Loading...
PRC 2000 11 28CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 2000 Chairwoman Lash called the Park and Recreation Commission 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; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; and Cory Hoen, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was amended to show there was a report in the packet for number 8, Park and Trail Maintenance. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Franks moved, Karlovich seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated October 24, 2000 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ESTABLISH 2001 PICNIC RESERVATION FEE. Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Lash, and rest of commissioners. As you know we review this item on an annual basis. Take a look at kind of where we've been and where we're going in the future. Right now, this past year, the year 2000 we did book 135 picnics. Separate reservations with a total revenue of just about $10,500 with that which is up about $1,000-$1,500 from last year. We talk about this on an annual basis and we talked about this at length last year and it's still my belief that we maintain the same fee structure as we have in the past with the fear of backlash so to speak if we do have a rate increase. We do provide a good quality service for the price. We are a little bit on the higher end as you know for fees, but I believe we offset that with quality facilities so what I want to do, or make a recommendation is that we maintain the same fees as we've had for 2000 and carry that into 2001 and review it again next November or December. Lash: I'm sorry, what's the amount that you said we have that's an increase. Ruegemer: It's about $1,000-$1,500 from last year. With a total of about 25, approximately 25 to 30 reservations. Increased reservations. Lash: Okay. Anyone who has comments or questions for Jerry. Franks: Do you know overall Jerry with the reservation fee, the most negative comment that we had on their comment return sheets? Ruegemer: That certainly is, I mean certainly taking phone calls and Cory can attest to this too. He took a number of phone calls on picnics this summer too. That is really kind of the number one reason for people not booking with us is reservation fees. Neighboring communities, Chaska for example, their resident fees Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 are relatively inexpensive. Under $50.00 where our's are higher than that obviously but I don't think their facilities compare to our's either. So we do have a little bit of advantage. But certainly when you get to non-residents, businesses, that rate which is really a big part of our business on the fees, you start to get high. Berg: How close would you guess we are to maxing out in terms of using the facilities to the maximum? Ruegemer: You know statistically, we're at about 35%. If you book out everything. If you do a master report of everything. All the, you know basically you know Friday, Saturday, Sunday are really the main dates. I do a picnic Monday or Wednesday every so often. But for the most part it's the weekends right now and I think it was, I looked at it, it was like 35 to 37% approximately. Lash: Of just the weekends? Or total including all the weekends? Ruegemer: Total number of hours available for rental. Lash: So you're counting during the week too? Ruegemer: Right. Lash: But of the weekends? Ruegemer: Weekends, I didn't break it down that far but weekends for the most part were pretty well booked for the two pavilions. We certainly can increase Lakeside and the Parkview sites. Moes: Yeah I thought when we had talked earlier in the year it sounded like even back in the March-April timeframe that the weekends were more or less booked already for all of them, which was good news. Lash: Any other comments or questions for Jerry? Okay, is there a motion to send on? Berg: I move we recommend to City Council that we maintain the reservation fees for 2001 to be the same as they were for the year 2000. Lash: Is there a second to that? Moes: Second. Berg moved, Moes seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the fees for 2001 Group Reservation fees to remain the same as the fees for 2000. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PULTE HOMES: REQUEST FOR A 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, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR A MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (383 UNITS) CONSISTING OF CLUB HOMES, MANOR HOMES, COACH 2 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 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 HIGHWAY 5 AND HIGHWAY 41, ARBORETUM VILLAGE. Public Present: Name Address Dennis Griswold Leah Hawke M.K. Sherry & Bob Ayotte Linda Jansen Pulte Homes of Minnesota 7444 Moccasin Trail 9911 Deerbrook 6213 Cascade Pass City Council Member Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Lash: Does anyone have questions for staffbefore we hear from Mr. Griswold? Okay. Dennis Griswold: Thank you and good evening. Dennis Griswold with Pulte Homes. I'm the Director of Land with Pulte. I think the site was summarized very well in terms of the open space and systems that are involved. I'm very pleased with the site plan and I think it will be an excellent place for the various residents that we're providing homes for to live. We are providing a life cycle community that will be a combination of active adults down through first time home buyers so we'll have quite an age range in the community and quite a difference in recreational needs. The common elements that will connect those different housing areas are the paths and open space. I think the general character of the site with the tree stand down by the pond along TH 5 and the large tree stand up in the northwest comer by the marsh, the wetland coming up through the middle of the property in the manor home area, which is right in here. All of those elements will retain the natural features of the site and I think it will be a very nice blend with the housing and the natural features. The one area that is somewhat offofthe, there. It shows now. The outlot over here, will be receiving some wetland mitigation. Kind of reworking the north part where it is an open field to accommodate the mitigation that we will be needing for actually two wetlands that we're dealing with. One was located down in the southwest comer here that's fairly visible from Highway 5. And then one is just a minor crossing one street. Needs to cross that drainageway on the north. The net effect is that that whole 11 acres west of TH 41 will remain essentially a very nice natural area. A combination of the woods on the south 2/3 and the upland buffer and wetland on the northem part. So that will be a very nice natural part of your green space corridor going through. And it will connect to the trees along the marsh on the northwest comer that will remain. I think those are benefits that are benefits to the overall community. They're somewhat benefits to the residents who will be living on this site but they do definitely help the overall community in the larger scheme of things. We do have two things I just wanted to touch on. I guess I just want to make sure you have the total picture of some of the path systems. The one that was not indicated as along here. There's a walkway that comes along this easterly street as part of the overall system. There's a walk along here and the intemal path that connects to the public path so there are a lot sides of 78 Street will of different options interconnecting through the total site so that people on both~h either be able to connect to the public path along the marsh or to the public sidewalk and path along 78th Street to possibly go down to the commercial area or elsewhere. I think it's, the other point that I wanted to make too is this, one of the major revisions that we did on this particular site is we reconfigured the village homes into 4, 6 and 8 plexes instead of 12 plexes that were L-shaped and that allowed us to open up that area in the middle there. That green space area is actually 1 ~2 football fields. There's a football field size on the south 2/3 and then the north third is where the volleyball and half court and totlot will be. Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 So it's actually 1 ~2 football fields or an acre and a half there. On the north side, in the manor home area we have that acre of open space right in this area and then about an acre and a half to 2 acres through here. In fact I think the total is a little more than 2 acres. So I think even though we are saving some of those major areas, the wood stand, up along 41, and the wood stand down on 5, we are able to get some very meaningful green space corridors interconnecting throughout the total community. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. I think we've addressed most of the concems that we understood were brought out at future meetings. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Lash: Okay. Thanks Mr. Griswold. Mike, can we start down at your end? Howe: I don't have any questions. Lash: You don't have any? David, do you have any? Moes: Yeah, just maybe a couple of updates for me. I'm seeing there's Phase I and Phase II. What's the timing difference between the two phases? Dennis Griswold: 12 months essentially. The Phase I would be this portion through here and Phase II would be this portion. This being the phase line. And our endeavor would be to start first thing in the spring of next year '01 with Phase I. And the spring of '02 for Phase II. It would be a 12 month increment. Moes: Well the reason I ask the question is just in looking at the map here is we've got the one totlot located down in the bottom right hand comer there and that seems like that's the one that would support Phase I development and individuals moving in there. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it looks like the other totlot and the major open area here comes in to play with Phase II. Am I reading that correctly? Dennis Griswold: Yeah, they're actually shown within the Phase II but I think from an actual approach to the development, the Phase II will be underway and those rec areas would be put in timely with any meaningful move in's in Phase I. So we'll have essentially all of next summer through fall to do the Phase I site development. And we would have models open hopefully by Parade of Homes in September of next year and then the first actual closings don't happen until at the earliest November but typically December of that year. And then in the following year. And that's when Phase II development would be happening that following year and that's when you actually get to the landscaping of some meaningful unit count. Moes: Okay. And just I raise it because it just comes to mind as I'm thinking, you know with a development there's probably one place where families are moving in that the kids can go without being in the way of tmcks and mud. Dennis Griswold: Oh sure. Moes: That would be the play areas and you know 12 to 18 months further down when people start moving in, that initially to me kind of is a concem. The timing of that all. Just putting that out there as a thought. Dennis Griswold: Sure. Those, the recreation features would be put in just as quickly as we would be able to landscape around the occupied units and completed units. So I think they will be timely when the people actually move in. Moes: Okay. 4 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Lash: Do you have anything else David? Moes: Not now. Lash: No? Okay, Rod. Franks: How many units total are you proposing in that plan? Dennis Griswold: Total unit count is 383. Franks: And how many of those are village home units? Dennis Griswold: Villages are 160. They're the yellow ones down toward Highway 5. Franks: Right. And then the 6 plex ones are the club homes? Dennis Griswold: No, they're the coach homes. Franks: Coach homes. And how many coach homes units approximately. Dennis Griswold: There are 82 coach. So there's a total of 242 south of 78th Street. Franks: Thanks for doing the math for me. Dennis Griswold: Then just to carry it on. The manor homes are the darker townhomes kind of in the center north of 78th. There are 73 of the manor homes. And then 36 of the club homes which are the one level, walkouts for the active adults up on the north side along the marsh. And then the 32 units to the east are the rental townhomes. Franks: Okay. Dennis Griswold: And the small area down in the lower right comer is 2.9 acres of commercial. Franks: Neighborhood commercial? Dennis Griswold: Correct. Franks: That's Outlot D. Dennis Griswold: Yes. Franks: And I know that you have formulas for figuring out, for all the demographics for all the different homes but I don't know if you've added them all up but, what is the number of children that you're expecting? Based on the demographics that you've put out in your proposal here. Have you ever multiplied that out? Dennis Griswold: I'd have to do the math on it myself. I'm afraid to say. And I should have done it. The club homes, there are 36 club homes and our demographics show. 14 kids per unit. Or kids per household Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 there. So that's roughly a halfa dozen. The manor homes are .32 so that's a third, roughly 24 so that's 30 between the 2. Franks: 1.4 children per unit in the club homes? Dennis Griswold: In the club homes, right. Lash: Point 14. Franks: Point 14. Dennis Griswold: I'm sorry,. 