PRC 2000 08 22CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 22, 2000
Chairwoman Lash called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Fred Berg, Mike Howe, Jim Manders, David Moes, Jay Karlovich,
and Rod Franks
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Tracy Peterson, Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Approved as presented.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Hoffman: City Council on behalf of the City of Chanhassen accepted this photograph that you see there on
the screen from the Chaska and the Chan/Chaska Soccer Club. The engraving says thanks for your support
and cooperation in developing the Bandimere Soccer Complex, the Chan/Chaska Soccer Club, August 1,
2000. It was taken by one of their members and then framed and presented to the City Council at their last
meeting as a sign of their appreciation. The next photograph I think we'll need is the Rec Center.
Lash: Okay, thanks.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Franks moved, Moes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting dated July 25, 2000 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO
OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED
AT 6900 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, YVHITE OAK ADDITION, COFFMAN
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Lash: Before we get audience comments, is there anyone on the commission who has a question for Todd?
Okay, we'll open it up for public comments. If you'd like to address the commission, if you could please
come up to the podium and talk into the mics so that the tape picks it up for the record.
Kyle Heitkamp: Hello everybody. My name's Kyle Heitkamp and I'm a resident at 4021 White Oak
Lane in Oaks Minnewashta. Basically our intent tonight is to, we want to provide feedback on the White
Oak Addition and also we'd like to submit a petition that we have with the residents of Oaks Minnewashta
and neighborhoods north showing that overwhelming they definitely want the park connector not at this
location but somewhere in this development. We definitely wanted everyone to know that we are in great
support of the addition. We're not fighting the cul-de-sac. We're not fighting the new homes coming out
there. We think that would be a benefit to us, but what we're looking for is to have the park connector and
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
mainly it's because of a safety issue for our children. So with that in mind, as you can see by the map here,
our only access that we have into the park is from the south and east and our neighborhood is actually
blocked off`from the east side so really all we have is the south. And so what that means is we have to go
all the way around on Country Oaks Road and Kings Road which are very busy streets and, not busy in
standards of Highway 5 or anything like that but that's where all through traffic of the neighborhood goes.
And by coincidence yesterday a different group in our neighborhood, they were putting out fliers also
stating the same thing. That some of your neighbors have taken notice on say traffic speed along Leslee
Curve, Country Oaks Road and Kings Road so the same roads that we have a concem with, and because of
the connecting to the park, the same ones that this group had brought to the attention also. And they are
not affiliated with our petition. They have not supported our petitions so I don't want you to feel that
we're jumping off`that one. You know with that, there's also another concem that I personally just ran into
this weekend. I was bringing my kids down to the park and so we went down Country Oaks Road and
before taking the left to go down on Kings Road, if you have, I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old. The 4
year old on a bike, 2 year old that was being pushed in a stroller, and so if you're trying to maneuver the
stroller and keep a child in front of you on a bike and the sidewalk actually curves and then so, if you're
not holding onto your child, it's going, it could easily go out into the street there and in light of everything
that's been going on in Apple Valley this week, and that's one thing that you know I want to make sure
that at least we are addressing this so we don't have any unfortunate deaths or anything with the traffic
there. And with that in mind we actually went out and got a petition from our neighbors and I'll give you
all a copy of this petition and unfortunately our 2 year old got a hold of it so there's a few scribbles on it
and so I apologize for that. But when we started the petition out we decided that we wanted to get 30
names. That was the goal and we started at 3:00 yesterday so we knew that in order to make the meeting it
was going to have to be done last night. And so we started out going down White Oak Lane all the way
from our development, across Country Oaks Road and down and right now there's 22 homes along that
street and we have, there were 17 homes that we contacted by the homes. There was no one home at the
residence and of the 17, 16 of them signed it. And there's actually some that asked if they could both sign
it. The husband and the wife because they felt so strongly that they wanted this. And the one person, or
one household that didn't is Jim Larson and we feel, all the neighbors along here feel for Jim also. We
don't want it to go on their property because they built their home without this path in mind so we don't
want this to get pushed onto them so we completely understand that and I'm sure Jim's going to step up
and say some comments so I'm not going to, out of respect for Jim I'm not going to try to speak for him.
Then we also, to get to the remainder we went into the neighborhood to the north and they, every
household that again one, signed the petition. That one household, they were empty nesters and they said
they'd never step foot in a park so at this time they don't feel that they ever would so they did not want to
be involved in it so. With that in mind, I really, I think we have a lot of options here. By all means I'm
not a city developer and I'm not going to stand up here and act like any of them. But I do have contacts,
people that do this on a daily basis and have done this for years and I had a few conversations with them
and they said there's different ways of doing this. There is, I know a city doesn't like to hear this but
there's way of lessening the width of the easement. There's not trying to put the lot on one lot. You can
split it up into two lots or for that matter you can take 4 feet from a number of lots and try to make up the
room for it. And you know again what we're trying to do is look at this in a way so it's for the people that
buy the homes in the future know it's there. They accept it's there and so we don't have to throw it on
their backs after they've already purchased the home. I don't know, do you want me to read the petition or
is it fine if I just leave it with you.
Lash: You can just tum it in.
Kyle Heitkamp: Okay.
Lash: Can I ask you a couple quick questions?
2
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Kyle Heitkamp: Sure.
Lash: Can you just point out on the map, when you're referring to the different streets, you said Country
Oaks and where specifically is your neighborhood that you're referring to?
Kyle Heitkamp: My home would be right here. Right across the street, we're on the north side of White
Oak. So right now to get to the park we come down and we go along Country Oaks, down here. Here's
the comer where, I really would recommend all of you to look at this comer right here. The other thing
that really concems me is this Kings Road isn't even developed yet.., and we have numerous occasions
now where the police are out at this park constantly because these kids are mnning. You know they're
high school kids are mnning up and down that road, you know vehicles and Elaine mentioned on the way
over that last year there was kids on the skating rink with a sports utility vehicles doing, while kids were
out there skating. So you know it just, for a safety issue for if I'm playing with my kids, I feel that it'd be
very beneficial for us to be able to have a connector through there and not subject them to everything else
that's going out there.
Audience: There's that handicap ramp is what you're talking about under the window.
Kyle Heitkamp: That goes out to the road. I'm talking about the sidewalk that comes down and then it
meets the other sidewalk. It's at an angle so the handicap goes forward.
Audience: I know...kids getting offon Kings Road.
Kyle Heitkamp: Well the hill itself is going to because you curve this way and this way. Because you
have two hills right there. See if you come this way and then go around and that's what's pushing things
out. And as for property values also, I did some homework on this and I also gave you three articles here.
Two came from the Minneapolis Star Tribune. One is reference to a real estate consulting company saying
that, a company called American Lies. It's a real estate industry research finn that they say that walking
and bike paths rank third among 39 features identified by home buyers. And so the article is here saying
that access to parks and trails actually increase the value, not decrease the value. And they also reference
a study about trails so I also included that also.
Lash: Well you're preaching to the choir here when you're on that so. We're not anti trails just so you
Kyle Heitkamp: So again, with that in mind we are not trying, we definitely don't want the Larson's to
suffer for this. Or anyone else in our neighborhood for that matter who have existing homes so no, it's not
what we're requesting. We feel that there's an opportunity here. There's a lot of land there. There's a lot
of opportunity to get that connector into that park and I guess that's it and thanks for the time and I really
please and I urge you to help us protect our kids.
Manders: Can I ask you a question?
Kyle Heitkamp: Sure.
Manders: Again referring to the map, what area do you estimate would be using this connector? Just kind
of a half moon or whatever. However you want to point out on there.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Kyle Heitkamp: Anywhere from, right now this is, the way it's laying that's where the 16 or 17 homes that
we talked to. And then it also goes up to Hallgren, up in here and we did not, like I said, the intent was to
get 30 signatures just to show that there was support. I guess we were surprised that every home that we
went to agreed with us so we didn't keep going farther and farther north to.
Manders: But what area did you cover, I guess I'm still unclear.
Kyle Heitkamp: It's right here. It's White Oak and it's Hallgren Lane.
Manders: Okay, those two.
Kyle Heitkamp: It's those two so it's Oaks Minnewashta and what's the other area development. Oak
Ridge. And again, we stopped at 30 signatures...so I'm not trying to say that might represent a sample is
that we talked to 5 people. They all voted yes. Or actually talked to 6 people. They all signed a petition.
I'm not saying that that percentage is going to go forward throughout that whole neighborhood. That's not
what I'm trying to do.
Lash: When you said you see that there are lots of options of places where we could do this, can you show
us? You know the area better than we do. Where do you foresee that this could happen?
Karlovich: You wouldn't care if it was between Lots 3 and 4 if it didn't have anything to do with the
existing home would you? If the trail connector was between Lots 3 and 4 and connected up with the cul-
de-sac.
Kyle Heitkamp: I'd be wide open to all that.
Karlovich: And then the two 93 foot lots weren't the same, maybe they could take a little away from the
large lot 2 and move that over 20 feet.
Kyle Heitkamp: We would actually, if it wasn't for Jim and Ann, we would be open to have it where it
was proposed but I guess what we're saying is for neighborhood unity and for everything involved here, we
don't want this to be crammed down then throw it up here...
Berg: How far is it from where the trail was proposed, the connector was proposed to Minnewashta
Parkway?
Lash: Are you talking about from west to east?
Berg: Yeah.
Hoffman: 600 feet.
Lash: Would there be a possibility of getting easement or the rights to run the trail from the end of the cul-
de-sac out to Minnewashta? So it's across the end of the lots instead of.
Berg: And then come up Minnewashta?
Lash: Right.
Franks: On the north side of Lot 17
4
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Manders: Well it'd be the parkway there.
Lash: It hits the trail right on the parkway.
Manders: I mean that's what you're saying, hook up to this trail?
Lash: Right.
Berg: That's what I'm asking, if that's a possibility.
Hoffman: Sure, any one of those is a possibility but all those lots are narrow so it's not going to be, it's a
tight situation in all cases.
Lash: No, they're narrow but they're deep, right. Along the northem boundary.
Karlovich: It seems like the whole development is maybe narrow but the whole development is just to
accommodate the existing house and garage on Lot 2. The reason why everything else was so narrow.
Hoffman: I think the applicant can speak to that when he has a chance.
Kyle Heitkamp: I also just want to add that you've been very thorough on this too I mean so.
Lash: Okay. Does anyone have any other questions for Mr. Heitkamp?
Franks: Yeah just one. So what I understand you saying, although I haven't heard you directly say it, is
you're really looking to have the trail connector take, connect from the cul-de-sac on Oak Lane down to
the trail. Somewhere in this.
Kyle Heitkamp: Down to the park?
Franks: Down to the park. Somewhere in this proposed development.
Kyle Heitkamp: Right.
Franks: And what you're saying is you'd like to see a restructuring of the lots to accommodate a sized lot
that would allow the trail to go through, is that?
Kyle Heitkamp: Yes.
Franks: So when you say there's options.
Kyle Heitkamp: Right, that there's options. You know Ed has, you guys might want to jump up here. I
mean to answer your question, yes. Yes.
Ed Harrington: I'm Ed Harrington, 4041 White Oak Lane and looking at this earlier, at the plan, I just
kind of doodled at home. If you look at, between 2 and 3, if there was something here that, there's an
actual path right now that comes right up to here. The property is pretty well...my drawing here is pretty
exaggerated but if something could come between 2 and 3, it will stake down and connect the two of them,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
it would be a natural pathway right up through and it's pretty level so that was one suggestion that we
worked out...
Lash: Okay. Does anybody have a question? Thanks. Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the
commission on this particular issue?
Jim Larson: I just want to say a couple words. My name's Jim Larson. I live at 4000. I want to say, I
don't mind that's my house and everybody knows that but what's happening in general, I have one concem
and that is there is a lot going on down at that park late at night on weekends. There's a lot of noise.
Saturday night I couldn't believe the amount of noise coming from the park and we're afraid that even
with a path, you know yeah we want to keep our children safe and there is a walk that goes all the way
around and it's less convenient obviously but there is a path to get there. Secondly, we don't want the
people from the park that are partying late at night, when the sheriff does come and they have been around
there a couple times, or once in particular where they were coming up and down all the streets with their
lights going and everybody's going, what's going on? What's going on in our quiet neighborhood? Well,
there is drinking going on down there. There is lots going on down there and we don't want to give them a
gateway to our street. And so I would just as soon, you know although it's convenient, it's also convenient
for people coming the other way. People that we don't want in our neighborhood so.
Lash: Thank you.
