Loading...
PRC 1992 12 15 r CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15. 1992 Interviews for Commission vacancies were held prior to the official meeting. Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 8:50 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Wendy pemrick, Fred Berg, Jan Lash, Jim Andrews and Dave Koubsky STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Mr. Chairman. It gives me a real great pleasure to be here this evening to recognize two of the commission members who are leaving the Commission as of December. And as most of you know, it takes a lot of time, a lot of your effort and it has taken Wendy's time and effort as well, who we're recognizing this evening. Because of the commitment she's done and extending herself to assist the City in ~ determining what's best for the residents within the Community, I really appreciate that very much and the Council also appreciates the fact that you extended that time and effort to us. It isn't too often that citizens within this community really come forth and fortunately enough we did have a few come forth this evening to fill some of those positions. Hopefully they're going to fill them as well as what you've done over these years. So with that it gives me a great deal of pleasure to provide you with a Certificate of Appreciation from the City of Chanhassen and I'd like to just read this to you. Be it hereby ordained that the Chanhassen City Council has officially acted to recognize Wendy Pemrick for the dedication and public service offered to the citizens of our community as a member of the Park and Recreation Commission. Further, the City Council has hereby placed into the official Minutes this recognition as a lasting expression of the gratitude of this City and the service provided. So Wendy, I'd like to give you this. There's one more in addition to that and of course Randy is out of town and unfortunately can't be here so just about what I said for Wendy, I would almost have said for Randy. And it's a shame that we again, lose someone who has just started here but I'm also going to provide him with a Certificate of Appreciation as well. So with that I hope that Todd somehow that you can get this to him. And if you can't, I'll be more than happy to deliver it myself to him. Hoffman: Thank you Don. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. ~ pemrick: Well that was really nice. I've enjoyed being here for the last 3 years. I'm going to miss this but I just got caught up with the time commitment. My husband and I are working our fool heads off and have a young daughter and I hope to be back at some point. If not here, somewhere else volunteering my time. Thanks very much. Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 2 ...,,; Schroers: Three years is a generous commitment. Thanks a lot. Pemrick: I'll help at 4th of July. I'll be there anyway so. Hoffman: Good thing we've got verbatim Minutes. Schroers: Okay. Well since we spent so much time on our interviews, we'll try to gain a little ground here on our agenda. So we'll move back to item 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lash: I have two corrections. The first one is on page 3, the very bottom. I think that is supposed to be a 4, not 3. Isn't it Todd? Pemrick: Acres? Lash: Yes. Hoffman: Correct. Lash: Instead of 40. And then also on page 10 in Todd's comments. Like when I correct other people's comments? Hoffman: Absolutely. '..lIII1l1i Lash: In the middle of the page, in the middle of the paragraph, it's his opinion that parkland should be flat land, fairly cheap. Something that is not good for much. Oh, never mind. Schroers: Any other corrections or changes? Lash; Oh, no, no, no wait. Wait. Hoffman: She found it. Lash: I found it. should be a not in Community Park. I there. . . It was in the next line. Would not. I think there there. We certainly would not have Lake Susan knew there was a not that should be somewhere in Schroers: Anything else? If not, a motion to approve. Andrews: So moved. Berg: Second. Andrews moved, Berg seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated November 24, 1992 as amended by 3an Lash on page 3, changing 40 to 4; and on page 10, adding the word -not-. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ...", Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ December 15, 1992 - Page 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 2 LOTS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT. NEZ PERCE DRIVE. VINEWOOD ADDITION. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, commission members. Item 2 is merely a formality to insure that our ordinance in regard io park dedication fees is upheld. As you can see, the applicant is requesting a preliminary plat to subdivide a lot where there is currently a home into two separate lots adjoining that lot and then an outlot to allow access. Well actually that outlot would not allow access to these two lots that are coming in off Nez Perce, as you can see there. That outlot is to continue their access to their current site. Recommendation then would be to recommend the City Council accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction as a part of the Stuart Hoarn application for preliminary plat approval. Schroers: Very good. Thank you. Lash: So moved. Pemrick: Second. Lash moved, Pemrick seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction for the Stuart Hoarn Subdivision. All, voted in favor and the motion carried. ~ PHEASANT HILL PARK CONSTRUCTION REPORT. I'- Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers and Park Commissioners. Obviously you've read the report. I'm not going to read through that. I will brief the transactions which have taken place out at Pheasant Hill Park. To tell you honestly, I did not think we were going to get off of ground zero this fall because we did not have the time, the commitment from, back to the parks department and public works was so great that they were off doing other things and we didn't have a supply of fill. That type of thing. Then the Target issue came up. We had representatives of Ryan Construction in the office looking for fill sites, We picked up the coordination there with