14. They're active adults so kids in those units are typically high school or college kids coming home periodically. The coach homes, that's.16. So that's roughly what, 15. And then the village homes are .25. So that would be 40 total. And the village and the coach are typically beginner home buyers so the kids in those units are the younger kids. I think it was mentioned that the totlot in that area would be for the 3 to 5 year olds. Very young kids. And then the older ones would be north. North of 78th. So that adds up to 84 total kids in the development, ifI did my math correctly. Franks: That's not including the rental area? Dennis Griswold: No. I'm sorry. The rental, I don't have his demographics on those exactly. I would think it would be more comparable to our manors of about a third but, .32, but I don't know that for sure. Lash: Can I just jump in for a second right here? Franks: Go ahead. Lash; Under your, the thing with the rental, it says typical people going in would be a single mom with 2 kids or a family with 4 or 5 people. So that would tell me the average would be 2 kids. Dennis Griswold: 2 kids, yeah. Lash: And how many rental units are there? Dennis Griswold: There are 32 there. So if that's the case, if we had 2, that'd be 64 so... Franks: Do you have proposals about the level of equipment that you're considering in providing in these totlots? Dennis Griswold: At this time I don't. I just put a square on the map to show where they would be located. My thought would be that we'd be working with staff`to get the appropriate design. Franks: Do you have a dollar amount that you typically budget for a totlot? Dennis Griswold: Usually in totlots we're in the 10 to 15 range is kind of an average. Franks: And is that $10,000 to $15,000 worth of equipment or is that including the basketball pad and the benches? 6 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Dennis Griswold: No, that's the structure of just the equipment for the totlots. It's not the half court or the volleyball. Franks: It's 10 to 15 in play structure equipment. Dennis Griswold: Correct. Lash: So that's not your pea rock and border and all that too? Dennis Griswold: That's typically our package for the totlot. Again, when we get to that detail we'd really like to kind of work with staff on it. Franks: Are we going to have time for comments? Lash: Yes. Franks: Okay, thank you. Lash: Okay. My questions, I think most of them have been answered already. I certainly do want to have either the commission or the staff have input into the totlot. That was a concem for me after viewing the one that's over on Marshall in Shakopee. I drove through that one and I really do not feel like the equipment in there would be adequate for the needs of 40 children. And Todd had made a suggestion, and I made a note of it too, but now I lost my note. That one of them be for, you had one 3 to 5 and two 5 to 12. Were you recommending which ones were which? Hoffman: I think Mr. Griswold talked about this would be 3 to 5 down here. For the type of unit that is located in this area. Lash: So the demographics of the children are that they would be younger there? Dennis Griswold: Right. Lash: Okay. Then my other, so then the other two would be 5 to 7. Is that correct? Hoffman: 5 to 12. Lash: 5 to 12. That's what I mean. Then the area down in the far right by the rental units. How big would that play area there be? I mean are you talking about a typical totlot there or? Dennis Griswold: Again I haven't detailed it but I showed them all the same size. Lash: No, I meant area wise. Footage of the play. Not the equipment but the space itself. Dennis Griswold: I think what I had was a 50 foot square on the map to show the totlot designation. Lash: So that would be, according to just our quick math, that would be the area that would probably have the most kids. That would be the one that we estimated having 64 kids using that and that looks to me to be the smallest of the three areas so, I think that's something we might want to look at. I don't know what you can do about it but. 7 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Hoffman: It may end up as well to be a concem for that unit. One thing I don't think any of us want to get into is having, you know that back yard seem like more of a park than for those folks that are located there so I'm not sure, so you guys will have to take a look at that. Lash: Okay. Hoffman: In the recommendation I stated minimum of 40. I didn't want to get in the business of telling them what they should spend on these but at a minimum of 40 children, they'll be a little bit higher than $10,000 to $15,000. It's a good starting point. What you feared, you don't want to end up with a single deck with a slide and... Lash: That's what they have over in Shakopee. Hoffman: One platform offofit so at 40 children, they'll probably be a little closer to $20,000. Lash: Okay. I think that's it for my questions for now for you Mr. Griswold. Dennis Griswold: Thank you. Lash: Fred, do you have anything? Berg: Just a couple left over. I know one of our original concems when you first came to us in August was what this was going to look like from Highway 5 and Highway 41. Sort of as the gateway obviously from the west. What is it going to look like? What am I going to typically see coming into Chanhassen from Victoria for example? Dennis Griswold: Well what we have is a pretty thick band of vegetative and berming screening along both 5 and 41. And then the way it's designed, the end of the buildings are generally pointing to the street so you're not getting the full shot of the back of a building. So we're trying to minimize that impact and also make the spaces between the buildings, somewhat enclose the back of the buildings coming out with plant material coming through here. And that would enclose these court areas behind the buildings. But the generally the view would be plant material that would supplement the existing tree stand over by the pond. Berg: So are you talking trees? Are you talking shrubs? Coniferous? Deciduous? Dennis Griswold: Essentially all of those. Alot of evergreens. Alot of half trees. Omamentals. Shade trees. Kind of a combination of all those. At this level I haven't gotten into detail of shrub massing but we typically, we put that in conjunction. Berg: There'd be a berm besides? Or would it be relatively flat? Dennis Griswold: Berming where we can and I don't think it's really flat in any space. It's somewhat sloped in some areas and a combination of slopes and berms throughout the whole area. Berg: What was the original plan, staff; Todd maybe you know too. What was the original plan for Outlot E? Hoffman: Up here? 8 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Berg: Yeah. Hoffman: At one point they were discussing the sale of that property to the adjoining landowners. Berg: Okay. So this is a change from what we heard the last time? Hoffman: Well, yeah. There were no specific proposals on what it would be at that time. It was kind of one of those things that was still in negotiations but I think. Dennis Griswold: IfI may add to that. The original proposal was that we were not purchasing Outlot E and the underlying property owner was going to develop the appropriate number of units per the guide plan on that site. I think that was somewhere in the 30 or 34 units over there is what he thought he'd be able to get. During the process of going from the concept to preliminary plat we have acquired that as part of this proposal and have incorporated that into this proposal so we are controlling that and we'll be keeping the existing trees and the wetlands that we were talking about. So that will remain natural over there. Berg: So you don't have any plan to develop that? Dennis Griswold: No. In fact this, as part of this planned unit development, that would have covenants and restrictions on it that it will be forever natural as part of the natural corridor through there. Berg: Okay. That's what I thought I understood before. Last question, and I don't know if it's fair or not. When we talk about losing 50% of the trees, what kind of numbers are we talking about? Dennis Griswold: Numbers of trees? Berg: Yeah. Dennis Griswold: I don't know ifI can give you a couple exactly. All I can say is it's significantly less than the number of trees we're planting and I know we're talking about existing trees of different varieties and proposed trees that would be nursery stock but we are planting a significant amount. Berg: What's a significant amount? Dennis Griswold: Oh, over a thousand trees. It's large. Berg: So is 50% 500 trees would you guess? Dennis Griswold: I'd have to revisit the exact numbers. Berg: Okay. It's not necessarily a fair question anyway. I'm just trying to put a number to... Dennis Griswold: My understanding was that it met the guidelines of percentages and so forth. And we have worked very hard trying to save the trees that we can. And if you can bear with me on this, this is a very complex site to deal with in terms of the natural corridor. The natural amenities. The man made corridor of 78th. The upgrading of 5. The new creation of Century Boulevard. All of those features interact and I think this planned unit development works well with melding between the natural and the man made corridor so. 9 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Hoffman: This will give you an idea of materials.., show the tree stand as it's present configuration. Each one of those symbols represents a tree on that site. And that's approximately taken out right about there. Lash: Could you count those up quickly? Karlovich: In the plan here it says that 106 trees are lost to the MnDot improvements and 300 due to the residential improvements. Berg: Okay, so close to 5. Karlovich: 406. Berg: That's all I had. Lash: Okay, thanks Fred. Jay? Karlovich: My first question is probably for stafl~ Todd, can you explain to me the north trail and the south trail and when those are going to be built? I'm looking at, the north trail I think is somewhere up off of the map here that we can see. Hoffman: The north trail would be this, you're referring to this trail. And then south public trail, there's a trail along West 78th that is being constructed as a part of that project next year. So this will be the two public trail elements as part of this along with the trail and down along Highway 5 and 41. Karlovich: And is there some other trail on the north side of the wetland? Hoffman: There's an existing trail there through the Longacres development. Lash: And this hooks up? Hoffman: It will hook up, yes. Karlovich: And then when you say the wetlands will be deeded to the city as a park, there's a couple different wetlands. There is one along the north. One along the east and kind of one along the south. Is that, or which wetland is getting deeded to the city? Hoffman: Working with Kate Aanenson, in other locations in the city, this was a part of the association for the lot lines in a single family if they went out. Then you would be seeking an easement and what that causes is some property management issues between the existing landowners. For example in the Longacres you have lots, private lots on both sides of the trail, and then the public trail goes through and there's instances where people want to cross that, they walk their dogs across it... So we would like to see a line established here along the trail and then to the north it'd be a public outlot or a park outlot. And it's not that we were going to do anything. I don't care who owns the wetland, who has the underlying ownership. Nothing's going to happen to it. It just allows us access to our trail and mitigates those broader management issues. Karlovich: And then that like 40 foot buffer line is kind of somewhere around there that it shows up? There was like a 20 foot line that's kind of the line along the. Hoffman: Wetland edge? 10 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Karlovich: Right. We can fit our trail in there and? Hoffman: Yes. Karlovich: But they actually even construct that? Hoffman: Yes. Dennis Griswold: I might add to that, the trail along that marsh will essentially coincide with the location of the public improvement for the sanitary sewer that will run along there so we won't be just, or the city won't be just cutting a path to put the trail in. It will be sanitary sewer installation. A trail put on top of it. And so we'll get double duty out of that scar if you will through there. So that aligmnent will be determined through survey to coordinate with the sanitary and then we would define that easement or outlot relative to it. Karlovich: And another question. How would that property line go kind of north of the large rectangular exception? Do you know what I'm saying Todd? Hoffman: Here? Karlovich: The wood land. Who's going to own the wood land there? Dennis Griswold: That would be part of our common open space. Association land with the townhomes here. There's a slope through here. Maybe a path would be essentially toward the bottom of the slope. And upslope would be an association property. Similar to what's happening over here. Lash: So would that be part of the conservation easement also? Or are you talking about. Dennis Griswold: That common space? Lash: Well the outlot. Dennis Griswold: The tree area? Lash: Yeah, well the outlot on the other side of 41 is supposed to be conservation easement. Sowould also that wooded triangular piece be a part of that so it would always? Dennis Griswold: It would be part of the association area and part of the covenants would preclude clearing it. Karlovich: The conservation easement for Outlot E, the one on the west side of 41. Is that an easement that's granted to the City? Or is that just handled by homeowner association covenants? Dennis Griswold: That would be to the city. Karlovich: And then the other piece north of exception then, the other woods down here is just regulated by your covenants then? Dennis Griswold: Correct. 