Bill Coffman: Members of the commission, my name is Bill Coffman. I'm the President of Coffman
Development. With me tonight I have Larry and Nancy Wenzel who have lived...neighbors up until this
point I suppose. 3 or 4 years ago this same commission found that a trail connection probably wasn't
needed from the Harsted project, the 45 lot folks at Minnewashta plat and now we're coming through with
a 5 lot plat to accommodate a larger plat that was done a few years back. Our plat doesn't benefit at all
from this trail. Not that that really matters, but it actually is a hardship on our plat because it does in fact
decrease property values to the homes that are adjacent to the trail. Nobody wants to live next to a trail, as
Jim Larson just said. They don't want it next to them, and I believe some of the other neighbors probably
would not want it next to them as well. Secondly, the 20 foot easement doesn't fit anywhere on our plat.
We originally started out 100 foot wide lots which would go down to a 80 foot building pad. As you can
see here we're down to 93 foot lots which puts us at a bare minimum of 73 foot building pads. We plan on
this being an upscale, very high end neighborhood with a lake lot, park lots. Very expensive homes. We
want walkout ramblers to be able to be placed on these lots. If we lose 10 feet offoftwo of these lots,
you've just decreased property values enormously. It's a huge hardship on the Wenzel's. Furthermore, if
in fact somehow or another we could shoe hom a trail somewhere in the plat coming through the Wenzel's
front yard or side yard or right by their house for that matter, there's no sidewalks connecting up to this
trail. So what we end up doing.
Berg: While you're doing that, I'm sorry for my ignorance. The Wenzel's are where?
Bill Coffman: The land owner.
Berg: They're 1 and 2 here? Otherwise the existing house in 2?
Bill Coil'man: Yes. They will be living on Lot 2 for the remainder.
Berg: And that existing garage is their's then too?
Bill Coil'man: That is correct.
6
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Berg: Sorry to interrupt.
Bill Coil'man: No, that's quite alright. As you can see, here is the property right here. There's only three
homes that actually would be benefiting, from my opinion, from a trail connector. There is a sidewalk that
runs north and south along Country Oaks Road. There's no sidewalk on White Oak. So if any of these
people up here wanted to use this trail connection, they would end up having to walk on the street instead
of using the sidewalk which runs north and south and east and west along Kings Road. That's obviously
what this commission intended to happen. People use the sidewalks, not the street. So why bring all of
these neighbors into the street along White Oak Lane? Basically, and furthermore that late night activity is
another problem. Is on occasion the cops have been called out here and with a trail connection up, that
could bring the hooligans into the White Oak Lane neighborhood. I don't think that's a desirable thing as
well. It really isn't much further for these people to walk over to White Oak or Country Oaks Road. The
only people that really would benefit would be these three landowners, 1, 2 and 3. Because anyone else in
feet would just about be equal distance to come down this way, down this way, and up to the facility as
opposed to if you lived here, you end up going like this. If you lived here, it's not that much difference.
It's only a couple hundred extra feet and you're on sidewalks instead of walking down the middle of the
road. So the bottom line is, this trail was an after thought and it's a huge hardship on the Wenzel's 5 lot
plat that receives absolutely no benefit from the trail. And really it ends up taking value away from the
Wenzel's probably costing them an entire lot. And I'd be available to, I guess I agree with stafl~s
recommendations is to vote no to this trail connection and I'd be available for any questions.
Howe: Can you explain Lot 17 Does Lot 1 have, you have the same map I do. You have a 1 there that's.
Manders: That's the block number.
Bill Coil'man: Lot 1 is a flag lot and has beach, or lake access.
Howe: Okay.
Franks: Is Lot 1 accessed offthe cul-de-sac?
Bill Coffman: Yes it is. Long driveway. And that's considered a lake lot. It has the advantages of a dock
on the lake. A very valuable, build a very large house on that lot.
Berg: Todd, what about the idea of a trail connector from the end of the cul-de-sac there to Minnewashta
Parkway? Is that a feasibility Todd?
Hoffman: Feasibility?
Berg: Is that at all practical here?
Hoffman: I don't think it's any more practical than putting it between 4 and 5.
Berg: Except you're not running 2 feet away from somebody's back window.
Hoffman: ...Do you know the side yard setback from the house from this north lot line?
Bill Coil'man: It will be a 10 foot setback. That's 100, the minimum width on that lot is 100 feet. We are
at minimum width of 100 feet for a flag lot. Bare minimum. That's city ordinance.
7
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Berg: How close would the home be to a trail running where I'm suggesting?
Bill Coil'man: It would be 2 feet.
Hoffman: 2 feet, yeah. Same as the others.
Berg: Is that close to the front of the lot?
Lash: Well this would be the front of the lot.
Hoffman: The house would sit this way on this lot.
Bill Coil'man: That's correct. A will walkout with views of the lake. Walking out towards the lake.
Hoffman: So the trail would come right along this north side of the homes similar to.
Berg: Within 2 feet.
Bill Coil'man: I can guarantee you the Headla's, who live to the north, would be adamantly opposed to
that as well. I know them quite well. It just doesn't fit. A 20 foot easement is an after thought for this
small five lot plat. This commission didn't want it 3-4 years ago because of the sidewalks going up and
down Country Oaks Road and Kings Road. It's a hardship on the Wenzel's. It truly is. We just don't
have the space. This not a loose plat as you can tell. Everything is tight. That is the truth.
Moes: So what happens if you tum it into a four plat lot then? Or Addition.
Bill Coil'man: Yeah, if we were to lose a lot, then we would have the space but that in itself would
probably be considered a taking on the city's part so I'm not so sure we want to go there.
Moes: Help me with a taking.
Bill Coil'man: Well we've got these lots sold at this point and if, and correct me if I'm wrong. You have
to, you need to compensate the landowners if you're going to take value away from their property. Is that
not correct?
Karlovich: I don't think it would be a taking. I think there'd be a logical nexus between an easement here
or not. I don't think you should start threatening the commission that you're going to.
Bill Coil'man: I didn't want to go there, like I said. I just, you know if we lose a lot, it's a.
Franks: You went there.
Bill Coil'man: Yeah I know, but if we lose a lot it is a big deal. It really is.
Karlovich: I think you should stick with the argument with the sidewalks. I think that was more
persuasive.
Bill Coil'man: Well, I agree. I certainly agree.
8
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Lash: You know I do think that when you look at the larger plan, there are more people who would benefit
from this than just those people on the one street. Everyone north of that. I mean it would be a short cut to
the park. That's all it would be.
Bill Coil'man: A couple hundred feet, yeah. But then those sidewalks.
Lash: Well when you walk, you know personally I'm not all that worried when I walk down a street that
has 4 houses on it that I'm going to get run over.
Berg: I've lived in a neighborhood without a sidewalk for 20 years and we haven't had any appreciable
danger at all so.
Lash: I mean it's not like it's a major thoroughfare. It's a little dead end street.
Bill Coil'man: No, there will be what, maybe a dozen homes down that cul-de-sac. Maybe 16 total once
everything's developed out. So no, there won't be, not a lot of traffic.
Lash: Anyone else have a question for Mr. Coil'man?
Franks: I'm just looking at the garage that sits on the Wenzel's property. The existing garage and if you
could just enlighten me about the distance from the garage to the lot line between Lots 2 and 3.
Bill Coil'man: We originally started out with 100 foot wide lots and we had to reduce those lot widths to
93 feet in order to get a 30 foot rear yard setback from that garage to the property line to Lot 3. So that 30
foot setback is minimum and if you look to the north of that existing garage, there's a 10 foot minimum
side yard setback to the property line to Lot 1. So those are minimum setbacks per city ordinance. That's
tight also. I mean right at the minimum.
Berg: Did you answer his question?
Franks: 30 feet.
Berg: 30 feet.
Franks: Was it ever explored to pursuing a setback variance?
Bill Coil'man: Yes. That Bob Generous basically gave that a thumbs down from the get go. We
approached him right o12; our first application showed the lot line being closer to the garage and that was,
he nixed that quite rapidly.
Lash: I'm sorry, how far was it from?
Franks: 30 feet from the garage to the lot line.
Lash: So if you put an 8 foot trail right along there, you'd still have 22 feet on the side of the garage.
Franks: But you'd run into the flag...
Bill Coil'man: Any further questions?
9
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Manders: How does the existing garage follow that access? Will that access that cul-de-sac?
Bill Coffman: No. It's accessed from their driveway which is in place at this point.
Manders: It goes out to Minnewashta?
Bill Coif`man: That's correct. This driveway here, and they have a tum around basically right in this area.
Manders: Oh okay. So it actually works quite well the way it's designed.
Karlovich: I just had a question about the cul-de-sac. How does that get built with that being part on the
property to the north? How is that being staged?
Bill Coif`man: What has been negotiated with staff; and we came to the Planning Commission a few weeks
ago with a half street and we were basically, we basically redesigned it in order to build the entire right-of-
way in this point and then we're building what, 2/3 of the bubble to the south with the remainder of the
bubble being built when Headla develops to the north. They're not quite ready at this point to develop.
But engineering is comfortable with the 60 foot radius tum around. 2/3 of a bubble.
Lash: Anyone else with a question for Mr. Coffman?
Franks: I'm looking at what looks like a preliminary plat but you mentioned that these lots are all sold
already?
Bill Coif`man: Well, we've got a handshake agreement with a builder who I've done business with for
several years so they're in the process, once we have an approved plat. If we're successful I should say.
We've got, it's a very beautiful piece of property. Off`the park and lake and so forth. I'm quite excited
about it. It's too bad that, you know when.
Lash: We see this with developers all the time and you have a beautiful piece of property and then you
just cram as many houses as you can and make the minimum lot sizes and then we have problems like this.
You know ifI was going to build a $500,000 house, I'd like more than 10 feet on the side of my house to
the edge of my yard, but that's just me.
Bill Coffman: Yeah I've done several very high end projects. Olivewood on the other side of Lake
Minnewashta is another subdivision I did. Shadow Ridge on Lake Lucy Road is another project. All 100
foot lots or 120 foot lots. We start at 100 foot lots and now we're down to 93 feet. That's why, I mean...
that's where it's at.
Franks: The side yard setbacks on Lot 3 for the house pad are 10 feet also?
Bill Coif`man: Correct.
Franks: And could you, yeah right here on the drawing here. Could you kind of just site the house pad for
me on Lot 3? Proposed.
Bill Coffman: I'm guessing...
Franks: Yeah, we all understand it's a guess.
10
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Bill Coffman: You know like this. And there's a potential of the garage coming out like that a little bit.
It's hard to say at this point.
Franks: Sure. Sure. Is the setback from the cul-de-sac is 50 feet?
Bill Coif`man: 30.
Franks: 30.
Bill Coif`man: The front setback is 30. The sides are both 10.
Manders: The proposal that the gentleman had earlier about the trail coming offofthe end of the cul-de-
sac and then crossing the tip of Lot 3, coming down on Lot 2 1 think it was. How was that received? I
mean I'm sure unfavorably but I mean, in terms of the hardship that that presents.
Bill Coif`man: Well first off`it goes right through the Wenzel's garage and it cuts right through their back
yard.
Manders: But I mean if that pushed over so that it's closer to the lot lines than about into the garage.
Lash: When you get close you can't see.
Bill Coif`man: Then it would not meet the minimum setback per ordinance to the garage.
Lash: Yeah, that's the one right along here where their driveway's going to be for Lot 1 is and then right
down here, that would take from 3. It would take 8 feet from there which still leaves 22 feet to their
garage. And it doesn't screw up your 93 foot lot.
Bill Coif`man: What it does though, it makes a variance required for the, as far as for the rear setback to
the garage and it's already been...
Franks: When you applied for the variance though a trail connector wasn't a part of that application.
Bill Coif`man: That is true. That is correct.
Manders: So assuming that a variance is achieved or could be achieved, in terms of the hardship that it
presents, it's just that you don't have your 30 foot setback but aside from that, what other kinds of issues
does it present?
Bill Coif`man: Well it does, if you were to center the trail on Lot 3 and Lot 2.
Manders: Well I'm not saying center it. Wherever it fits.
Bill Coif`man: Put it all on Lot 3, yes. It doesn't hurt, we'd put the entire 20 foot on Lot 2. No, it does
not hurt to set that situation on Lot 3. What it does do, it hurts the setback situation for Lot 2 to the
existing garage.
Manders: To the garage.
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Bill Coil'man: That's correct. Plus it puts it into Wenzel's back yard as opposed to a side yard, which is
even worse than putting it down to the side yard.
Manders: Well I'm just trying to look at options.
Lash: Right, but if it didn't meander the way the drawing shows. If it just went right along the lot line.
Bill Coil'man: Right. This is, the Wenzel's live here. This is considered their front yard, whatever. And
this is where, you know they use this area the most. I mean this is where they barbeque. This is their back
yard. So basically it'd be putting the trail right in the back yard. It's their back yard, not their side yard.
Manders: And how is the landscaping or the terrain there? Is it flat or is it hilly or what is it like?
Bill Coil'man: It gently slopes down. I mean it would be fun on Rollerblades I guess but you'd be safe on
a bike.
Lash: How far would it be, how far is it now from the back of their house to their back, where the lot line
would be?