our public works department and the divisions out there and as you can see, within 2 days we were trucking fill to the Pheasant Hill Park site. We were able to do that in organized and planned fashion since the Commission did approve design of the park. The master plan. We followed that with the design of a grading plan so we knew how much dirt we needed and where. We did take additional fill, since we had it, to level the ballfield a little bit more than was originally called for on the grading plan. They've completed rough grading out there. Did anybody get a chance, if you did, you can see it looks fairly nice the way it currently lays out. The one hang-up is the issue of destruction of what I would call perfectly good, perfectly beautiful natural, passive parkland which you talked about at great length tonight during your interviews. If we can accommodate excluding the tennis court, which I discussed here, we can accommodate all of their aspects, all of their amenities of this park by amending the plan, I certainly would recommend that 'you consider that. The issues over the tennis court we've discussed in recent times. Accessability. The expense of including tennis courts Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 4 ....,; in neighborhood parks. Is that where our dollars should be going? Or is the availability of tennis courts at community parks, is that sufficient to meet the residents needs? That's a question each of you will have to ask yourself as you consider this amendment to the master park plan at Pheasant Hills. Pheasant Hills Park. What I've concluded with is a brief recommendation that in light of the site constraints at Pheasant Hills Park, the most evident of which is the desire to preserve natural amenities, coupled with the lack of accessability and the city's desire to locate tennis courts in community parks, the Commission should amend the original Pheasant Hills Park plan deleting the tennis court and realigning the remaining amenities, including the open playfield, bituminous trail, picnic area, play area, half court basketball court, and sand volleyball court as depicted in the new proposed plan. The Commission should also direct staff to send a letter to the affected residents informing them of this amendment and the reasons for the change. I should add, if you feel it's necessary to go through the process of an additional neighborhood meeting to discuss this with them, you can take that option. Schroers: The only problem I would have with this is, would be to review the Minutes of those meetings because there was a lot of interest from that area and my concern would be in breaking a promise. Lash: I guess I'd'be interested in sending the letter. Telling the situation and then saying, if you are having a problem with this or if you have concerns about this, contact you. And if you see that there is enough input from the residents, then schedule a meeting where they could -' come in and voice their concerns with us and we could deal with it then. But I think in line with the new Tree Board commission, our whatever they're called, that if this was, had a serious impact on a nice grove of trees, we would need to deal through them also before I would feel comfortable in wiping out a whole block of trees to put in a tennis court. Schroers: Yeah, I really think it's good but I think it would leave a real bad taste in people's mouth if we renigged on a promise or, not necessarily a promise but what we had intended or led them to believe that we were going to do without a proper explanation. But I think what Janis is saying is real good. Berg: I support that also. Andrews: My preference would be that we would hold a meeting. I think we've got the time to do it between now and spring. I think we should just offer them the chance to talk about it and move ahead at that point. I agree that we should delete the tennis court incidentally, but I think we should have a hearing. Give them a chance to hear our reasons and for us to hear their response. I'm sure we could take action before construction season anyway so. Schroers: Okay. I guess that I would be in favor of sending a letter and then having a meeting, if there's enough opposition to try to understand it rather than having an additional meeting. Unless you just want to include it as an agenda item. ....", Andrews: That's what I would want to do. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~. December 15, 1992 - Page 5 Schroers: You're not talking about having a separate? Andrews: No, just an agenda item. I think to make a decision about what's enough of a response or not enough, I think you've got to offer the usual forum so that nobody can say, I didn't have my chance, or nobody listened or, you know treat everybody the same and consistently the same and then we have no complaint later that we didn't follow the proper procedure. . Lash: I still say a letter would in line and then telling them the date it will be on the agenda. Berg: That's a very good idea. Hoffman: Again, I think when we go into that meeting, we need to discuss the issue of, when you went through the neighborhood meeting the last time, the issue of parking was very key. The master plan shows parking off of Lake Lucy on the south side of the park, which does not provide access to the, direct access to the active components of the park. So if the consensus is, they still want to see a tennis court in that park somewhere, we do need to provide sufficient access to that and is on street parking at Wood Duck Lane sufficient access for a tennis court? Tennis courts typically draw from a much larger area than your other standard components and so, in my opinion, if the neighborhood wants a tennis court, the parking lot would be the associated component. ,...... Lash: And it would have to be off of Wood Duck. Hoffman: Correct. Lash: And they don't want that. Koubsky: ...and discuss before we change it, if we're going to change it. Lash: And we ended up deciding that the parking off of Lake Lucy was just not convenient enough or was it, was there land? Hoffman: Not convenient and very destructive. You want to talk about knocking down trees. That is a much more, there's a