11 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Karlovich: I have no further questions at this time. Lash: Okay, thanks Jay. Todd? Hoffman: Just to follow up. Dennis, now knowing the numbers that we might see in the rental units. Would you be willing to work with, the sidewalk is on this side. Currently on this side. I'm wondering if we should look to that sidewalk on the east side to allow easier access to this totlot. What's going to happen now is these residents are going to start to discuss how their children will have to cross the street to gain access to that sidewalk and then cross the street again. Or walk on the street. Or go through these back yards to gain access to this totlot. So I think we could probably do a better job for everybody trying to gain access to this location. Dennis Griswold: That would be fine with me. I don't see a problem. If that would work better for the overall, it doesn't matter if it's here or here. And I'd agree with your... We would still have a crossing going into that to come to that. And being that this is kind of an interior street, I don't think crossing it... The one thing that I failed to get on this map is I would see putting a path connection here too as part of the loop. And I think that just got missed. Lash: I have one quick follow-up question on Fred's, on the trees and the plantings on the berm. And I know this probably falls more under the Planning Commission's jurisdiction but we like trees too so. When you're talking about all the trees along the berm, are you talking about like you know, cute little trees like this or are you talking about real trees that we'll see when we come down 5? Because sometimes we just get little bitty trees. Dennis Griswold: Well I think we have, let me get to the actual plant list. Right now they're showing as a 2 ~2 inch deciduous and 6 foot evergreens throughout. Lash: Okay. Dennis Griswold: I think that is your standard. Lash: Yeah, that sounds like a real tree. 6 foot. Okay, thank you. Berg: Because in the perfect world it would be nice coming in on Highway 5 and one day noticing, oh there's houses back there. Lash: Behind all those trees. Berg: Behind all those trees. Dennis Griswold: Well you'll be able to do that until the trees grow up but then it will be pretty thick I think. But I think in the overall, you do have better luck, at least in my estimation, in mass plantings to have the 6 to 8 foot sizing that are B and B. You have better survival rate and you just end up with a better product. And you do have a few more years to get up to that size where you'd like to see them but I think the net effect is better. Lash: Okay. Rod, did you have something else? Franks: Yeah, just one question I hadn't played on but my kids are going to be putting, looking for senior 12 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 housing for me by the time that those trees grow up tall enough to cover the 3 story view of the village homes from 41 or 5. But we're looking at, what about 90 acres where all of the homes will be built. So we're not counting Outlot E or the wetland area. You're looking at placing about 383 units in about a 90 acre. Dennis Griswold: Roughly that, correct. Franks: And that's not inclusive of the Outlot E and Outlot D where the commercial is. Is that about right? Dennis Griswold: That's pretty close, correct. Howe: That'd be the biggest on the Chanhassen right, when it's completed? Is that right? Franks: I know Mission Hills is 208. Hoffman: Largest PUD? Lash: Yeah. How about Chaparral when that went in? Hoffman: I couldn't tell you. Overall Lake Susan Hills was the largest PUD. Lash: But that's single family homes. Karlovich: Can I ask another question of staff'? What is this big exception piece, what do you see happening with that in the future? Hoffman: Miss Rosie's Farm. Karlovich: Is that ever going to be a site we want for a park or something? Hoffman: At one point Susan told me she was going to leave it to the City when she was done with it so that may occur. Or she'll have her farm there, as you can tell the road to the east, it allows for future development if that should occur. Karlovich: The reason I bring it up is just, the woods to the north, ifI was part of the homeowners association and you know the city wanted to buy it for park. Then I'd tell them to also buy our piece for park. The woods to the north there. Or seek some compensation. I just don't know if we have that much vision into the future as to. I mean we'll have a conservation easement on the west side of Highway 41, but you know if we're going to buy that for a park in the future or if we had that vision, then we might want to I don't know, talk a little bit more about that little wooded piece between the path and, I don't know. I guess it's not that big of a deal but I was just throwing it out for discussion. Hoffman: No, that's a good thought. Nobody to date has talked about acquiring that property for future public space so. Lash: The covenants, I mean those expired so something, I mean eventually if the association so chose, once the covenant expires, then if for some reason it wasn't renewed, they could do what they wanted with that, could they not? 13 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Dennis Griswold: No, the covenants go with the commons space forever as it's platted that way. Lash: Okay. Dennis Griswold: And that's part of what they're buying into is a common element that they know is going to be that way forever. If you're contemplating that tree stand for park, I'd consider that as park dedication as part of our park requirement. If you'd like to do that. Karlovich: No. I think we all kind of realize there's, you know the package is a very good deal and we are still getting our park dedication fees. I think that's all still in the back of our mind. I just, I don't know what the vision was for that exception piece. Franks: You can see that since the road there, it doesn't cul-de-sac. That there's some intention that you probably wouldn't mind developing that piece out at some future point. Karlovich: I don't know ifPulte would do that. Some smaller developer would crop up. Hoffman: Ifyou required it... Dennis Griswold: Well that's a public street platting up to it so, so that property would have access other than Highway 41. And that's the point of it and I guess our vision was that at some point you could extend that road in as a cul-de-sac and have townhomes around it of similar type and have a nice finish there if you will with a similar use. Now I don't know what she's going to do with the property. You know we haven't really talked about that so I don't want to put any thoughts on the table. We have no control on that particular property. Lash: Who knows how long that will go. Does anybody else have questions before we open it for public comment? Any other questions for Mr. Griswold? Berg: Can someone assure me that that totlot is big enough? For the, the totlot in the development. First phase of the development where we're seeing 64 kids in the rental units and who knows where they're all going to come from and is that adequate? Is that size adequate? It doesn't seem like it to me. Hoffman: The size of the totlot I think is adequate. I think we can take a look at perhaps trying to mold out a little bit more space in there based on the anticipated number of children in that location and how they're going to gain access to it. Berg: Because it seems like, no offense intended, that developer's estimates of children are usually pretty Dennis Griswold: IfI may differ. Our numbers that we have here are based on accurate counts from developments that we've done around town and we've done a lot of them and we keep information on all the buyers and have very good information relative to that. Berg: Okay, I'll give you that one. Just a conservative estimates says 150 kids. Throughout the entire area. Dennis Griswold: If that's right for the rental. I can only speak to the owner occupied. 14 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Berg: There may be some riffraff`that drift in from someplace else too. I'm curious about, in all seriousness, I'm curious about the size of the lot and worried that it's not large enough. Dennis Griswold: What I would anticipate as part of working with the staffon the exact design of the stmcture, the shape of that outline, I'd be the first to admit that I don't really want to see three squares out there for totlots. I'm envisioning more of a free form that matches the equipment that's put in there. Berg: That's it for now. Lash: Okay, anyone else before we open it? Okay. Thanks Mr. Griswold. We'll probably have to get back to you in a few minutes. Okay, we'll open the podium for public comments so if there's anyone in the audience wishing to address the commission, if you can come forward. State your name and address for the record. Leah Hawke: My name is Leah Hawke and I live at 7444 Moccasin Trail in the Longacres development. Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight. I have to confess that I've not seen this new plan. I'm still working on the old plan from Pulte. The neighborhood with the Longacres residents is not until tomorrow night so we have yet had the opportunity to voice our concems about this plan, so I'm a little surprised it's up in front of you for approval. But that's probably besides the point. I've been watching the Pulte proposal pretty much since inception and my purpose here tonight is to encourage this commission to continue to stand firm in it's resolve to build this right. Minutes from your August 22nd meeting indicate your desire to see increased park areas allocated in this development. I agree and support your recommendation. It sounds like some of you have had the opportunity to go by Pulte developments and take a look at their recreational areas and their totlots. I actually have some sample pictures of what those areas look like, and ifI can I'd like to give them to you today. This is the totlot in Eden Prairie. This is the totlot in Shakopee. Lash: Yeah, I've seen that one. Leah Hawke: It's my opinion that these areas are tiny in comparison with what residents will need. I'm also concemed with the location and again these locations are new to me. We don't have a public safety commission anymore but it would seem to me that...would not as a parent be giving my child freedom if it's so close to the street. I don't know who addresses that. It sounds like it's outside your realm but I really think that we need to think about location. I actually live in Longacres and we are very fortunate, we dealt with a good builder, Lundgren and they put in pretty sizeable recreational areas and well constmcted playground, but those play areas are packed full in the summer. And I think of the size of those areas compared to what I've seen with Pulte and again I really remain concemed that we're just not allocating adequate space. If we tmly are committed as a community to integrating affordable housing in this city, I think we should be committed to doing so in a manner that will provide the same quality of life for those residents as we enjoy today. I'd urge you again to recommend that Pulte increase the size of it's recreational areas. Don't compromise and stand firm. I have an article here from the City of Eagan that has worked very closely with Pulte and there was great compromise given to the City of Eagan to build this right. I didn't realize Mr. Griswold would be here today. I was going to quote him. Upon completion 313 units will occupy this area along with a large community pond, two fountains and a gazebo. Approximately 2/3 of wooded areas will be preserved and integrated with the development. Streets are being designed to minimize their effect on wooded areas. Residents will drive through a stone entry monument and landscaped boulevard on route to their homes. The end result will be a good place to live. I would just encourage this commission to ensure that whatever we build on the comer of 5 and 41 is a good place to live in Chanhassen. And I'd also like to submit this article for you to review. Thank you. 15 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Lash: Thank you. Anyone have a question for Leah? Okay. Franks: Leah, have the residents in Longacres had any chance to get together to talk about this? Not that I want to pick you as their representative but. Leah Hawke: Well we met with Pulte a long, long time ago. I don't even remember. Todd, maybe a year ago and since then there's been much evolution to this project in how it looks. I think it's fair to say that there were significant concems from Longacres residents. I found out about the parks and rec through Mike Ryan who's really attuned to what's going on here. But like I said, the residents haven't, the Planning Commission tabled it's meeting and discussion of this project until after Pulte had met with the neighbors in the Longacres area to discuss their concems. So we had an opportunity a long, long time ago but as things have changed and it was supposed to be tomorrow night back here in council chambers. Berg: What are the concems of the Longacres residents regarding this development? Leah Hawke: Well I don't know anymore to be quite honest with you because we haven't seen this new plan. But I think there's a lot of confusion with the movement of densities. There's a lot of confusion around what the comp plan says will be where. There's concem about the rental. We were actually under the impression that there would be no rental anymore as part of this development. That was communicated to a Longacres resident by the current Mayor so I think that's going to raise a lot of questions tomorrow night at the neighborhood meeting. And there were concems about the lack of the recreational area that were raised. And also the look and feel of this development on the gateway to Chanhassen and what could be done to buffer it. You know I'm still not convinced that the buffer under discussion is really going to do what we think or would like this development to look like. Lash: And Longacres is to the north, right? Leah Hawke: Right. Lash: On the other side of the wetland. Leah Hawke: Actually once again is news to me and maybe it's just because I have not looked at the plans real carefully. I'm actually on the trail on the other side. I own property that backs onto the trail that I now understand will connect in with the Pulte project. I'm thinking that through. Lash: The trail you're talking about? Leah Hawke: Yeah. My home is, now you said that the Pulte, this trail would join in? Yeah, my home's on that. Lash: That always was the plan so. I mean as far as we're concemed. What is going to be, or supposed to be directly to the east of this? Of the rental homes. Hoffman: Lundgren development, single family homes. Lash: Is that wetland that's shown in that little bitty triangle, and how big of an area is that? Hoffman: It's a large wetland which separates both the projects. 