Bill Coil'man: Well this was 30 feet. I'd say it's maybe 8 feet. That's roughly. Do you concur with that
Larry?
Larry Wenzel: That's pretty close.
Lash: Anyone else with a question? Okay, thanks Mr. Coffman.
Larry Wenzel: Yeah I'm Larry Wenzel. This is my wife Nancy. And of course we live at 6900 where all
the debate's coming from. I guess it's from our standpoint, we've gone through the application once. Got
tumed down. Where they made us change the lot sizes. The minimum on those lots back there is 90 feet
on 3, 4 and 5. Or they won't let us use that type of a road. To put the trail in behind our house, our
existing house is rather discouraging being that this could have been eliminated 4 years ago when we sold
the 7 V2 acres to the back. And now that we're just finishing out the front, then to come in with it at this
time is a little difficult for us to handle. Part of the reason that we've been attempting to save as much
property as we can in the back is to be able just to, we have some storage back there for a pontoon boat and
whatever on our own property. We end up with a trailer and then of course that presents a whole new
problem for us there. And I just, to our way of thinking it just doesn't fit. We just have to go back to the
Planning Commission with a whole new problem. And l don't know that it would work. Ijust don't think
we've got the room to be able to do that and still get it through the Planning Commission and that's all I
have to say.
Nancy Wenzel: I don't have a lot of say. I am surprised that they would encourage a path up to that cul-
de-sac. One of the reasons I would be opposed ifI lived on White Oak is because kids do drive cars on the
paths in the park in the winter time. In the summer time too. They drive their automobiles through there.
They will drive through there and down White Oak Lane I'm sure. I don't know who these children are
but they have been a problem. I don't think Jim and Ann have been at all restrictive about people from
their street cutting through their property to go to the park. I believe that they've allowed this and they
don't have a problem with it. I just, I'm really disappointed with this path idea. I feel it is a hardship for
US.
Larry Wenzel: Thank you.
12
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Lash: Anyone else wishing to address the commission?
Ed Harrington. Just say one last thing. Kings Road is a 30 mph speed limit. 50 is typical on that
road....trucks come down from the other end of it daily. My kids are 12 and 13. They're pretty stable.
Most the kids in the neighborhood are 2 to 6, 7 or in there. They do come down the sidewalk. They do go
down to the end. I agree with privacy. I agree with all that part of it. I like privacy in my street. I like it
quiet. I like a dead end street. If you use bollards and things of that nature on this path way it will prevent
cars from going up there. Who's going to run over a bollard that's steel and cement. I'm sorry, I'm not
much of a public speaker but, and my kids are the ones that were on the ice skating rink last year when the
kids were doing donuts out there so I have a lot of things to say about that. And I'm sorry but the hardship
to the builder and everybody else but I'm just looking at it purely from a safety point of view and nothing
else. And ifI have more foot traffic on my street, the kids going down there and they're safer by that,
that's great. No one wants to mourn a child. That's all I want to say.
Lash: Okay. Can you just state your name one more time?
Ed Harrington: Ed Harrington.
Lash: Thank you. Anyone else from the audience? Okay, we'll close public comments now and take it
back to the commission. Mike, can we start down at your end?
Howe: Sure. I know I came here late but I did read all the e-mails this moming and I caught up. I feel for
you but I just don't see a way that it's going to fit on this plat right now. It's unfortunate and I've been in
this park and I haven't witnessed any of the behavior. That's probably another meeting. That's another
issue that we should probably address but I don't see there's a way to put a trail on that lot. I don't think
people wanted to develop their homes are going to do it. That's all I have.
Lash: Okay, thanks. David.
Moes: After listening to both sides of it and you always try and figure out what some of the options and
solutions are you know overall in totality but that's the way the plats are laid out. It sounds like we are in
the minimum width in regards to all those and it sounds like we'd be talking to some of the, any variances
that might be possible to incorporate into a path type solution. And without causing the hardships that
we've heard, I'm not comfortable trying to implement a...across the new development there. It does sound
like we've got access through the other roads and understanding that there is the traffic issue there and as
Mike stated, it sounds like it might be another session and another discussion in regards to dealing with
that issue. However looking strictly at the access to the park issue, I'm not finding an appropriate
altemative to putting a path in there for the cul-de-sac right now so, that's all I've got.
Lash: Okay, thanks Dave. Rod.
Franks: Todd, just a question for you to help me out with my map here, although it looks like it should
have the elevation markings on it. I can't read them but I'm wondering about what the grade is like in the
back in the middle between Lots 3 and 4. I know the play structure is sited somewhere in there with the
retaining wall but.
Hoffman: Generally it would be gentle sloping from the cul-de-sac to this location and then we have a
large hill right here that backs the play structure right at that location. And so the natural area to connect
13
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
the trail is either here or essentially here. But you dead end right into a steep hill here. You go either this
way or that way.
Franks: Is that, let's just say that you were going to go either one of those two directions. Is that, is it
doable to do for a trail along the specifications that we do or is it cost prohibitive to deal with that kind of
a slope?
Hoff`man: No, you could build...
Franks: Well I personally, you know the Larson's already have their home there and the Wenzel's already
have their home on the other side and to put the trail either right next to the Larson's house or right through
the back yard of the Wenzel's home is not particularly palatable to me. I'm certainly less sympathetic to
the...more towards the garage and then freeing up some space between Lots 3 and 4 to run the trail straight
down from the bottom of the cul-de-sac. It also to me looks like that's the shortest space between the cul-
de-sac and the park of any of the altematives which you know I think would be the least disruptive, if we
were going to look at it. I don't know exactly how planning staff`would feel about doing that kind of shift
in granting some kind of variance to accommodate a trail easement between Lots 3 and 4. By shifting the
line between 1 and 3 closer, or 2 and 3 closer to the garage. But meandering trail, you know that we
talked about, I can't envision that. I like the safety of the sidewalks but I also live in a neighborhood that
doesn't have any and in 10 years we have yet to have any kind of accident so. I don't know Todd if you
can give an opinion or if you feel comfortable giving an opinion about what the use of such a connector
would be.
Hoffman: What the use would be?
Franks: Yeah.
Hoffman: The one thing that's nice about connectors is it gives you options but, you know so that there's
going to be some neighborhood use. Is there going to be some people walking the parkway and so you're
going to walk the parkway and then they walk through the park and then they want to go back to their
neighborhood to the north and so many of those type of folks may use that. But one drawback between Lot
3 and 4 is that you also have to run it not only in the side yard of 4 but then through the back yard of 4 and
then kind of through the back yard of 5. They're all fairly close there to get it over the trail. And so
there's some additional impact with that design.
Manders: Taking Rod's philosophy, what if you shifted 3 and 4 over and went between 4 and 5?
Lash: It doesn't really sound like they can do any shifting.
Manders: Well I think they could shift 3 over. They could shift 3 and 4 over. I'm not saying they can but
if they can, then you don't deal with that back. I don't know.
Hoff`man: The realities of 20 feet is there's just not a whole lot of room for shifting. I mean I don't know,
if you think about your own home and is your side yard 20 feet from your neighbor's garage or the side of
your garage, and this is a different product. And it's not a very wide lot.
Lash: Do you have anything else Rod?
14
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Franks: Well you know I'm trying because I'm sympathetic to the concem but this park does have access
to it. It does have the sidewalks and so the altematives don't appear to be real workable. Although I'd
like to give it a shot. That's it for me.
Lash: I guess I'd agree. I don't really have too much I can add. It'd be nice to be able to run it through
there and have a short cut but I don't see how we can do it and I wouldn't do it to the Headla's. Or the
Wenzel's, or the Headla's. I don't think it's fair for people who have lived here to all of a sudden have a
trail go through the back of their yard. None of us would want it so I wouldn't want to do it to anybody
else, so that's I guess all I can say about it.
Berg: Do you have the overhead Todd that shows the neighborhood to the north? The existing
neighborhood.
Lash: Sure.
Berg: Now can you plot to me, with one of the existing homes, how they now get to, from where they live
to Kings Road and then into Round House Park.
Hoffman: Sure. From the cul-de-sac that we're talking about?
Berg: Yeah.
Hoffman: They start here and they walk down here to Kings Road and into the park.
Berg: Now is there any way of making a connector somewhere along that north/south line into Round
House Park?
Hoffman: No. That was part at the time the plat was developed. There's also a storm water pond that runs
from here all the way to this Lot 1.
Berg: Okay. So that's impossible. I guess I find myself then coming down with everyone else. I certainly
understand the plight of the concem for safety and I think we do have an issue here that sounds like we
need to talk about. I feel we have a type of good faith agreement with the Wenzel's. Not with the
developer but with the Wenzel's. To change the rules at this point in the game I think would be terribly
unfair. But I don't see an altemative either. I'm waiting for one to just miraculously appear. That's all.
Lash: Okay, thanks. Jay.
Karlovich: I'd like to start out with a question for Todd. Where was the trail connector going to be in the
prior plat?
Hoffman: Right here. The shortest point.
Karlovich: And it was decided against by the prior? The only comments that I have to make to the
neighborhood is, I wasn't on that...at that time and I do agree that it was a mistake. I was swayed very
much by the fact that the sidewalk system is down the north/south road and then along Kings Road. And
you know if you look at this, it is a hardship on a 5 lot plat and you put it between 3 and 4, it's going to
hurt but it will still get sold but it will hurt. I'm just, I'm leaning against it due to the fact that that trail
connector was bypassed at an earlier date and there are sidewalks that get you to it and it just doesn't look
like it's going to work.
15
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Lash: Okay, Jim.
Manders: I'm mnning out of original thoughts here. So the, I'm trying to recall, and I don't remember
what the reasoning was for not putting in the connector that you indicate there.
Hoffman: At the time I believe we were just coming off`some of the conversations with, in other
circumstances where these were going in and people were not happy and I think the commission at that
time was a little bit apprehensive to put in these inbetween lots. And I know at the time we talked about
widening them out and again the applicant says I don't have to widen it out. If you have a trail connector,
put it in and it was decided not to. Again, it's the same conversations happen. How much farther is it to
walk around versus cutting through. The city had a perfect opportunity here. We were dealing with the
same owner on the park and the development and we master planned the park and the trail before the plat
was approved so. There's some water over the dam that, one thing I had numerous conversations with
many or all the people in the audience and, or at least those representing different sides and one thing I
said is, this is going to be a wonderful leaming experience this evening. Park and Rec Commission about
old history and how it comes back to face you again so.
Lash: Okay. Anybody else? Mike.
Howe: One thing. There was mention about the sidewalk at the intersection of Country Oaks and Kings
Road being a tight tum. Is that something we'd be in charge of? Can we kick that up to public works or
something? I haven't seen that comer. It sounded like it was a steep tum, you said with bikes. That's one
we can do there.
Hoff`man: I walked this today. You're coming down a hill, an incline at that location and you have to take
a 90 degree tum to get down into Kings Road so you're coming down a slight incline here and then you
turn to go, and if you've got a 3, or 4 or 5 year old on a bike you're going to want to be close to him
because they may not make that comer.
Resident: Even if they switch the direction of the handicap access, because the handicap access continues
to go down the hill with the direction of Country Oaks. So the kids are coming...and trying to make that
tum, then they get in the flow of the handicap access.
Howe: Okay, so a curve there would be better or something that would block them?
Resident: Yeah. Or you know switch the handicap to the other. Just switch it around to the other side of
the comer.
Hoffman: The other program that people have been referring to tonight is the Project Leadfoot, which is a
new program by the law enforcement folks in the city on troublesome streets with speeding and nuisance
traps and those type of things. And Mr....right here on the comer, he's probably in my top spot in my
phone call in the city because of issues that have to do with Kings Road and the park so he keeps me
informed about what's going on so it's no secret that there's issues and that kind of activity. And Project
Leadfoot has been very successful if you're familiar with Pleasant View Road. Some of you are, you live
in those neighborhoods. It's done a great done on Pleasant View and I think it will do the same out here.
Lash: Okay. Any other comments? Seeing no further comments, is there someone who, do we require a
motion on this or not? Because actually.
16
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Hoffman: Make a recommendation to approve, well to recommend the City Council accept the White Oak
plat with full park and trail dedication fees in lieu of trail construction and park acquisition.
Lash: Okay, is there a motion?
Berg: I move that we recommend to the City Council that, you'll have to help me with the wording for this
Todd. The collection of trails fees.
Hoffman: Park fees.
Berg: Park fees.
Hoffman: In lieu of land dedication...
Berg: Right.
Lash: Is there a second to that?
Howe: Second.
Berg moved, Howe seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City
Council accept the White Oak plat with full park and trail dedication fees in lieu of trail construction
and park acquisition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REZONING REQUEST FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND
OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBDIVISION OF
120.93 ACRES AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A MIXED HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT (383 UNITS) CONSISTING OF CLUB HOMES, MANOR HOMES, COACH
HOMES, VILLAGE HOMES AND RENTAL TOWNHOMES ON 89.5 ACRES AND 2.9 ACRES
OF COMMERCIAL USES AND ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND 41, ARBORETUM VILLAGE,
PULTE HOMES.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Lash: As a part of this, is there a trail that's around the wetland that connects up north somewhere?
