Loading...
PRC 1993 01 26 ~ CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 1993 Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Berg, Jim Manders, Jim Andrews, Ron Roeser, Larry Schroers, Dave Koubsky, and Jan Lash STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Koubsky moved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated December 15, 1992 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. WELCOME NEW COMMISSION MEMBERS: RON ROESER AND JIM MANDERS. Chairman Schroers introduced the new members to the rest of the Commission. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Hoffman: Commission members, the Visitor Presentation item which you have ~ before you tonight is just an informational item. On occasion throughout each year staff receives question, inquiries, and things that we just at staff's discretion cannot approve. Thus they should come down to the Park Commission for some type of discussion prior to making a motion or taking action on those items. As such I recommend that we establish a ~onthly Visitor Presentation portion of your agenda to allow for me to invite those types of people making inquiries and invite them down to the Commission meeting so they can discuss that with you. Schroers: Very good. Seems pretty simple. Does someone want to make a recommendation to that end? Lash: I move that we add to our agenda, monthly agenda, Visitor Presentations. Andrews: Second. Lash moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission add Visitor Presentations item to their future agendas. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: A. SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON. Hoffman: Commissioners, you can take each of these items as they appear. Selection of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson~ Nominations can be made ~ open on the floor. Discussion can ensure and the election of officers should be taken care of this evening. Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 2 ......, Andrews: I'd like to nominate Larry for Chairman. He's done a good job. Lash: I'll second that. Andrews: Would you be willing to serve again? Schroers: Yes. Okay, thank you for the nomination. Andrews moved, Lash seconded to appoint Larry Schroers as Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission for 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Schroers: Okay, then as Vice-Chair I'll make a recommendation for Jim Andrews as Vice-Chair. Koubsky: Second that. Schroers moved, Koubsky seconded to appoint Jim Andrews as Vice-Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission for 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried. B . ADOPT RULES OF CONDUCT. Hoffman: Rules of conduct officially are Roberts Rules of Order as revised. I'm sure you've all tead them clearly before this evening's meeting so you have no concerns. -' Lash: I move we adopt or continue operating under Roberts Rules of Order Revised. schroers: I'll second tnat. Lash moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission conduct their meetings according to Roberts Rules of Order Revised. All voted in favor and the motion carried. C. 1993 MEETING DATES AND TIMES. Schroers: Is there a conflict with the schedule we're on now? Hoffman: Fourth Tuesday? Schroers: Yeah. Hoffman: No. None whatsoever. That calendar which appears there indicates the fourth Tuesday on all months. There are no conflicts in 1993 except obviously for the December meeting to move it up to the second Tuesday. Lash: I just want to throw this out to people. I guess I'm open to either way but the month of November, that ends up being the Tuesday before Thanksgiving and generally the elementary schools have conferences those.2 days. And I don't know if High School does too but it could be a conflict for me. It could be for Fred. And it could be for anyone who ...; ,...., Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 3 has kids. A lot of times people leave early then for the long weekend. I guess if I had my druthers, I'd rather see it moved up a week to the 16th. Or back a week to the 30th, but then it gets really close to the December 14th. Koubsky: I guess I'd agree with moving it to the 16th. In the workplace, I think we have both those days off so that will be kind of kids day. Hoffman: No problem. Lash: I move that we adopt the 1993 meeting dates as amended for November. Koubsky: Second. Lash moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission adopt the 1993 meeting dates as amended, moving the November meeting date to November 16, 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried. D. ATTENDANCE AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. Andrews: I wanted to ask Todd about this City Council schedule, which was also attached to this scheduling. I guess that's the next item, item Cd). Pardon me. "..... Schroers: meetings. So yeah, the next item is attendance at the City Council Go ahead with your question Jim. Andrews: My question was, although I hold those days open, typically I don't attend unless I'm told that there's something of park interest on the agenda. Unless I just decide to attend. Can we continue to operate under that method? This year it was pretty much as needed. Hoffman: I simply put on the bottom, the Commission can decide as a group what policy they would like to use for following this. Whether it be mandatory attendance, voluntarily or at my call or encouragement to attend the meeting since only when there are issues of importance to the Commission on the City Council agenda. Lash: I'd prefer to do it by notification. And if by chance you notified one of us at our scheduled time and we for some reason couldn't make it, I'd like to know that we could fall back on each other. Schroers: I think basically it's a continuation of what we had been doing. That's the way we had it set up that we were going to be notified in turn when there was a park and rec related item at the Council meeting, and has there been a problem with that? Hoffman: No problem. Schroers: Yeah, I'd prefer just to go like that and have some sort of ~. formal notification as a reminder. Okay, do you need a motion to that effect? Park and Rec commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 4 Hoffman: Not necessarily, no. Schroers: Okay, good. Then that will conclude organizational items. PHEASANT HILL PARK .MASTER,.PLAN AMENDMENT; NEIGHBORHOOD ,'MEETING . Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commissioners. This item was reviewed at your last meeting, December 15th. At that time staff discussed the proposed changes to the master plan of Pheasant Hill Park. Upon completing discussion that evening it was 'the Commission's wish to have staff prepare a letter to the residents of the Pheasant Hill neighborhood explaining to them this proposed plan amendment to the master plan for Pheasant Hill Park. Asked for their input into that proposed change. Invite them to their meeting this evening to hear their comments and then'move forward with the decision in this regard. Briefly, I'll run down again to refresh your memory what is being proposed. This is the original park master concept plan. As you know the park is essentially split into two halves. The southern half being a wetland area with wetland vegetation in this area. The north half had been slated for improvements for active recreation facilities. In 1992 was to be the year for initial grading~ initial construction beginning the p~rk.' It didn't look like that was going to occur because of the lack of time available both through our park maintenance staff and a lack of material or black dirt and fill to begin this project. However when Target came on line, a source of free fill, free labor and trucks to haul that...Cat and a front end loader at no charge from Ryan Construction who is working on the Target site... upgrading possible this fall and that was completed by October. So what we have today on this site is a construction limit from approximately this point to the west for this entire area being filled... As we were working the field it became apparent that in order to accommodate this tennis court area, some mature trees down in this line right through here, some ash trees of about 10 to 14 inches in diameter, approximately 7 of them, would have to be cut in order to accommodate that tennis court or we would have to take down trees on this side of the tennis court. Severe retaining wall... It is also recognizeable that this entire top area, it currently is undisturbed and is very nice and natural portion of that park to give you a nice...open space...and.in order to accommodate this playfield or this play equipment area as depicted, you would have to go up there as well... As such, we brought back our consultant, VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings to look at an amendment to the plan. Essentially as stated in the staff report in the letter to the residents, the intent of which is to minimize the impact to the vegetation in the area. And then the other thing...tennis court which could be a concern to some of the residents in the area. That that reduces a lot of hard court surface... takes out a lot of fencing for a small neighborhood park. It just takes away the issue of accessibility to...community recreation structure such as a tennis court. As you see on this plan, the only thing missing from the active portion of the park is the tennis court. We brought the play structure down off the top of this hill thus allowing this portion of the park to remain undisturbed. Putting the play area down here so these trees that are in this line do not have to be disturbed. They can remain ...play structure in this area. Then I felt it was important to retain at least some park board elements within the park...you can bounce a ball on a hard court surface...so instead of putting a tennis court in this area, ..."" ..."" -" ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 5 we brought a half court basketball court...playfield involving. Again' we need to move forward with some type of decision on this proposed plan amendment so this coming spring we can move forward with the continuation of the development of Pheasant Hill Park. Plans are currently that in house the park maintenance crews will move into the park in the spring. Do finish grading. Look for complete compaction if we have some areas that are poorly compacted. Finish grading, seed and install the bituminous walkway. Then as your 1993 CIP reflects, '93 will be a growing year for the grass in Pheasant Hill Park and then we'll come forth in 1994 with the facility development, most likely the play area. Schroers: Okay. In order to simplify this a little bit, do you feel that it would be accurate to say that basically what we've done is traded a tennis court to salvage a number of nice trees? Basically the trade-off is we're dropping the tennis court in favor of saving the vegetation? Hoffman: Correct. And then the other half of the equation is that we've also struggled with the accessibility issue to that tennis court. Originally parking was proposed to come in off of Wood Duck Lane. That has since been deleted so we don't have a real viable access to a tennis court other than walk-ins, or parking on street and then walking to the tennis court. As Commission members are aware, a tennis court is a regional facility. They're expensive to both construct and maintain, and they service more than a single neighborhood so people will get in their car, more times than not, and drive to a tennis court and get out to play their match. """'" Schroers: Okay, very good. I think at this point we'd be interested in hearing what any residents in attendance may have to say. Is there anyone in the audience here this evening that would like to speak? Please come up and state your name and address. Carol Droegemueller: My name is Carol Droegemueller. I live in Pheasant Hill and I'm very happy to be here at this stage of the planning. I called Todd as soon as the trucks started bringing the dirt in and I said, hip, hip, hurray. It's been a long time waiting to get this park going so I'm really happy. However, I do have some concerns with the new revisions. I had a difficult time determining, even tonight looking at the two plans because they're the same pictures that I have on our letter, where the trees are. I walked the park this morning and it looks to me like neither the original or the new concept have the trees in their spot. Is that right Todd? Is this new concept where the trees are or is that an artist's rendition of what it might look like later? Hoffman: Correct. Resident: So that's not existing vegetation? Carol Droegemueller: No. No it is not. ,.... Hoffman: You'd notice that in your other plans as well. You've heard comments in the same regard. The master plan include a depiction of what vegetation may look like in the future. Not what is existing. Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 6 --' Berg: Where are those 10 trees that you said would be cut? Hoffman: There are approximately 7 trees and they're right along this side 0 f the... Berg: Those would have to be cut to accommodate a tennis court? Hoffman: A tennis court, correct. Carol Droegemueller: If the court was placed there? I mean I looked at the original plan and it seemed to use the northern part of the park nicely. We have about 10 acres in this piece of property and about 5 acres are usable for park. Is that right? About half of it because half of it is wetland. And now it's even going to be less than that 5 because it's all being squashed over to the west. I didn't go all the way in when I looked at it today and I really should have maybe gone when you said you were going to go over there with the graders that day and walked it with you. It looked to me as though there was a lot of open space and flat area through in there. I am disappointed that the tennis court would take precedent over some of, for one thing I guess I looked at the trees and I'm all for saving trees but this is a park that we're building and not, and it's a park for neighborhood use. I look at the tennis court as some'thi ng very valuable in there. It would be part of a nice par k. We have no tennis courts to get to by bike from our neighborhood at all. We can get into a car, like Todd described, but the Chaparrel is over a mile away. And MIS is the other one. They'd be the ne~rest ones and they're probably half a mile. But they're crossing TH 41 and CR 117 to get to either of those two parks. Curry Farms has a park slated which is down the road from this park and they have no tennis courts slated in there either. There's two neighborhood parks that will not have that feature. And I think it's valuable. Do you want me to just say everything that, all my thought right now? Or do you want to respond? ....." Schroers: We need to know them all before we can make a reasonable decision. Carol Droegemueller: Okay. As listed in the letter that we received, tennis was rated, there was a survey taken, oh I'm not really sure of the timeframe but maybe 2 years ago in the initial stages. I have a couple thoughts about that. I think this park's going to be there long after the initial residents who were polled for what they wanted in that park. And not necessarily that everything that they want should be in there, but volleyball is going to, according to this plan, will stay and that was ranked after tennis on this, in terms of square footage and use. You only need a couple people to play tennis and you need more than a few to play volleyball. I really think that a park that would have, I guess I'm not convinced about the not being able to build on the east side of that northern section for the play area. When we first talked about it, it looked like it would be a really neat area for a play area because it would be nestled among the trees. Now I didn't get over there. I only walked in the path coming in Wood Duck which is on the top of the screen there. It's a bituminous, it's drawn as a bituminous trail. I came in through that way so I didn't get to wal~ in all the way over there. In the letter it also talked about not wanting a chainlink fence. I'm not --' JfII"""o. Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 7 sure what your rational is for that. I don't have any objection to that. I'm sure it's cost. I'm sure that the tennis court is more costly than maybe not having it up of course. And I want a clarification of the American Disabilities'Act. This is directed towards tennis courts and not toward play areas and things like that? I mean do you have to have access to everything in your park? Hoffman: Correct. Carol Droegemueller: Everything in your park needs to have access according to this new? Okay. And the fact that the tennis court would have cyclone fencing around it is the impediment there? Hoffman: No, it's the distance from the parking availability. Any tennis courts we currently maintain need to be retrofitted to allow access, uniform access and there needs to be reasonable capabilities for parking. Carol Droegemueller: And then how does that change the play area then? The play area is in there in the same area where the tennis court was going to be and it's not any closer to a parking area. Hoffman: Correct. It's not any closer. Accommodations will be made to the play area similar to the tennis court to allow for... .,-.., Carol Droegemueller: It's still, I mean if you were going to allow access to everything, then the whole thing could be wiped out couldn't it? If you're going to follow that. Hoffman: Well again, it's based on reasonableness and in the context of the tennis court, it's one of the things...not the highest priority reason. Again, the preservation of the vegetation in my opinion is... Carol Droegemueller: Well, I thought as I read this. You know this is, I don't know. I read in the letter 5 trees. Now I hear 7 tonight, ash trees, but I don't hear of trees stopping commercial and private industry construction in Chanhassen. I'm sure you didn't stop the Target development because of 5 mature trees. This is a park that I see trees being replaceable in this environment and growing up around the areas that you maybe had to destroy to get started the park but we have three wet outlots in that development, all gone to natural vegetation and that satisfied the Park and Rec, years and years ago when that development was going and it didn't do anything in terms of recreational park use for the neighborhood and at this time I would like you to consider recreational park use rather than natural vegetation because it's already been chosen once. And now to choose it again and leaves us with, I guess I'd like to keep our options open. I'd like the design of the park. I realize these are expensive things and I'm delighted that the open field is there first because I'll be the first to admit I have broken windows on my side of my house from the baseball that's going on on the side yard but I would like the plan to be flexible and future oriented and able to put these things in later if the money is there to do that, and not close off those .~ options. And also I'd like to point out that I thought the parking was coming off of Lake Lucy Lane in the original concept and not off of Wood Duck. It's never been intended to come in off of Wood Duck. That was a Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 8 -' neighborhood access, if I'm not mistaken. And the parking was down on the south end of the park. Off of Lake Lucy Lane. The neighborhood was never intended on having any parking up in there, which is where the most of the park is. Hoffman: Correct. The neighborhood never had the intention because it was undesireable but, as Carol stated, all of the active components are there. That easement which comes in off of Wood Duck, under the original plan for the development of this parcel would have been a road to access those homes. As such it made sense to bring in the parking, an access road to the parking and a parking lot off of that. Off of Wood Duck Lane. Neighborhood resistence .was there. The discussion centered around putting on street parking on the Lake Lucy Lane. That was not very desireable. It finally ended up, as you can see on this plan, with the parking lot being proposed down in this side. Again, it ended up on the plan. It's not highly desireable. I would not recommend that we move forward with it's construction. Number one, due to the fact that if a person was going c to access the park to participate in some type of activity, they would most likely park on Wood Duck and walk a short distance to the playfield or another component of the park. And secondly, would require a great deal of grading and fill down in that area and it would require the cutting of this entire hillside,of trees here to accommodate that grading. Schroers: I think we'd have a problem with the ADA access from that location also. -' Hoffman: Distance, yes. Schroers: Okay. Are there any other residents or interested parties that would li~e to speak on behalf of Pheasant Hills? Okay. Thank you very much for all your information and we'll see what we can do with it. Do we have any particular thoughts from Commissioners? I mean the implication thaL I'm receiving here is that at least one person from Pheasant Hills is very much in favor of keeping the tennis court in the plan. Lash: Well and I don't have a problem I guess with keeping our options open in the future but I just want to back up I guess a little bit on this whole plan because I really feel like there's been a pretty good give and take going on with the residents and the Park and Rec Commission over the years. I think initially we started out with nothing. There was no park, and I feel like we took advantage of an opportunity to get this and that was something that was going to make that neighborhood happy and it did cost us a considerable amount of money. And we thought at that time it would be years and years and years before we'd even be able to develop it because we spent so much money on the property, but now with the Target development and different things, we've been able to try and push that schedule forl,ol~Hd a little bit. I'm glad to see that and I'm sure the residents ale too. And initially we had, I think the plan did show parking o~f of Wood Duck and we had a neighborhood meeting and the neighborhood was not happy with that idea. So we made the concession and put it off of Lake Lucy. Then we had to go back on that one because the soil conditions and the topography was such that it just wasn't a viable ~. option for us anymore so we went back to the Wood Duck and then we had another meeting with the residents and at that point then it was either no Park and Rec Commission Meeting "...... January 26 ~ 1993 - Page 9 parking or parking off of Wood Duck and I felt like we made a concession there that we would just skip the parking if we had to. And we have been talking in the last year about a change in the whole philosophy of tennis courts in the city parks. In respect to their cost. They are the most expensive item that we can put in initially, and as Todd said~ to maintain. So the Commission has taken a stand somewhat to try to slide away from putting tennis courts in neighborhood parks and keeping them in community parks. So in some of our newer plans that we've been doing, we have not been putting tennis courts in because of those factors. So I think that has something to do with what brought up this whole deal of removing it from the plan. And with the new preservation of the Tree Board and the feeling in the community of trying to preserve as much vegetation, as many mature trees as we can, that had a little something to do with it. I~m just trying to give you some history as to where we're coming from on this Carol so that you maybe can...but I think when we put that all together, and Curry Farms originally had a tennis court in there and the soil conditions aren't, we~ve heard anyway that the soil conditions aren~t conducive to a tennis court there. So that's why that~s gotten out of that one. We know that leaves that area short in that recreational facility but a lot of, most neighborhoods don't have tennis courts. Most neighborhood parks do not have tennis courts. And if we want to leave it open, I don't have a problem with that, but I honestly can say to you that you and I would probably be so old before tennis, we had the money to put a tennis court in there, that we would not have the ,..... opportunity to enjoy it. So we can leave the plan open~ but boy I just don't know when we~d ever have the money to ever go back and put it in. And that~s a sad fact but I think that is a fact, and I don't know how else to say it to you. Schroers: Well it really came about when we were going through our Capital Improvement Program for the 1993 year. In order to complete and accomplish some of the things that seemed to be more urgently needed, other things have to be cut and put on back burners or on layaway and I ~lso believe that you maybe are not aware but the first formal meeting of the Chanhassen Tree Board is this coming Thursday and they are going to be very aggressive concerning any native, matuTe, hardwood tree in the city and if it comes to a tennis court versus losing 4, 7 or 10, whatever nice ash trees, that's going to be a whole not her political process to negotiate in order to get something accomplished and that's going to take additional time. And they're going to take a very strong stance at not losing any trees so it's going to be a tough issue there. Jim. Andrews: I just wanted to kind of go a little deeper on the statement Jan made about our change in philosophy about tennis courts in neighborhood parks versus community parks. That is something we've talked about over the last year. I think we, as a commission, feel obligated that if we are going to provide tennis eourts, we must also provide parking access and I think that the way this park is situated, surround a neighborhood and some of the resistance we're getting from the parking concerns~ that we felt we were in ~ no win situation and I certainly would say that if tennis courts were something we felt we had to go forward'with, then I would be very ~ insistent that the parking be provided right by the court that the people are going to drive to use it. I think it's always nice to have a park for a private neighborhood type of a use but that's not really the intent of Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 10 parks in our city, especially when they provide a community wide piece of equipment or a tennis court or whatever. So I think in being consistent with that philosphy that we adopted really last year, I would say that we're following along and following it through on our plan to not have tennis courts into the smaller neighborhood parks that don't provide easy and adequate parking. We have some larger neighborhood parks that even with, you have 20 plus parking spaces, are more than full when they're combining a play area and a tennis court so it's a problem that you have to deal with and deal with fairly for all people that want to use it. So I think to be realistic, I would say that tennis courts are unlikely to happen here. Koubsky: Todd what is, if a tennis court doesn't 90 into this park as we proposed, what's the closest tennis court to that area? Carol Droegemueller: In that area it would be at MIS...on the corner of TH 41 and TH 7. There's two courts back in there that from our neighborhood is about half a mile as the crow flies. You have to go out on TH 41...to get there. Koubsky: Most in that area up there, there's quite a bit of undeveloped land also isn't there? I don't know if there's large lots. Hoffman: Once you go to the west of Galpin. Koubsky: I guess my thoughts is, I do know there's a Tree Board. I side with Carol in long term plannings and if, I'm not an advocate of tearing down trees. Nobody would say they were. I have seen, since being on this Board, an awful lot of maple trees having to give way for housing developments. 5 or 6 ash trees for a potential park plan that's going to service the community to be is reasonable. Now we are trying to move out of neighborhood tennis courts basically because of their expense. In this original plan we did propose, or have an option to put one there and I'm not one for going back on our options. I certainly don't oppose changing concepts in midstream when new information is brought to light and running that past residents who are concerned and what not. But at least in the original plan we have an option, and. the city is open to options. If maybe not 5 or 10 years but maybe 15 years, as the city develops, how are we going to, and the city becomes more capital rich possibly and theT~'s more political demands for tennis courts around the areas. How are we going to come up with options at that point without creating a new park? There's an alternative here that I'd just like to throw out. Half court basketball does provide hard court surfaces, and it is active. I'm not opposed to removing trees and I would suggest that we, for the time being grade this where we could have potential to put a tennis court in here if we so desire. Again, we have our option. But instead maybe initially, due to cost, put a basketball court in there. A half court basketball. Something we could more readily afford. Schroers: We have basketball is in there. Lash: It was in the first one too. ...."" ...., ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ January 26, 1993 - Page 11 Koubsky: Yeah, but if we go to the original plan and eliminate our options for a tennis court. Lash: Well, if you go to the new plan and want to leave a tennis court as an option in there, it could still be just north of the half court basketball court couldn't it? It would require taking a couple of trees down but if in the end that's what we wanted to do, we could do it right? Koubsky: So we have two issues. We have a play area issue that has to be moved. Or that may not have to be moved. That's being proposed on a new plan to be moved. And then we have an issue of, do we keep options open for the future to go ahead with the tennis court if the area demands it, or do we decide here that no. These types of parks will not have tennis courts. Andrews: I think you have to talk about parking with tennis courts. I don't feel it's fair to put a tennis court up in a neighborhood without par ki ng. Koubsky: Well we're also, and later on in this Minutes, we're proposing to have softball games in neighborhoods that don't have parking. Tennis courts are 2 to 4 people. Softball games, we're talking about having teams of players go into neighborhoods without any parking and utilize softball fields so that. ,.... Lash: You know, and there is on street parking on Wood Duck. To me I don't have a problem with someone parking on Wood Duck and walking in on the trail to use the tennis court. If they don't want to walk that far, they probably shouldn't be playing tennis in the first place. Andrews: I guess I would say then. Lash: What I have a problem with is the amount of money that would be put into a neighborhood park that we just don't have and we can't do it. You know maybe down the road, I don't have a problem with leaving our options open and I don't even know with the new plan that that's really shutting off our options and that's not saying it's definitely going to go in there. All we're saying is, in the future, like Dave said, someday if the magic fairy flies over Chan and drops a bush loads of money and we want to put a tennis court in every neighborhood park, we can. But you know, I don't see that happening in the near future anyway. But at least we would have that open here if we wanted to. And I don't necessarily agree Jim that it means that you have to have a parking lot in there. I understand what you're saying, I just don't necessarily agree with it. Berg: My concern is economic too. It's an area maybe we're not touching on yet and that's the impact that the cost of a tennis court is going to have on the play area. We're talking 1994 now in terms of getting play equipment. My sense is that if we spent what it cost to put in a tennis court, that that date would be pushed back considerably in terms of being able to budget in the equipment that we need. My other sense is that ,,.... there would probably be a greater need in terms of number of residents: using a play area than there would be the tennis court. I have no scientific data to back that up at all. I don't even know the demographics Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 12 ...", of the neighborhood, etc. but my sense is that we'd be sacrificing quite a great deal in terms of the play area if we invested that kind of money, which as Jan's saying, we don't have anyway. Lash: Well and it would be, in most of our neighborhood parks, we end up with a time line where we do Phase 1 and that's play equipment. Then 2 years later we put in the basketball court and then 2 years later we put in something else. With the amount of money that a tennis court costs, the tennis