16 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Karlovich: I had a question. How many acres of, I've gone through Longacres quite a bit but, there's kind of the park that, offof 41 and then there's the one off of Galpin that I've even taken my kids to but, how much of an acreage there are those parks? Hoffman: I don't know. Leah, do you know exact acreage? Leah Hawke: No. I mean we have two full tennis courts and two basketball areas and two quite significant park areas. Hoffman: The one closest to 41 is probably a little over 3 acres. Maybe 4 acres. And the other one's a little bit smaller than that. Karlovich: And with regards to this development, either are looking at how much cash or how much park dedication for the size of this development. For the Pulte amount of acres, how much, if we wanted to say we want a block of property, how much can we get from this 89 or 90 acres? Hoffman: 10%. Karlovich: 10%. And usually don't want a park less than 5 acres. Hoffman: A public park, correct. Karlovich: A public park. Leah Hawke: You know you can help me understand something. What's the park dedication fee? Lash: Go ahead. You can probably explain it way better than I can. Hoffman: The amount or what the formula is? Leah Hawke: Well, I'm just hearing you can do one or the other. You can put in the lots or you can do some park dedication. Hoffman: Or anywhere inbetween. Leah Hawke: Okay, so what is the park dedication fee though? Hoffman: Park dedication fee is a mechanism to ensure that residents of the community are served in public parks and open space and in trail systems. And so in order to do that we either extract land from developers, up to approximately 10% of their net land acreage, or we take cash in lieu of that and then invest that in other community facilities and trails throughout the city. Leah Hawke: So you don't use it to build actually in the development that needs it? Hoffman: Sometimes we do. Lash: It depends. Karlovich: The issue that's kind of before us is, we have a plan here in which they're putting in three different kind of recreation areas and the city would be getting an outlot. A conservation easement and be 17 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 getting a large chunk of cash that we can build other parks and recreation facilities. Otherwise, you know the other road to go down is to say sorry, we want our so many acres right here. We want our 9 acres or 5 acres or anywhere inbetween out of here and take less money and that's kind of the struggle that we're going through as to you know, what do we want to do or what do we want to recommend to the City Council. Berg: Because that's our only source of income. That's the only way we get money to improve the other parks. Leah Hawke: Yeah. I would just recommend that if you are, I mean ifI were to move into this development with children, I would like to see it in the development that I'm going to live that I can walk to. That I don't have to get in my car and drive to. I mean the closest park area that these people have that will be of any significance is in the Longacres development. Which I'm sure will end up causing more friction than... I think it needs to be built in there. Lash: Part of our, also part of our guidelines and our formula is looking at a radius. A user radius and is it 3/4 mile? Hoffman: Half mile. Lash: Half mile. So we usually will plot that out and if there are other parks available, and I don't think that we would consider Longacres because those are not public parks, but there's the one on Galpin and there's the Rec Center and there is Minnewashta Regional Park on the other side of 41. So ifyou plotted this out, this really is within some of the service areas, is it not Todd? Karlovich: Well isn't that for neighborhood parks? Hoffman: Correct. Neighborhood park facilities. Yeah, most of those are out on the fringe and that was the full intent of the discussion of, as a PUD you can ask for these association play areas to fulfill that local park. Maybe a socialization for the community play areas, but then in the same time, gamer the park and trail fees not unlike Longacres. Longacres paid full park and trail fees for community, quote unquote, park and trail amenities throughout the city and then also built the private association parks. So it's the same concept on this proposal. Howe: Kind of along those lines, is there a plan ever to connect a trail from this development to Sugarbush Park? Would that ever be feasible at some point? Hoffman: Yes. Howe: That's the closest park. Karlovich: It's a tough struggle. We're not very flush. We had like kind of a budget of no more than $200,000 a year to provide facilities to all the parks in the City of Chanhassen. And so it's not like we have a whole lot of money. So there's always kind of the struggle back and forth. Hoffman: Just to give you an idea. The approximate cash equivalent here is about $350,000 that we're talking in park dedication. Leah Hawke: Again I just think it's a hike. I don't even go to the Sugarbush and that's on the other side of our development, and I'm certainly not going to go across 41. No, I'm sorry, 5. I'm not going to allow 18 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 my children to go across 5 to get to the Rec Center. And I have older children so, that's just a parent's perspective on, ifwe're going to do it, let's do it right. Thank you. Lash: Thank you. Anyone else from the audience wishing to address the commission? Okay. Anyone on the commission who's got other questions now that come to mind since your last opportunity? Of either Mr. Griswold or stafl~ Moes: Just a follow-up, who manages the rental properties? Dennis Griswold: That, Jim Deanovec is the owner of that. As I understand it, he has an on site management company who, there will be an on site manager that's part of an overall management company that does other amenities too. That's about the extent of what I know of his operation. But he did say there would be an on site manager. Leah Hawke: Can I just add something? I don't know if it's pertinent but we've heard that he lost the funding for the rental... Karlovich: That's not really kind of our concem. Leah Hawke: Well it is if you're going to put a totlot on there. If he's not going to develop it. Dennis Griswold: Well he, I think what you heard was possibly the part about the subsidized portion of it. As I understand it, he's going to market rate rental or a formula that only allows a very small number of subsidized units, like 5 or 6 out of the 32. So it will basically be a market rate rental town home community, as I understand it. Moes: Who is the he you were referring to? Dennis Griswold: Jim Deanovec. Lash: Okay, anyone else? Questions for Mr. Griswold or Todd? Karlovich: We're still going to discuss it though, right? Lash: Yes. Karlovich: No, I don't have any questions. Lash: Okay. Do you want to start Jay? Karlovich: Yeah, one of the things that I'd just like to throw out for discussion. I don't know if, what, I'm tom as to what the right thing is to do here. I think we should give some type of clear direction to the applicant, whether we're going to go with this type of plan and take the cash and take the conservation easement, or are we going to say we need our, you know up to 9 acres here. Do we say we want 9 acres along Highway 5 and we're going to have a neighborhood park there and that will help to show our entrance way? I don't know what is the right thing to do. This is a large development for the City of Chanhassen and kind of a, not something to be taken lightly. I'm kind of personally tom back and forth. I think this is an improvement over the original plan which just showed three totlots and they've been working with staff and we have, you know kind of a staff direction that they recommend, or staff recommends approval. I'm just kind of tom back and forth. I don't want to be a stick in the mud I think 19 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 for what the, at least the Longacres development has to understand though that, you know this is part of the comprehensive plan is to have multi family between you and the major corridors. This is not a bad thing or bad development. I think our big struggle here is where are we going to go with this? So I guess I've just thrown out a lot of question marks and don't have any conclusions. Lash: Thanks Jay. Berg: Thanks for the direction Jay. It's not like you to waffle. Lash: We'll come back to you because after everybody's talked, maybe you'll be more clearly decided what you want. Fred. Berg: Well I frankly was sitting here hoping Jay would land on one side of the fence or the other so I had some idea what to gauge where I'm at, and I'm sort of feeling the same way at this point. I like the idea of Outlot E. I'm not happy with the one acre large park in the middle and I'm not happy with the size of the totlot and I'm not happy with what the entrance to our city is going to look like. I don't know if that equals, if all those not happy's equal wanting to send this back and look at it more or not. I've got to pass at this point and just listen to what everybody else has to say. You're welcome. Lash: Okay. I have a couple of different things that I would have to feel more secure about before I would give this the nod. One being, I know there was discussion that the play area would go in in an appropriate timing with Phase I, but I would want something a little more concrete so that we know that that whole Phase I area is not developed and inhabited and then in 6 months or a year down the road, then the play area going in. So we'd have to have that finned up more I think in writing. I'm very concemed with the size and the location of the play area for the rental. I agree that I don't know that it's set back far enough and West 78th Street I think will be a fairly well traveled route so I don't know that that's a very safe location for that with the anticipation that there could be 32, at a minimum 32 children there at any given time. And I'm wondering, I'm not a developer, I'm just throwing this out as an idea, that another unit could be moved down there and the play area be somewhat more centrally located. And also somewhat increased in size. I'm concemed about the size of it. And my third concem is the equipment, and again I voice this but I would want this to be finned up that what will be going into the totlots and the dollar amount there because I already have been on the record as saying that the one that I have visited in Shakopee would be, in my opinion, to be considered unacceptable as a totlot for this neighborhood. Those would be my three biggest concems. I like the way that the developer has arranged the location. I think they took into consideration our input last time for the location of the two larger sized ones. We talked about having them on either side of 78th Street for safety issues and they are set back away from the main road, so I do appreciate the fact that they took those comments in and I do think that they are somewhat enlarged. But I would want to see some definite information on those three areas before I would want to move ahead with this. Rod. Franks: Dennis, I'm glad that you did take some of the comments that we had the last time we looked at your previous proposal and tried to incorporate it and I was going to start right where Jan let ofl~ Increasing the size of the interior play area. Locating one on either side of West 78th. And looking at having three. I would agree with Jay too, just looking at it as a development, you know I'm not a planner but this doesn't look like a bad development but I am strongly of the opinion that this doesn't necessarily fit with the character we've created in this city. When we talk about what a standard neighborhood park, Todd I think you mentioned tonight even we're looking at about 5 acres. And we're putting those in neighborhoods where most people are having their own yard as well and here we're looking at a pretty significant density and where people aren't having that luxury or ability to recreate in their own yard and yet we're really decreasing the size of their public recreating space as well. This is also the creation of an 20 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 entire neighborhood, 383 units. Bigger than the neighborhood I live in. Much bigger. And yet there's no other neighborhood park really within a reasonable distance. It's also pretty bordered by a busy Highway 41 to the west and busy Highway 5 to the south and wetland to the north and wetland directly to the east. It's pretty isolated, island type area. I really think we may need to take into account that we're going to maintain that integrity for our residents to have that physical open space and recreation opportunity that we've maintained for everybody else in our city. I do like seeing that in the wooded stands just north of Highway 5 that the view shed is maintained from Highway 5. That is a very important piece. I know the first proposal, the way that it was cut really took away the majority of that view from Highway 5. I'm not real happy with losing 50% of the trees though, but at least that was maintained so I appreciate that you listened. The reason why I'm making these comments is because it appears that you really do pay attention and try to take this things into account. I did come across that article, I have a different copy, from City Business about the development in Eagan and when I read that, part of what I was thinking really was like yeah. Yeah. That's a little bit more of where we're headed. And it looks like you really went all out to really work with the residents. Work with the City to come up with a development that took into account density, but not the type of density that was originally proposed but yet creating an entire product. Soit was more keeping in line with what we're looking to do and I really like seeing that they had that gazebo. I've seen the gazebo in Longacres Leah and you know it looks pretty sharp. But those are the kinds of touches I think that we'd be looking for. The interior play lot in, on Block 2, I like seeing that that was increased from the original totlot idea, and that you did decrease the village homes from the 12 units L- shaped models to the 4, 6 and 8 units. But when I drive by 212 through Eden Prairie off`Anderson Lakes Parkway and look, there you can see the village homes off` 212 too and they look fairly imposing with that, the garages undemeath and two stories above. At least from that angle. And when I think of those ringing that interior park, I get the feeling of being out at Fort Snelling and being on the parade ground with buildings all around me instead of, sorry Bob. I saw that look. Lash: We like Fort Snelling. Franks: We like it. But it doesn't necessarily have that feel of a park. It has that feel like we've sandwiched this in. I know that we've complained forever, or at least I have, about what happened on Power Hill Park. So instead of having the park come all the way down to Flamingo Drive, there's those three homes there and that little teeny trail to get to it and nobody's been happy with that. Nobody's been happy with that. And you also mentioned earlier about, Todd about not having park in people's back yard. I think