Hoffman: This trail?
Lash: Yes.
Hoffman: Yep. And then you would connect, we have one piece that's left out. I can show you on the
city map. And I believe Lundgren has an option on the property to the east. So this trail would be
wrapping around in a configuration something like this. Of this property line, and then we have a trail
connector that comes right down across here at this point from the trail that's on the north side of the
wetland. And then it comes across and then we would stop here and then when this land is up for
17
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
development we would make that final connector down to that location. So very nice trail in the future for
the residents in that area.
Manders: So that comes out of the park off of Galpin?
Hoffman: Let me blow it up a little bit here. It's in the area Jim but not connected yet. This trail dead
ends right here and there's a property, well it dead ends right there. And there's a property yet to be
developed here and then this road would probably wind on through and then this trail would connect up
over to the underpass right there at Galpin which is going to be constructed as part of the frontage road.
And then you would go up into the park by that direction. Here's how things develop, and still as kind of a
side note. This road stub right here, if you've noticed, it points into about a 5 acre lot that they just put a
couple hundred thousand dollar horse bam right in the middle of the road so I don't think it's going to
happen any time in the near future. That road will probably not go through there for some time.
Lash: And then doesn't the trail take off`north out of the park?
Hoff`man: Yep.
Lash: And go up through.
Hoff`man: On Galpin, yeah.
Lash: Oh, just on Galpin. I was thinking it went, I thought it went up through the back up into the
Lundgren development.
Hoff`man: No, it would be off`street.
Berg: That's Sugarbush, right?
Hoff`man: Yep. Sugarbush Park.
Moes: And what would the distance be from, I guess the development we're talking about, even following
your path Todd there up to Sugarbush. I mean do you have an estimate? 3 miles? 2 miles?
Hoff`man: Oh no. A mile.
Moes: Okay. Once the path is indicated.
Manders: And the wetland is basically your encircled trail area?
Hoff`man: Yep. It's a large wetland down here.
Manders: Okay.
Hoff`man: And then another one...property line here.
Lash: Okay. Well it's unfortunate that the applicant isn't here because after our last meeting I took it
upon myself to go to the totlot at the Pulte development in Shakopee and it is not acceptable.
Karlovich: It is not what?
18
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Lash: Acceptable. As a totlot. It is, well.
Berg: ...one tot?
Lash: Hardly. It's very, very, it wouldn't fill the need of more than a couple of kids, I can tell you that. A
couple of little bitty kids. So I think we'd have to have some kind of condition of, I mean already I think
it's not meeting what we've asked for. We've asked for some bigger parcels. We've asked for them to be
in other kind of locations. Things like that. And I would want to see for sure how he's planning on
equipping these because if the plan is to do it like the one in Shakopee, it would not meet the needs of the
people in this area. Do you have anything Mike?
Howe: Todd. The 8 acres of parkland versus, is it $500,000?
Hoff`man: Yes. It's approximate fees on the site.
Howe: Okay.
Lash: And that would be a different issue than Outlot E, right?
Hoff`man: Yes.
Lash: Okay.
Howe: Yeah, it is too bad that the applicant isn't here. I'll make a note to go look at that totlot sometime.
Lash: Do you know where it is?
Howe: It's off`of 169 there isn't it?
Lash: Yeah, and 17. Where that new Target's going in and the new St. Francis Hospital. It won't take
you long.
Howe: I'll bring my tot. Everything I read, you know most people from the city side are impressed with
what they've done. Pulte, they've done a good job and they've met the requirements. I tried to read the
environmental stuff and it looks like they covered a lot of ground. I mean totlots notwithstanding but I
mean it's been a pretty good process for these people. They have made changes. They did take some of
our suggestions from last year.
Hoffman: I think more of the suggestions is coming out of the City Council and Planning Commission,
yeah. I don't think they're focusing on a 2 V2 acre open space park area. I'm assuming they feel that what
they've left open as part of their PUD is something that the City would desire but again, it leaves
something to be desired.
Howe: That's all I have.
Lash: David.
Moes: Well I think with the size of this type of a development it's definitely...have a few more activities
to play versus a small totlot and that just being two individuals, I'm trying to think of the many more
19
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
children that would be in there, probably in that same age category that'd be looking for something a little
bit more active to play in. So I think it's definitely appropriate that in this development we pursue
something along the lines of a larger park facility versus the totlots that are currently proposed.
Lash: Rod.
Franks: Well this is a time when I'm glad the Minutes for our commission meetings are verbatim because I
want to make this clear. Unacceptable. And I hope that the developers and Pulte get to read my
comments on this. And I'm not just disappointed they're not here today to talk about the development, I'm
a little ticked off about it. We made some suggestions. I think we tried to work with them and offer some
ideas and do some things. What we've come back, looks like to me is, what I remember I think they even
discussed 4 totlots when they were here the first time and now we're down to 2. So.
Howe: 3.
Franks: 3. Next time they come back there will be 2. You know when I think of this intersection also
being a gateway into our community and looking that they have their 12 to 14 unit whatever they call
them, village homes and their rental townhomes, right on the comer and they're looking like the 3 story
side poking right up there, is not necessarily kind of the view shed that I'd want to create coming into our
town as well. You know we've at first talked about a 2 V2 acre lot and I know that some of us even felt we
were compromising at that and agonizing about how to deal with their issues of density so they could pull
out the development but you know this is very disappointing to see this come through. I was just visiting a
similar townhome development in Eagan and the place was over mn with children and they're playing in
the driveways and in the streets because there's no place for them to be, and even in their own material
here they're suggesting that there's going to be children living here. So I would really like to see some
work done on this. I'm hoping that their not being here tonight isn't an indication of where they feel this
development is going to go through as far as the planning department and especially City Council, and I'll
make that comment seeing you out in the audience Mayor. I hope they're just not feeling that this is a
done deal because I think at least from my perspective being on the park and rec commission, that this is
not at all going to serve the needs of the people that are living there. I could rant on a little bit longer but I
think I've mn out of breath.
Lash: I think you made your point.
Franks: Do you want me to try again?
Lash: Have you made your point?
Franks: Yes.
Lash: Okay. I guess I would agree with Rod on his comments. I really would want to see some kind of a
plan of what they're proposing for the totlot before I would want to make any kind of recommendation that
this be approved. I do like that they have tried to incorporate a few little green spaces in here, but my fear
is that this will tum out like Mission Hills over on 101 and I think we've had the opportunity to drive
through there as a commission a couple of times and see how that's over mn with children and you get into
a development like this, an association, and there are so many mles. You can't have a basketball net by
your garage. You can't have any kind of a play stmcture if you even have any kind of a yard, which a lot
of them don't. So really the only thing for any of those kids to do is to go and find some kind of a little
playground and they need to be easily accessible and they need to be of adequate size and they need to be
adequately equipped. And I'm not convinced at this point that they've met any of those just yet.
20
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
However, I would like to make also as a part of our discussion the look at Outlot E as far as the, how did
you say that was going to be operated Todd?
Hoffman: Conservation easement.
Lash: Conservation easement, which means?
Hoffman: Can't be developed in the future.
Lash: By anyone?
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: I would like to see if there would be some opportunity for us to pursue Outlot E in a different avenue
rather than a conservation easement, but end up with the potential of city ownership of that. And I'm not
sure what's involved with that but I'd like to see what could happen. Okay? And I would be done. Fred.
Berg: We've had so many developers come through here and tell us that you don't need to have any play
areas because it's going to be empty nesters. You don't need to have any play areas because there's only
going to be 2.3 people living in every one of these things and you don't need to have any worry about it
because we built these things before and they're successful all across the country. We need to, I think we
have an obligation to the people who are going to be living in these 383 units, and if they are park
deficient, and we do set that as a priority, which obviously we do, I think we have to sit down with this
developer and, like we've done with other developers, hash things out and come to some sort of win/win
situation if at all possible. And right now it's the city and the citizens in this area lose. That's all.
Lash: Thank you. This may be meeting City Council's request from last time or the Planning
Commission's request from last time. I do not feel like this is meeting the Park and Rec's request from last
time so that can go onto whoever is going to look at this. Jay.
Karlovich: I think at the last time that Pulte was here I had at least as strong opinion. It appears as though
that Outlot E is a triangulated piece of property that I don't even know if it's served by sewer and water. I
don't know if Route 41 is the MUSA but even if it isn't, it's obviously something they don't want to spend
any money on and want to give us the triangulated piece across of Highway 41. It looks nice to get
$500,000 but I think our comprehensive plan tells us that we should be, instead of grabbing $500,000 and
using it someplace else, we should be getting at least 5 acres here and providing those children with a park
plan. And I think a good example of that is Longacres to the north. They put in two parks, even though
they're right next to Galpin Park so this is just totally inadequate and I don't understand why Pulte
wouldn't even show up at this meeting. That's it.
Lash: Thanks Jay. Jim.
Manders: Following in the line of the half mile radius in terms of being the other kind of a service area,
makes it all the more important that we adequately service this area. And in terms of bordering
developments. IfI look across 5 to the east it's going to be industrial or whatever in that area. If you look
to the west it's the Arboretum which is likely not going to be developed. And you look all the way around
it, there isn't a lot of other development other than this in terms of residential in that area so, I think that
focus has to be in this area. And looking at the design of how this is set up, minimally I would say you
side of that West 78 because that's going to be a busy enough road
want two sizeable areas, one on either th
so you'd want some kind of an area on one side of that and another area on the other side. Unless you're
21
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
going to make one big area, then you've got to pick and choose where you're going to put it and then the
people have to cross the street and you're going to have complaints there so, either you're going to have
complaints one way or you're going to have one big area. But minimally we have to service this group I
think within this area and I don't see that happening right now. So I totally reject it.
Lash: Anybody need to say anything else?
Franks: Todd, on Outlot E. We talked about the wooded area and the wetland area. How much of that
Outlot E is developable in any way?
Hoffman: 75%.
Franks: And that's what, about 11 acres? Outlot E.
Hoffman: You look at it there and also 75% of it is fully wooded. This triangle was identified as one of
the sites in the park and open space acquisition study for acquisition for preservation of woods. So it was
looked at as a desirable parcel by park task force 3, 4, 5 years ago.
Franks: And that's what I understand from what I read. That they're getting their value out of Outlot E by
transferring density.
Hoffman: Yes.
Karlovich: Just seeing the developers that I work with with regards to multi family housing like this, the
value of their property once they get their approvals through, it's on a per unit basis and depending on how
many units they can possibly squeeze into here, that drives up the value but as a park and recreation
commission member I would think that I would be willing to give up, give them more density. At least
give us a park though in this area to service the 400, about 400 units and all the children in there. And I
think that's part of our comprehensive plan that we need to have some place for them to go. They're not
going to go across 41. They can't get through to Longacres. They can't get across Highway 5. The only
other options is to earmark the property to the east and say we're going to let this guy go and we're going
to take a park from the property to the east.
Hoffman: And the property to the east will be single family most like. Perhaps not but that would be more
difficult. It's going to be a very similar discussion that you had this evening.
Karlovich: It just appears as though we'd really be shurking our duties to let this go without a park and
then just pocket the $500,000 but, and I know it'd be nice. We have a lot of other places and trails and
different things that we can spend that on but we'd be doing a disservice to 400 units here and.
Hoffman: To get another viewpoint on it, our park standard is 1 acre per 75 people at the essential nexus
and if you think about 380 units, you're going to have 600 folks, you know give or take. Your acreage is
about 6 acres per our park standard.
Manders: And a typical neighborhood park is, size wise, 8 acres.
Hoffman: Minimum 5. Something like Sugarbush where we've got 5 acres.
Howe: Is there anything in Chanhassen that's similar to this size right now? Mission Hills isn't as big as
it?
22
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Hoffman: No.
Franks: It's 200.
Howe: Not even close.
Lash: Well what happened in Mission Hills as far as park facilities for that area is just a crime. And it's
so easy to see now. So for that mistake to be repeated would be.
Hoffman: Remember how hard you fought just to get what you got?
Lash: Right.
Manders: In terms of this Outlot E. In terms of the accessibility and usability of that, it just seems to me,
unless you have an underpass going under 41 that you're never going to use that area.
Hoffman: No.
Manders: And that probably won't happen either. Isn't there an underpass planned further up the road or
something?
Hoffman: Potentially yeah. It's supposed to go to.
Manders: No, further up 41.
Berg: Oh, yeah. The regional park.
Lash: Well they have no desire really to build on that, do they?
Hoffman: This triangle?
Lash: Yes.
Hoffman: No.
Manders: No, but I mean for the city to use it somehow. How are we going to use it other than look at it
and drive by? I'm not saying there's a problem with that but I mean in terms of using it for this area, we
can't.
