Loading...
9. Lake Ann Shelter .1)dy 11 , 4 CITY OF 1 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. SOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II ...„,, 1 <' (612)937-1900 • FAX(612)937-5739 II MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City- Council Park and Recreation Commission IIFROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator IIDATE: August 15, 1991 SUBJ: Lake Ann Park Picnic/Recreation Shelter IIPlanning for the construction of the Lake Ann Park Community Shelter continues. An important step in this process was the 1 determination of the most appropriate site for the shelter. As shown in the attached diagram, three locations were studied. Option "A" as labeled on the diagram offers many advantages over II Options "B" and "C", and is the chosen location for the shelter. A brief summary of the advantages and disadvantages of all three sites follows: it liV II Option A - - k z. ,Itt_-‘,4 Advantages: Minimal costs associated with retaining wall construction. IIProvides walkout to beach area and upper plateau picnic area. Provides best ---- '?•' - aiy4c. cess �to parking P `and"turnaround facilities. II ,-- it T fi.§ . .t . hn rt o M Greatest setback from lake. II Disadvantages: ' ^ _ . 1 r. ° Furthest walk from the beah. � Option B IIAdvantages: - IIMidway between beach and parking areas. II . N14, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I I r Mayor and City Council August 15, 1991 Page 2 Still offers access to the upper plateau via an extended walkway. Disadvantages: Requires the construction of an extensive retaining wall system. Does not provide direct access to the upper plateau. ' Option C Advantages: ' Best suited for catering to the "beach" crowd. ' Disadvantages: Far removed from parking, making transportation of supplies for group picnics difficult. ' Provides no access to the upper plateau picnic area. Requires the construction of an extensive retaining wall system. ' Park and Recreation Coordinator's Update (8-19-91) In response to a request by Mayor Chmiel that the City Council have an opportunity to review the shelter location, work activity ' associated with Option A has been halted. The questions posed by the Mayor are similar in nature to questions I raised in conference with Don Ashworth, Mark Koegler and Bob Sellers. Mr. Koegler and Mr. Sellers are with VanDoren Hazard Stallings, the architectural, engineering and planning firm working on this project. I, too, believe that Option C is the best suited for serving the beach area; however, this location leaves the upper level picnic area with very restricted access. In a study of potential revenue generation from this building (attached) it is anticipated that the reservation picnic area will be a revenue generator with the other components of the building (concessions, rental) acting as "break even" type of services. Thus, the availability of reasonable access for transportation of picnic equipment and supplies is essential. Undoubtedly Option C provides the shortest trip to a restroom facility for persons using the beach. However, trading convenience for accessibility, in my opinion, would prove to be a detriment. I would anticipate receiving comments on the distance ' Option A is from the main beach, but the reaction from groups attempting to carry out a picnic at Option C would be worse. Lastly, persons using other areas of the park will also make use of 1 I Mayor and City Council I August 15, 1991 Page 3 for these persons due to its central location relative to other 1 park areas. The cost of construction at site Option A is also the least expensive. I have asked Mr. Koegler to prepare a report in this regard which will accompany this memo. Manager's Comments j8-26-91) : Todd's and Mark's reports highlight advantages/disadvantages, but potentially not strong enough. My concerns are as follows: Central Location: Approximately 60% to 70% of the shelter's users will probably be associated with the beach area. However, if making access easier for a majority of users creates a significant hardship for the remaining users, it is difficult justifying that option. I sincerely question whether Option B would be considered by the state as handicap accessible. The distance and terrain make accessibility difficult. I am confident that Option C would be considered inaccessible for elderly/handicapped. To consider that you would drop an elderly/handicapped person off at the drop-off by the beach, wheel him 200 feet towards the beach, turn and push him back up the hill and into the upper level of the shelter building is beyond my