what I'm looking at there is, that park is in everybody's back yard. And I just don't think that's going to be real, although you've made the effort to make the space, I don't think it's really conducive to the creation of space that's going to be required for people to really recreate. Now just for my personal point of view. I really don't want that barracks kind of look when you're coming in from Waconia and seeing that so I'm wondering if there couldn't be more that could be done with really shifting how we're looking at our open space here and how that approaches the gateway at 5 and 41 into our city. Really attempting to incorporate some of those elements and Jay, as you were talking, that's a struggle for me as well as we look at our funding sources and knowing that we need to rely a lot on development for funding and those funds are used throughout the entire city but, part of my thinking is, you know there's more potential to find a creative way to raise money in the future than there is to create more land. Once those buildings get built, there's not going to be any way we can undo that kind of mistake. If we go like boy, I wish we would have taken some more time to figure out how we could increase some of that space because it's not adequate. Karlovich: The thoughts that are going through my mind is if we had a concept here that showed a 5 to 9 acre park and we had this concept and we were going to vote between the two of them, which way would we be leaning. The other thing is that $375,000 in our pocket now, if we probably go to the exception 21 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 piece and try to buy that, I don't think we'll get it for 375. You know so if you're going to get the property here in this area now to put in a park, it's kind of now or never. Franks: Now or never. Karlovich: 375 won't go a long way for what, what was the name of the woman who owns that piece? Hoffman: Susan McAllister. Karlovich: Yeah. I mean I can't tell how many acres it is but it's, it is a big piece but I doubt down the road we'd be able to take our $375,000 and give it to her and get the property. Lash: So was that your thinking initially? Karlovich: You know at least I was trying to rationalize in my mind that okay, if we did this and there was no place for these kids to play, we'll go buy that piece but when you think about it, we'll take the 375 and we'll never have the money to buy it. Lash: I never went into this thinking that the fees were going to help us to acquire more parkland in this particular plan. My thinking was the fees were going to help us to put the trail along 101 and to do some of these other kind of big projects, and a warming house that we need. For me, this particular project, and I can't even believe I'm saying this because I'm the last one to be, ever believe the demographics that we get. No offense. But you know if you look at the numbers, the largest area that would have children would be down in this Block 2. That would have a potential, if you go by the demographics of 55 children, and it's one and a half acre site. It's got a fairly big running around space. It's got some things for adults. I don't have as big a problem with that. Personally I would rather see some smaller ones scattered throughout than to have a large 5, 7, 9 acre park somewhere in the middle of this that is going to be difficult for children to get to. Having to cross 78th Street. That's my own personal opinion. Franks: I'm looking at it more, more than just an ability to have a play structure or a basketball pad. And we all know that parks bring more than just that ability to get your hands on some equipment. We talk about one of the greatest amenities that people like in their neighborhood parks now are the loop trails. Well that's why we put them in. And it's a place for people to go for a walk that's not on a street. It's a place for people to have some sense of openness and spaciousness and not being cramped in and if we're looking at this type of density, to me it even becomes more imperative for us to ensure that people have that ability, especially since they really don't have access to any other neighborhood park. Not with any ease anyway. You're not going to be toting your kids across Highway 5 or Highway 41 into our, you know pushing them in the stroller way over to Sugarbush Park. Karlovich: So your thought though is we need something on both sides of 78th Street? Franks: Well, you know in a perfect world, yeah. That's what I'd look for. We all know that West 78th Street, when that completes all the way through to 41 is going to be a busy feeder frontage road. It's going to be busy. Especially if we're looking at the amount of cars. I don't know if you saw those pictures, the one thing, I know those pictures were for the totlots but I don't know if you looked, there were a lot of cars parked all around those streets. I mean we're talking about a lot of vehicle traffic. If this would be the same, and I'm assuming it is. But I think, I would be agreeing with Jan that I'd be wanting to place the majority of any kind of park or open space that we'd create here where there's going to be the highest density of kids and it just seems to make more sense to me. And when we go south of West 78th Street, we 22 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 could also possibly include that into the comer gateway area of 5 and 41 and try to maybe create some kind of entire package there. Lash: I just had a question on one of your comments. When you were talking about where this is located with the Fort Snelling look. Last time, and I'm just kind of playing devil's advocate because I'm trying to think well you know, I don't know how you can answer some of these. The last time we said well we don't want...seems like it's all closed in so if we can't have it on the street and we can't have it surrounded by houses, what would be your suggestion? Franks: Well our parks are always going to be bordered by some kind of street. I mean that just happens because we require parking access for all of our parks too as well. Lash: But we wouldn't necessarily want it down here because then it'd be bordered by 41 and 5. And there you've got an open field. Franks: Yeah, I'm not saying it needs to be right there. You know my degree's not in city planning or park planning necessarily but what I'm looking at is making, creating some kind of a package to incorporate this things together. Berg: So at a minimum you're saying that you'd like to see more land dedicated? Franks: I'm saying at a minimum it's necessary to have that happen. Lash: Do you have a figure in mind? Franks: Well the one thing that I do know is that originally I thought when we talked about it, 2 V2 acre, taking a look at it considering what my neighborhood park is like, it's barely going to be adequate. And we're seeing that an attempt was made but we're still looking at only an acre and a half, but that includes everybody's back yard and ringed by three story stmctures. You know when is the sun going to shine in that area? I mean yeah, go ahead Dennis. I'm getting a little negative here. Snap me out of it. On a roll down a hill. Dennis Griswold: Thank you. First of all, my definition of this is the common association green space. It's not a public park is the way the site plan is defining it. And what the other thing. Franks: What's I'm saying is let's make a public park. Dennis Griswold: Okay, I understand that but the other point is that where it is within the back areas of the village homes, those are two story on that side and it would really function as a back, a common back yard for those units that is 1 Y2 times the size of a football field and I, to me in my sense of scale says that is more than adequate to handle the recreational needs of that particular neighborhood. The other point is that that size is more than duplicated on the other side of 78th so you do have, essentially have your 10% park dedication. It's just stmng out within the open spaces of the site. Franks: I don't see where there's 12 acres set aside there. Dennis Griswold: Well, we don't have 12 acres of net site. We have about 60 acres of net developable site so I think. Franks: I thought I asked that question and I thought it was about 90 acres of net development site. 23 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Dennis Griswold: Well when we're going by density, we're talking about net site as being 62 or 3 acres and I would presume that net site is the same, depending on what your computing. Karlovich: Can I ask just a question here? Is there some way, I mean from the Park Commission, we understand that you know that your density equals into profitability of the whole site and the project and everything and maybe the Planning Commission and council has more input into density but I think what we're struggling here with is, we'd be happy if you got your density in there some other way but if there was a 2 ~2 acre or some type of little bit area for all the kids to go on each side of 78th Street, we wouldn't feel so guilty that we pocketed the park fees from this and let this development go in and you know had most of the kids playing in the streets and everything back and forth. And I know each time these plans cost a lot of money towards the Pulte to put together, or have them to make some profits but the, I guess our input that even if you had your dense area and got a few more units in there we could at least sleep at night knowing that there's a big area on both sides of 78th Street. The kids didn't need to cross and we didn't shirk our duty to make sure that the people on here have an area to go to. Dennis Griswold: Well I think on both sides of 78th we have, when you combine it out, we have really 3 to 4 acres at least on each side. You have an acre and a half on the south side, just on that center core, and then you have that whole area of the woodlands that is another 2 ~2 acres in there that we're showing it as being left preserved in a natural state. If that's defined within a park setting, then maybe that gets integrated with some of these play elements and other functions. On the north side of 78th we're again leaving 2 ~2 to maybe 3 acres up in the northwest of the woods left in a natural state that's only encumbered by the public trail. And we have about 3 ~2 acres integrated into that central area where the manor homes are for open space. It's not just one open piece, but I don't think, maybe my definition of a park is wrong. My definition of a park isn't necessarily a big square that has 4 soccer fields on it. My definition is some of the things that are happening here but this isn't even the definition of a park. This is the common association owned green space that is in addition to the park. Franks: And I'm not going to argue with what your definition of a park is. And I'm not going to argue that this is a bad development on it's face. What I'm saying is what we're creating here is not this development but we're creating a new Chanhassen neighborhood that's equal to many of the other neighborhoods that we have here. That they're more dense than all of them. Than all of them when this is done. And all those other neighborhoods, there's an expectation about what our park system is like and I think we deserve to give the people that will be neighbors in this neighborhood the same kind of consideration as all the other neighborhoods in our city. This maintains the character and integrity of the city that we're trying to create here I think as far as parks go. And so that's my concem that we just don't, when I think of the battles that have been fought to maintain exactly what I think I'm talking about here and I don't know if we just really want to give that up without consideration of what the other possibilities could be for the site. It doesn't look like the City of Eagan gave up on that either, and it looks like everybody's happy with that, with what that result was. And I think maybe we all need to try a little harder as well here. Dennis Griswold: I'm not sure how you're reference to Eagan but the point in Eagan, ifI can just talk about that development just a little bit. Franks: Please. Dennis Griswold: Is it was a rolling, partially wooded, partially open site similar to this. It has physical amenities. On that particular site there was cash dedication for park and there was association land on half of it and the other half did not have association. So there were the on site amenities in terms of physical 24 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 structures within an association were grand total of one gazebo and the rest was park cash dedication. There were not totlots, ball courts, volleyball courts. Any of that type of amenity. We do have one. Franks: I have to admit I didn't go up and look but from the article it talks like there was more of the, you know natural wooded areas where really looked at preserving. Dennis Griswold: It's a beautiful site. And I think this one will be too. In fact, ifI may add, this will be a better looking site in the final analysis because of what this site has going for it with the trees and the marsh and everything involved. The rolling aspect. And there was a common element on the Eagan site. We had Johnny Cake Road going through the middle as a collector so there was a division from one side to the other, very similar to this. It's not quite as intense as 78th but it was very similar in that regard. The thing we didn't have on that site was 11 acres across the road that we're buying and essentially giving to the public. Franks: It says here there's 27 acres of woods. Dennis Griswold: Well 27 acres of woodland. That essentially was on the, in the back yard areas of the homes and in the association areas. So it's kind of intermixed like we have 2 V2 acres down on the bottom and 2 or 3 up on the top and 11 across the road and you know some in the middle where that wetland strip is and kind of scattered throughout. I don't want to burden you with that discussion but my personal view, and we've done a lot of communities, is that the public is well served by this community for the amenities that we will be giving as part of the PUD and the park dedication that you will be getting to accommodate other parks and wherever in the city. Thank you. Franks: Jan said I chewed up enough time. Lash: Well we didn't even get down to David but are you all done Rod? Franks: I'm done. Lash: Okay, thank you. David. Anything left for you? Moes: I think a lot has been covered already for the evening. A couple of thoughts or additional, just to reinforce is, I do like the way as you go around, the units have been changed from the L-shaped ones to the 4, 6 and 8. I think it really adds a lot to the look. Not being an expect as well in regards to how a definition of a park versus an open area would look like or should look like, you know I try to think through what a neighborhood is with single family homes, which is what I'm familiar with and accustomed to versus a development like this which is the multi-family. I'm not a good, I can't gauge very well as to how much open space in addition to the existing park is needed. There are a couple of things though that in looking at this I would like to add to though is, you know the layout looks, the area open from my level is somewhat appropriate, and there's different phases, although I do have a concem that if this was to move forward, that the playground areas would be incorporated into Phase I. Just to make sure that there are the open areas and the facilities for the incoming residents to utilize. And I do also I guess have an additional concem on just the whole rental area though. I'm not quite sure who owns that. Who manages it. I've heard different comments tonight in regards to the funding and what I'm struggling with is, who has the commitment or the guarantee of putting in what we're currently calling this totlot and then making sure that that is put in? I'm hearing there was a Jim Deanovec. Is that individual responsible for working with the City in regards to that totlot or is that a Pulte responsibility as this would move forward? I'm confused as to how the parties in that transaction play out. 25 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Dennis Griswold: As a part of this PUD, the overall plan would be approved and that rental area would be part of the PUD that would specify those types of details and he would have to adhere to those. He has, by the way, agreed to it verbally, off`the record, and the way we are dealing with the transition of what we're buying from him and what he will retain is under his ownership will assure that those things do happen. Because there will be some joint development that has to occur and we will have security to assure that those types of things happen. So if you approve a particular item as part of this PUD plan, and it happens to be in the owner occupied or rental, it will all be part of the specific approved plan and it will definitely happen. The other point, just very quickly and then I'll sit down. That phase line is basically trying to capture 50% of the unit count in two phases, and I can easily adjust that to make sure that those green spaces, including the play areas, are part of Phase I because they're both right along the phase line. Lash: So you'd just move the line over a little? Dennis Griswold: We can just move it over to accommodate those. And one thing, to give you the assurance is that we are purchasing the total property in one take down so it's not a deal where, well we'll do half of it and maybe we'll take the other half and maybe not. It's, when we're committed, we're committed 100%. Thank you. Berg: How large is Meadow Green? Hoffman: How large is Meadow Green Park? On the playing field side probably about 7 acres. Berg: Okay. Just for a frame of reference I needed, okay. Lash: Did you have anything else David? Moes: That really summarizes the additional points that I had. Lash: Okay. Michael, do you have any? Howe: Thanks. I just think the developer's done pretty much what we've asked him to. Going back a year ago. I remember that was a contentious meeting and this was a hot topic and this is a much improved plan from what I see, from what they had then. I think it's a reasonably good deal for everybody. The City and the people who live here. We're getting some good open space, up in the north comer that is not going to be touched ever. We're getting some trails built that eventually will connect. We're going to get some money. Frankly there aren't a lot of these things left out here. I think we've got to act on that to some degree now. I do have some concems, I think some of the totlots could be bigger and moved differently. I agree with Fred. I do not want to see a Highway 5 and Dell Road development coming in from Waconia. You need some artistic landscaping in there. If I'm correct, by the time this is complete, aren't there going to be two tunnels under Highway 5 to trails? Hoff`man: Yes. Howe: See I walk now to Galpin, to the school, and it's, you can walk or bike there but if you want a bigger space or fly a kite or something, you can certainly do that and I think in two years you'll be able to go under TH 5, which is, that's a concem as a parent. I'd share that but that's going to be taken care of, but I think they've opened up some spaces in here and changed things around a bit that, I'm comfortable with it. That's all I have. Lash: Okay. So Jay, did it help you at all? 26 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Karlovich: I kind of disagree with one of my, with some of the statements. I guess my understanding is that our comp plan says we should have neighborhood parks you know all covered within a mile radius and that this isn't within a mile radius of any of the parks, right? Hoffman: Half mile. Karlovich: Half mile. But it is not. Hoff`man: Correct. Karlovich: And so if we're being consistent with our comp plan we should probably be putting a neighborhood park in here, and that would probably relieve the concems of Longacres and I guess I wouldn't feel so guilty. We're getting the triangulated piece on the west side of 41, and we're getting some cash and then we're getting a huge development here with totlots and kind of an acre, kind of a common space between those, you know a bunch of buildings here. I don't know if we're really doing justice here. My feeling is that we should probably follow our comprehensive plan and ask staff`to work with the developer and show us a concept that's consistent with our comprehensive plan. Lash: Okay. Fred, did that? Berg: Yeah, I'm going to follow along like a dutiful little whatever that I am and say that's exactly what I was thinking too. What sways me is the fact that this was so different than what we've got other places. So we have other places in the city, excuse my English, and I'd like to see us also look at something that is closer to the comprehensive plan for a neighborhood park. I'm done. Lash: You're done? Well I'll have to, other than the things that I voiced already, I don't have as many problems with this. I tend to agree more with Mike. I think we are getting some green spaces that will always be green. They're trying to preserve as many trees as they possible can out front. You know yeah, we'd like to see more but I think with what we gave him, direction a year ago, I think that they tried to do the best that they could with this. I think right now, to go back and say we want a 9 acre neighborhood park is giving them a totally different message then what we gave them a year ago. We told then before we wanted a couple of 2 acre sites and they've got a acre and a half and a 2 acre site, whatever. My biggest concem again is in the rental area. That area there I think is just totally too small for the number of children that will be there. The other thing, and I think you all know, I'm probably one of the strongest supporters of neighborhood parks and putting in decent sized parks. I do think this is somewhat different considering the fact that it's townhomes and you have many, many single people living there and you have retired people living there and you do not have the amount of small children that you have in a typical neighborhood of single family homes. You know those are going to be busting with kids. So when you've got lots of 20 year olds, you know 25 year olds, first time homeowners, yeah they might like to go out and shoot baskets and stuff`but they are not going to be the ones out congregating and wanting to sit around the park and watch their kids play like their, like most the rest of us have done in our lives so I don't have the buming desire to get an 9 acre park in this particular site for those reasons. I think it is unique. I think the clientele that is living there is different than a single family development and I think we need to remember that. And we need to remember also that we do, while we have a duty to preserve land when we can, we also have the duty to recoup some money when we can and this is one of those opportunities to do that. I'm usually the last one to sell out for the money. I usually go for the land but this is one of those few times when, ifI saw the rental thing take a better form, and I knew that the totlots would be equipped adequately, and I think we all know what that means, I would be okay with it. So those would be my two biggest hang- up's. 27 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Franks: Do we all get a last word in? Lash: Yep. Then we'll call a vote. Franks: We have yet to see anywhere adequate totlots. It has not been created yet. And I'm not going to expect that it's going to be created here either because it's being called a totlot. It's not a park. This is being termed as life cycle residential community housing. And I think all the residents in their life cycle here, young, old, single, kids, kidless, all deserve the same amenity. They're all going to use it in their way and I'm, you know my kids use the park and I use it too and I jog through it when they're not with me. And other people are walking and we're putting in a senior garden in our City Center Park. And because those parks are used by everybody and the land is available for everybody to use it in a way that is going to work for them. And so you know I can look at this and I can say, you know I really am okay with everything north of 78th Street. And I'm really not okay with what's south of West 78th Street. We're not just talking about a neighborhood here I don't think with everybody's got their, the 11,000, 15,000 square foot lots. You know we're talking about some pretty significant density here and I think it becomes even more important to provide the type of open space. Whether that's all in one shot or really integrated more throughout the entire development. I don't know. Maybe that's what a high density development's going to require instead of one big 5 acre spot but I'm not saying it necessarily needs to be 9 acres either. You know maybe our average neighborhood park size of 5 acres is sufficient. But I would really like to see the developer, the applicant hear what some of the other neighbors have to say to really take some of our ideas and I remember that meeting way back. We also talked about an 11 acre park at one point. I mean that was a long discussion just like this one and we agonized it over again and there was no clear consensus out of that initial meeting from this commission. But I do know that traditionally we have had a consensus to provide neighborhood park facilities for neighborhoods. And that's what people expect when they move here and I think that we can continue to be consistent with that here as well. I'm in no rush. I don't think we need to be. My proposal would be to really table this. Let the applicant really work with some of the adjoining residents. For them to take some of these ideas that we've talked about here and for us to really consider or maybe we need to do some work about, direct staff`to be what would a typical neighborhood park look like on this site. So we have actually Jay something what you consider, something that we can compare so we can make more of an informed choice. Howe: I don't see what the adjoining residents have to do with what's here. Franks: Well it could be that what they have to say impacts what the development looks like. It looks like that happened in the Eagan development and then that may have an impact on what we're looking at. Karlovich: I think the reality is Longacres was done right and we got full park dedication fees but we also got little neighborhood parks in there and so we got our cake and we ate it too. Lash: No we did not. And that was a huge bone of contention for us, just so you know Jay. Those are not city owned parks. I know you weren't here. And we said we will never, ever do that again. As a commission we said that was a huge mistake. Franks: But these aren't city owned parks here either. Lash: No they're not. Franks: They're association owned so, I mean. 28 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Lash: But that was a single development. Single family development. This is more, when you have townhouses you do tend to have associations. That's the way those things usually are. Franks: Longacres has an association. Lash: Well yeah, my neighborhood has an association too. Lots of neighborhoods do but it doesn't necessarily mean then that you have a private park in your neighborhood. Not under city control. Franks: Well, but that's what this is Jan. Lash: I know, but this is, it's just different than, I mean it's a townhome development. It's like Mission Hills. There's other places that have association things but when you have single family residential developments going in and we are not in control of the parks anymore, then we've kind of lost our whole mission of acquiring park property for the city and all of a sudden we don't have any park property any more. Were you here back when we went through all that. Franks: Are you making my point? Lash: No. I don't know, maybe I am. Do you want to have all the developments own their own parks. Franks: No, I'm saying I don't and that's what I'm seeing happening here. Lash: But you just said Longacres that was the way it was done there and I'm saying we don't want that, when that happened. Franks: But there's also neighborhood parks within a half mile of Longacres development. No? Lash: There wasn't. I mean Sugarbush came in after. That came in after and that was part of the problem. We had people building across the road from Galpin who didn't have a park to go to. Did not feel that they could use the ones in Longacres so then we had to go back and correct the problem by acquiring more park property to fill that need for people who didn't feel they could go into Longacres. Hoffman: There's a consideration at this location conceming the public park in that there really will be no other neighborhood, outside neighborhood access to that location so if the commission chooses to invest public resources in a facility here, it is to serve this neighborhood which in itself is deserving of that, but the larger user area is really not going to expand beyond that. I would assume Lundgren will do something similar to the east as they've done in their other developments, Springfield and Longacres. If it's large enough, they'll look to a private association park at that location as well and then you have the highways and the other property uses.., isolated out by itself. Lash: Okay. Well we need to get moving. Did anybody else down here have another, okay. Because then we're going to need, somebody's going to need to make a motion. Of what to do with this. Hoffman: Back to the drawing board. Table it. Franks: Table it. Lash: Is that your motion? 