nice stand of trees which would need to be removed to accommodate that parking lot. Lash: I'd like to think that we're taking a stand. What's going on here? Hoffman: Firecrackers. Lash: Of taking a stand on, if the City's got a tree ordinance and we're starting a Tree Board, I think that we need to feel very proactive in that area also. And when we're putting in parks, I think we have to be really conscience of not going in there and wiping out big areas of trees. And for no other reason I'd be willing to do that. ,..... Koubsky: You have to keep that in consideration of our design too. We do have a big open play area. What is more beneficial for the area? You don't have to tear down trees on this property to supply them with some Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 6 ....",t recreational facilities. We're opting on this plan to provide an open space. They may, as a neighborhood, want something instead of an open space. Lash: That was one of their high priorities though. Hoffman: Highest~ The open space. The open field. Lash: And some basketball I think. They said their kids were getting a little big for, of course by now maybe they've had some big turnover and have the need for totlots. Schroers: Okay, would you like this in the form of a formal motion then? Hoffman: No, it's not necessary. I would position my letter explaining what we've discussed this evening. So when we're calling a neighborhood meeting, if they already have sufficient information and they've made up their mind that, well I guess I need to ask that. If the Commission would like me to position my letter stating that this is the proposed change. You have an opportunity to discuss this with the commission. If discussion is not hear, then this change will be formalized. Schroers: Yeah. I think that's a good way to put it and then just include when it's going to be on the agenda and you've got it. Great. 1992 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE REPORT. ~ Hoffman: Other than the report, it's self explanatory. I have no comments on it. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Schroers: Okay. Any commission members. Andrews: Are you talking about item 5 now? Schroers: Yeah. Andrews: I just want to thank Wendy too for the good job. Appreciate your work and your effort. Pemrick: Well thank you. I'm feeling so sad. Berg: It's a sad day for Chanhassen. Pemrick: 1 want to be involved though at some point again. Something. If any fun committees come up later on. Schroers: Well now you've got all these high powered credentials. Lash: Well you know every year there will be, probably be vacancies. Schroers: And I think it's also appropriate at this time, while we're on ~ the subject, to thank both Jan and Jim for re-applying. I appreciate that Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ December 15, 1992 - Page 7 as well. Pemrick: And Jan's perfect attendance. That needs to be commended. Schroers: You can't talk about stars in Chanhassen. It's maple leafs. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: B. OUTCOME OF REJECTING RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION AT LAKE ANN PARK/ RECREATION SHELTER. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Schroers, commission members. So we got through 5 without me even knowing it but again, remember that that's your opportunity as a Board, if you would like to see things on future agendas. Always take that opportunity to let me know when I'm coming up with agendas. Andrews: We had talked some about a, what's the word I'm looking for. It's like a comprehensive plan for park area for first quarter of '93. Hoffman: It's scheduled for January. Lash: A what? ~ Berg: Comprehensive plan. Andrews: For identification of park area. Hoffman: That will be a big work effort for the commission. Probably begin in January with some preliminary comments. Investigations. At the current time I've had conversation with Hoisington-Koegler group, Mark Koegler, who the Commission is very familiar with. He's done excellent work for the city. Mark and members of his firm will be in in January to discuss the process. Essentially what we have is, we have a comprehensive section. In addition to the comprehensive park plan, I will be working through other amendments in the comprehensive, recreation section of the comprehensive, City's comprehensive plan with you. I'm not sure if any of these members recall working through that. It's a process which began about 10 years ago and concluded about 6 years ago. So actually Larry caught the tail end of it. But we need to take a look at some updating of that recreation section. And then the key component which we're missing, we have a comprehensive trail plan. We do not have a comprehensive park plan so as land development comes in, it's right there. It's right on the map. It's part of the city document. All the developers, as they come to Chanhassen, the first document they look at is the City's Comprehensive Plan. What is this land zoned? What are the future uses? What are the adjacent uses? It has a trail next to it but it does not ~ell them that they have a park next to it. At this point what we've used is the park deficiency zones, but when you get into the head to head battles over land acquisition, you need something more than that to stand on. That is why ~. we're going in that direction. Schroers: Real good, and I'm sorry for skipping over 5. That was my mistake. Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 8 ....", Lash: Can I back up? That just triggered something with me too. I read in the paper, or it was an agenda item or something, for the HRA and they're working on this entertainment complex in downtown. And at one point I think I read some Minutes that gave me the impression that it was kind of a combination entertainment complex/community center type thing. Is that how you're.