court is always Phase 14 or something because we just never have that amount of money to plunk into a neighborhood park without depriving other areas in town of something that they want too. So I don't know that it would deprive the play area, because that's going to be the first thing to go in no matter what but the tennis court is going to be, would be many, many, many, many years down the road. Berg: I would support the idea too of leaving it open. I don't want to create unrealistic expectations though in terms of when that money is going to be there to be able to do it. Schroers: We had some rough figures but a tennis court basically starts at $40,000.00 and goes up from there depending on how much grading has to be done and the soil underneath. Hoffman: That would be high. A double court will cost you in excess of $25,000.00. A single court will come in at around $15,000.00. ~ Schroers: That's considering, start to finish? Hoffman: Essentially on a relatively flat site. With no soil corrections. Lash: Other than the tennis court, was there some other reason. did I miss it for moving the play area from up on the hill down by the fence? Hoffman: The play area, if you're familiar with the park. If you took a walk from the original concept plan where that play area is down to the open playfield, you would be removed and the play apparatus would be quite remote. In this original plan to alleviate that problem it was proposed that much of that area would be groomed out. It would be cleared out. Grubbed out, cleared and maintained in a mowed fashion. Obviously if you do not have to do that, you allow yourself to keep the natural lay of the land as it is. You get away from some construction costs and from the future maintenance costs of parks, which in a traditional sense everybody recognizes but which I think not only Chanhassen but the State, other cities and then our national scale, people are beginning to recognize parks are not just mowed green surfaces. They are much more than that. Lash: So if we went with the new concept, is there a way that we can keep the option open of putting a tennis court in between where the trail runs and the half court basketball court. Hoffman: You would need to construct the tennis court in a somewhat ~ perpendicular fashion~ Or incorporate the, you would have to construct it, this is the long way. Or incorporate this half court basketball into ,..,.., Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 13 it and fit it into this configuration, which would be much more desireable. Lash: But that is an option? Hoffman: Sure. Lash: Okay. Hoffman: Sure. Again, I should clarify both for the Commission and the members of the audience the reason why this change in concept is important. As we worked through the grading process with the park maintenance and street maintenance crews, they want to get the rough grading. Any clearing, grubbing, tree cutting out of the way and match that to a park master plan which the city feels the park will eventually look like. It's also important so as we go through this process of educating the neighborhood and as they begin to create perceptions of what that park is going to look like, that that perception is accurate. So that is the simple reason. I certainly have no problem with keeping our options open with labeling a ghost tennis court on here somewhere in a dotted line, if that's what you choose. I"""" Andrews: I'm willing to be flexible so I think we ought to consider having the finish grade follow on the...access with the half court basketball so we would extend that area to a tennis court is necessary. guess I think we could have a multi-use surface that we could provide a basketball hoop on that also could have a tennis court net put on it at some later time and added so, can I put this in a motion? I Schroers: .1 like that idea. I think we'd be ill advised to close any doors and it's also adviseable to make the best use of the active space that's available and by incorporating a tennis court, or the potential of a tennis court in on top of the half court basketball, thereby getting maximum use out of the area makes a lot of sense to me. Andrews: Okay. I'd like to move that we adopt the new concept plan with the addition of the finish grade to allow enough flat area for the half court basketball to be extended to a tennis court at some future date, if we chose to do so. Schroers: Is there a second to that motion? Lash: I'll second that? Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission adopt the new Master Park Plan for Pheasant Hills Park with the addition of the finish grading to allow enough flat area for the half court basketball to be extended into a tennis court at some future date. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I"""'" Schroers: Thank you very much for coming and showing your interest. I hope that this somewhat explains the situation and hopefully will meet some of our needs and expediate the process towards getting the groundwork going in place. Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 14 -' Carol Oroegemueller: May I just make a comment? Schroers: Sure. Carol Droegemueller: I have just a couple comments. One is, when Todd and I first started discussing the options of having a park here, and I got all excited about the topography of this land and it lended itself to being kind of a unique park because of it's topography. When I saw the first plan, or the revision I wondered how we got to the first one. If a park designer could put all those things in all those places in the first one, why all of a sudden with the revision they couldn't work when they had the topography then but. I'm initially disappointed that we're not spreading out into that space and taking advantage of the unique topography for the play area and the other things that. It doesn't have to be just a mowed area of grass like Todd described flat. and this is really a unique setting sol would like to see us be creative here and not necessarily, not that I want you to spend a whole bunch of ton more money because it has to be cleared but that area, I'm not sure doesn't lend itself for the totlot tOb. I mean,it's not a big space. The distance from going from the bituminous trail to where the totlot is planned to going up a little further and maybe changing the configuration of the trail is very small. And my second thought is that, as a resident here in Chanhassen, I cannot provide for my family and the neighborhood kids' certain recreational activities but the City of Chanhassen can and those include tennis and basketball and volleyball and things like that that I cannot provide them personally in my yard. I can provide a totlot or swingset or park bench or picnic area you know, I can do that at my house. ~ But I cannot do the other things and I would strongly encourage you to consider that in terms of neighborhood park and community park. As Jim described, a neighborhood park becomes a community park in an eyelash. It just does because people are using it and use it for the things that you can't provide in your own backyard. That's all I guess I have to say. Thank you. Schroers: Okay. The motion has been made and passed on the Pheasant Hill Park Master Plan and the amendment. Is there any further discussion on that at this time? Lash: I guess I just have one question. Todd, because I'm always a strong proponent of making sure that everyone who was interested knows. It says that a letter was mailed to the residents adjoining within 500 feet. Now I'm assuming that was everyone also who came to any of the neighborhood meetings. That we have a list of them and it wasn't just a handful of people but everybody who's interested would have heard about this meeting. Hoffman: Correct. And it's not only just the people within 500 feet. OVer the process of reviewing this park, we've established a much larger mailing list which incorporates all the folks up and down Lake Lucy Lane. Lash: So it was all of those people. Schroers: Now we've had the entire room filled. --' ,.... JII"'. ,....... Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 15 Lash: Right, and that's why I wanted to make sure that they all were aware of what was going on and it wasn't just the abutting property owners. Hoffman: Correct. LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. PRELIMINARY PLAT. BOLEY PROPERTY. LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, Commissionet's. This is a land development proposal. Preliminary plat to subdivide 36 acres in Chanhassen into 33 single family homes on property zoned, residential single family. The location as you've seen is just south of Lake St. Joe, on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. The applicant is Lundgren Brothers Construction; represented this evening by Terry Forbord. . Again the present zoning is RSF. Adjacent zoning, fOT your information. To the north is the same. To the south you run directly into the city of Victoria. To the east, back towards the parkway is single family. And then to the west you cross over into the city of Victoria again. The comprehensive park plan identifies this area of the city, which this proposed plat lies in, as park deficient. This is no surprise to you as commissioners, the applicant or the residents of this area. There is no park of any kind, public open space, playground or other recreational area located west of Lake Minnewashta between Highway 5 and 7. The only thing we have in that area is Cathcart Park, which is located in the city of Chanhassen but operated by the City of Shorewood. The City has initiated steps to eliminate this park deficiency. First a park acquisition and development fund reserve was established. And secondly, we are actively making contacts with land owners in that area inquiring about outright purchase of property for park purposes. Some commissioners may recall that Mr. Forbord was here back in 1990. During the review that was a separate issue. However he referenced the possible development of the Boley property. A great amount of discussion that evening centered upon the designation of land around Lake St. Joe, with the exception of the Malinowsky property as park and open space in this city's land use plan, as you can see on Attachment 8. This designation will be honor~d under the current proposal. This is not an effort by the developer but as the property is designated wetland, it is protected as such. This designated open space, although of tremendous value, does not lessen the need for a park in this region of the city however. The question then remains, is the Boley property the appropriate site for a park west of Lake Minnewashta, which the commission has identified in the past, needs to be at least 10 acres in size. I do not believe so for 3 reasons. The topographic constraints confronted on this site would make development of a park, even one with a high percentage of passive area, difficult. Two, the site is removed from the center of the West Lake Minnewashta region. Property north of this site would be more appropriate for use as a park. Granted yoU could acquire a park on this property and service both this neighborhood, potentially Red Cedar Point in that southern half of the Minnewashta Parkway neighborhood. However, then you would be faced with the job, the task of acquiring additional parkland in the northern Lake Minnewashta region to satisfy those people as well. Additionally, the site borders the city of Victoria on two sides. The preliminary plat includes some 20 lots in Victoria in addition to the ones proposed in Chanhassen. As you are aware, recent negotiations Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 16 over ownership and operation responsibility of the Cathcart Park with the City of Shorewood exemplify, point out the difficulties which can arise from acquisition of so called border parks. As such, in the area of park acquisition, it is the recommendation that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication as condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees are to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in face upon building permit application. Currently those fees are $500.00 per lot. As it deals with the comprehensive trail plan, we have two sections to identify and to discuss each one separately. The one trail segment which is identified on the comprehensive plan as Minnewashta Parkway and presently there's a 8 foot bituminous trail being constructed as part of the upgrade of Minnewashta Parkway. Thus satisfying that portion of the comprehensive trail plan. In this neighborhood, or in this vicinity, that trail will be on the east side of the boulevard so residents of this area will have to cross Minnewashta Parkway to access the trail, and that should be completed sometime this summer. The second trail segment which was identified in the comprehensive plan with a nature trail around Lake St. Joe, I confirmed with Mark Koegler of Hoisington-Koegler Group who has been participating in the update and revision of the City's comprehensive plan over approximately the last 8 years. I inquired to him to confirm my assumption that this was to access that beautiful natural area around st. Lake Joe to the west. His recollection was yes, it was but in questioning how we would access that, because it is very rough terrain. Wet, wooded, wetland areas, his statement back to me was that well, the study never went that indepth at that time. It was just thought if it could be accommodated through the development of the City's trail plan, that we should do so.' My findings are that the topography in that area, the vegetation would not allow for this loop trail to go around Lake St. Joe. You could certainly build it if you would construct some type of a boardwalk such as you find in Hennepin Parks or some of the other regional parks. Sut I simply could not recommend that type of construction because I can't justify that cost with this type of low use trail. A trail being located in a residential area. If it were found in a very large city park or in the regional park, you may want to look into that. As such, it is my recommendation that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easements, dedication or. construction, as a condition of approval of the Soley property plat. Again, these fees to be paid at the lot rate, lot basis, that rate in force upon building permit application. That current fee is $167.00 but again I want to reiterate back to t.he Commission that I'm troubled that this recommendation does go into direct conflict with the city.s comprehensive plan. ,If the Commission is uncomfortable with this, a recommendation should be given that the City Council require a trail easement be granted by the applicant on Lots 1 thru 13, Block 1. Again, simply for some type of rainly day plan. We are simply not planning for tomorrow or 10 years down the line. We are planning for the entire future of Chanhassen. To show you where those Lots 1 thru 13, Block 1 are and where that trail easement would be necessary. This would be, Minnewashta Parkway is here. Lots 1 thru 13 run along this border. The general configuration of the plan, the comprehensive park plan for that nature trail started 'at Minnewashta Parkway, looped around Lake St. Joe and comes back and connecting to the north. Thus the need for a trail easement around to the rear of those lots to accommodate that at some point in the .