29 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Franks: That would be my motion. To table the proposal of Arboretum Village and to, if we could, if it would be appropriate Todd to direct staff`to take a look at what would some of the options of more traditional neighborhood park on this site look like. I know our meeting comes up early in December. I don't know if that would be. Hoffman: Yeah, we'll talk about timing and the Planning Commission meeting and such things. Our meeting in December is the 12th. Lash: Will this go to planning before then? Dennis Griswold: Yeah, December 5th is Planning Commission. Hoff`man: So we won't see it again until. Dennis Griswold: May I make a comment? Lash: Sure. Dennis Griswold: I understand your concem about having neighborhood parks that are purchased or dedicated. In this location the demographics of the people south of 78th are essentially singles, young professionals. Very, very few kids and the type of recreation they're looking for is reflected in this plan. They would be able to, because they are adults, migrate across 78th and use that total path system for exactly what you said you use a park for. Jogging, walking, those types of things. They also have the basketball and other features. They've got a football sized green space if they want to have a pick-up game. If you put a neighborhood park in there, what you're doing is trying to attract the young kids from the other side of 78th to migrate across the street to use the park dedication. And they right now have adequate green space within their association to accommodate them. I don't know if you put a full 6 or 9 acre park on the south side of 78th, who could come to it without coming on you know 78th, a major crossing. Some of those issues that you're trying to avoid. Berg: I really addressed it, in going with that theme. Interested in seeing if something could be configured to put let's say a 5 acre, just to pick a number, to the north of 78th Street where you're going to have more kids if in fact there aren't going to be very many children in that area south. I'd be interested to see if we could work out something where we could have a neighborhood park to the north of 78th Street, and maybe consolidating the totlots and just thinking out loud here. The totlots and all the other areas dedicated as open field or totlots and see if something can be worked there. Dennis Griswold: You essentially have the 5 acres within the green space and the public path and the open treed areas. If you're talking about a kind of rectangular, more conventional park, then I guess you'd talk about serious unit loss and you'd probably then talk about maj or reduction in some of those other amenities that are put in as part of the association. Franks: Jan, I'd like to move forward. Lash: Yeah. I want to just address Fred's thing with the kids. The way I understand it Fred, the breakdown is in these yellow ones around here, you'd have approximately, according to the demographics, 40 kids and then in these you'd have 15. Berg: So it all depends on where you're looking. 30 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Lash: Right. You'd kind of have to go by where they're located so you're talking, you know in this area you're talking approximately 55 kids living in this whole area. In this area up here, this would be according to the numbers, 24 in these pink ones and 6 up in this whole area. Berg: 64 here. Lash: Yeah, no. No, 32. 32 there. There's a total of 64 if you add them all together I think somebody came up with. No, it's got to be more than that. 32 units, yeah 64 kids. Yeah, you're right. 64 here. This is where, that's where I've got the biggest concem. This whole area right here, 55 kids. You're talking this little bitty area over here 64 kids. Karlovich: It'd be nice to see a plan with a park on either side. Lash: Either side of what? Berg: 78th. Lash: There is. One here and one here. This one's just smaller. But then smaller kids too. Okay, yep. We'll move on. So you had a motion that we table it and I'm hearing, looking for a second. Berg: Second. Franks moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table action on Arboretum Village development and direct staff to take a look at options of a more traditional neighborhood park on this site. All voted in favor, except Howe and Moes who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Lash: I would be comfortable with the plan but I don't have a problem with tabling it until we get input back from the residents and it going to planning. Howe: I think we're ready. I don't understand what staffmight have to say or their input but again, I think we've done, they've done what we've asked them to and I don't see what that's really going to accomplish. That's my feeling. Lash: And I'm very close with you Mike. The only thing I'm concemed with is the rental. The size of the rental I don't think is adequate for 64 kids. So I'm concemed with that. Okay. So it's tabled. RECREATION PROGRAMS: 2000 TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY. Lash: Welcome Cory. Hoen: Thank you Chair Lash and rest of commissioners. This year's annual tree lighting ceremony will be held Saturday, December 2nd. Starting at 5:00 p.m. in the City Center Commons. In addition to the actual tree lighting ceremony we'll have a visit from Santa Claus, Christmas Carolers, refreshments in the senior center and a small bonfire. That will get underway at 5:00 with students from Chapel Hill Academy singing Christmas Carols around the bonfire. Shortly thereafter Santa Claus will be making his appearance 31 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 and at approximately 5:20 the holiday tree will be lit. After the tree is actually lit...singing Christmas Carols for another 15 to 20 minutes and then the evening will conclude at approximately 6:00 with refreshments in the senior center. I've included a copy of the flyer that was sent out November 23rd in an edition of the Chanhassen Villager. Back of a memo. I look for this event to be a fun and festive evening for all those who come. Lash: Okay. Anybody have questions or comments for Cory? Okay. Franks: Is Santa coming in on the cherry picker? Hoen: We don't know that yet for sure. We're working on that. Franks: Are there going to be s'mores kids for the bon fire built by the Boy Scouts? Hoen: No. Hoffman: Santa's going to be in town all day. Santa is at Market Square that day and he's over... Howe: Is it the same guy I think it is? Hoffman: There's only one. Lash: He just does get around. Franks: Who's officiating for the tree lighting ceremony? Hoen: It's going to be Nancy Mancino or Santa Claus. Ruegemer: We're in negotiations. Karlovich: Is Fred going to be Santa Claus? Hoffman: No. Lash: Fred's not Santa. Fred teaches school. He has a full time job. Okay, thanks Cory. 2000 HALLOWEEN EVALUATION. Hoen: The Halloween party was October 28th. We had over 800 kids and parents who attended. Party was a big success. Numbers were down from last year but I think it was, it worked out fine. The numbers, it wasn't so crowded, so congested. Here's some general comments that I have. The hay rides worked out great using the north entrance for the Recreation Center. Lines were no more than 5 minutes in length. Musical entertainment worked out well. Giving them a full gym. They only complained, I guess I can add was that they should have some sort of sound system. It was tough to hear with all the background noise. Face painters, we had four face painters this year. I'd recommend cutting that down to three. There was never a line waiting for the face painters and I don't think we need four face painters for that. Refreshments. It worked well using Room 3 and 4 for refreshments. I think it'd be nice to get more volunteers in there to kind of keep the tables clean. Keep that running smoothly. Games worked out well. They were a big hit. Kids enjoyed playing video games. The other thing is, games...I think it's worth it 32 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 because kids have been at this activity to do. Volunteers were very key in the event. The Boy Scouts... park commissioners and local business volunteers, which were a great success for this event. Another general comment I had would be maybe shortening up the event. Having it from 5:30 to 7:30. And I think two hours is probably is plenty. Enough time for everybody to get in everything that they want so we'll be cutting it down to 5:30 to 7:30. That's all I have. Lash: Okay. Anybody have questions or comments for Cory? Franks: Great job. Howe: We had a lot of fun always. Moes: I thought it was a great evening. When I talked to the others, good time. Lash: Do you have any speculation on why the attendance was down? Hoen: Chaska had their Halloween party the same day. Ruegemer: If the commission probably remembers that we went a week later this year with our party to get it a little bit closer to the actual Halloween date. We have had phone conversations already with Chaska for next year and it looks like they're going the same day. I think we're still kind of up in the air as to what we're going to do. You know we still have 800 kids, or 800 people, kids and parents was still plenty. Obviously. But it seemed like the flow of it really was better so you know, having it on the same night you know isn't that potentially a big of a problem. Franks: Did it affect revenue? Ruegemer: Yeah obviously it did slightly. Their party is over with by, I think it was 6:00 or 6:30 so it still gave, I mean if people wanted to make that choice they certainly. Howe: The real candy grabbers. Double dippers. Ruegemer: They could have made the circuit that night, which I think some did but I don't think. Lash: Okay, thanks Cory. SELF SUPPORTING PROGRAMS: 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL WINTER SEASON. Lash: And Jerry we've got the 3 on 3 basketball reports. Ruegemer: The winter season again starts January 15th. For that we have room for 16 teams. We currently have 6 teams signed up right now, which people are actually getting the stuff in early. The registration forms. The actual deadlines are next week, the 6th through the 8th so. We won't have any problem getting the 16 teams and it's a fun league. People have a good time, break into two divisions and have a playoff at the end and it's a good form of socialization and exercise for those teams so. Just a letter that went out in November. Rosters, basic information. Anybody have any questions? RECREATION CENTER REPORT. 33 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Lash: Anybody have any questions about that? I was kind of curious about the comment under number 4. It says although the rate increase is 33%, we do not expect punch card revenues to increase accordingly as our fitness offering may not be perceived as a good value. Hoffman: That's what Rod was talking about. When you raise the rate, your quantity's going to go down. And in some areas particularly, when you raise the rate for a resident, that's going to be a $4.00 punch for aerobics for a non-resident. Excuse me for a non-resident and then $3.00 for, no. That's resident and then it will be $5.00 for non-resident, excuse me. So you're going to lose some people, non-resident in aerobics classes at $5.00 rate per time. Lash: How long are the classes? Hoffman: Aerobics? Howe: At least an hour. Hoffman: 45 minutes. Lash: I used to go but I forget. Okay. Franks: Just a question on that then. You know if things really start to take a dive, you will, or someone will inform us right away so if we need to look at making a change we'll. Hoffman: Yeah, I don't anticipate that's going to happen. I had one call in the rate increases. The individual was concemed about where are we going to take that 50 cents. What were we buying with that? Who was going to get that money? I assured him that we were still losing money at the Rec Center and the person who should be more concemed is the other resident who doesn't use the facility and is subsidizing his use of the facility and he said yeah... Lash: Never mind. Berg: It's an anonymous call. Lash: Are you still having the promotion where you buy the card and you get a 10, okay. Hoffman: Yep. That's the pacifier. That's the soft sell...33% increase. SENIOR CENTER REPORT. Lash: We've got a pretty good idea of what's going on there. Anybody have anything you want to say about it? Howe: They're in Branson right now. Hoffman: Branson? Lash: Sounds more fun... Hoffman: Rachelle Tungseth, the summer playground director will fill in for Kara on her matemity leave starting in February. 