~.? Hoffman: The current plans would be that it's first and foremost a convention center to incorporate the business that the Country Suites Hotel, the Dinner Theatre, and to cater to, as you all know, you've been to plenty of conferences. Conferences is a big market. But then chiming in at the same opportunity, the same type of things you offer when you have recreational components along with that. Pool and adjacent to racquetball courts, gymnasium space, those type of things. Those will be added in. We're taking a look at, currently there's a Phase 1, Phase 2. Essentially Phase 2 is the gymnasiums and Phase 1 is everything else. . I'll be working, and as we get into this, I hope with the backing of the commission, to include gymnasium~ right in Phase 1. There should be no Phase 2. The thing we are the shortest on is gymnasium space. To bring you up to date, the HRA has selected a preliminary construction manager for that project. They've gone through selection of architects, so now they will be coming out and reaching out to the other community members and Council members, Commission members, to get your input to find out what exactly you want this thing to be. It will be a unique facility. I'm not sure if there's one similar in the State but the general feeling is, if you call it the pit if you will, back behind the Dinner Theatre. ~ Everything back inbetween the tracks and the Dinner Theatre, it's not real attractive for private development and the HRA has come to that conclusion. They think it is a wise investment to invest some public dollars in addition to private dollars to construct this type of use facility in that area. Pemrick: That would be Filly's? Hoffman: Filly's would be incorporated into it, yeah. The bowling alley would be incorporated into it. It would connect all the way over. Obviously Merlyn's is leaving. It would, most of the plans plan for bringing more of a front. More of an entrance out onto West 78th so you have something there. Lash: Isn't there a theater? Hoffman: A theater would be a portion of it, correct. Pem~ick: Like a movie theater? Hoffman: An auditorium to take care of your conference needs and community needs. Lash: I guess mY reason for bringing it up, and I think you addressed that is, I would hate to see the HRA get this ball rolling and then this would be totally their project and that the Park and Rec would not have any input into it if it's going to turn into a recreational facility for ....",I the city. I feel like the last time when we got into the community center ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 9 mode, it was sort of an independent group and we were not involved as a commission in it and that was a concern for me. I would hope that this time, whoever is taking on this endeavor would try to involve us and get, you know especially your input and I think all of us. Hoffman: Correct. Executive Directors of the HRA are the City Manager, Don Ashworth and Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager. They asked me to get involved in the process. The whole staff really to come up with, in the preliminary stages, programming ideas. What could we fill this building with. Everybody is hesitant. You don't want to create a white elephant. Will this building actually operate. We lodged them with those requests. Conducted those type of brainstorming sessions. Came up with that mater ia1. I was, involved in the i nterviewi ng process. Sat in on those type of meetings. And it is~very intention of the HRA, even though they are the governing board, of the tax increment districts which will fund this project, they certainly want your input. Koubsky: Two things. When we had the Joint meeting with the City Council, we expressed some desire to have them come and talk to us. I feel real ignorant when it comes to the HRA. I think I'd like to see them here and explain to us just what exactly they're doing. What their plans are maybe in some more detail. '" Hoffman: How would you like to see that? Would you like to see a presentation from either Don or Todd, or a joint meeting of the bodies of the two? The Commission and the HRA. How would you like to facilitate that? Andrews: I'd like to see kind of an up to the minute presentation of the project you just described. Koubsky: Yeah, I think we get more information from one or two of them than a joint. As far as that auditorium, is it a performing arts auditorium that we're talking about, or what exactly is that? Hoffman: It may include a stage as part of that component. But very initial architectural drawings included a formal auditorium with seats but that was found to be too restrictive and for your conference, delegate type dinners and that type of thing where you need the tables and the flat floor, that would not accommodate that and that space would become very single use. So they'll most likely be looking at an auditorium space with a flat floor. Multi purpose and potentially with a stage at one end. Koubsky: What kind of time line are we talking? Hoffman: Construction over the next 2 years. But again, when the time is there, the input from the Commission. If gymnasiums should or should not be included. What the community center element should be. How it should function. Initial thoughts were more of a health club type atmosphere. It was the recommendation from the Park Commission that no, the community '" would be, the demographics of Chanhassen will not buy into that. They will not like that. Mayor, in preliminary discussions has stated the same. This building has to function for the family. Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 10 """"" Schroers: That's exciting. Andrews: Another potential item you want to take a look at probably as quick as we can is, kind of in conjunction with the Highway 5 committee, would be the crossing, particularly of Bluff Creek. As to what we would like to see for our purposes there. So we can get our preferences in front of that group because right now they're kind of open to any and all suggestions. We need to take a look at what potentially we may have as a trail crossing Highway 5 at Bluff Creek. Lash: And where's Bluff Creek again? Pemrick: How does that connect with TH 5? Andrews: It's between CR 117 and TH 41. Lash: Does it go to Lake Ann here? Hoffman: It's across from the school property. And then the other one is Riley-Purgatory which comes out of Lake Ann. The creek crossings, as Jim describes, are how you should treat the crossings, the underpasses. Lash: So is it somewhere around Prince's studio? Or is it west of there? Andrews: West. ....,," Hoffman: North of Timberwood. Andrews: West of the nursery. Lash: What are the options? Andrews: Right now it's wide open. Schroers: It looks like a wooded ravine, is what it looks like. It's in a cornfield. It's most noticeable in the cornfield that's west of the nursery and... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Andrews: ...those are issues that will probably come up in the next 60 days at that meeting and if we come there and say,here's what we'd like. I'd say our chances are pretty good that that's what we'll see. Schroers: Well what you're talking about is the north/south trail on either side of the highway that actually travels east and west? You're not talking a trail running down from north to south along the creek? You're talking about the trail that runs along side of the highway right? Andrews: No. The linkage underneath the highway. Koubsky: How are we going to cross TH 5? Whether it's underground. --' Andrews: It will be underneath. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ December 15, 1992 - Page 11 Koubsky: Because we have the trail at Audubon there, right? And then that comes up by McGlynn and then does that deadend? Hoffman: Deadends, right. Lash: But we will have, as TH 5 continues west, we'll be having a trail east/west on the north side of Highway 5. Andrews: Both sides will get it. Lash: Oh both sides? Andrews: They're going to have it looks like, they call it access boulevards. On the north side it will run fairly close to the highway and the south side, they may be, maybe as much as a half a mile south of the highway. The way it looks now, those will both have boulevard trails on them. Which should be real nice. 10 foot wide trails. That's the concept. I mean it's not built yet obviously but MnDot seems to be very cooperative. Hoffman: MnDot has participated in the north leg. The south leg is more. Andrews: Concept. ~ Hoffman: Yes. Koubsky: The benefit of crossing there would be to get to Lake Ann. Andrews: we always sort of a something It's also a natural feature of the city. I mean at some point have talked about sort of Bluff Creek all the way up to some nature preserve type of a thing here. A path or a trail or in there. Lash: Access for people down in Lake Susan and those new developments, Timberwood and the two new ones coming on line, for them to cross TH 5 to get to Lake Ann Park and also to get to downtown. Koubsky: Well you'd have to come down to CR 117. Of if you're going to bike, you'd have to. Andrews: You could have a connection under the highway. Lash: Under the highway. Schroers: I think what we need to do is include that as an agenda item for a future meeting and bring in the preliminary concept. The concept plan so we can...take a look at it and try to visualize what it is. Andrews: We want to put our idea in front of the Highway 5, we need to do this next month. If we want the Highway 5 group to put their idea in front of us for approval, then wait until February or so. JI"" Lash: Well I need to have some pictures of different options. Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 12 -' Andrews: There are some sketches that have been done up already so we can at least look at those and modify those. But we also need to look at,just what is our long range plan as far as the north/south trail. Is there one? Lash: Well is that the only place that we can do that? Andrews: No, but that's one of the few places where we'll have a crossing that's not on the highway. 50 it's either going to be under the highway or, there's no plans to build any bridges over the highway. Lash: And is that the only place that we can go under? Hoffman: The two would be Bluff Creek and Riley-Purgatory. Andrews: And it's likely that Riley-Purgatory may be just a culvert because that's a small one. Lash: But if there's a creek going there, how can you. Koubsky: There's a lot of relief. There's a lot of trees. Hoffman: There's a culvert. The culvert exists today. Lash: Yeah, but who wants to walk through a culvert? ..", Hoffman: No, you can't. Andrews: Nobody will so that may not be available. Lash: But if both of the options are a creek? Hoffman: Well the design is to have the creek off to the side and then put the trail adjacent to the creek. Andrews: A large arch with maybe 30-40 feet of extra ground to be used as a trail area. Lash: I need a picture of that. 5chroers: Alright. Well that was I guess under the item 5, Commission member presentations. Is there anything else that we missed there? Koubsky: Any update on the TH 41/TH5 development? Hoffman: Opus? Certainly. The last meeting held with the administrative members and representatives of Opus, that included our City Manager, our planning staff, myself and folks from Opus. They did not come off of their position from the evening when you discussed the park issues with them. It is the recommendation of our City Manager that I will be presenting your position on this issue to the City Council as a part of their review of the Gateway development. They will listen to the developer as well and the City Council then will take action. Either """"" siding with one of those two or asking that it ~o back down to the Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ December 15, 1992 - Page 13 Commission. The applicant to come back into the Park and Recreation Commission and work out your differences. Schroers: I don't like the idea of them just deciding on going one way or the other and not giving us an option. I mean if they side with Opus, Opus has Just sold us out so to speak. Or has just not made an attempt to accommodate what we've asked for and I don't think that's acceptable and I think that that could potentially set a precedent. If Opus finds a way to work around us and beat us out, who's to say that other developers won't in the future and that's going to, it could potentially impair our ability to acquire the parks and the trails which is our purpose for being here. r think that if we have to go through route, I would prefer that we would state that our position on that is very, very strong. Extremely strong. Berg: I would agree. It almost seems as if