Franks: Well they can't build on it.
Hoffman: No. Under the current scenario it would be owned by the association under a conservation
easement and there's all sorts of, you play that out, there's all sorts of, you know will it go tax forfeiture.
What value would they see in it? Why would the association want to own it into the future? So would it
come back to the City as a tax forfeit parcel? And if you don't put a conservation easement over it, 10
years from now somebody can come in and say hey. Why don't we, let's do something down in that comer
you know. There's nothing going on there and convince future city elected officials or appointed officials
that they should be able to do that. So a conservation easement is the minimum. If you look to city
23
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
ownership, then the applicant is going to say well, you can obtain some value from that in the future and so
we want to be compensated for that. That will be their initial response but.
Manders: All I'm thinking is, is there any way that we can utilize that space to service this neighborhood?
Hoffman: Not unless you drive by.
Manders: Yeah, exactly.
Karlovich: Well one of the things that I was even, if the applicant was here, you know there's different
options. You could even orient a park maybe, not 8 acres or even 5 or maybe even a little bit less on the
east property line with the thought that when the guy next door comes in to plat, there's going to be a little
expansion to the park. Do you see what I'm trying to suggest as even an option to say we'll take. Now on
the cash instead of, in lieu of. If we do a 4 acre dedication, do we still get a quarter of a million then?
Hoffman: Approximately. But you would most likely dedicate some of that to develop the park.
Manders: I can see some sense in that but you're still going to need an area in this inside loop between 78th
and this comer. You need something in there.
Karlovich: Yeah but I wouldn't feel as though I was tuming my back so much even if they gave us 4 acres
up here, 4 acres over here, and there was a sidewalk where these kids could get across and get over there.
And when the developer to the east comes in, maybe get another 4 acres over there and have a nice 8 acre
neighborhood park that is shared by the single family home and the multi family. If that's what the game
plan is here and then even for this developer over here to have single family homes, they probably feel
better about having that buffer zone between them and the multi family.
Lash: Did you say that's Lundgren next door?
Hoffman: Most likely, could be. Wouldn't be their favorite topic.
Lash: No. No. Jay, you haven't been here. So just so you know that it'd be, it's a nice idea but it would
be difficult to negotiate with them I think.
Hoffman: I understand the message that you want to send the developer and I'll sit down with those folks
and go through that. There's dozens of logistical issues that we could go round and round with here
tonight but the fact is you're going to table this and send it back to the applicant and we'll have those
conversations.
Berg: To accept his plan is to reject the philosophy that we've been operating under for certainly as many
years as I've been here. And as long as probably as you can remember the city has had as their
comprehensive plan. To reject that now seems terribly silly.
Hoffman: Sure.
Lash: What about, you know I like Jim s idea that the new West 78 Street kind of splits this whole thing
so, I don't even know ifI like this idea but I'm trying to think of a compromise. If instead of going with 3
totlots you went with 2 play areas. 1 in each ofthe 2 main areas but then they were bigger in size and
better equipped. At least they'd be more accessible and the kids wouldn't have to cross the street but, and
maybe they'd be better, bigger in size if we did that.
24
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Franks: I'm not interested in doing the developer's work and if they were really interested in getting some
work done, they certainly had our comments from the last time they were here before this commission and
they certainly could have showed up tonight. And I think we've shown ourselves to be more than willing
to work with any applicant to try and work things out so, if the applicant wants to come here and work on a
compromise issue or try to deal with what our concems are and us understand what their concems are and
try to work something out, I'm all in favor of that. But I'm not interested in doing their work for them.
I'm wondering a little bit Todd about Outlot E again. Is there, just because I don't quite understand these
things and maybe Jay, you can help me too. Is there benefit tax wise to developers to seed these properties
to a government entity? I mean is there any kind of gain that they get?
Karlovich: No. I mean at the time of plat, the reason you have a platting process is to get all your
easements at that time, whether it's for roadway or park or other purposes.
Franks: Well I guess what I'm thinking after it's done and the association owns the Outlot E, is there
benefit to the association then to transfer ownership of that to the City as far as what's.
Karlovich: Probably a non-profit association anyways so it's not going to help them out at all. Developer,
if the developer wants to get density in units and you know, Pulte I guess develops it itself but other
developers, they go in and get approvals and then they sell the density that they have.
Franks: Are the conservation easements placed for a period of years subject to review or are they?
Hoffman: You can write them a number of different ways. Most of them are perpetual. Obviously the
applicant gains something. They don't have to spend money, invest money to develop that Outlot E and so
they gain there but in trade off`for that as part of the PUD they leave it open. And they're moving density
across the street but the rezoning that they're applying for, you don't have to grant them that but if you do,
if you buy off`that that's what they should be, they're still not maximizing that and certainly that's part of
their strategy as well. To seek the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council, and this is
what we're seeking but again recognize we're not maximizing, we're not pushing it to the limit.
Lash: What is abutting Outlot E? Is that Camp Tanadoona?
Hoff`man: Yeah, to the north across the street and then the church, Westwood Church owns the property to
the west.
Karlovich: What is happening with the construction or condemnation or the dedication of West 78th Street
at this point?
Hoffman: At that location, I believe the applicant would give it to the State and the City as part of their
plat.
Karlovich: But is there a cat and mouse game going on that, I want to put my development plans through
but I'm going to make you condemn the property?
Hoffman: Sure there is. Sure.
Karlovich: That's the reason why the applicant isn't even here? It's just for condemnation purposes.
25
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Hoffman: Oh, I don't know that to be the case. It's certainly a potential but if these approvals are not met
and approvals do not go through, then yeah. You're back having, needing to require that right-of-way
through condemnation. That's why the State of Minnesota right now is starting on the east end of Highway
5 where they intended to start on the west end. But they're starting out at the Lake Ann Park side because
they don't have this issue resolved.
Lash: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion?
Howe: I move we table this issue until the applicant comes forth with more information. More detail.
Lash: Is there a second to that?
Franks: Second.
Howe moved, Franks seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table the request for
Arboretum Village, Pulte Homes until the applicant comes forth with more information and detail on
the plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVE PROPOSED 2001 PARK AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
Hoffman: Thank you Chair Lash, members of the commission. You have discussed the 2001 CIP at
previous meetings. My reason to bring it back is that as we develop annual budgets as we go through a
year, ideas are either brought to my attention by the citizenry or just through my management of the capital
budget. So I have some recommendations to discuss with the commission to get your reaction. You can go
anyway you'd like on these capital part of the budgets comes, discussion with the council always follows
the operations and maintenance and general operating budgets so we have some time to work these things
through. Funding for the Highway 101 south corridor between Chanhassen Hills and Bandimere Park is
identified in next year's CIP. I'm recommending that the commission postpone that project and reallocate
that $200,000 to the Highway 101 north trail project if it is needed. Currently there's a lot of things
unclear about the 101 north trail plan, and one of those is will there be funding, park and trail funding
necessary to complete the project. Currently it's thought that that may be the case because some of the
other funding sources are drying up based offofwhat kind of project it will be. Who's driving the project.
Does the trail project include a road or not include a road. The major one there is if the trail project does
not include the road, then some funding.., go away for the city and so there would need to be another
avenues there to finance that. Then you would look to moving the Highway 101 south trail into a future
year. This is consistent with the commission's comprehensive plan. The Highway 101 north trail is
identified as one segment. Has been for a dozen years and has been by-passed for those same dozen years
due to the issues with the road and the complexity of that. Other projects that are recommended, the
commission proposed for the funding in 2001 include the Marsh trail connector. I'll show you in this city
map what happens to that. We reviewed it a couple of meetings ago. Met with the applicant. It's just
north of Mission Hills. So the developer is Mr. Kroiss. This road is connecting down and then cul-de-
sacing. We have an existing trail right at that location between Lake Susan and Rice Marsh and what is
proposed is to connect those to a trail and then a connector to that street. If you'll recall, Mr. Kroiss had
no interest in making this connection right here. He wanted the city to do that and then for the city to
construct this trail. It's appropriate when we have development going on to go ahead and finance the
construction of that trail. The timing is right. Currently as proposed we would have it engineered by a
consulting engineer. City crews would complete the construction of the trail base and then we would hire
an asphalt company to go ahead and install the asphalt. Ballpark estimate is in the $50,000 range.
26
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Something like that. It may go a little higher depending on what type of crossing we need at the creek, and
that's right at that location. You can see the creek there. We can install a culvert with permits. That's
going to keep the cost down. If we have to go to a bridge, obviously that can drive it up $10,000 or
$20,000. Soagain, this is a method of completing trail in segments. It would service all ofthe Mission
Hills neighborhood at present and then in the future this trail will wrap around an existing easement on the
Tigua Lane lots and then continue into Eden Prairie through property which is currently owned by MnDot
and that we hope is tumed back to us as a part of the 212 platting process as open space. That's how the
comprehensive plan identified that. Those remnant parcels, you when you call them remnant parcels
they're fairly large but how else would you, how would you access these parcels for development and those
types of things so, it's our hope that the state will tum those back to the city for open space. And then the
trail connection would wrap around through. City Center Park tennis court improvements. These tennis
courts up here are about 6 or 8 years past replacing. The last time we looked at that we elected against the
contractor's advice to repair them. That lasted about 9 years. The cracks are back. I talked with the
school district and they'd be willing, either this year or next year to attempt to come up with that 50%
share of $40,000 for each. New park mles signs, if you recall those signs are nearly 10 years old now. The
brown sign. The large ones...even as a law abiding citizen I couldn't see the signs. It tends to lead them
with a little bit of sympathy for the folks who are committing the violation. The recreation center wall
sign. Currently we have that banner up there which is very well received. Some council members inquired
why don't we just go ahead and put a permanent sign on that side of the building.
Berg: Gee, where'd they ever come up with that idea.
Lash: I thought there was an ordinance so that we couldn't.
Hoff`man: We can put signage on there. We can't have a temporary sign up there. Only for a short period
of time so. Covered shelter seating area and access improvements at the skate park. If you notice this
evening they finished the second phase access. Spectators are only going to increase. Currently we're
leaving a very, the one maple tree there that is not diseased provides 100% of the shade. The remainder of
them are dying and so we're kind of teetering on the edge of not having any spectator space. The vast
majority of the parents who come sit undemeath that maple tree. We also have, since we cut off`access to
the fire station and school for parking, we have a very poor access. We have to walk up the steep side
slope for people to get to this thing out of the parking lot from city hall. I think it would, as one of the
most popular recreation amenities in the city to have, it'd be to our best interest to improve the access point
at that location. Potentially put a covered shelter at that comer so there is some shade on the asphalt for
the spectators and the users.
Lash: What did you have in mind? I just can't envision what you're talking about.
Hoff`man: Just take the picnic shelter. Small picnic shelter. Octagon or rectangle and put it right there in
that comer.
Lash: Or something like we put at Power Hill?
Hoff`man: Yeah.
Lash: One of those kinds of things?
Hoff`man: You just put it right on the asphalt. Put tables undemeath it. We need additional picnic tables.
These picnics use about, some of them up to 30 picnic tables on any individual day and what we find
ourselves doing is transporting them from one location to another. And the other people are, we're robbing
27
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Peter to pay Paul and we do damage to our tables. Waste receptacles. Just so you're clear of my opinion
of our current waste receptacles. I think the blue barrels are trash themselves and ifI could throw them
into one and just tell them to take them away, I'd tell them to take it away but, the history of trash barrels
in the city of Chanhassen is, the vast majority of communities have 55 gallon drums. That's what
everybody has. You know just weld head 55 gallon metal drums. We paint them brown. They look pretty
decent but they rust out and they have long term maintenance effects. Constantly rusting out the bottom.
They're heavy to lift for the maintenance people. We have injuries. Workman's comp that we deal with.
So then we come back to these blue barrels which are just awful to look at so we would like to come up
and phase in an approach. So we'll start in Lake Ann, Lake Susan. You know Bandimere and then work
out to our neighborhood parks over the years with some kind of a manageable, attractive waste receptacle.
And then tree planting. I still believe we can plant more trees throughout our park system. It's one of the
most common calls that I receive at my office is why don't we have more trees. You're a park department.
Roundhouse Park is a fine example. We haven't planted a single tree in there since we developed the site.
There were some existing trees but $5,000 doesn't go very far but it, I'd like to do some every year. So
those are additional recommendations or considerations for the commission in 2001 and I'd be interested
to hear your thoughts.
Berg: Are the grills that we planned for all in?
Hoffman: I don't know if they're all in. I talked to Dean the other day and we reconfirmed their location.
Berg: So we don't have to worry about that?
Hoffman: No.
Lash: What does that do to our budget?
Hoffman: It drives it up about $100,000 or more. More than that. So you're going to have to pick and
choose.
Lash: All totaled, not really going to do them all? You're proposing that?
