know we've got to talk about this some other time really but the problem at hand is for us now and did you say, whether we approve it or not, it still has to go to the council, right? Hoffman: It should go to the council. This is a significant enough public area and a public improvement that there's going to be questions of whether or not it's appropriate to construct this expensive of a memorial in a public setting... And that's just, I echo Rod's comments. That it is at the point where we're at, I knew about this proposal early on but I envisioned a bench along side the trail in the woods and I had no concept. Roeser: Do you think this is too big? Too much? Hoffman: Well, you know this one individual resident and not that every person's going to have this inclination to do this. And it is a privilege to construct this type of memorial on public property and it needs to be reviewed in a proper fashion...so I don't think it can be taken lightly on any side. Moes: What is the total length from the existing asphalt path from I guess the shoreline? Is that 10 feet or is that, is the 10 feet just the circle there? Lash: 10 feet, the circle I believe is 10 x 20. Moes: Okay, and then what's the. Lash: It's probably about another 10 feet. Moes.' The neck part of it or whatever you want to call it, the trunk of a tree is that's what. Lash: It is a perfect spot for an overlook. As a matter of fact it was my suggestion that this be the spot for a bench and I told him if he didn't take it, I was going to earmark it for me. Because it is. It's a beautiful spot and it's a natural place where some trees have been taken out. I think part of his thinking with the paver stones is that if people would happen to be in a wheelchair or people who are, have buggies or whatever...that it's accessible hard surface and that wouldl And the other thing is that what makes the bench and pavers. Berg: I move we recommend to City Council that they give permission to Mr. Maher to build a memorial as stated. .. Lash: Is there a second? Manders: Second. 51 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Berg moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council give permission to Mr. Jerry Maher to build the memorial to Kriss Maher as presented. All voted in favor, except for Franks who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Berg: What about another motion to, we don't need a motion for that right? But we'd better get it on the agenda obviously. Roeser: Yeah, we've got to talk about the plans. Lash: So staffwill bring back to us. Berg: At least a starting point of what other cities. Hoffrnan: Memorial pamphlet. Lash: Do you want to, for the record. Franks: Yeah, I can't vote in favor of the motion prior to us in a sense considering what the impact of this is going to be without hearing what residents or users would have to say about this type of extensive improvement along the trail. Their family's not the only one that uses that trail and there certainly could be other people that have quite a different opinion. We're looking at not just a bench, like you say, but a 20 foot diameter half circle with you know planters and benches and. If this were another type of issue that would be putting in like some of the developments in the park or like the light over the skating rink, we open that up to some kind of public hearing and public forum to see what people would have to say. We're kind of not doing that. That's a couple of the reasons that make me unable to vote in favor. Lash: Okay, thanks. The next item was, Todd you wanted to talk about employee recruitment? Hoffman: Jerry can announce. Ruegemer: I had that on my list. Just a FYI for the commission. We have hired a Recreation Supervisor. Her name is Tracy Peterson. She'll be coming to us from the City of Arden Hills. Has a lot of great experience in running playground programs and other types of programs and operating skating rinks and special events. So she really is going to be a great asset to our , tll department that can come in. She s going to be starting April 5 . She can just come on in and hit the ground running. She's going to do a great job for us. Hoffman: The second one is department secretary. We interviewed the final three candidates today. We made a selection but we haven't offered the position yet but very...individuals so I think very fortunate to hopefully have two employees which come highly recommended and will offer wonderful service. 52 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Lash: Oh, great. You haven't offered so you can't say. Hoffman: No. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS: Lash: Do we have any? No? Manders: The race thing? Roeser: Is there anything happening? Lash: Not for this year I don't think. Didn't we say it's already too late? Franks: A lot of runners in this town. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Roeser: You know something that I asked. I noticed you've got a crossing on Kerber Boulevard. Crosswalks for people to get from one side to the other down there by... Are you going to do that in Shorewood too? Because when you're biking out of Excelsior you're going to have to cross over to get on the trail you know right there, right at the border between Excelsior and Chan. Hoffman: A cross walk? Roeser: Yeah, at least some kind of marker which people will be crossing there. You know if you get on the trail to come back to Chanhassen, if you're biking out of Excelsior on the right side of the road, and then you've got to come across to pick up the trail again. There should be some kind of warning or something. Hoffman: You have to have a stop sign to have a crossing. Or, I'11... Roeser: Because yeah, it's something to think about because if you've got kids and stuff. Manders: How are the sight lines for that? Roeser: They're not bad. They're not bad but it's ain't great. It's before the 30 mph stop sign start coming in which is, you know people are .coming down past that pond or getting close. There should be some kind of warning sign or some kind of something that indicates there will be bikers crossing the street there. That's all. Lash: Okay. Anybody else? Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 23, 1999 Franks: FYI. Sounds like Shakopee is going to be putting a parks and recreation referendum to their voters in the next year. They're going to look to add probably...ice sheet and maybe indoor aquatics. Hoffman: Shakopee, Champlin, who else? There's going to be a resident coming forward, he was going to come tonight during visitor presentation but he got called out of town so he'll be coming next week to talk about his desire to... ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET: Lash: Administrative packet, anything on that? Okay. Manders: I have one thing. Is this Ron's last meeting? Hoffman: We hope not. Next month. Roeser: I'm not sure I'll make that. Lash: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? Roeser moved, Manders seconded to adjourn the meeting. The Park and ~reation Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 54