comprehension. Forgetting the handicapped for one moment, would you make this same type of trek yourself with 300 lbs. of food/beverage and 100 folding chairs for your parents' 50th anniversary? "Centrally located" is in the eye of the beholder. If you consider all users' needs, Option A could be seen as most central, i.e. looking at locating it to meet the needs of: 1 • Persons using the fishing dock; o Boat access users; o Canoe/paddleboat renters [proposed location for this operation would be adjacent to the boat access with a pier separating the two areas] ; • Shelter personnel attempting to observe the rental area; o People delivering the food/beverages for the larger gatherings occurring in the upper area; ° Police/security personnel performing routine observation of park facilities; o Distances for handicapped/elderly. - The final point not brought out in Mark's or Todd's report°was a concern by the Park Commission that the structure not have a strong visual impact from the lake. Option A has the least visionary impact from Lake Ann back into the shoreline. This office recommends Option A. I 1 i , R I ,1 0 /' 1 /f p / W 0 CC co 1�r1 , \ ; -, ,e' c1 — I • , d � 1 jp I\ / )�/rpJ \ © ' 1 t 1, 1 \\ /�.� / r i z `J ~` r l ■? 1 ti �� � \ r , N rN. ,cm \ \ ) \ A p c7;1:1'., \ \ O ` 1 LI I p\ \ ) p j / I 'moo \\ ` *\ Jai V \ , �6 n I r `�� / -\ \ 0 II v 1 cI l I f i -- 11 I % \- ' �`m QI \I I ` I r el\ 1 1 I • ` \ I Ir, \ 1 w \ \\ �J \ \J 1 1 a W\ \ r- 1 �\ \ \ I \ It\ r , I ' I I 7 I!' 1 \ I i. -.. •i. 'y/ I I / I / t 1p �, \ I L ; l 1 • 1 w 1 to `\ h " ( i ��� ' p I , . 1 1 cop z ,,,,, i„,/ N� W 0 1 r 1 Z x\/\ l� I 61 I5) VD al I 0 0l \ �. c \ I I 1 I I ' r 7 rl \ , ' I 1 I v!.) It j`, \ \ CD" 1 I �- I I 1). -3--' 1 1 Q 1 I , • rn A \ �1 \ Q \ 1 ! �• W 'I II �Il1 1 !CS- om `` m \ \ 1 1 IQ •0 I 7 J \ 1 '� �\ ' • W I \ 1\ I IG 1 , �t / ct I / 1 ; 1d I W 1'r 1 ' ' r' ' 1 i + \ IY1 I , 'N'1 1 1- ■ 1 I 11 1 I—ci ......3 \ \ i ` \ I I 1� lI 1 11 0 I I I w \ 1 i 1 1 1 .{ I I I WI \ m !z I 1 1 1 I l i • �> �I\ 1 1 I 1 i! I I 1 I I 1 $ \ 11 \�� co ' J x m 6\ \ \ \\ �I, \ 1 II \ \ \ \ m h� r \ \ I \ \ \ \ \•Io \ 1i1 � �` \- \ \ \ \ \\ \\ I w ,al �tIQ" \ I d l 1 Ip„, 1 1 \ a \ e� I \ \ N p V ''? \ \ \\ -\ M 1 I\ ■ \ r{- an N , I , ( ' , \ \ -1 1 i ■ 1 I ■ I I I I I 1 , \ \ \ \ 1 1 \ \ I I 1\ 1\ I `\ I' \ O co ,_, O . VanDoren ji Hazard Stallings,Inc. Architects • Engineers • Planners MEMORANDUM II TO: Todd Hoffman I FROM: Mark Koegler4 DATE: August 20, 1991 I • SUBJECT: Lake Ann Picnic Pavilion Location 1 Continuing our recent discussion, the following is a comparison of the three identified site locations for the Lake Ann Picnic I Shelter. SITE A I Site A is the location originally identified for the structure in 1984 . This location formed the basis for the concept plans that were prepared and reviewed by the Park Commission and City Council I over the past six months. The topography at Site A accommodates the proposed building with I minimal grading and retaining wall construction. Contours in the area are naturally conducive to an at-grade entry on the upper level and a walk-out lower level. The entrance to the shelter is approximately 110 feet from the parking lot and 225 feet from the I beach. At this location, the building will be visible from both the parking lot and from Lake Ann. SITE B I Site B is located west of Site A adjacent to the play area and I beach. At this location, the building would be approximately 40 feet from the beach and 500 feet (via the existing walkway) from the parking lot. Placing the building at Site B will require moderate grading and retaining wall construction. Retaining walls I for a building on Site B are expected to cost $14,500 more than the construction cost of a building on Site A. A building located on Site B will be visible from Lake Ann but will I be screened on the north by the existing hill. At the Site B location, the differential in elevation between the top and the Ibottom of the hill is 31.6 feet. I 1 3030 Harbor Lane North, Bldg. II, Suite 104, Minneapolis Minnesota 55447-2175 (612) 553-1950 I 1 . . SITE C Site C is a hybrid location between Sites A and B. As such, it is ' located 130 feet from the beach and 200 feet from the parking lot. At this location, the differential in elevation between the top and bottom of the hill is 21.6 feet. Due to this grade differential, an extensive amount of retaining wall construction will be necessary. The additional cost of retaining walls for a building. on Site C compared to Site A is estimated at $19,000. A building on Site C will be visible from Lake Ann and partially visible from ' the north. All of the identified locations are feasible sites for the proposed ' building. The cost estimate that has been prepared to date assumes Site A as a base condition. Selection of either Sites B or C will result in additional expenditures for retaining wall construction. 