Hoffman: We've got $200,000 in trail allocation and that's a potential expenditure. You don't know if it
will or won't occur but you have to account for it. Then you add up these others already and I didn't do
the math but we're already to $100,000 there or close to, and then the two things that are missing here,
again another $60,000 or $75,000 so you're starting at $375,000 with a fund balance of a million two.
Something like that. So it's aggressive.
Karlovich: I'm not clear on, with regards to our budget. I thought we had about $200,000-$250,000 for
each year.
Hoffman: That's what the commission has traditionally said, you know with our revenue generating
somewhere between $200,000-$250,000, a little higher in a good year.
Karlovich: And all we were going to do in 2001 was mostly the south trail.
Hoffman: The trail, yep.
Karlovich: So we'd be giving up $200,000 and then we're, and pushing that out to what? Who knows
28
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Hoffman: Who knows when. If you push it up to next year then you bump the shelter building at City
Center off`to the next year so it just starts the perpetual slide. I can tell you that the council right now is
dealing with long term debt and that the debt situation for this community is not rosy and so I would not
expect that you'll see items like the Lake Ann Park road construction, re-construction going on the back
on the general fund. I don't see those types of expenditures happening in the future. Things are going to
tighten up. There's certainly growth continuing in this community but we've also as a city sold a lot of
debt that is going to be coming due so we need to be careful with where you spend your money.
Karlovich: So it appears as though we're chopping out 200 and then we have a list of about 100 possible
expenditures.
Hoff`man: Yep.
Karlovich: So our budget for 2001 would go down from 200 to tOO?
Lash: Then we have to reallocate the $200,000 right off`the bat to north 101. So that's really pretty much
all of the budget. We're just moving it from south to north.
Karlovich: But is the north 101 happening?
Hoff`man: Don't know.
Manders: But we're reserving.
Lash: I thought at the last meeting you said it was going out for bid. They were going to start in the spring
and try to be done by August.
Hoff`man: That was the proposed schedule. Whether or not that will occur I don't know.
Lash: So if it happens.
Karlovich: I guess I'm just not clear, I'm not clear if we're spending 300 or 100.
Hoffman: You can decide Jay. You can spend 300. You can spend 200. You're capital budget is a
recommendation from this body to the City Council and then they will decide if they want to support that
or if they want to change it.
Lash: Well I guess until we know if the tOt thing is going to happen. If the 101 thing is going to happen,
that pretty much takes up the whole budget. If it isn't going to happen in 2001, then we've got the
$200,000 back again. Then it wouldn't be a problem to do all of these things. And then it would just
come out of the next year's budget. Correct?
Hoff`man: Well it all depends on how you want to structure your budget. I mean you can spend $300,000
next year and you know spend valuable reserve or. I mean you can spend St00,000 the next year. The
money which is available, you're artificially setting a budget of $200,000. You don't have to do that.
You can, if you feel the opportunity is here to complete a project, yeah. You have to reserve the $200,000
but do you want to do anything else? That's up to the commission to make a recommendation on. You
could spend that half a million dollars next year if you wanted to.
29
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Franks: We could recommend spending.
Hoffman: Yes, we could recommend.
Lash: I say we spend it all and then resign. Let somebody else figure it out.
Berg: My sense is, these are not superfluous requests or recommendations and if we wait to do the tennis
courts for another 5 years, it's going to be a lot more than $40,000. And who knows if the district will go
along with it then. I say if these things need to be done, we do them. We do them now because we don't
know about the future.
Howe: I agree.
Manders: So if my numbers are right, what we're talking about is potentially $200,000 for north trail.
$97,000 in this group of stuffat the bottom, and the $20,000 moving up from 2003 to 2001 for Stone
Creek. So that's.
Howe: Plus the Marsh Glen trail is almost, we're thinking 50. That's not in there, right?
Karlovich: I feel like a liver.
Berg: Just temporary.
Franks: You're living in the wrong town.
Manders: So that Marsh Glen, that was $50,000?
Lash: We're talking about $170,000.
Franks: Todd, what is the demand for the Marsh Glen. The trail for that is not covered under park and
trail fees?
Hoffman: No. It won't be. The total cost won't be covered by it. No, it's a community connector. Once
it wraps all the way around Rice Marsh, it not only serves that development. It's identified on our
comprehensive trail plan as a city of Chanhassen trail link. The whole community's going to make that run
around Rice Marsh. Not just for the development.
Franks: But it's a trail connector though.
Hoffman: Yeah, that little stub?
Franks: That stub. They're constructing that or they're not constructing that?
Hoffman: We're constructing it.
Franks: And they're reimbursing the city.
Hoffman: Yeah, we're using their fees to do it.
Franks: Alright. That's not what I understood you to say.
30
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Howe: If you add all those up and add Stone Creek back in you're at about $367,000.
Lash: Yep. That's what I got.
Hoffman: This is why you passed a referendum in '97.
Manders: To do these?
Franks: Well I agree that the north 101 trail segment is just, has been completely needed for so long and
although, I'm not so sure that it will happen next year, I think as a body, well I'd be okay as a part of this
body of really kind of getting behind getting that project done. And if it means moving our $200,000 up
from 101 south to kind of get on the train for 101 north, I'd be in favor of that. At the same time I think
that we can go ahead and look at doing some of these other things because we're not sure that exactly that
trail's going to be built next year.
Lash: Well if we decide to transfer the money or not, is it a moot point because if we don't it's just going
to be taken out of that fund anyway, is it not? I mean it really isn't going to make any difference what we
say. They need the money to build 101 so it's going to come from somewhere.
Hoffman: But if you transfer it up and they don't need it, they're not going to take it. This city has a long
history of preserving park dedication funds at the benefit of doing other projects. So if there's road money
available, they'll make it happen. A good example of that is the recent Highway 5 funding, and I think
that's on this agenda later on where originally they wanted a hundred and some thousand out of it and they
carved that back down to approximately $30,000 so.
Lash: Okay, who wants to make a motion?
Franks: Can I just say one quick thing? The skate park improvements. Can you just break that down for
me. We're looking at a group of $35,000 plus the covered shelter like at Rice Marsh Lake that's.
Hoffman: $10,000.
Franks: That was $10,000 shelter?
Hoffman: You need about $15,000 for access improvements. The stairway and.
Franks: But I though that shelter for $10,000 included the concrete pad.
Hoffman: Correct.
Franks: But what you're saying is we'd put the shelter right over the top of the asphalt.
Hoffman: Yep. There'd be some cost savings there. We're talking round numbers.
Franks: Okay. And then seeding, we're talking about more of the benches that are there already?
Hoffman: Or picnic tables.
Franks: Or picnic tables.
31
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Hoffman: Permanently mounted.
Franks: And then the access improvement would be?
Hoffman: A stairway.
Franks: A stairway, okay.
Karlovich: One question. What about the design of the north Highway 101 trail? Are we having any
input into that or is that set or does it go down to like?
Hoffman: It's gone.
Lash: Where were you? We had that 15 minutes to look at it and make comments.
Karlovich: I thought there was some goofiness in the trail and it went down to like 3 feet or something in
some areas.
Lash: I don't know that it goes down to 3 feet. There certainly is some compromise in the trail to get it
through there. Who wants to make a motion.
Karlovich: I'll make a motion to recommend to the City Council that we amend the Capital Improvement
Plan for 2001 to include everything that the Park and Recreation Director has recommended to us.
Number one, moving the $20,000 from Stone Creek Park Phase II play area from 2003 to 2001. Also
changing the funding for the Highway 101 trail from the south corridor to the north trail project. If it goes
through. Then in addition to that, eight other items beginning with Marsh Glen trail connector, awaiting
estimate with the thought that it would be about $50,000. The City Center Park tennis court improvements
at a 50% share for $40,000. New park rules signs at $4,000. The Recreation Center wall sign, awaiting
estimate, and we're not sure how much that is. $5,000. Covered shelter, seating, access improvements at
skate park, $35,000. Picnic tables, $4,000. Waste receptacles, $9,000. Tree planting, $5,000. Withthe
thought that in 2001 we're going to have expenditures of about $370,000 which is much more than a
normal budget but with the unknown status of the north trail project, it might end up being a normal year
around $200,000.
Howe: Can you repeat that? I didn't understand.
Hoffman: One of the best motions I've heard.
Howe: Very thorough.
Lash: Anybody want to second that?
Howe: I would love to second that motion.
Karlovich moved, Howe seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the following
amendments to the proposed 2001 Park and Trail Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement
Plan:
· Reallocate funding from THi01 South trail segment to North trail segment $200,000
32
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
· Moving funding for Stone Creek Park Phase II play area from 2003 to 2001 $20,000
· Marsh Glen Trail Connector (awaiting estimate) $50,000
· City Center Park Tennis Court Improvement (4) 50% share $40,000
· New Park Rules Signs $4,000
· Recreation Center Wall Sign (Hwy 5 Side) (awaiting estimate) $5,000
· Covered Shelter/Seating/Access Improvements at Skate Park $35,000
· Picnic Tables $4,000
· Waste Receptacles $9,000
· Tree Planting $5,000
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REPORTS:
Dave Huffman 5K Memorial Race.
Adult Fall Softball.
4th of July Celebration Evaluation.
Howe: I'll speak to this. Jerry's still sick, isn't he?
Hoffman: He's got strep throat.
Howe: Chair Lash, members of the commission. Just coming from a meeting last night, I had a few things.
I wish I had had shirts. The shirts are almost ready. I wanted to have your shirts for you before the race
because the race will have been completed before we meet again. I cannot say enough about the people
from Americhm's and how hard that they work and get things done. In fact the President of that company
is giving $5,000 of his own money to make sure, and the Boy Scouts were at this meeting and the woman
almost fell off`her chair and we're going to be giving them a minimum of $3,500. That's a minimum. And
they are really working hard. They've got Joe Schmidt signed up. We'll have a Viking's player it looks
like, to be named. Someone who played in the Huff`man years. It's just coming together and we're starting
to get 4 to 5 runners a day now. We're at about 60 runners, but that's going to mushroom I think in the
next few weeks. The course has been certified. They did change it a little bit. We're starting further up in
Lake Ann now. We're going to start near the...curve by the stop sign is right. Instead of going down
Santa Vera, we're going up one more block I believe. So a few changes there but Jerry's worked really
hard. I wish we had the hill personally.
Franks: The hill would have been good.
Howe: I will try to get when the shirts come in, I'll try to give them to Todd and you can come and get
one. We still need some volunteers for the day if you're not going to run. There's some things we can do
that I will be calling you personally and asking you for, but it's going very well and we'll hear more on this
later in a personal phone call from me. Thank you.
Lash: So how can we sign up for this deal?
Howe: You going to run or do you want to volunteer? You'll get a shirt either way.
Berg: We're competitors Michael.
33
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Howe: I knew that.
Berg: See the fire in these eyes?
Lash: We just said that we're not really much for running but we'd like to.
Berg: We're going to start and we're going to finish.
Howe: I'm impressed.
Moes: Is there an official start time?
Howe: 9:00 Saturday moming.
Franks: How about 8:30 for some others?
Howe: We'll find a way. I would say just go to the Americlnn right there and go to the front desk and
they can sign you right up. They have them all.
Lash: So that's where the sign up is?
Howe: You can go there.
Lash: Or you can go?
Howe: You can go online...
Lash: But it's not at city hall?
Howe: What?
Lash: Sign up.
Howe: No. It's at the Americlnn. And it's online too.
Manders: It's on the Chanhassen web site as well.
Lash: Well thanks Mike. Awesome presentation.
Howe: Very exciting. Thank you.
Lash: Okay. Anybody else have anything on that? And Jerry gave us a nice little report on the fall
softball. And Tracy, it's your tum.
Peterson: Thank you Chair Lash. It seems like ages since this happened so. We tried to get it done last
month but didn't. I have the evaluation for you. I think just a couple comments and thoughts. First of all
for those of you that helped, thank you very much. It was a great, great second year for me and you guys
were instrumental in helping with the prize board and making that tent area run smoothly and quickly. So I
thank you for that. I think just some of my comments, a couple of these items as we go down the list here.
My comments about the trade fair. I've had some frustration with that piece of it and I think that that can
34
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
be alleviated by getting, if we're going to continue to work with the Chamber on that, to get somebody
that's a lead person. That's actually physically there that day that knows what's going on both logistically
and who's going to be there. What happens when they get there and things that we had all that information
and we don't, we have the general layout but beyond that we don't. So either we have to become more
involved in that or get them to up the ante on their part on that day so I think that that, and their space is
becoming tight as well, and they continue to somehow kind of creep and creep and if you noticed, the set
up this year was much different...went all the way down that, which would have been on the north side.