they're able to circumvent the whole system this way. Why go through all this? It seems like they're giving lip service to the procedure and then they didn't like the ultimate answer so they're going to go around and try an end run. I don't blame them but I don't have to be happy with their using that. Lash: And r would be extremely frustrated if the City council did not pay some attention to our recommendation in this situation. schroers: ...a suggestion that we take someone else's property. ,..... Lash: Well after he told us that we have all the control and we can do what we want and then he turns around and wants to play hardball and take a firm stand on this and then try and tell us what we have to do. schroers: I mean this is, what he is saying is that this is a prime site. We know it but it's in our city. If you don't want to play our game, somebody else will. I mean I don't think that we have to let them beat us up like that. Koubsky: No, he's just trying to develop it. That makes the most profit. He's trying to do his Job and I think it's important to note that we had an original recommendation for an area of land that would facilitate what we felt were needs of the area. They made a concession. Staff made a concession. We disagreed with that concession and went back to our original recommendation which required a certain amount of land. Useable land in that area. We just have to reiterate to staff that that was our position originally and it is now. ,..... ~offman: If I can just go a little bit further in depth into my thoughts as we've gone through this process. You recall that they had a very large area of open space there. Mature trees, open prairie, wetlands, but we wanted a mix. We wanted to get some active area and some passive area as well. It is always my contention that when they miraculously come up with what they call the most beautiful property down there in the wetland, that we chose that as park specifically because of it's beauty, etc, etc, it makes me hold my breath in these meetings when we sit down with these folks. But the fact is, even at this juncture, we are about even with the trade-off between dedication and what they are giving us by our cash rights and what they are giving us. In asking for that extra 2 acres of Park and RecCommission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 14 ....", what certainly to them is very valuable land, they're going to be looking for some concessions for that and that will all be negotiated. But the simple fact is, they didn't even want to take that step. But then again, so they brought in the tax increment district issues and was the city in the position to buy this property and they're questioning us whether or not we are ina position to buy that. The City holds the key to how those tax increment dollars are distributed and our City Manager has always been very much in favor of using those for public purposes relating to acquisition of parks and he has stated privately to me, and in that meeting that that will continue in this case. But you go fruther from that and I think if we position ourselves properly, I don't feel that there will be any problem with the City Council upholding your position. Then again, you need to clarify what that is. If that is the position presented by staff, with the additional property, to make that land a little bit more useable. Or if you want to go right back to the original recommendation, which you need to realize would necessitate then totally leaving that open space and those wetlands as non-city property and then we would have to venture off and renegotiate and start the process all over and find some other land somewhere else. If we make that perfectly clear, which we hav., which I have. Both the applicant and our City Manager and our City'Planner, and then if members. We have not set a 1993 attendance schedule to the City Council but if 1, 2, 3 members of this Park Commission come and speak before that City Council, in front of that developer, you can be convinced that the City Council is going to see your points. And again that, as we go through the meetings with the Council, that is the type of involvement they would like to see from their ~ commissions. If you recall back, Planning Commission. You will find members of the Planning Commission thereon a very routine basis speaking in favor of their recommendations. There are many more times the Planning Commission finds themselves in this position. When th~ applicant is very much in disagreement with the Planning Commission's recommendations. Planning Commission will be there in defense of their motion and then the City Council obviously has to wrestle with it and get on with their busi ness.. Schroers: If potentially, if we were able to win support to get more useable space, what is the likelihood that they would try to drain that wetland, cut down the trees and develop that for their development? I mean do we stand to potentially come up with a win/win? Get our parklan~ and also have some passive, natural area there that's not necessarily owned by the city but it is likely to remain because they would prefer not to develop that anyway? Hoffman: They have stated that if we picked up our doormat on that piece of property, that they would look for rezoning to come in from the opposite side which is residential and develop those, the areas which would allow it in the'residential homes in that area. Lash: They would look for rezoning to do what? Hoffman: To plat a residential subdivision in that area. Lash: In the wetland? -" Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ December 15, 1992 - Page 15 Hoffman: Well, there's high ground interspersed. Especially in that southern one. There's a big knoll there and some high ground and some property which is out of the wetlands. They would have to go through a rezoning for that. Or knock it out as an outlot and do that at a different time when the adjoining property came in. Something of that nature but just immediately south of here is large lot residential and they could sell it off of that. There's other options. It certainly was the most convenient thing to do. Go down to that area, it's not easy to work