-, ..,.; --' "'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 17 future. You can see potentially in the copy that you have that this plan identifies the ordinary high water mark and the edge of the wetland. That easement would have to come up with the area above the edge of the wetland so it would be encroaching considerably on those lots. I believe that the lots are so deep and they're platted a lot ways out into that wetland type vegetation. Berg: Do we have a problem Todd with the trail around St. Joe and ADA? Do we have to make that accessible too? Hoffman: Certainly with all trail construction you need to address slopes and those type of things. Berg: Because of the already difficult terrain, do we have to make it less difficult? Or is it alright to leave it as nature. We just have to provide access to it? Hoffman: No. area. It's a can easily be tremendous. You couldn't construct just a dirt nature trail in this wooded wetland. You would have to build a boardwalk, which made accessible. The expense of doing so would be Andrews: This would be a nature trail loop, right? It wouldn't go anywhere or come from anywhere. r-- Hoffman: It would be a loop off of Minnew~shta Parkway and potentially back to Kings Road which is to the north or back to the Parkway. Andrews: I think this would be a beautiful trail but I don't think it serves any purpose as far as the trail system. Schroers: It'd be a semi-circle around the west side of the lake basically. Hoffman: Before we get in discussion, it should b,e noted that a fairly large mailing as well was distributed to the adjacent residents in this area informing them of tonight's meeting. And then also informing them of future discussion on this item by the Planning Commission and City Council. Schroers: Okay. I have a question for staff regarding our development of the master park plan. We are going to be able to...something north of this and identify that as future parkland and that should make it more accessible at the point of development that it's already been laid out and by acquiring these funds may give us some money to work with towards that in the future. What I'm concerned with here is that we don't shut any doors in regards to obtain park space in this part of the city because that will come back to haunt us if we don't have a plan. Hoffman: You're absolutely correct in that regard and that is why I took my time and put a lot of thought into this recommendation. There simply ~ are 4 large tract parcels left. That's all that remain west of Lake Minnewashta. Those are all north of Kings Point Road. If you want to reference the map on the wall there, there are essentially 4 rectangular, Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 18 """" long rectangular pieces of property ranging in size from 10 to 25 acres. However, you may, Larry may recall that approximately 4, maybe 5 years ago the Commission requested staff to investigate the purchase price and other factors associated with a 25 acre parcel just north of Kings Points Road. 25 acres, 4 building sites at that time, I think they had priced at $750,000.00...but certainly not within the reach of the Park Commission. You also may be aware that the current reserve level for this acquisition is $150,000.00 so it's a large chunk of park acquisition and development funds. One of the largest reserves ever held in that fund. But again, in order to purchase 10 acres, we'll need the resources of additional dollars. Andrews: A separate reserve from our capital reserve? Hoffman: Correct. Lash: We have a fund. Hoffman: Specified reserve. The cash is in the bank. Lash: What have we got in there? Like $100,000.00, $150,000.00 or something? Hoffman: $150,000.00. This, if you take 33 lots. So take in another and you could pinpoint that directly onto that reserve and raise that up. Schroers: And then also the trail fee. ~ Hoffman: Correct. Lash: I don't know if we need to take the trail fee in there because there is a trail already earmarked to go on Minnewashta Parkway so I don't know that I would want to earmark more of our trail fund money for that specific area when we have other areas. Schroers: I didn't mean earmark it for a trail but also apply that towards the acquisition fund for the park in that area. Lash: I don't think we can do that can we? Hoffman: In theory it's not what it'sdesigned for but I think this is an extenuating circumstance and you may be able to justify that type of thought process. Schroers: What I'm concerned with and what I wanted to point out to the other commissioners is that our opp'ortunities in this area are very, very limited and there is an extreme need for an active park in that western part of the cityw There has been lots of interest and more than interest. There's been quite a bit of displeasure voiced by the residents out there who feel as though they're not being treated fairly because the residents closest to the city have things available to them that they don't have. Yet they're still paying very high taxes out there and they want something for their money and we have to make very sure that when we let a parcel ~ like this go, that we have a good plan in place and some resources to back Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ January 26, 1993 - Page 19 it up, that we are going to be able to acquire the adequate space out there before there isn't any left because as Todd said, what's available is really limited. Berg: Really expensive. Schroers: Very expensive. Berg: Are we realistically going to have the money to ever do that? Schroers: Well along with the dedication of the proposed development, hopefully. Lash: The best we can hope for is that further up north, somewhere off of Minnewashta Parkway another developer is going to come in with a chunk of property that we'll be able to get some park property out of that development and then beef it up with what we have in our fund. Don't yoU think that's where we're going? Hoffman: That's one potential alternative but. Lash: That's kind of what I had in mind. Hoffman: Yeah, there's a variety of scenarios. Outright purchase is /~ beginning to look more and more justifiable and economically would be your best choice. The combination of acquisition through the platting process and park dedication ordinance and then purchase using that $150,000.00, that can work but it takes a difficult negotiating to make that happen. My other concerns are, we have 25, 30, 40, 60 acres. Roughly a ballpark left to the north, if a developer would bring that full 60 acres to you, you would have some pretty good opportunity to get a substantial chunk of property. But if it came in under 4 or 5 smaller developments, the process of gaining park property in a uniform fashion becomes much more difficult. If they come in at 20 house developments, you don't have much opportunity to gain park property. So the scenarios are endless. Larry, to address your question, I think you have the, with the addition of the comprehensive park plan to come within the next 6 months, and the reserve which you have on hand, you are as prepared as you can be. The other factors which you can utilize are a future bonding issue to go ahead and purchase that. We'll watch with interest how the Shorewood issue does this coming March; They're up for $900,000.00 for park improvements in Shorewood. Eden Prairie passed a referendum but in the third go around and after reducing it three times. So that's...current taxes not only in this city but the State, you don't like to hang your hat on that either. Koubsky: So the thought then too is with this trail dedication fee, if we accept it, that basically goes into our general fund. Hoffman: Yeah, it...park acquisition and trail development. ,.... Koubsky: We can roll that in to an acquisition fund if we choose? Hoffman: Yes. You can justify that I believe on the position that Minnewashta, the trail along Minnewashta Parkway was a considerably Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 20 .....", investment in that neighborhood and that community out there. It came at no cost to your park acquisition and development and trail development fund, but was funded through cost sharing with the State. state Aid improvements to the road. Schroers: Okay, does Mr. Forbord have anything that he wants to bring to the Commission tonight in the way of information regarding this? Thank you. Any other thoughts from the Commission? Anyone else in the audience wishing to make a statement or address this proposal? Brenda Roy: My name is Brenda Roy. I live just to the south of the Boley property. I agree that the lake would be really tough to go around if elected. What I'd like to see changed is the name Richard Sudkey on my. . .and just that there is a need for a par k and we have put our .money into the trailway system and it would be nice to have something, because the kids are going across TH 7 and that's really dangerous. Schroers: There's the wrong name on your property? Brenda Roy: Yes. Richard Sudkey is on my property. Schroers: I don't see where it is. Brenda Roy: Just south of where it says public street. Outlot B. Outlot A. Yeah. Right there. And that's it. Schroers: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? ....,;I John Larson: My name is John Larson, and I have got a question. The topographic constraints on the Boley property, what specific constraints would those be? Hoffman: The constraints would be the relief which the property offers. Hilly terrain. Up and down nature of the property. John Larson: I see, thank you. Schroers: As far as, I'm not sure the reason for the constraints? Are you speaking in reference to park property on that development? Developing park property there or is it trail? John Larson: I was wondering what the constraints were on the Boley property as far as putting a park there... Lash: I think I understand what you're saying, and that's a good question because I wanted to double check on that myself. It is basically that we figure that geographically it would be better for the majority of the residents in western Chanhassen to be further north, on the other side of Lake St. Joe? Hoffman: Correct. If the Commission acquired a park on the Boley property, you would be servicing that southern region and you would have to acquire to the north. Again, the topographic constraints, being that ....,., you start from Lake St. Joe and come to some very steep terrain. You top Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,..... January 26, 1993 - Page 21 out at a knoll and then you drop off on the other side down fairly steeply and then down steeply again into the wetland area just north of Highway 5. The site, you'd be hard pressed to find a very even a small site of flat property on this site. But again the topographic constraints are merely a second factor in your decision to acquire or not to acquire park property here. Schroers: But also definitely is a factor because of grading costs to develop a park and that would cost us more to develop an area that requires more grading than this. That pretty much goes without saying. Someone in the audience was asking a question that was not picked up on the tape. Schroers: Well, if he was building for his specific development but for our park, if we decide to acquire some of that property as parkland, we could try to negotiate with the developer to do that grading for us while he was grading for his development but you know, we may end up losing some ground or some property or something in that negotiation. I don't know if I'm explaining it properly or not but I think that in the past that has been kind of a negotiable. We've tried to get this developer to do some of the grading and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but you don't get something for nothing, so when you do that, it's always a give and a take. Okay, we'll do the grading for you but then I get this lot ,~ back. Therefore, your park is going to be a little smaller than you wanted. Something of that nature. Lash: Just to clarify sort of how the system works, because you maybe don't, most people don't know how this works. When a developer comes in, we have two choices. We can either require that he donate a certain amount of acreage to the city to be used for park property. In that case then we waive any park fees that we would, that the City would charge him on this building permit and it's like $500.00 per lot. So if we do not take the property, we get the $500.00 and then we can use the $500.00 to put into our park fund for future park development or those kind of things. And there's a rule of thumb that, depending on the size of the development, you can only take a certain percentage, and what is it? Hoffman: 1 acre per 75 residents and on this it would be less than an acre and a half. Lash: Okay, so the most we would require him to designate to the City for park property would be an acre and a half which we tend to try to keep the neighborhood parks at 3 acres I think. As a minimum just so we don't have a lot of little half acre and acre sites all oveT the city to try to maintain. So this, you know if you just even look at that scenario right there it kind rules out, it doesn't fall into any of the criteria that we're looking ,at to even require park property instead of the fees. Did that clear it up for you just a little bit? Okay. " Schroers: Our standard was going to be 5 acres. Andrews: I think Todd's recommendation is a good one and I think we should, in this case earmark all the money that would be taken to go into Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 22 -' that acquisition account for that area. I think that's the only responsible thing we can do for that neighborhood. I'd like to move that we accept staff recommendation and earmark all the park dedication money and trail fee money to be put into the fund that's being set aside to purchase and develop a future park in this area. Lash: Is that trail fees too or just park fees? Andrews: I'd like to see trail fees in there too. We're going to need that. We're going to need every penny of that money to get what we need later and I think that's the responsible thing to do for the people that are still waiting for the park in that area. Schroers: I would second that motion and also, maybe not as a part of the motion but make particular reference to the fact that these funds are being set aside for park development in that area and have that noted in our master park plan as that develops. Andrews: I agree with that. Andrews moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park fees in lieu of land dedication, and to accept trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction as a ~ondition of approval of the Boley property. These fees are to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee is $500.00 per unit, and the current residential trail fee is $167.00 per unit for single family dwellings. Also, these park dediciation fees and trail dedication fees shall be earmarked to go into the reserve fund to develop parkland in the area west of Lake Minnewashta as noted in the comprehensive park plan as it develops. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ...." LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL" PRELIMINARY PLAT. $UNLINK ADDITION. SUNLINK CORPORATION. Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers, commission members. This is a preliminary plat .0 subdivide 60 acres into 4 lots and to vacate public right-of-way street and utility easements. The location is out here on the edge of our city, south of Highway 5 and east of Dell Road, just adjacent and including the DataServ property. The applicant is SunLink Corporation, Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia. Present zoning of that property is industrial office park. All the adjacent zoning are the same.' The comprehensive plan, read the memo which was forward to Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner I in December. The park aspect, this site is on the fringe of the park service area for South Lotus Lake Park and Rice Marsh Lak~ Park. Typically, when we're dealing with commercial/industrial property, we take a look at service areas in a little different context than neighborhoods, addressing potential before or after work recreation, availability of open space, and then noon time activities or lunch areas. The City has maintained two ballfields on the DataServ property, now which is shown as Lot 2, Block 2 for a period of years. That practice has been discontinued for approximately the past 2 years. However, if during the development of Lot 2, this use could be retained, it would be of benefit ~ to the city's park and recreation system and I would recommend that we """ Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 23 work with the developer of that parcel to do that. I should not that I'm not at all optimistic that that would ever occur, due to the pricetag and value of the property. As such, staff is recommending that all lots in this proposal be subject to full park fees at the rate in force upon building permit application for each individual lot. Currently those park fees for commercial/industrial development are $2,500.00 per acre. In the context of trails it's somewhat more cumbersome. Concrete sidewa~ks currently exist along the north side of Lake Drive East. On the west side of the north half of this segment of Dell Road. Do we have a map? Did you follow that? Anyway, the sidewalk which are in are taking care of pedestrian traffic. The one problem we have is that Dell Road is split between Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. So Eden Prairie is developing homes to the south of here and they've upgraded their half of the road. The City has not done so in Chanhassen because we've not been petitioned to do so. We have no use for that improved road. However our engineer, as I understand it, will be working with this application to have them petition and then pay for the eventual improvement of that side of the road. Thus we can make the last r~maining, unimproved trail connection which would go north and south there on Dell Road to allow those residents of Eden Prairie to connect to our trail system on Lake Drive East and then gain access to the proposed Southwest Transit drop-off/pick-up station right there at that corner. So in regards to trails, all vacant lots in SunLink Addition will be subject to trail fees at the rate in force upon building permit application. Currently those fees are $833.00 per acre. ~ Lash: Do you know what SunLink is? Hoffman: Do I know what SunLink, I presume SunLink is a developer of commercial property. Lash: So you don't know what's going in there? What that really is? Hoffman: No, I do not. The City Council is wrestling with the development of Highway 5 at the present time. Lash: I bet it's not automotive. Hoffman: The only thing that I know that is driving this application is the Southwest Metro Transit interest in that northeast corner of the lot for their park and ride. Pretty straight forward. Koubsky: Your recommendation is within the planning of the Highway 5 commissioner group? Schroers: Task force. Koubsky: Task force. thank you. Lash: Okay. I move that we accept full park and trail dedication fees as a condition of approval of SunLink Addition, with the current fees that are in force at the time. ,..... Andrews: I'll second. Park andRec Commission Meeting. January 26, 1993 - Page 24 Lash moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept full park and trail dedication fees as a condition of approval of SunLink Addition. These fees are to be assessed at the rate in force upon building permit application. Current park and trail fees for commercial/industrial development are $2,500.00 per acre and $833.00 per acre, respectively. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. RECREATION SECTION. Hoffman: This is something which is probably long been due in our city. We wrestled with issues which pertain to this subject each time a land development proposal comes before you. You wrestled with it again this evening, and now hopefully within the next 6 months, you'll have the opportunity to go out, not only west of Lake Minnewashta and identify what you feel is the most desireable location to satisfy the park needs of that neighborhood, but to do that in other areas in the city as welL I should note right off the top that this process is going to be much easier to accomplish inside the Metropolitan Urban Sewer Service Area, the MUS A line because outside of that MUSA line, land use gets much more vague. Obviously zoning, density issues, land use components, all those type of issues are going to come into playas you layout the city's comprehensive park plan for parks in the future. That would be both community parks, neighborhood parks. If our current plan is missing any trail corridors, we've identified Bluff Creek as a trail corridor. Are we missing any linear parks? Are we missing any public water body accesses? Are we missing an opportunity out there in the city which needs to be identified? It's going to be a long process but I think it can be one which should promote some real interest in our community. Obviously the landowners which you're designating property for use of parks aTe going to be interested in this process. Public, open public forums will be many. Attendance may be a few people. It may... I've outlined the process there. All I've done this evening is simply to provide you with some tools which are necessary to begin. That being the recreation section of the Comp plan so you can read through that, if you didn't already have it. Land use map dated 2000 and then the City's zoning map... So those are the items which you need to digest. I didn't expect you to do that over the last 3 days. Discussions with Mr. Koegler, he mayor may not be available as it turns out on the 23rd. They've had a continuation of a hearing in Mound which he may have to be present at. However, a member of his staff will be here that evening to begin the process. I envision laying a fairly stead timeline that most likely will include additional meetings on the second Tuesday. Some work sessions if you will to get into this process. We're going to pick apart theChanhassen City base map. You're going to circle and scratch and discuss a lot of pros and cons about a lot of pieces of property within our city. And then in fact, sometime in April or May you're going to have to get out and stomp around and take a look at this property, either individually or as a commission, to make some hard and fast decisions prior to identifying this property on the city's official parkland. Then you need to move forward, in addition to that. and work with the City Council on .an ordinance change in regard to park dedication. Specifically being that the City's ordinance in that regard needs to detai-l that developer's need to follow the City's official map and when they come in for a plat, to designate that land which is in green or designate it as park property and appropriately on this plat. ......." ....., ....",I ,...., Park and Rec commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 25 Then land development, after you put your time into that, you should want to remain a park commissioner for the next 18 years because land development issues in regards to park acquisition will become much simplier we hope. I'll address any questions at this time. Otherwise, you can look forward to this item coming back to you on the 23rd. At that time we will set some initial work sessions, most likely coming up the first part in March. The later half part of March. Again in April and then we will just continue to hash out this process. Schroers: I agree that we're going to have to set aside separate work sessions for this, or if it appears on the agenda along with other items, to provide a designated amount of time so as to work on it and adhere to that. If we need to during the normal course of our meeting, a half hour or an hour's worth of work on this. I think if we designate it and stick to that designation, that's fine. Otherwise this should probably all be done in a separate work session because trying to incorporate something of this magnitude into our regular agenda just isn't going to work out. We're not going to get anything done. ,.... Lash: I just feel like a majority of this work is already done. You know you did, as far as the updating, you did a great job, I don't remember how long ago it was, of giving us the current survey of everything that we have. That's what a lot of this is. It says what we have. Once we can put that in with this, plug in all the current information, it's going to make it a lot easier for us to go through and say well now, the last survey said we needed fishing docks and I just read something else, and we've gotten those now because we addressed some of those things. So, I think as far as picking out properties, that's going to be a tough thing to do but a lot of this is already, I think been updated and done. Hoffman: The general housekeeping items associated with the update, putting in as Jan stated, what facility you have in parks, those type of things, that will come fairly easily because we have done the ground work in that regard for the park inventory facilities map. That type of thing. Other issues, your current...all those comments have been tabulated and will be coming back to the Commission on the 23.d. So you'll be able to digest those comments as well. Put them in your memory storage and bring them out as you go through this process. And what did we hear from those 800 and some odd residents, or whatever it was that responded back were the comments something that they feel is missing from the recreational system, park system in Chanhassen. Schroe.s: Is this going to be the official name of this thing is going to be the Comprehensive Park Plan Amendment, Recreation Section, or is it going to be a master park plan? Hoffman: This would be the Comprehensive Park Plan as it is the City's Comprehensive Trail Plan. This would be the City's Comprehensive Park Plan. Lash: So do you want us to hang onto these big maps? ,..... Hoffman: You bet. Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 26 ....."I Lash: Oh, okay. Hoffman: Hang onto them and begin to take a look at them. We'll bring in the aerial photos. You'll be able to page through those as we initiate this process. We'll probably tackle it in zones. You'll take a look at the City. You'll try to get a feel for how you think it's going to develop into cubes or neighborhoods or modules. What type of barriers do you have going on? You can probably draw some great big black lines through barriers. Highway 5 and all the county roads and lake borders. You begin to get a feel for what these areas going to develop like. One difficult one may be, how many more community parks do we need. Community parks are typically developed around a major resource. Lake Ann. Lake Susan. South Lotus Lake. City Center Park. Are there any remaining major resources out in the community which will, 20-30 years from now, 40-50 years from, there's going to be a population center. A new configuration of roads, of traffic, of development, where a community park is going to be. Once you make those type of assumptions, you need to draw some lines and say, this is it. Andrews: Do we have to hold public hearings? Hoffman: Again, the Park Commission can hold public meetings. Official public hearings will be held by the City Council upon the conclusion of your discussion and recommendation up to the City Council. Andrews: Did you see the copy of the packet that went out for the Highway 5, regarding the taking of land or the designation of land? There were ~ some attorney comments by the City Attorney. Hoffman: No, I've not read through those. Andrews: Take a look at that if you get a chance. I think it would put everybody's mind at ease to get a copy of that. Because what it says basically is we are not at any risk if we designate something under a big master plan. We can't be sued and we really don't need to have hearings, the way I understand it. It's only when you make the specific request for the land that we have to go into the detail. But I think we should keep up on that concern and make sure that we are doing those things the right way so we don't get in a court battle 2-3 years down the road with somebody saying we didn't do it right. Hoffman: I just completed a news article for the spring newsletter and it's in regard to the process which you are about to undertake with the amendment to this comprehensive plan. In this I specifically spoke to landowner uneasiness when they start seeing these designations going to their property. Typically they get real excited. In attempting to dispell those, I think it can only be a benefit. If you're a landowner and a portion of your property is designated as a future park, and a developer comes in there to buy that property, not only is the developer then compensated through reduction in fees for that property, but they also take a premium for those lots. They sell them for a higher value. People desire to live on parks and open space. Thus they're making more money off of them so they're desireable from that standpoint. That designation. ....., Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ January 26, 1993 - Page 27 Schroers: Good. Well I'm sure that in the near future we're going to be dwelling on these issues quite a bit, so as long as we can't really accomplish anything further on that this evening, we may as well move along to item 9. Unless there are any other real specific questions. STATUS REPORTS: A. HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR STUDY TASK FORCE. JIM ANDREWS. Andrews: I volunteered for this task force, not having any idea how big of a project his is turning out to be. What's been happening is, as time has gone by, is more and more and more responsibility is being placed on this group, both by the Council and the Planning Commission. At least that's my impression is that not only are we now looking at road useage and trail useage. We're not looking at building design, landscaping, all various issues. The City is now looking at a potential moratorium on construction until this task force reports back with all their findings. It's turning into be a project that is a very, very large one. To date, to be real honest, the task force has accomplished little, in my opinion. I say that, that's my opinion but we have a meeting scheduled tomorrow night and I think the whip will be much more firmly used and I think we'll start to make some progress tomorrow night. The first things we're looki ng at are road design issues, a.s to what ki nd of roads do we want to have. How wide of roads. What kind of look or feel we want on these ~ roads. We're talking about access boulevards on the north and south of Highway 5, that I think would have a bit of like a boulevard or a parkway kind of a feel to them. A little lower speed. Maybe a little winding and a little more interest rather than a straight shot frontage road with no eye appeal or landscape interest. I think that's the focus of tomorrow night's meeting and I think we'll be quickly moving into development issues regarding the east end of town here. Some of the building designs. Trying to get sort of a master theme of our city development so it's a huge, huge project. We also have formed a subcommittee for. actually drafting a zoning overlay district so that we can enforce these design rules onto people as they develop property on the corridor. So it's a lot to get done. I think the Council was hoping that we could get done by July. If that weTe to happen, I would be really pleased. I think that the group will probably likely have to start meeting at least twice a month to get the job done on the timetable that the Council's asking for. I guess I'm just hoping that the project doesn't get any larger than it already is, and that we can break it down into pieces so at each meeting we can spend time actually making decisions rather than just trying to reacquaint ourselves with the whole big picture, which seems to be a lot of what we're spending time doing right now. There's about 12 people on that group but we've typically had 20 or 30 people in attendance. We've had a lot of people are real interested in .this group as to what's going on. A lot of landowners are very nervous that something's going to happen to their property that they didn't expect. So some of the meetings have been pretty intense. So anyway, we've spent a lot of time and have not passed any motions yet. But I think that will change as tomorrow night's meeting progresses. ,.... Sehroers: Will you define the corridor boundaries for us? Are we talking from like Powers Boulevard West or are you talking Highway 5 from the Park andRec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 28 ...." eastern portion of the city to the western portion of the city? Andrews: The corridor would extend all the way from the east border to the west border of the city. As far as the north/south boundary of that, it's really not specifically defined but I would say we're probably looking at somewhere around a mile on each side of the highway as the area that we'"re looking at. And because it's such a large area, you're obviously looking at the impact beyond those areas too because it all kind of effects one thing and the other. I mean we've spent some time looking at the intersection of Highway 41 and Highway 5. Of course we discussed what could go here and what could go there. Then somebody will say, well we've already got such and such up on Highway 7. What's that going to do to that development? So it's becoming a really huge, huge project. It's in some ways it's so much of a global problem to look at all the problems at once, that you find that it's very difficult to get anything done. One of the things that I've been trying to do, and myself and Gene Borg are the Co-Chairmen of the group, is we're trying to break this into doable pieces. And I've talked a lot with Paul Krauss and with some other city staff people that we really need to break this down into something so that we can get something decided. So we're trying to take a intersection, or a design, go with it