So that's just something that we'll have to kind of keep an eye on and look at so that was my comments
there. I think my other comments, obviously with the camival games. We could probably run double the
amount that we have. Just the little ones that we do that the kids participate in, we could have double or
triple and I think it would still, really still be successful. Again it comes down to having volunteers for
that, for those events. Kind of moving down, I thought the rest of it, the things went down on that second
page. In terms of the few vendors, I think obviously we had a much different day than we had the year
before where it was hot and this year we had a pretty cool day and the vendors, it was extremely, we sold
out and I think my vendor comments kind of gear into more of my general comments about maybe doing
some re-arranging of. I think they're fine there but for example the Boy Scouts, I think we need to move
them up towards the rest of the vendors. They're hidden back there and I think the beer truck and that is
fine in that area. People tend to know where that is but I think to move them out with the rest of the
vendors would be appropriate and then in terms of space issues, either if we're going to add vendors or
we're going to try to, I still wasn't happy with. I mean there's so many people there and I think with just
trying to operate on that City Center Drive, you know I still wasn't really pleased with the crowd control or
the trafficking but there's not much that you can do so we have to maybe look at you know for example
moving the Kaptain Kirby rides and using that prime library spot as vendor space. Or moving the water
horse and doing something with them so I think there's some potential there to make improvements, but
those were just I think some of my comments on that. But the vendors continue to be pleased and one of
the things they ask is, you know why isn't it two days and they know that we have the parade and that kind
of gets toward my end comments. Other than that I think...the three new events that we did, that I did out
in the City Center Park I thought were successful. I think it made good use of that park area and I think
people figured out that there was activity up there and there's certainly no more space to do more things up
there so. In terms of doing events up there, obviously we don't have great access to power and electricity
but in terms of doing other events, I think that there's potential for that. My other comment would be the
street dance. Obviously Casablanca, I've already booked them. They're all set to go and I think that their
only request was that our staging issue be rectified and eliminate any further injuries that they've had.
What they're saying is that that stage is just, it's too wobbly for them and so they need something and
they've confident that we can get something, and whether we get it donated or we have to, and we did
budget for some changes in that, that we can make that a better situation from that. So that was their only
request for us for that so other than that they were pleased. I think just the rest of, again we had the
comments when Mayor Mancino was here last month about the fireworks and whether that, would the City
Council decide to continue with the $20,000 or if they'll bump us back down to the $14,500 so that's
something that they'll have to decide. Unfortunately I thought they were pretty good and you set a
precedent now again so, it will be interesting to see what happens with that. Other than that, I think kind
of my final comments, and you guys can certainly give feedback on that is when I was standing at the
parade, and you've got so many people down there, and you've got that big tent that's not being used in
that area and I know for the parade the vending and the food is an issue. Those were just some of my
thoughts about making use of that site on that day and I'm not sure that that's feasible. Maybe for portions
of time and you know obviously it might involve some additional costs...it may not. But those were just
some of my thoughts to make use of, you get all those people downtown and they're down and I'd like to
see something there. I think at least spending 2 years down at Lake Ann on that day I think the fishing
contests are wonderful. I would definitely keep those. But I think, and maybe just some light
entertainment but beyond that people want to just kind of do their own thing down there and I don't see a
35
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
lot of need for structured activities down at Lake Ann. So I think we can maybe keep, for example we
could keep the treasure hunt but some of the other stuff, although it's possible we don't have a great, I
didn't see a really great response to it and people just kind of want to picnic and barbeque and do their
own thing on that day and hang out and wait for the fireworks. So those are just some of my thoughts and I
guess I would be open to your comments or suggestions or input for next year.
Howe: Just one thing. The vendors, they were good. I bet they're making a lot of money but I waited in
line about an hour and I heard, the only complaints I had the whole weekend were the people waiting in
line, and I wondered. That's fine but if you went to say, and I know power is a problem. The hook-ups for
some of these guys. If you went to Subway and Quizzo's and Blimpie and said you guys, you should make,
the day before make 500 six inch subs and throw them in a cooler, and there'd be no lines. It's like take
your money and go instead of I want a hamburger medium and I want 3 hotdogs and it takes me 5 minutes
and I'm back in line. Just a thought. And the vendors may not like that because you're cutting them off`at
the knees but I missed, dad was waiting in line and everybody else was playing. And I got that out of the
whole line so just a thought that there's local people who I think could fill some of that void. Pizza you
know. Just an idea.
Peterson: I think there's some other avenues that we're going to need to pursue because that's clear that,
even increasing the vendors by a couple isn't cutting it. At least for this year, and you know obviously
with the weather the way it was and obviously it falling now on weekdays now here a little bit, that may
have been a factor but you're right. I think that's an idea we have to start pursuing some different avenues
for that.
Hoffman: The theme is increased capacity in all areas. Seating areas. Band stage. Food service. And we
need to increase the capacity because it's a great event but waiting in line for 45 minutes, we want people
to wait in line for 10 minutes and that's it. And the vendors will still be happy with the customers that they
receive. So we increase vendors again but we just got blown away.
Lash: Dave, do you have anything?
Moes: Nothing.
Lash: Rod?
Franks: Well, you know waiting outside of the Satellites in the evening, the mosquitoes were terrible so if
you could do something about that, that'd be. No serious. You know judging by the response that were
there on the 3rd and all the people and all the excitement, it became pretty clear to me that we're going to
outgrow...moving up there. And maintain some certain feel, some certain activities down at the City
Center with commons area. But really having the majority of the celebration up in City Center Park.
Lash: It used to be up there.
Franks: And when we moved into town, it used to be up there. Because there wasn't even grass in the city
commons area. It was just dirt. It was just dirt. And if the library gets built there, it's going to even
increase that available space even more so. And since we're going to, by necessity have to move up to
City Center Park, and we have the kind of response and the kind of numbers that we're getting, maybe it's
time. I know Fred, but maybe it's time.
Berg: Here it comes Jan.
36
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Lash: Oh it's not going to be camival rides?
Franks: It's time to start. It's time. It's time. It is time to consider it.
Berg: See if we can find all the sleeze bags in the world and get them to come to Chanhassen.
Franks: ...there was a time when you know the community's make-up was a little bit different than it is
now and the population was different than it is now and the participation in the event was different than it
is now. And what we're seeing now is some, we increase food vendors and we have even bigger lines than
we had before even though we're increasing our capacity so it might be time to really start thinking big.
Lash: Well really I don't know that our population has changed that much. It's just gotten bigger. My
kids were here when your kids weren't here. So your kids just replaced my kids. That's all. There's just
more. It's not that.
Franks: Well I always thought my kids were a replacement for me. But you know, we have had all had
experiences with a cami that have not been positive. But lately our family has had some fairly positive
experiences and one being that Carver County Fair for one. Which can show that camival attractions I
think can be done in a much more positive way than what our past memories as children think of people
with no teeth.., cigarettes with ashes. I mean when we were out there, they were all wearing the same
uniforms and green polo shirts and matching shorts and they had the carpeting out and they even had
potted plants around the rides and things. I mean they are making a real significant effort to update their
image and to really service families because frankly they know that's where the market is for their services
is with these types of families with the kids. That's where the money is.
Lash: Well except for the power problem.
Hoffman: They bring their own.
Lash: They bring all big generators.
Franks: They bring the generators .... I would really like us to entertain, and I don't know if Tracy, if you
or someone could do some research on exactly what the numbers would be. What the chances would be.
What the time lines are for actually getting a camival vendor in to be a part of that celebration. It's
probably too late already for next year.
Howe: Especially if you want a decent one.
Franks: Yeah, decent is what's necessary. To match the character of our community here. But I really
think it warrants a serious consideration and something that should be looked at. And washed hair. We
want washed hair.
Lash: I want green shirts and khaki shorts...
Franks: It's true. Did you go?
Howe: Oh absolutely.
Franks: It was great.
37
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Howe: Yeah.
Lash: Well we may be a competitor for Carver County Fair.
Franks: Different time of the year.
Manders: Is that in Waconia or where?
Lash: Yeah.
Howe: I went to the demolition derby the last night. It was fun. I sponsored a car.
Franks: But when you look at like comparable kind of situations. I'm not going to give up on this
completely. When you look at that little square city of Richfield that gave away most of their property to
other cities around them and the airport. When you look at the show that they put on and how successful it
is year after year on the 4th of July and how big it is, I think our size community could be equally as
successful celebration. Alright, done now.
Lash: Okay, thanks. I had the very same comments. Not all at the end but at the beginning of Rod's
comments about utilizing City Center and I was wondering if at least we started looking at, how can we
expand that and I thought maybe a natural beginning would be to have more of the kid activities up there.
The parade starts and ends there so if you move the water wars up there. The train. The pony. The
camival games and then have pretty much the beer and gambling down here.
Howe: The important things.
Lash: Yeah. But I had some suggestion and I wrote them down last month and then I forgot to bring them
so I was trying to remember. But I agreed with your comment because I had people coming up to me at
the, or after the parade saying you know, well what's going on? What are all those big tents over there for
and what's going on over there so there's nothing. That was last night so I just jotted down some ideas and
you know what you do with it is totally up to you but I was wondering, I thought it might be fun for us to
investigate, not camival rides, but something similar to, I hate to say this, Chaska when they do their taste
of Chaska. And maybe that is something that could follow and have the local food vendors have some
kind of little thing set up where it wouldn't be full sized subways but little mini ones that are cheap and
you can go around and just sample.
Karlovich: On a stick.
Lash: Yeah. Something like that. And then also l wondered ifthe Chamber would be interested in
moving from the night of the 3rd to the 4th.
Hoffman: No way.
Lash: After the parade? What if we did the Taste of Chan and had the Chamber of Commerce. That'd be
all, kind of all the business stuff at one time.
Hoffman: Tough to convince them to go to an event when they have such a successful evening but we can
talk about it.
Lash: Alright. And then I agreed with.
38
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Franks: With the camival?
Lash: No, not the camival. The little games, you know. I'm calling them camival games but you know
what they are. Maybe if we were to try and earlier in the year solicit the Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, the
APT. Maybe even some of the churches could do, would want to set up, a lot of them have their own
camival stuff and they could be fundraisers for them.
Franks: What was discussed was the Hockey Association.
Lash: Yeah, Hockey. The Snowmobile Club. I mean there's a lot of those different organizations that
like to fund raise. And then I also wondered if we want to entertain a, it seems to me like at Oktoberfest
we, somebody used to have Bingo. Who set up Bingo?
Hoffman: The City.
Lash: Was it the City? Because I thought it was the church or the Lions or the Rotary or somebody did it.
Hoffman: No, Rotary. Yeah.
Lash: But that would be huge, even if it was St. Hubert's or someone. That would be, people would love
to play Bingo.
Hoffman: It was the Rotary because Chmiel always called.
Lash: Yeah because he called. I didn't know if that was because he was Rotary or because he was the
Mayor. But and then another thing that's really popular with kids now are those temporary tattoos. Might
be something to go along with the caricatures. Yeah, Dippin Dots. Well after they go on the cami rides,
they're all going to want to have their own little Dippin Dots. Of course they're temporary. So anyway.
Hoffman: Bungy jumping?
Franks: Family bungy jumping.
Hoffman: They had it at Carver County.
Lash: And one of the things that I would suggest. I mean several people mentioned this to me because of
the long, long, long lines at the beer table for, who sets it up? The Rotary or.
Hoffman: Rotary.
Lash: A different configuration for them where they have the tables, four tables in a square and they work
in the middle.
Peterson: Configuration but it was also people. We noticed how they all went, when you went up there,
they all, they didn't have somebody just filling things and then. They had each person would, you know
you'd say I want 2 beers and they'd go back and they'd do it so... And I think if you eliminate the Boy
Scouts on that line and give the beer that whole side, some of that could be worked itself out.
Franks: Two trucks next year.
39
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Berg: The Boy Scouts, maybe move them a little bit away from the tent. It gets terribly congested.
Peterson: Well yeah, and then you don't have them actually in the tent. You're not taking up the space
within the tent.
Lash: And some ofthat is weather contingent... But ljust think it was great Tracy, youdidagreatjob.
Everything was very nicely done and I agree, we just have to keep kind of adding things and coming up
with things and making it even more fun. And keep exploring Dippin Dots.
Hoffman: Carver County Fair had them.
Lash: I know. Did you have them?
Hoffman: No. I was done.
Lash: Of course Jay really doesn't have anything to contribute because he wasn't here.
Berg: I think it's worth exploring but I think we have to have some philosophical discussions first about
where it takes the whole festival. I don't know what path it takes us down but I haven't seen the new and
improved camivals.
Franks: You'll have to check them out.
Berg: I think it changes the whole temper of the festival and that's what I'd like to have a discussion
about. Maybe I'm wrong. That's all.
Franks: What's the typical take, because the city gets a portion of what's their sales.
Hoffman: It's hard to say. I can look into it. They'd probably want us to pay them to start up a carnival.
They're going to want some guarantees. They don't know what their success is going to be. If they don't
meet the minimums, they're going to start pulling up and we won't see them next year.