with. Draw your boundaries around it and say it's parks and open space. Schroers: Well I mean that's the problem that I have is they want us to eat what's easy and convenient for them and it's not filling our needs and requirements, and it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. I just feel that if we accept that, we'Ye getting the short end of the stick and they're getting the whole pie. Not even wanting to give us a taste. I"""" Hoffman: It is, the property which I'll admit and that will be my argument if the scenario would go this way. Giving credit, acre for acre for land which is piece by piece, a piece here and a piece there. You know you've got a little corner in this side of the wetland, and a little corner in this side of the wetland, does not fly with me. We will give you a portion of credit and an area which I've stated which would be a starting point is about 50%. So if you have 5 acres or 10 acres or 20 acres, which is interspersed here and there, we may consider that applicable at a 50% rate to the reduction of your park fees. Lash: I really wouldn't even be able, I wouldn't with a clear conscience be able to give them that much concession. I mean that's just a given that there's going to be some little spots that they aren't going to be able to use. With the Tree Board coming and the Tree Ordinances and things, if there's a mature grove of trees there, I can't imagine that they'd be allowed to plow that down and blacktop over it and it would have nothing to do with us. It would be totally other people telling them they can't do that. Hoffman: Well, in the past two instances to stop that, which is Chan Business Center. The triangle PUD there. You recall the large grove of trees there? The City had to purchase that. The other one would be the Target site. To save that mature stand of trees. Other than outright purchasing, there was no option there to save those trees. So the city has to purchase that property. We currently do not have, and probably will not have the ability to go that far in tree preservation. Koubsky: The housing development south of Timberwood is all mature maple and they'll lose half of that. ,....., Lash: Well I don't really feel like the concession that that we were, or the compromise we were willing to make last time of asking him for his extra acre and a half, or 2 acres, whatever it was. That really didn't cut it with me at all. I didn't think we were gaining enough to really even argue about it. Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 16 ...",J1I Schroers: Because it wasn't enough to develop our active use area. So that was the consensus of the entire commission. We're all in agreement with that and I think we stand strong on that issue and I feel that if they want to by-pass us and go to the City Council and use them as an arbitrator, then I think we should be strongly represented there and make it known that we are unanimously not in favor of their proposal and we want to stick with our proposal to provide 'us what we feel we need for the area. And that's not too much to ask because that's what we're asking from everybody else. That's fair and they can do it or they cannot do it. We don't care. Koubsky: Reiterate that we were looking for a parcel of property sufficient to put at least one ballfield. Is that correct? And not the additional acre. schroers: Was it one ballfield or two? Koubsky: Initially it was two. I can't remember what the exact motion. Hoffman: The motion was the exact same motion that you made the first time. Koubsky: And that was two. Any idea what the PUD and wetland issue, are there things that or positions that other commissions have that we don't have insight in as to wetland preservation? .....", Hoffman: Well the city's wetland preservation ordinances would certainly protect the wetlands. They would classify them and there would be all the setbacks necessary for those wetlands. Beyond that, there is a narrow strip of land there. I can't begin to go through all the possible options which they could think about in negotiating that development of that property. Lash: The next time that we deal with it, maybe if we had the map that would show us the areas that would already be protected, so that we know which areas wouldn't be developed by the developer and should have n~ bearing whatsoever on the park property dedication. Then we would have a clearer picture of what's still going to be undeveloped. Regardless of where we get the parkland and put it in. Koubsky: That will be open space regardless. Schroers: And it will seem like we will gain. If we stick to our guns and go for park property that we want, it just stands to reason that there'. a part ~f that they're not going to develop so we'll probably gain some natural area or passive use area along with our active areas that we're going to require. Possible. There's a lot of options but. Hoffman: I need to get a feel this evening from the commission what that exactly means as I can then write in my report for the first of the year. I don't recall the exact acreages but essentially the site, you go by 10% of land. "" Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ December 15, 1992 - Page 17 Schroers: 18 acres I believe what our dedication was. And we're asking for 18 acres. A portion of it, like 5 or 6 acres of that 18 was to be useable to the point where we wouldn't have to do massive amount of grading and that sort of thing to develop active use area. Instead, they wanted to give us 30 acres of basically unuseable. I mean there was only 1 or 2 acres out of that 30 acres that would have been suitable for an active use area and even those, that small acreage would have required cons~derable grading. And at that, it wasn't enough space to do anything with anyway. So they basically are not giving us anything that we asked for and that's not acceptable. They want to give us 30 acres in junk rather than 18 acres of what we're asking for and we said no sale and tbat's the way it still is. No sale. Hoffman: Okay. That's the way I will write my report to the City Council. Koubsky: Let us know when the meeting is Todd. Hoffman: Okay. January 11th, I believe if I read the schedule