1 1 1 1 I ___I______ , f m 1 ' c3" r 7, '------------- ,-_-_- ,;_____, , ____d, °� / .i " \ ��� \- t . V 03 I \ J -J (1.).�,' ,[gym tir ' •� °j^ I c I \1 I r / �/� ( Q. I 1J 1 / ,� (e v \ I I /11 co {� /r W11 ! ' I .. l ♦ h ♦n I / 4 W - - /1 0 S / 0) 7 / `[/V rn\ I INm� coy l r/r.'. / I , J El1 , I 1.)/z j ,y ,%,,/ I 0 , , \ I I / , ^P ) \ice ) I / }f I \ 1 / / /Y \ ( N/i'1i / � / , I o-!I I // / i ) co I r P 7 /c ' ,u ' I I 0 n / / / / 1 / / III — I I' rl � r I 0' 1'��l / , r r / I h 1)' !' ' ut /f/ / / / / / , /i / / _ l m r I ' _ I I � / / / !' / p� / / ur — I r / I / / i+ / / / / �� 1 /7 c c / l I 1 Lo h I /� / Lt lI/I, / ,n, 4 / / I ro k /�zJ I I I / I ACV/ /I/ / / ° - - F - — °,'/ l � , I , , / I / I / o i0ll r i lll / l I I h I / / . �l III / I l / � e I l / Ill /l r�0 `/ I (l t ( I I� / a i I c 1 (1 / / / / / / I t r c�I �� If Al ,0/ / 1 �j�I I f ' y� I- I : 1 /-F / //J�r'1 1 1 1 t t 1 ) I I I o1 4 1 / 11 WI 1 li /* l I 1 r 1 r : ':; Q I I I r l r 1 c 1 1 I ' 1 1 1 1 I a cr 0 1 / 1 , I i r 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 CA ( gi, t , , en 0) 0 0) 0 Obi Q1 ter. _ ,0V40 _K - C0-/,' .I. -x9576 35790 \1 v '6\ -- �._�x 9574 / ' • / x959 6 O GRILL i �\ I 1-- / / \� •x%3 I x9575 - \ \ 36 OAK ' - 9 I \\ / x960 i BEACH -. ) —" pB 8.Q GRILL- x9587 / i \ C/ `• 958-6 x 956.3 60 '—' � , "_`- • 2q'MAPLE 9 \1 / \• 28)QAK 1 . '/9A 4 x963.1 BITUMINOUS 1- , / — _ _x 965 8 i �- _ 967.3 — — J(/= TWI 118 MAt'CC ARE Pk �-�,960.8_' _ _ , - -~- - - --.7-sr-Th....- - I I —: — " � —— a.,l+e.4-- - JI t 1 J —\_ x96'.7/ i �"—' __— _ _ _" 976 0 I NI, ..... c,..._ _ _ R E._(A — — _...: — .7., _,,::___:,i :9.2721:5\ ' i i — i I � WOODED — /,' e' 3?I"BASSWOOD % ' x974 5.'�'��� '``N C- i -, \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 /� \ \ \ I // \ \�� � JJ \ \ \ i \x971.7 990 -/ \ \ `\ \ \ \ x 977.2 \ \ \ \ 1988 5 • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ' . N 1 MEMORANDUM ' TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: March 18, 1991 ' SUBJ: Potential User Fee Revenue, Lake Ann Picnic/Recreation Shelter ' At the request of the Park and Recreation Commission, the following report estimating user fee revenue for the Lake Ann Shelter has been prepared. The fees used in calculating these estimates are ' based on current rates being charged for similar facilities in the metropolitan area. These estimates are for "ballpark" purposes only. Many variables exist which could shift the reported numbers downward or upward. The shelter offers three opportunities for ' generating revenue; picnic rental, concessions and recreation equipment, each will be addressed separately. PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL • The rental of the upper level picnic area offers the greatest ' opportunity for generating revenue. The following "givens" were used in calculating shelter rental estimates. Picnic Season, May through September 35 weekend days, 109 weekday days - Saturday and Sunday considered equal in popularity ' - Average of one weekday reservations per week. - ' - Each reservation generates 25 daily parking permit sales Equal ratio of resident. to non-resident reservations 1 Park and Recreation Commission March 19, 1991 Page 3 costs. It is often the case that the peak periods of revenue ' generation offset the slow times. • Estimated revenues from the concession area are based on the past performance of private vendors oper-ting at the Lake Ann Beach area. ' Concession Season June 5 to August 16 - 73 days Hours of Operation: 11: 00 a.m. to 5: 00 p.m. Revenue: $75. 00 per day x 73 days = $5,475.00 Expenditures: Product Cost (50% of revenue) = $2,737.50 Salaries: 6 hours/day x 73 days x $5.00/hr. = $2, 190.00 Total $ 548. 00 RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL ' Equipment rental would be offered on the same schedule as the concessions. The equipment rental area would benefit from the concession area in that the operator of the concession stand would also operate the rental area during off-peak hours. It is difficult to estimate revenues and expenditures for this function without the knowledge of what will be offered for rent. I believe it is safe to predict, however, considering capital investment costs, depreciation and operating expenses, that this function would best be labeled as non-revenue generating. 1 1 1