Lash: Here's another thing that I was going to suggest for the Kiddie Parade. I'd love to see us try to
initiate, not that I'm not a competitive person by nature but I think it would be fun if neighborhoods would
come together and have like neighborhood awards so they, instead of having 87 little kids from Mike's
neighborhood come all with their bikes, they'd all work together and make one kind of, maybe float kind
of thing or something like that. And have a little competition for neighborhoods.
Berg: It's something we can talk about.
Lash: That changes the whole...
Franks: I'd like to know what path we're going down now.
Lash: Hey, if they're in preschool, soccer and basketball, they can come up with a parade.
Franks: I mean preschool, soccer and competition is not okay but parade competition is okay.
Lash: Yes.
40
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Franks: But only parade competition if you're over 6.
Lash: 7.
Hoffman: Who's going to be competing?
Franks: Adults.
Lash: Anyway, Jay do you have anything?
Karlovich: No. I apologize for not making it and I probably never will. I have a spouse that we do this
pilgrimage up to Detroit Lakes and god forbid, yeah I married into that. The family's up there for god
forbid ifI ever tried to not go up there. But anyways I'll pass.
Hoffman: You'd better be at February Festival.
Lash: Jim.
Manders: Couple things. One is the tent arrangement. I know we used to have two tents. One was the
trade fair tent and I think that got dumped because it didn't get used after that. And so the aligmnent of
this tent is a bigger tent. Does it make sense to move this prize board thing back because once the band is
on it's like everybody is trying to jam into that front area and the back area is kind of open. I don't know,
maybe I'm misperceiving it.
Franks: Move it to the back and tum it around.
Manders: Or something. Move that prize board thing in a different spot so it isn't right in the center. It
kind of gets in the way of things.
Franks: The whole festival is kind of in need of.
Manders: Sure, but just a thought there. Then one other question is, you know l was looking at the back
page with this 36,000. How does this compare to other city events throughout the course of the year? In
terms of what we.
Hoffman: 90% of the case is spent on this.
Manders: 90%.
Hoffman; Pretty close. Tracy?
Peterson: Oh yeah I would say. The majority of it.
Howe: And most of that is the fireworks, right?
Hoffman: Big percent is.
Peterson: And the band.
41
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Lash: Also would it be possible, not necessarily as a part of the fireworks contract because I know that
would skew that whole thing but would there be a way for us to somehow play music if we had speakers
and play you know, patriotic kind of stuff` during the fireworks? I don't know. It's a good choreograph it
with these...
Hoffman: You can spend more money and ask for music.
Lash: Well yeah but that gets really expensive. Yeah, okay. Never mind. Anything else?
Franks: We think we sold more than 30 t-shirts.
Moes: Question on the t-shirts. How does that, how was that 210 tallied up? I mean when we were selling
we just kept throwing money in.
Peterson: That's what I figured out from what sold. What I originally put out, you know box wise.
Hoffman: That's called festival accounting.
Franks: Okay. I just want everybody to know that we sold more. We worked harder than that.
Berg: That was my first reaction.
Franks: I know. You guys were thinking we were slacking.
Peterson: Actually I bet you if we have 15 left we're lucky. They're gone. We gave a lot away but.
Berg: I think the money was all put together.
Peterson: ...I based that offofthe number in the boxes, not off`of, because none of the money was all
pooled together. You can figure out the rest.
Hoff`man: The t-shirts and that $2,000 and.
Franks: Okay, I just want to be clear about that.
Lash: Okay. Does anybody have anything on the Rec Center report? Okay. Anything on the Senior
Center Report?
Hoff`man: These folks are spending more money because they're taking trips all over the world. They're
big hits these intemational... That's what they're doing down at the Senior Center.
Lash: Okay, anything on the park and trail maintenance report? I've got a couple of question. That senior
garden's getting tilled up now, right?
Hoff`man: Yep.
Lash: So that's going to be huge.
Hoff`man: Actually a community garden but I think it will be mostly seniors.
42
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Administrative:
a. Recognition of Frank Scott.
b. TH 5/West 78th Street Improvement Proiect, Fundin~ Summary.
c. City Code Amendment Concernin~ Animals.
d. Roundhouse Renovation.
Lash: And we've got the recognition of Frank Scott. Nice job with that Todd.
Hoff`man: See his picture?
Lash: Yeah.
Manders: My question still on this is, I don't, I think in light of not, put down what we're doing with the
Huff`man thing but I think there's something more. Something's missing here. I mean what we're doing
here is fine but I don't know.
Lash: Well there's a request. Didn't you say, not say that there's a request that we would name some field
or something after Frank.
Manders: Maybe that's it.
Hoff`man: Instead of saying inquiry.
Karlovich: Instead of Pulte Park.
Howe: Is there a ballfield at Bandimere? One of the youth parks. It would seem to me that's where he'd
want to be at.
Berg: Even a diamond.
Hoff`man: Yeah, there's going to be a Lion's ballfield. Eventually the Hansen Addition needs to be
named Hansen Ballfields. That's in the purchase agreement.
Lash: Which one is that?
Hoff`man: The two new ballfields. So those will be, a sign will say Hansen Ballfields or the Lion's
Ballfield and you could put Frank Scott Ballfield there.
Karlovich: Frank Scott Skate Park sounds good.
Hoff`man: So I can tell the folks that you're not opposed to that and they should continue to work through
that.
Lash: Okay. And then we've th
got the West 78 Street improvement project.
Hoff`man: Some good news and update on that previous report. The cost sharing formula was modified
shifting $84,000 from park and trail to TIF, tax increment financing. This leaves the park and trail fund
picking up $31,100 on that Highway 5 frontage road project. Probably a couple of million dollars worth of
43
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
trail and underpass improvements on that thing. Million and a half so the $31,000 the city share. Plus,
you gave them the free land at Lake Ann Park. They did not purchase that so...
Lash: I just need to be clear on this particular project. Is this sort of like the 101 north trail where people
are just putting trails in and then money's coming out of our fund?
Hoffman: Correct. This is the frontage road project. There's the budget on the back.
Lash: And basically it just gets done and we get the bill, right?
Hoffman: Yep. You get the bill. And then you get to maintain it in the future. Think about that. The
obligation of maintaining that entire Highway 5 trail from Eden Prairie to Victoria is going to be cast upon
the park maintenance in the future.
Lash: You know it just seems like all of a sudden a precedence has been set where people just make plans
of their own from different departments and then expect the funding to come out of the park and rec fund
without it coming through us. It's not that we're opposed to the projects. It's just that again we had no
input into the project. Is this some kind of a new trend? Is this the City Council's trend? Is it the City
Manager's trend? Is it just happening because.
Hoffman: It's an organizational issue. The Highway 5 frontage project was managed by the engineering
department and that includes the trail and those issues and so when they come up with funding sources,
they're negotiating on the past 12 to 18 months with folks at MnDot and land owners and so they come up
with these calculations and they say well, we're short here and we're going to tap into park and trail.
They're benefiting from this thing and so it's yeah, it's after the fact. IfI was managing the project you'd
know long before but it's separate departments managing the project. I don't even find out about these
things until a week before, two weeks before I bring it to your attention so. I think what that points to is
that there's a lot going on in this community and yeah, we'd like perfect communication where when we
start something about that they tell me and then I tell you and then you can think about it and send them an
approval upstairs but not necessarily the way it goes. The City Council manages these projects and if they
want to spend the money, they'll spend the money. I'm glad we saved $83,000. It's the same people that
proposed a hundred and some that I walked out of there and well come on now. We have a tradition of
saving park and trail funds for other projects when we have State Aid dollars available. Can you better
than that? And so they revisited that and saved you eight some thousand bucks.
Lash: Yeah, and that's the good news. I'm happy with the good news but if that happened.
Howe: What, no taxation without representation?
Lash: Sort of, yeah. I think a courtesy memo or something along the line would be nice.
Berg: We're a volunteer citizen commission and I don't think it's, no matter how big this city gets, I'd
like to think that we still have the common courtesy to talk to that volunteer commission and let them
know what they were planning or thinking of doing and what did we think.
Hoffman: Okay. I'll send that message. Next Tuesday moming 9:00 a.m., department head meeting.
Lash: Well it gets back to the budget thing. Why do we sit and look at the budget and painstakingly try
and figure out, just like we did tonight, what's going to happen with money if at the end anybody who
44
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
wants to can just use it and then we have to go back and rework it again. Okay. Let's move on to the
ordinance. Lash Leash.
Hoffman: That thing's getting all sorts of press.
Lash: Is it going in the paper finally?
Hoffman: Oh, there's no item in here for you guys? Did we miss 9(c). I don't have a 9(c). Oh there it is.
I think it's been in the paper. It's not the most. They don't like to write feces in the Chanhassen Villager I
think is what the problem is. But they'll do it and we have printed 100 signs that are temporary signs that
will be placed everywhere in the city. You'll see them going up in the next week and a half. And then the
1 V2 CSO's that we have will attempt to write tickets. The real truth remains that this is an unenforceable
ordinance. The city is not in a position to enforce it so, do what it may.
Lash: Okay. Do you have the roundhouse plan?
Hoffman: Yes I do. But it's upstairs so I'll grab them after the meeting.
CORRESPONDENCE.
Lash: Anybody have anything in the correspondence packet?
Hoffman: The memorandum from Theodore and Marlene Bentz. That's the property owner that we refer
to at the end of Longacres trail. That has to be developed to make a trail connection and so I don't even
recall what the memorandum was about. I think they want to postpone their assessments probably. Which
means they're in no hurry to develop.
Lash: I like that one letter from the lady in your neighborhood. I may be putting that in my portfolio.
Howe: Oh yeah. . . That was averynice letter.
Lash: Very nice letter. Hope everybody read it. Are the people who are thinking the fee for Lake Ann
picnic shelter is too high, are they non-residents?
Hoffman: I don't know. When I read these it's the most common, it's the most negative.
Franks: And that's been consistent.
Lash: But that's what I was wondering if they're non-residents because if they're non-residents....don't
care. If they're residents I'd be more interested.
Franks: Well I've always been wondering, is it just because people complain about the money. I mean no
matter what. It's one thing to complain about. Or is the fee really.
Hoffman: It's significant if you're a non-resident.
Lash: Because it's a couple hundred bucks isn't it? Like $250.00 or something.
Hoffman: Sure. It can be higher than that too.
45
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Lash: Okay. Do we have any other, you did your committee thing right Mike? Dave do you have
anything?
Moes: Nothing here.
Lash: Rod?
Franks: No.
Lash: Fred?
Berg: Yeah.
Lash: Are you going to update us on the memorial...
Berg: Yeah, we had a Memorial Committee meeting last Thursday I believe. It's basically park
commission west because it's Jan and I and one other individual and we basically decided that the most
appropriate place to... memorials would be the Chanhassen Park Preserve.
Lash: Nature Preserve.
Berg: Nature Preserve.
Lash: Which may be up for a new renaming.
Hoffman: Chanhassen Memorial Park.
Berg: Right. Todd's getting some ideas now on different types of memorials to put, whether they be trees
in certain areas. Whether they be plaques. Whether they be interpretative center type things dedicated to
this individual. Whatever.
Lash: Yeah, the Red-E-Mix place was deemed to be too noisy to have a peace and quiet, tranquil
memorial location. But also not ruled out is the possibility of specific park sites with specific requests.
Berg: We thought we'd try to come up with a type of list that would be appropriate for different things at
different parks, whether it'd be grills or a bench or something along those lines.
Lash: So if you have anything in particular in mind.
Howe: Things we need.
Lash: Yeah right, and things that may never happen according to the normal budget but would be nice.
Hoffman: Plantings, trees, benches, boardwalks, interpretative signage, parking lots, trail heads.
Howe: 101 trail.
Lash: And garbage cans. We said that there'd be people who'd go for that. Those nice ones. Okay, did
you have anything Jay?
46
Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 22, 2000
Karlovich: No. I just have a babysitter, I told her I'd be there at 10:00.
Lash: Jim, did you have anything?
Manders: The trail stuff`up by the overpass or whatever that dirt work is there. I assume they're trying to
put a trail down to the other.
Hoff`man: Yep. In-house job.
Manders: Okay. That was it.
Howe: What's this Lake Waconia?
Hoff`man: Nice park. 100 acre regional park. Typically regional parks need to be 200 acres. Met
Council made a exception because they feel this is so valuable. The City of Waconia is going to be
carrying some of the hottest property in the west metro with the lake, this park and the schools and
community center. The only thing choking them off` is Highway 5 so.
Howe: So this is on the board, this is going to happen?
Hoff`man: It's going to happen. They're sinking money into that thing hand over fist.
Franks: Where is it exactly located?
Hoff`man: Right at the ballroom.
Franks: Right at the ballroom, right there. Right where that little beach is now?
Hoff`man: Yeah.
Howe: Up to the golf club, Island View?
Hoff`man; Yeah, up to the golf club. It takes the nursery and the little green thumb deal. Highway 5
moves from that location all...
Taping of the meeting ended at this point in the meeting.
The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Hoff`man
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
47