correctly. Schroers: And we should suggest or volunteer one or two people, if you want someone in person to represent the Park and Rec. IfI11'" Hoffman: oh absolutely. You're speaking to the Council is more effective than my. Andrews: Would that still be the old Councilor would the new members be on? Hoffman: New members will be there. Andrews: They'll be on board by then? Hoffman: Correct. Lash: If a couple of us show up, it's going to blow their doors off because they'll figure this has got to be pretty big. We've never done that before. Schroers: Well that's on Monday, January 24th? Hoffman: January 11th I believe. Lash: I could go too but could you drop me a note. Hoffman: Absolutely. Schroers: Yeah, I will also. ,.... Hoffman: I'll mail the entire commission a copy of the report. The agenda, both from my perspective and the planning report. Schroers: And when you write your report, you're going to check back with the Minutes of the prior meeting to make absolutely sure what our Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 18 ...,;I recommendation was. Hoffman: The longest motion in the history of Park and Recreation. Schroers: So okay, can we move off of. Hoffman: Certainly can. Item 6(b). First of all, I've got an item written in 8(a). Officially would like to, the Commission to welcome Dawn Lemme as a new full time staff member of the city of Chanhassen. The City Council confirmed as part of the 1993 budget approval budget so Dawn again works 50% with our Chanhassen Senior Center and 50% with the programming for all ages. Schroers: Great, congratulations Dawn. Hoffman: Item 6(b). Outcome of rejecting retaining wall construction at Lake Ann Park Recreation Shelter. As I informed the commission at the last meeting, I was not pleased with the construction. It was unsatisfactory at Lake Ann Park. Started working through the necessary communication efforts to get this corrected and as such, talked with ALM Contractors, our general contractor. Their first reaction was to schedule a meeting with the City, ALM and then the subcontractor. I said, well I'm simply not interested. My position back to you as general contractor that I refused the construction effort. It is up to you now to work with your subcontractor to see that that is corrected. To insure my assessment of the wall, I wanted some outside opinions. As such, I '-' received two of those. One of them being from the actual manufacturer or the Keystone product which is out there. As stated they have an obvious interest in seeing that Keystone products are installed properly. As such, prior to my pushing the issue any further, he requested some time to coordinate between the contractor and the subcontractor to see if they could solve the problems which we may have existing out there. I allowed them to do so. They have met on site. That was yesterday morning. I have not heard back from that person. From the block manufacturer but upon doing so I will make a decision on what my stance will be at that time. Unfortunately, we're going to lapse over into spring so these types of communications need to be formalized in 'written letters and agreements. That type of thing so I'm going to stand very confident that until that wall is taken down and rebuilt, we're just simply not going to accept it. It's a shame to build a building of that nature and then to surround it with a crooked wall. c. TREE PRESERVATION BOARD APPOINTMENTS. Hoffman: Larry, you can give an update on that one. Schroers: Sasically the interviews have been conducted and the recommendations have been given to Todd. To be perfectly honest, I don't remember all their names. Thomas Dunlap was the last person and the gentleman that works for the city. Hoffman: Charles Eyler. .....", ,.,.., Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 19 Schroers: Charles Eyler and then there was a lady that's on Highway 5. who is that Helen? Hoffman: Lillian Berrard was the other one and then the Highway 5 person is from, sits on the Highway 5 Task Force as well. Schroers: I don't recall her name either~ I thought her name was Helen. Anyway, we are moving ahead with that. The appointments that have been recommended to Council and I would imagine would be approved at the next Council meeting and we'll be rolling. Initially the consensus right now is that it's going to be a very aggressive board but our first mission is going to be, to decide who we are. What direction we're taking. What our mission actually is going to be and we don't know if we're a commission. If we're a board. But we're hoping to become significant enough to apply for funding or to acquire funding from Council to maybe plant trees or to, if we have to, purchase stands of trees to prevent them from being cut down or whatever. But it's going to be very proactive and aggressive initially. I can't tell you much more than that. Lash: And is Tim Erhart and Dick Wing? Schroers: Tim Erhart and Dick Wing and myself. ,... WINTER BREAK PROGRAMS. Dawn Lemme updated the commission on this item. She could not be heard on the tape. ADULT BASKETBALL REPORT. Hoffman: Jerry will address any questions you might have. Schroers: How's it going Jer? Ruegemer: Just fine. On schedule. Schroers: Have you got a lot of participation? Ruegemer: Yeah...4 or 5 teams. If we had more space available... The league did grow... Hoffman: One thing just to keep in mind. We operate the Chanhassen/ Chaska Adult Basketball league and we use facilities at the Chaska Community Center and they play how many games a night? Ruegemer: They play 4 a night at the community center and 3... Hoffman: So 8 teams a night at the community center and 6 teams a night at. . . ~ Schroers: That's like every night? Ruegemer: Just Wednesday nights. Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 - Page 20 -' Hoffman: That's the only night we have available so that's why we have to turn away those teams. (The quality of the taping was very poor during this part of the discussion.) SKATING AND HOCKEY RINK STATUS REPORT. Hoffman: Needs no explanation. No ice. Berg moved, Pemrick seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at. 9=55 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim ..."" ...""J