34 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 PARK & TRAIL MAINTENANCE REPORT. Lash: I didn't get a chance to look at it yet. Franks: The tree is beautiful. Hoffman: Out front? Franks: Yes. I don't remember that tree being... Lash: So could we just leave it out there? Hoffman: It's the scale Rod. The scale is going to get larger so you don't see the tree. The water was just this week, Monday moming they put the water your yard hydrant up into the community garden so if you see a community garden developing up here on the comer of Santa Vera and Kerber so next year Jill will, Jill Sinclair will handle the reservations. We'll put a fence up in the spring and garden plots will be assigned. Water is there so it's one more element to the park system. ADMINISTRATIVE: INITIATE DISCUSSION ON NEW PARK RULES SIGN. Lash: Are we ready to tackle the park mle sign? The fight's been taken out of me so. Hoffman: We can start. Lash: Okay, we're not getting any subtitles. Hoffman: Issues with the sign with the law enforcement folks, they believe it's too park colored. It should stand out and prominently exposed. They're always asked to enforce the ordinances that are on the books when they approach these people. They always say that they didn't know the mles and they didn't see that brown sign located at the location that we currently have them in the parks. Karlovich: I didn't know you could have canned beer. Berg: I thought ignorance was no excuse. Hoffman: It isn't. Lash: We labored extensively over the wording. Franks: The only one that needs to be changed, really the line about pets. Hoffman: That's about the only one on this rendition, yes. There are other things that could be added or things here could be changed. Howe: Or the color too, right. st Berg: Well if you want to get real picky, the 21 century phenomenon is plastic beer bottles now. So there's nothing wrong with plastic beer bottles. 35 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Lash: Well I don't know, do we even need to have alcoholic beverages restricted to canned beer. Why don't we say no glass? Doesn't that cover it? Hoffman: No, because they can't have wine. Booze. Lash: Yeah, but that's in glass. Hoffman: The box. Lash: Oh yeah, I suppose. I forget about that. Hoffman: Because you can drink beer in any park in the city. Franks: You can? Without getting like the permit or anything? I didn't know that. Lash: Well you can't sell it. Hoffman: You can have a keg in every park. Lash: It's been done too. Howe: Voice of experience there. Hoffman: Across the metro, about 50% of the parks allow alcohol. About 50% don't. Lash: Well and that kind of goes back to the softball leagues when they would have their kegs and stuff out there. Berg: And it hasn't really been a problem. With intoxication. Hoffman: So l can propose a change ofrules. I can look at other issues. Franks: Is there anything else that you feel needs to be added? I mean we could change the line about the pets and say something like, alcoholic beverages restricted to beer in non-glass containers. I mean those are simple changes but is there anything else that you see needs to be added? Lash: What about the snowmobiling thing? Ruegemer: Motorized vehicles. Hoffman: Isn't that mentioned on there? Snowmobiles on designated trails only. And that rule might be dated as well because there's going to be a bigger push here, in the coming years to have... Lash: But if we don't have something on there now, and they're still legal, then people will say well, nobody said I can't snowmobile all through the fields. Franks: It's posted. Ruegemer: Address the dog on the leash issue. 36 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Lash: Leashed dogs on trails only or something like that. And pick-up. Karlovich: Oh, do we have to put that? We're going to put like a little picture like those others... Lash: Baggies required. Karlovich: Where the people are right there down with their catcher's mitt or whatever... Hoffman: Also, I'll send a message over to Sgt. Potts asking to kind of do an informal survey of deputies and perhaps we can do a more formal survey of the type of incidents that they do run into. There's lots of parking after hours. Hours are important. Lash: Well and parking, we've got something on that, right? Hoffman: Designated areas only. Lash: Yeah. So maybe we just need to be more specific, no parking on the grass? I mean it says in designated areas only, which means not the grass because that's not designated, but then. Ruegemer: Too much interpretation. Lash: You probably noticed in the rule signs around the world that many times they just go right out of the ordinance book. Just boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I'm not so confident that our ordinances are in such good condition that we want to be quoting all of the ordinances. Berg: Let's be careful and not get too picky here. Howe: Let's keep it in English. Berg: I mean these people are not idiots I hope. I can't park on the grass but can I park on the dirt? How about if the top of my beverage is not made out of plastic but it's made out of metal...I know you're not going to but let's not get real, real picky... Lash: Well what's the whole...they think they want that's not a park code? Hoffman: White with red letters. Franks: No, no. Can't we go like grayish with green? You know, could we do. What I'm thinking, could we do white with orange. Or beige with orange. I mean I'm trying to think of those colors of the maple leaf. You know trying to like work that in here... Howe: But you want people to see them. Hoffman: Have the maple leaf red. Franks: There you go. Get that maple leaf red... Lash: How about cream? Berg: We'll trust you to come up with something. 37 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Lash: Yeah, make sure you avoid the Chapter 74, Subtitle 3, Paragraph 4. Hoffman: I've seen those everywhere. They put them up there. Lash: I thought that was directed personally at us. Hoffman: No, no. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. Lash: Fred, do we have anything about the Memorial Committee? Is there something happening with that or are we waiting til. Hoffman: December meeting, you'll have a presentation on the memorial plan. The brochure. It seems to be quite popular among staff and those people that have seen it so far. Lash: You mean there's going to be a presentation here? At the park commission? Hoffman: Correct. Berg: That will be great. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Franks: Just one quick thing. What I'd like to do, and maybe get some feedback from the commission, is start thinking about next year and the presentation we had from Brian Hubbard from the YMCA and what we might like to do with that. I know one of the things that we talked about earlier was to set a time for a work session where we could actually talk about what it is that we'd be interested in or maybe hear more in depth about what the Y is interested in doing or maybe have some informal discussions back and forth about what we consider for our community and then like what the Y's process would be and what that process would be. Lash: So could we do that first just as a commission? Franks: Well, I think that we can. I'd prefer that we'd just maybe get together and have a little... Lash: Without him? Yeah, me too. And I think we talked about that the last time that we wanted to have just a work session but then you know. Franks: Because the idea is if we decide what it is that we're looking for, we can tell them and then they can decide whether that's something they want to be a part of or not. Then if not, then we all can move on. Howe: Did you read the thing in here about the? Franks: I did. 38 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Howe: That was very interesting, wasn't it? Franks: Yeah. That's old story. Lash: But I would like to feel free for us to exchange ideas without being totally on the record and in front of him. Franks: Could we schedule that prior to a commission meeting or would we need to do that? Hoffman: You can do either. Prior to or second Tuesday of January or second Tuesday of February. Franks: it doesn't matter to me. Lash: Anybody have any good preference? Howe: Do it soon. Berg: Sooner the better. Lash: I think January would be a good time. Franks: The second Tuesday in January. Lash: Okay. I don't have anything. Do you have anything? You guys have anything? Fred? Berg: Me, no. Lash: Jay? Karlovich: No. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Berg: Jerry, this business on youth basketball getting so many hours. Is that getting to be a problem? Are they way out of proportion with what they need, or what other people want and can't get? Ruegemer: That's been some of the arguments with that. There's the whole debate whether it's recreational type of in-house leagues versus traveling and how they're distributing those hours within their own associations. Are you referring to the Tom resident e-mail? Berg: Yeah. Ruegemer: I mean certainly that has been the priority as of late with the, some districts and some cities as priority is given to the children during certain times and they come as a little self serving with these arguments. His adult leagues were being booted out of those facilities because of the growth in population of kids so. Certainly it needs to be looked at and we'll certainly try to work with the school districts on trying to come up with fair policies and for the distribution of those facilities. Tom is a little self serving but he has some points. 39 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Berg: Having been on the side of coaching and dealing with the kids, I hope we err on the side of too much time for them. They can't get into a car and go someplace else. Lash: But if it's at the exclusion of other sports. Ruegemer: There certainly has to be balance. Berg: Yeah, I'm not saying exclusive right but in the sheer numbers dictates that they have a large portion of the time. Ruegemer: They are getting the significant number of hours. Moes: I'm sorry, Tom Redmond was coming from what angle? Ruegemer: For the adult athletic angle. Lash: Because the kids playing basketball are hogging the gyms. Moes: Speaking from experience, you know I mean when the Chanhassen league, when you've got first and second graders that get to play you know October-November and part of December and then the third and fourth graders play January, February and March because we have limited space availability. Now when you look across at the other communities where kids have 4 to 5 month seasons, I mean I look at these kids already being at a disadvantage with the gym space and the gym time that they have currently so, that's just speaking from experience as well as comparison across other communities that you know, through fourth grade, kids in Chanhassen are actually disadvantaged to some extent with gym time. Berg: So let's not take away what they already have. Moes: Exactly. Lash: Okay. I had one quick question on this Plymouth Creek Center. What was the point of that? Hoffman: Just FYI. They had a meeting and I grabbed their stuff. Lash: Is this something that could possibly be incorporated in within the library? Could they ever have a room like this in the library or not? Hoffman: Probably. Lash: Because that'd be kind of a cool thing, right? Franks: I'm assuming that they probably will get that type of community space. Berg: Yeah, that was discussed. Franks: Big thanks to you guys for the soccer group. And I'll pose the question about how involved the park commission, if at all, would be in planning for the new library? Well because I'm wondering how much of that will involve the City Center commons area. 40 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Hoffman: As I understand it presently, there will be two prong approach. One talking about the space and one talking about the library itself. And how those integrate... Berg: ...after we get done looking at everything we may proceed with building the library. That was just a misquote. Hoffman: I would think so. Franks: They're creating a short list of architects. That's where they are right now. Lash: Anybody have anything else? Now that I sat and squinted for a very long time at this teeny, weeny print to read this. And I read it all. Then when I got to the end, it was all typed in big print. I said and read all the little print, and I'm like man... Hoffman: Should have read the big print first. There's some correspondence on 101 inhere. There'san update and I don't want to misrepresent it but to my understanding, MnDot has responded back to the city on our application for a limited use permit to construct a trail on the Highway 101 north corridor. By saying they wouldn't consider it but they put many, many conditions with that occurring. And it's not going to be easy from the information I currently have so when I get that in a printed form, I'll include it in your packet at the next meeting. It was something like it would be much easier to build this trail alongside of a road improvement. Lash: So is this an indication that we will now be included in the 101 trail project from this point forward or? Hoffman: I haven't seen any indication of that. Lash: No. Berg: We being the commission? Lash: Yes. Karlovich: What were some of the conditions...or do you know? Hoffman: Oh, there's all sorts of them. I'll find them. Franks: So we're back to that nowhere zone of the trail would go in with the road but the road's not going in? Hoffman: I think so, but I don't want to interpret it that way. I'll try to keep you informed as much as is possible... Lash: Then the other, the only other last comment I had was on our, I forget what this thing's called. The WEX or, isn't that going to come back to us every year to review the information? Is that what this is for or are we just in it forever? Hoffman: No, not in it forever. 41 Park & Rec Commission Meeting - November 28, 2000 Lash: That's kind of what I was thinking we were supposed to look at it because we didn't have hardly any. We had one person participate so. Hoffman: Jerry and I talked about that. Jerry went to a meeting last week and we were very up front with these folks. Yeah we want to provide these services. We're willing to do that and we have a responsibility to do that but at some point you have to kind of say well, zero or one. So right now we're evaluating how we can communicate this to that population.., make sure that we make every effort to get those to make... so we'll attack that angle first before they say it's not working. Lash: But didn't we have a flat, because we have a flat fee every year we have to pay no matter. Hoffman: Yep. Franks: And then on top of that how much is used. Hoffman: Correct. But not... Lash: But what's the flat fee? Hoffman: $2,000. Lash: So I mean that's an expense... Ruegemer: I told them at the meeting that you would put the calculator to the one person...and I said. Hoffman: He said it was Jan too. Lash: Did you? Ruegemer: The contract I believe expires in May or June, 2001 so. Lash: Well is it their obligation to find the people? Ruegemer: Correct. Lash: Yeah. Okay. Ruegemer: They certainly have concerns about that too. Lash: Okay. Anybody have anything else? Is there a motion to adjoum? Howe moved, Moes seconded to adjourn the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 42