and I think try to reli.eve some people's fears that we're really not legislating anything. All we're doing is recommending to Council. I think some people are under the impression that whatever we decide is it for good. It's a done deal, and that's really not the case. Schroers: With your meandering boulevard thing, if you don't mind me interrupting. .....,.i Andrews: Sure. Schroers: Are you talking about Highway 5 itself meandering with the boulevards? Andrews: No. Highway 5 is determined by the State of Minnesota. What we're looking at is a coordinating access boulevard to run parallel to that road on each side of Highway 5. Where that's going to be positioned, how it's going to be designed, what the intersections are going to look like, what kind of capacity for speeds and uses and land uses, that's everything. Everything. Schroers: Okay. So basically almost what you're talking about, to make it easily understandable for some of us who are a little thicker, is a service road? Andrews: Nobody likes to say frontage road. They like to say access boulevard but about half the time they call it a frontage road. It would not be a typical frontage road in that I think it would be further separated from the road. In a lot of cases we're looking at probably half a mile or 3/4 of a mile. Lash: You know I have trouble doing mental visualizations. I always have to have pictures and diagrams and things. But I don't know how that can be very meandering when there's. already, I mean look at along TH 5, a lot ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ January 26, 1993 - Page 29 of that is already pretty well developed. There isn't a half mile gap anywhere for you. Andrews: That's true. And up until you get past Lake Ann, there's no place to meander. Once you get past Lake Ann, there's lot of potential options, but unfortunately theTe are also some property owners that aren't real interested in some of those options. So we're having a lot of, so they would like it to meander on somebody else's property. We're dealing with a lot of people that are very intense about what's going to happen to their properties and we've had some pretty heated discussions at prior metings. Lash: So it's going to end up a frontage road? Andrews: I doubt it to be honest. I think you're going to see it running fairly close to Highway 5 until it gets past the golf range out there and then I think what will happen then is it will veer quite dramatically to the north and go probably like a half mile to 3/4 of a mile north of the road and run parallel. Probably to the north of the proposed, I can't think of the name of it. Fleet Farm. So it'd be approximately that far away from Highway 5. And then there'd be another road on the south side of Highway 5. The way these roads are funded right now is we're thinking that Minnesota is going to kick in a lot of money on the north access boulevard but likely no money on the south access boulevard so South ~access is wishful thinking at this point. Anybody that's interested in contributing to the group, it is just a huge, huge project and the details we're being asked now to provide is like building. What kind of roof you want and what kind of window designs and it's just too big. Lash: Well, can I just throw out one suggestion? Andrews: Sure. Lash: Try and have a little variety you know, so it doesn't look like all of the buildings. Andrews: Like pre-fab? Lash: Right. I have, I'm a little disillusioned sometimes with the character that I think the downtown is taking on. I feel .like a lot of the buildings are coming out stamped. They're all built by the same person. Berg: You can tell the year that a center was built. Lash: With the exception of the new bank. I really like the new bank. I think it looks different from a lot of the other things in town. I personally like Excelsior. I think it's real quaint and it's unique, and all the people's are different and I don't like this idea where everything has to be the same height and everybody has to have a little green peak on the top. I like to have a little more character so I'd just as soon not ,....., see the whole Highway 5 corridor end up looking like. Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 30 ....", Andrews: One thing we need to do as a commission, I know I've said this before. We really need to provide some details to, any trail intersection having to do with Highway 5, or these potential access boulevards, as to what we expect that use of that trail to be. Or our requirements for that trail to be, because I think if we were to come to that group and say, here's what we've got to have, here's what our plan says, I think it would happen. But if we wait until after it comes before that group, then we're responding to a defensive mode rather than providing the idea to the group the way we want it. Lash: Maybe we really need to look at that then when we do this comprehensive plan. Look at, especially the boulevards. Andrews: I'm most concerned about the Bluff Creek area and any other potential major crossing of Highway 5. What kind of style of a crossing do we want? How big do we want it? What kind of traffic flow are we anticipating? I think that when this whole project is finally built, I think we're going to have a super first class situation. But I think it's going to be up to us to get our demands in front of the group. I ~ean we've got that opportunity so, anyway it's another meeting tomorrow night and I hope it goes better than the last one because I was so ticked after that last one. We had a whole series of motion~ and we ended up tabling every single one of them. Didn't get a single thing done, which I was really upset with. Schroers: Is there anything creative going on in the way of something different and unique to handle traffic? An example would be a traffic .."" circle versus your standard lighted intersection? Something to that nature? Andrews: Yes. Somewhat. They are looking at the landscaping part of it. I mean traffic circles by design are a disaster typically. With any kind of high traffic flow area. But they're looking at the intersection designs. Trying to create a gateway effect out on Highway 41 as a for instance. We've spent a lot of time looking at that one as to when people coming into the west border, we want to have some sort of impact there. We're also looking at each 'major county road in particular on Highway 5 as well as the boulevards. What kind of turn lane cutout do we want? Do we want it to be greenscaped or gravel or asphalt or what? The definite trend right now is toward a very greenscaped look. Lots of separation between road and trail. Lots of trees and bushes. Whatever. Trying to make it look as beautiful as possible, and yet still provide the necessary traffic requirements. I mean they're looking at some pretty incredible traffic projections. Especially at TH 41 and TH 5 is going to be a major, major intersection. Lash: Do you think the Tree Board is going to get involved somewhat on the landscaping aspect of this? Schroers: Well I don't know about, I think the Tree Board is going to want to get involved in everything that has to do with green space and trees within the city limits of Chanhassen. There's no doubt about that, from what I've heard with some of the people who are already involved. They plan to make this a very aggressive body. We don't even know what we .....", ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 31 aie yet. If we'ie a Board or a Commission Oi what exactly we are, but they're going to want to have something to say about it. That's absolutely for sure. Also, what they're going to be looking at is looking for some money to work with like we have a Park and Rec budget. We will be looking for a budget as well to operate with and it's really hard to pioject exactly where this Tree Board thing is going to go. It's just going to depend on a couple basic things. How much money we can get our hands in and how much political clout we can develop. But I know we're 90ing to want to have some input. I think that that's pretty much getting to .be a general conception from all the different facets of the city. Whether it's a planning or the Councilor whatever, as not their main focus but as a sideline. Everyone is concerned about the aesthetics of the development in the city and in that concept, you have to consider the trees and shrubbery. So I think it's going to be something that's going to be looked at a lot by everyone. Lash: Well you know; and I certainly am one who appreciates trees and shrubs and all that. but I hope that when the Highway 5 corridor and the boulevard all and that go in, it doesn't get to the point of overkill. You know like some other things have been done and people who are sensitive. Andiews: Well iight now we're looking at things in a very detailed basis. r think actually when it comes down to the recommendation, it will be more ".... of a broad stroke. You know yes, we want to have landscaping. The last .couple of meetings we've been looking at, some of the discussion has gotten down to how close should the trees be to the sidewalk and how wide should the sidewalks be. I think we're trying to focus on details too soon. My guess is we'll just say yeah, we want a greenscape look and then punt that off to the Council. At least I hope we do, because I don't want to be voting on what species of trees we should be putting in on Highway 5. Schroers: I think that's where the Tree Board is going to get involved and they're going to want to try to stay as native and natural looking as possible. Just because we have a gieen space, we'ienot going to want to put in all kinds of foreign, ornamental shrubbery that no one can identify with. Knows what it is. That sort of thing. Lash: Well you know, 1thin1< of downtown and I know there are a lot of pe.ople who figured that was overdone and it requires a lot of maintenance and I guess I just wouldn't want to see it go from the east border to the west border. Andrews: That won't, and trying to make turns onto the main stieet here is a real adventure with those trees. Anway, it's a big project. We're starting to make some progress. I know that some members from the Council are coming tomorrow night to crack the whip. I think things will start to move. I'm sure they will move. Koubsky: Jim, do you see a time line when we may have to get, this ~ Commission give recommendations for trail crossings? Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 32 .....", Andrews: I would say that I think we ought to have something on our agenda next month because I think it will likely get on the Highway 5 group's agenda within 2 months because we're starting to look at roads now and then the next logical thing would be things that cross the roads. I hope that's the direction we're taking. We are responding. Lash: Is that something we can do in a regular meeting or do you think we need to. Hoffman: We can accomplish that at a regular meeting, if we focus ourselves. There has been some preliminary designs put together and again, I would caution you that you don't get involved in detail design. Down to how many corregations on the tunnel and those type of things but take a look at what's important. Obviously the design, the development of these contracts which are going to take place to get this thing done are not going to happen so there's no need to talk that detail. Andrews: I think we'd better focus on what our requirements are. As to how big of a trail do we anticipate. Not so much what does the trail look like, but are we going to have a pedestrian trail or two or a horse trail or bikes and a pedestrian trail? Just so the Commission knows how much space they need to allow for the culvert or the overpass or whatever it's going to be. Then they can do the designing later as to what it will actually physically look like. Hoffman: You need to make the decisions which 10-20 years from now people are going to say, that was the decision which was necessary to make this .....", happen. You know it doesn't matter how it turns out but those were the things that needed to happen in order to, in an organized fashion in order to get it to this point. Schroers: Okay. Well thanks for your information on that Jim and we'll be looking forward to see how this all develops. B . CHANHASSEN ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX '. Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers. Commission members. I'll keep this very brief. You have an Addendum No.2. Not only did you get the largest packet ever but you also received two addendums with this packet. Addendum No.2 includes a preliminary program of requirements for this proposed entertainment complex. An example of one preliminary sketch for an upper and lower level to the complex, and a preliminary cost estimate sheet. Again, that's at a first glance. That cost estimate is simply based on square footage and type of uses. I'm not going to go through those piece by piece. The one you're usually concerned with is Category 300 in the program recreation center. It goes through all of the different components of this proposed recreation center. ,As stated on the bottom of this Addendum No.2, Todd Gerhardt, our Assistant City Manager, and t~e Assistant Executive Director of the HRA has tentatively scheduled a presentation by the architect for next Thursday, or excuse me. Next Wednesday afternoon, February 3rd at 5:30. This meeting would be for the benefit of this commission and the Planning Commission. I need to take a hand count this evening of those of you who feel you are able to make that meeting. Supper will be served, and essentially I don't believe there's ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 33 ,...... going to be any changes in this program or these, there might be some minor changes in the concept plan but you'll see this same thing presented in detail that evening, so I'm not going to go through it. While we're on the subject of Addendum No.2, I also included an article which I referenced earlier pertaining to a proposed park referendum for the city of Shorewood. Obviously the outcome of that referendum will effect the city in some regard. Typically just in positioning how is the mood out there for these type of things. So I've included that so you can read that for your interest. I will address questions on the Chanhassen Entertainment Complex and on the process which is involved there as we move forward in that regard prior to moving onto the next item. Lash: I have a question just on the entertainment center. Under category 300, recreation center. It says divisible gym. Are those the dimensions then? Does it turn out to be like two basketball courts or what are those dimensions? Hoffman: The dimension, divisible court is item. Lash: The first one. Hoffman: First one, 301. 50 x 84 is the court size. one full sized court. 75 x 100 is the overall area of the gymnasium. I That's a full ~ized high school court so it's ~ Lash: So but it could be divided in half. Then that could be divided in half? Hoffman: Correct, with would call a small gym. preliminary. This is a need to be addressed as a curtain. It's staff desire to see what you Or a gym adjacent to this. These are very very preliminary program and space constraints well. Andrews: I need to ask some questions here. These buildings would be publically owned buildings or these would be built on behalf of some private developer who would then try to run these as commercially viable operations? Hoffman: A portion of this would be privately owned. A portion would be publicallyowned. The entertainment complex, recreation center. Well the recreation center and the; what you would call the convention center would be publically owned buildings as part of the downtown redevelopment. Andrews: This is sort of the community center reborn then? Hoffman: Something of that but it's part of the downtown redevelopment. What to do with the back side of the Dinner Theatre. Andrews: I think it's great as long as we can figure it out for somebody else to do this for us. I think it's a great idea. r Lash: Well the HRA is doing it right? Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 34 Hoffman: They'll be wrestling with the costs. They only have so many dollars over the next, the year 2000 to invest. They're committed to investing those but they also would want to accomplish senior housing, a library,some issues pertaining to the Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus block and redeveloping that block as well. So their pot of money, although it seems large and unending. --" Lash: .Bottomless. Hoffman: Bottomless, is not. So they're going to.be making some tough decisions as well. Lash: real? town? But they have in here figured in a future library. Is that really I thought they had kind of thought of a library up in that end of Hoffman: Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus? A library's been talked about on the Pauly site. The library's been talked about in this entertainment complex. The library's talked about wanting to locate on the corner of Market Square. So up in the air. Schroers: Okay. Wher,e is this meeting going to be held? Hoffman: Here. Council Chambers. Andrews: That was next Wednesday at what time? --' Hoffman: 5:30 for a supper meeting. And a brief presentation by, most likely Curt Green of Hammel, Green & Abrahamson. Some representative of Mortenson Construction organization may also be present as well. Schroers: That may be an intefesting meeting to attend. Koubsky: A couple of hours? Hofman: Or less. Lash: Well I'd love to come but I can't. Somebody take good notes. Hoffman: Anybody else that's out? Andrews: I'm out. I'm meeting out'd right now. Hoffman: Jim, Jim, Jan. Schroers: Put the rest us down as maybe's. We're all getting meeting out'd here. Well okay. Since this is going to be coming up again, we don't need any further discussion on this. Hoffman: Again, in regards to attendance, I would caution you that this meeting is being taken on because of the concern expressed by the Commission that you want to be brought up to speed so if one or two folks show up, staff is. --' ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 35 Andrews: Okay, I'll be there. I'll find a way. If I come wearing a frying pan, you know the wife didn't think it was a good idea. Hoffman: Yeah, if you look at the costs associated with the recreation center here, it's millions. 4 million dollars so it's a very large investment. We talk at length about a CIP of $150,000.00. We should give some...to this process. Schroers: Will we be receiving anything'further on that? An agenda or anything for that meeting? Or just show up here at 5:30? Hoffman: Show up at 5:30. I'm not sure, Hammel-Green may forward something to us for distribution but I do not know that at this time. Schroers: Okay. So we're on our own to remember to show up. 'Hoffman: Next Wednesday. I can mail out a reminder. Andrews: What was the date on that again? Hoffman: Wednesday, February 3rd... 1993 PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT GOALS. ~ Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members, as I stated in that cover memo, goals of staff as outlined, need to reflect... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion of the agenda. The following motions were summarized by the Park and Recreation Di rector. ) PRIORITIZATION OF 1993 PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Andrews moved, Berg seconded to authorize staff to complete the 1993 Park Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program in an order deem appropriate by the Park and Recreation Director. All voted in favor and the motion carried. LAKE ANN PARK PARKING FEES. Andrews moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to City Council to establish the 1993 Lake Ann Park parking permit fees at the 1992 rates. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A. APPROVE 1993 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP; MINNESOTA RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION AND NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARKS ASSOCIATION. ,...., Andrews moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve 1993 memberships to the National Recreation and Park Association, and the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 36 .....,; (Taping of the meeting began again at this point.) BALLFIELD USEAGE REQUESTS: Lash: Well I have a really big problem with this. I really do. And Fred's probably been in the same situation as I have, and I don't know if anybody else here has or not. But if you have kids playing in the CAA baseball, ragball and all that stuff and you have to go over to Rice Lake Marsh, it's a nightmare over there. It's a nightmare to try and park and if I lived there, I'd be livid to have that congestion every. Berg: At least 2 blocks in every direction. Lash: Yep. 50 I absolutely would not want to see this happen in any other neighborhood park. One of my personal goals was to get it out of Chanhassen Estates. I think it's just terrible that those people, that everyone who has to use that is going through that. And I think many times when we've developed these neighborhood parks and people come in here and they ask, will this be for the community usa? Will there be 'ballfields? Will there be this? And we say no, no, no. It's just going to be a neighborhood park. We don't want to bring in a lot of traffic and we have told many different neighborhoods that and I am just not comfortable in going back on those promises that we made and creating a bigger nightmare and! think if people start hearing, when they call up to register their kids, and I am all for CAA. I am all for every kid who wants to play bei ng able to play, but people wi 11 never approve a ...."I referendum to develop a youth complex if they do not have to feel a pinch once in a while. If a few people start hearing on the phone, I'm sorry. All of our ballfields are full. We can't take any more new teams, 'there's going to be a grass roots movement to start getting more bal1fields for the kids. And so I'm looking at it from two different points. One, I think it's a nightmare to start this in the neighborhood parks and the other side is we're never going to get that youth complex if we are able to solve this problem by just shoving this off on all these other places. 5chroers: The only way to deal with that fairly is for the City to put out information to all interested parties that due to limited resources, availability to CAA programs will be limited and offered on a first come, first serve basis. I guess from the administrative point of view, I can imagine staff taking a whole lot of grief for people saying, well just because I didn't ~et their 10 minutes earlier, now my kid can't play ball this year? And then how do you respond when they come back and say, look. You've got these ballfields out here that are virtually not being used for anything. Why can't we use them? How do we address that? Lash: Well and if there's 4 parking spots here and there's going to be 30 cars coming in every hour, and at some point in time there will be double the cars because the second shift will be there when the first shift is still there. What can you do with all those cars? Koubsky: The problem with these three parks too is it all thru traffic. Rice Marsh really gets jammed up but at least it's a cul-de-sac. It's not thru traffic. ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 37 ,....., Schroers: I've been down there. I've seen that. Lash: It's a nightmare. Ruegemer: The other...if these fields would be implemented, that Rice Marsh would probably be cut down or eliminated. Lash: I mean I don't have any solutions. I really don't, so it's not like I'm trying to shoot down a suggestion to a solution to a problem that I know is there but I'm afraid we're going to have more problems. Andrews: The other thing to think about, every time you take a field for a game, you've lost it for the practices, plus you've also got that many more teams that are looking for fields for practices and that creates additional parking pressures on other parks. I've seen that when I lived up next to Lotus Lake Park with, there were virtually no scheduled games there but there were 2 and 3 teams practicing there every night with their entourage of vehicles as well. Lash: I think we'll just be cluttered with neighborhood... Andrews: I think Rice Marsh in particular, because it's a dead end, is going to fill up with a zillion cars and it's going to be a traffic jam. "".-. Lash: I know Curry Farms, we've dealt with them before. We know where they're at and... Schroers: Your proposal for using these three fields, Jerry how often, what kind of a schedule? I mean are you talking about using them every night? Ruegemer: It depends on what age group would be there. Probably a couple nights a week. Andrews: You'd still be scheduling when they have practices too. Ruegemer: That's all incorporated in. No more than 3 nights a week. Berg: So it's 5 nights a week. 2 games and 3 practices. Lash: But that would be this year. Next year there's going to be more kids. Berg: Next year there will be more and then we'll incorporate every ballfield in the city, regardless of where it is. Lash: And regardless of what we've promised people. ,....., A~drews: Some parks have to be left just for the kl'd th t 1 k~nd OT look at this say geez . wher " a ~dma ~ ~y t play, if every park is bein' e does.a kId go that wants to jusi organized activities? g used for baSIcally adult commercially go Koubsky: We've put t sol ti ou a referendum identl"f I" thO u on would have been solved if b d y n9 IS, not that this every 0 y would have voted for the Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 38 referendum. But there's a public education process and any park, like Jan eluded to. Part of the public education process is feeling the pinch or the need for a facility. I think we've started, actually it's pretty, it's happened a lot faster than I thought because we were just talking about this last summeT. How long are these fields we have going to last? It was projected possibly years so we thought, well we'd better think ahead and think about Bandimere today and put that on a vote. See what the public thinks about it. Well the public might think a little different next time we ask for a vote. If we let baseball or athletics into the neighborhood parks, the only people that are going to be upset are the people who live in the neighborhood parks, and they're going to recognize the shortage. If we cut back on teams that can be allowed to play, the people who are going to be upset about the kids and the families who have teams that participate, I think it will be a greater amount of' people. ' -' Schroers: Well the people that are sitting right here, what about your kids and your kids and your kids that don't get to play? Koubsky: It's a tough question. Andrews: I'd personally rather deal with mad ballteams than mad homeowners because I feel our responsibility is to the homeowner first. Koubsky: I think what I would do is I would be calling Todd a lot more often and I'd be call i ng the Mayor a lot more often if my kids were-n't allowed to play baseball. And I might move. Those are decisions I have -' to make. Lash: Well I know in other activities, like swimming lessons, I can remember talking to people who were up at 6:30 in line to try and make sure they'd get the spot they wanted for swimming lessons. It's a fact of life that a lot of times these things get tight and people don't like it but you do the best you can and ~hen mayb~ you fight for the ultimate solution and that's what we have to get, we have to get some support to do that. Schroers: I think it's no secret that we would all like to see a youth sports complex developed but I think when it really comes down to an issue and you get the people in the community fired up enough to come in, and they point out the fact that you got a ballfield here and a ballfield there and another ballfield there, that is not being used to it's fullest potential and yet you want to raise my taxes to build a whole new complex out heTe, they're going to say, g~t it together. ld I k at it from a little Berg: The people I know I think LarryWo~' f 00 the point of view of the different angle. I know 1 would lookd~tw~tha~~mthese parks for. We're industrial teams. I would sa~, wha~ No 3 not being an acceptable talking about Lake Ann not beIn~, FI~i~m with, a real problem with that. youth field. I have a real ~ar pro t we're not going to convert L~ke. If you told me my kid <?ouldn t play bUre roblems with the ad~lts USIng It Ann No,. 3 to a youth fIeld. I have m~ in~erferring into a neIghborhood -' for an industrial league than ~.do nOWhere we're going to disrupt the park where there isn't any par lng. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 39 entire neighborhood. I can logically understand that. I can't understand a bunch of adults and yahoos coming in and, that's not what they are but that's going to be my interpretation if you take the playtime away from my kid. That's the area I'm going to go after more than not using the neighborhood parks 100%. Koubsky: That's a good issue if we need ballfields when we have industrial teams that occupy a lot of ballfield time. If you go back to a resident Larry and if I lived in an area, I'd say why did you give me this softball field anyway? Why did you design a softball field into my neighborhood park and then not even give me parking spaces, and now you're scheduling it for softball activity. I would have Just as soon as had an open field. There are safety issues with cars and traffic. We already see one lawsuit deeper down in here. Schroers: Okay, what we need to do here is just everybody be honest about how you feel in regards to this and see if we can get a motion passed. If we can't, if we go against using this, then realize that we may be restricting some people from being able to participate in the program and we're going to have to be willing to stand behind our decision because somebody's going to be in here. Lash: Do we have other people registering besides, and I'm going to sound like a broken record, but besides residents? In the kids very much. r""', Ruegemer: There's a real small percentage. Maybe kids coming from Chaska or Victoria because there are opportunities down in the Chaska area for people in that end of town. Lash: There used to be I think more kids from Victoria but now I think they're going more to Chaska. Ruegemer: I'm going to pick an arbitrary number here but I'm going to say probably 90% are probably Chanhassen. Lash: Because I know I read that Chaska now has instituted a non-resident thing where they charge more, and you know where that's leading. It ultimately leads to no non-residents and they're feeling the pinch too I'm sure. What about City Center? I mean we've talked about the HRA and all, is that on line that that could be solution sometime in the near future? Hoffman: That plan is on hold until such time as the central park concept moves forward. That would be the realignment of those ballfields and creating some more useablespace up there. Lash: Because that was going to give us a couple more fields wasn't it? Hoffman: Absolutely. ,...., Koubsky: I think my thought too on making a motion on this is, this is one solution to a problem. I know Fred's brought up another solution. Maybe we need to visit before we decide on how we're going to move against this. This may be the only option, even though it's unpalatable. I think my decision needs to be based on all of our options, which I don't know if Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 40 ....",; we have here. You know the schedule. How many people have to play? What do we have to jockey around? If we get these 3 fields you can make it. What if you can't get these 3 fields? How does that effect my decision making? Lash: What about Saturdays? Can we start going to some Saturdays? Ruegemer: Definitely. Schroers: And you're talking about this upcoming 1993 operating season. Now we can't take into consideration what may happen with City Center and Bandimere because that's not soing to effect this particular item. Hoffman: If I could clarify Just a couple of issues. Again, any registration difficulties which will be felt as part of youth associations will be felt by the Athletic Association. What we simply do is tell them what facilities they have. The Athletic Association carries out the registration, the scheduling, those type of things. Koubsky: Yeah, there may be more kids on a team. That's a solution. Hoffman: The reason Jerry brings this to the Commission, Jerry is the City liason to the Athletic Association. As such, it would seen as his responsibility to support the interest of the Association. They made this request to the Commission. Obviously your responsibilities and interest are of a larger scope than the Athletic Association. i Schroers: So this is not staff's recommendation to utilize these 3 parks, but it is the request from the CAA? They came to staff and said, may we use Sunset Ridge, Curry Farms and Lake Ann? --' Hoffman: This does represent Jerry's recommendation to utilize those spaces. Lash: But CAA came and said we need a couple more fields. . Ruegemer: There's been discussions, right with projected numbers. Hoffman: Correct. And again, your comments about the. positioning for a future referendum. The Athletic Association, as you're all aware, is an important organization in our city. It would be our desire at any point when we could assist that association, to do so. But again it has been your policy to attempt to keep at a minimum, adult activities out of neighborhood parks. Now you're seeing Meadow Green neighborhood par~, you essentially operate it as a softball complex. You're seeing Rice Marsh Lake Park, and not only Rice Harsh but Carver Beach playground operated as a CAA ballfield. You're at an important decision making point here and you accompli.sh a couple of things. But whatever decision you make is going to ripple back some major impacts into the community. Those have negative connotations but maybe in the end they're going to be positive. Koubsky: That's a good point. There are two community parks that are being used for the youth athletics. That's kind of what we use. .....", "..... Park andRec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 41 Andrews: There's more than that. North Lotus gets used. Koubsky: Several. Hoffman: North Lotus and Meadow Green, as far as the neighborhood park are more highly developed. They both contain parking. Not to a great extent but the largest neighborhood parking lots that we have. Some of the other ones that have been mentioned here, have not been developed into, in my opinion, for use by association or organized athletics. However, as you're receiving this request because they're simply running out of room. Lash: Well I guess I'd be ready to make a motion in that, at this point we deny this request but ask staff to work with CAA, or however they want to do it, to come up with some other options and review those. And if it appears we can't come up with any more solutions, we can review this again. Schroers: That sounds reasonable to me. I'll second it. Lash moved. Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission deny staff's recommendation to utilize the ballfields at Sunset Ridge, Chanhassen Hills and Curry Farms Parks for the Chanhassen Athletic Association activities. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ,..... Andrews: Now there is a second item attached to this. Was that a second? Ruegemer: Did you get a chance to look at the letter? In looking at Jack Jensen's letter, Jack did bring up a lot of valid points pertaining to the youth activities in Chanhassen. However, converting Lake Ann No.3 to a specific youth complex I think would really limit the use for both youth and adults. By moving the fences in, I think you tend to maybe specialize or cater to one group or the other. I feel that keeping the field the way it is, having fences stay the way they are. ...we're in somewhat of a field strain right now as it is with our youth activities and I feel that. we can accommodate both users by leaving the field the way it is and not specializing the field. With that I think it would suit a wider variety of use. If we need to cut back on the adults and that field can still be used by the youth and the adults, if we need to do it that way. And that would be my recommendation then for Lake Ann No.3 versus moving the fences in at Lake Ann No.2, as we did last summer. That kind of limits. I think we're going to shoot ourself in the foot if we do that. I think we can, it will accommodate a lot more user groups if we keep it the way it is. That would be my, staff's recommendation to appease a wider variety of people. Schroers: Do you want to just incorporate that into your motion Jan? Lash: Sure. I would move that we deny the request. Andrews: We can't do that under our Rules. We can't go back. ~ Lash: I'll just make a new motion. Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 42 Andrews: Just make a new motion. It's just an easier way of doing it. ...."" Lash: That we deny the request from Mr. Jensen and keep Lake Ann Field 3 as it is, which is still useable by them, right? Ruegemer: It's still available. In the past years they've been able to accomplish their game situations on other fields. But we can take a look at that... Lash: To keep Lake Ann Field 3 open to more users. Andrews: So as is right? Lash: As is. Koubsky: Second. Lash moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission to accept staff's recommendation that Lake Ann Park Field #3 stay as it is. All voted in favor and the motion carried. FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION. SELECTION OF BAND. Ruegemer: This memorandum is quite straight forward regarding the 4th of July celebration. The Hi-Tops have performed for the 4th of July celebration fOT quite a few number of years and we've always had real positive comments regarding their performance and enthusiasm. They're ....,;' always thrilled and always anxious to play out here again. John Krumm, with the Hi-Tops who initiated the initial conversation probably in September of 1992 to, he asked if they could come back and really the rate that they're at is pretty competitive, and really belo~ what other groups... So it's staff's recommendation to approve the contract for the Hi-Tops for the Chanhassen 4th of July Celebration. Lash: I have a question on that. Did they say specifically that they would not be willing to have the rain out day be the 3rd? Ruegemer: Does that say in the contract? Lash: It just says the rain out date is Monday, July 5th. Ruegemer: I think we requested that. Hoffman: In talking to them, weren't they unwilling to do that? To take up those other nights which they're typically booked. Ruegemer: I think they have a tentative agreement that night. Lash: I mean obviously the 3rd would be better for us but I can understand that they're not willing to book it that way and give up a .SatuTday night. Hoffman: 3rd is a Saturday night, yeah. .....", ",.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 43 Schroers: The tough thing too is, that then forces us to leave everything set up over the whole weekend. Lash: It forces people to go home at 10:00 for those to get up and go to work the next morning. Maybe what we could think of doing is, if we have the rain out, is asking that it start a little earlier. otherwise if they start at, what time does that start? 8:00. It starts at 8:00. You know maybe what we need to do is have it start at 7:00 or...so at least we'd get our money's worth out of them. Most people aren't going to stick around until midnight. Schroers: Okay, any other discussion? How about a motion to approve? Andrews: Hold on a sec. Are we going to motion approval with Jan's recommendation to amend the starting time for the back-up, the rain out date? Schroers: Yes. Lash: And definitely they were not willing to have the 3rd as their rain out, is that correct? Ruegemer: Correct. ."..... Hoffman: Jerry can confirm that. Schroers: Is that a motion, or does someone want to make it? Lash: Yes, I'll do that. What I'd say? Andrews: I'll second it. Lash moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the contract with the Hi-Tops to perform at Chanhassen's 4th of July Celebration as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CAABASKETBALL REPORT. BOWLING PARTY EVALUATION. AND SKI TRIP REPORT. Hoffman: Other than if there's any questions on 13 (d), (e) and (f), no need to go into depth. Ruegemer: Just an update. Schroers: Do we want to have any discussion on this? Lash: The prizes for bowling, I thought that was cool. They'll really like that. Berg: Just so' you have an idea how things are growing. Four years ago when my daughter was in 3rd gr.ade, there were I believe 4 teams, maybe half a dozen girls. Now in that grades 3 and 4 there's 35. That's 4 ",..... years... Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 44 ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET: -' Hoffman: Any questions on the Administrative Packet? contains a lot of information. That as well Koubsky: I guess I have one addition here. On the home numbers, and home and work numbers on the contacts. My work number's changed. I'm following in Randy's footsteps. I've taken a new job outside of this area. It's in the cities but it's over on University and 94. I used to work in Chaska. Oh my new number, if you care, is 659-7567. But with that move I'm going to probably be moving. Or I will be movin~. My house is on the market. So in light of that, we're hoping to be out of the area, with regrets. I hate to move out of this area. I've certainly enjoyed living here but both my wife and I will be working downtown, or there abouts so we have to move our family with us. All of that aside, my schedule is probably to let my son go through first grade, which will be June. So I'd be looking at a move date sometime around June. It's kind of up to the Board what you guys want to do. You just interviewed a lot of potential commissioners. I'm kind of at your disposal. I'd be more than happy to sit here until that time, or if you like with the new strategic planning and what for park and trail, if you want to replace my position, that's kind of a thing for you to decide. schroers: Well I kind of thing that's more your decision as to whether or not you want to stay and how long you want to stay. I mean I think that we'd like, it's nice to get new blood but it's also nice to have some experience. So that's really going to be your call. I wouldn't be .....", comfortable in saying that you should stay or leave, because that has to do with your personal life. Koubsky: Then I'll ride it out and just stick around and help out. I enjoy this. Lash: I have a couple of questions on the Administrative Packet. On this Christopher Thompson thing. I'm not real good at reading legalees and so I have no idea what this is about. What is this about? Hoffman: Drove in North Lotus Lake Park, did some damage to the park. We assessed the bill back to Christopher Thompson for $60.00 for turf repair. That needs to go onto the court. I spent more of your tax dollars in administrating this claim but it's all in trying to teach a young man a good lesson. Koubsky: He cut down a Christmas tree, right? Hoffman: No, the Lake Ann grinch cut down the Christmas tree. That was somebody else. Lash: I had a question on this lawsuit too. Koubsky: Somebody got hurt? Hoffman: Correct. it include it all? The report is about as indepth as we have. Well, did No, it does not. Jerry has been working with the ....."I ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 45 insurance carrier and then back and forth with the City Attorney in this regard. In discussing this with the City Attorney at the coffee station" he didn't miss a sip on his coffee. You know these things are not uncommon. We maintain the fields on a daily basis. We provide'safety bases. As a parent you need to accept some responsibility for potential injury due to this type of activity. It's a natural occurrence. Lash: Well what kind of an injury was it? Hoffman: Broken foot. Ruegemer: In two places. It required an operation. Now they feel he needs another operation to correct the situation. Lash: So it says in excess of $550,000.00. Andrews: That's standard legalees. Lash: How much in excess? Andrews: They don't tell you that. Lash: Okay, so the attorney's feeling like they don't have a leg to stand on? ~ Hoffman: Correct. Koubsky: So was that running the bases? Hoffman: Running the bases. First base. Lash: Well and they sign waivers to start with. And how about on the Dear Rog.er letter. The soil testing. Hoffman: That brings you up to date on what an estimate would be for soil investigation down at, what is the cost there? No, it's not there. $2,000.00. Lash: We'd have to pay $2,000.00 just to get the test? Hoffman: Correct. So I apologize for not attaching his, I believe I did that in a previous administrative packet. Lash: And you sort of feel, in your expert opinion, that this soil test will prove that it won't be conduciv~ to a test? Hoffman: Right. I don't think it's worth $2,000.00. In-house we can perform some rudimentary soil tests which would tell us that as well. I apologize, there is no commission member presentations on this agenda. So any other commissioners have the floor at this time to let us know your feelings. ,...., Andrews: I think it was on that motion to adjourn. Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 46 Lash: No. Sorry.. I know it's getting late, but two things that I wanted to discuss. First being I had a discussion with Betty Lang recently and she's not a real happy camper with this whole Herman Field thing, and you know it kind of makes for bad PR and bad feelings. She's not happy with how this all came out and I told her I would bring it up. Of course she feels like there needs to be a gate and said, she's under the impression that during our meetings there were some promises made of certain things that have not appeared. Namely one being a gatesystem~ So we talked about that at length and I tried to explain to her, you know it's hard to do that because who's going to open it and who's going to close it and all of that. ......, Schroers: We didn't promise them a gate anyway. Lash: Yeah, see and I can't remember for sure. Schroers: We wouldn't have done that. Lash: Well I just thought maybe we could do a little investigating into it. Maybe write her a letter. I thought I was being nice to just bring' it up to her and see kind of, I knew she wasn't happy when the whole thing was going on and just say, how are things going now Betty. Is it okay or is it as bad as you thought it would be or whatever? ...try to smooth it over with her somehow. I'm not quite sure how to go about doing that. Hoffman: I'll take your direction in any regard. Throughout this whole process I've been very cordial to Ms. Lang and attempted to come onto her ....., property to discussing what effects this project was going to have on her property, etc, etc. I would agree that she's been not happy throughout the entire process. I'm not sure that anything we say today is going to make her any happier. Lash: That is probably true. You know it's just hard when you face somebody like that. No matter what you do. Schroers: But there's a whole community and a whole neighborhood and she's the only one really making any serious. Lash: But how do we know that? Maybe if I approach some other people., I don't know anybody else but she goes to my church and I saw her at church. But maybe if we approached somebody else, they'd say too. Well, I'm not happy. The thing is we haven't approached anybody to see how they're feeli ng on the end. If it's shaped up the way they want or not. Hoffman: If any indication, you'll get a copy of these computations of these surveys. An indication of those surveys, those people up there on Herman Field, don't want you to take a step in any other park before you complete Herman Field Park because they've been waiting 13 years to get that neighborhood park. So there are some residents up there who are very anxious for this park to be completed. And that's not just a singular example. Lash: Another issue that came to my attention in the paper last week I guess was the article about the snowmobile trails and is there a future ......, ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26, 1993 - Page 47 for them in Chanhassen of staying. Are they in jeopardy? It's something maybe when we do the comprehensive plan we can get some language in there about that. I don't know exactly what we can do but. Koubsky: I hate to see them go. I don't have a snowmobile but those guys are always, to me they seem real polite and they watch for traffic. Lash: And you know, there's always going to be some clinkers in any group. Ball players or snowmobilers or anyone who are going to wreck things but just because you have baseball players who break glass on the field, it doesn't mean we're going to close down all the baseball fields. So I think we need to look at trying to come up with some kind of a future direction of how we can maintain those. I think a lot of people moved here for that reason and I'd hate to see it lost. Schroers: I think the City should support the Snowmobile Associations and agreements they work out with landowners and that sort of thing and support that, but I don't think it's the City's obligation to provide special trails and that sort of thing for something like that. I mean that's like a license vehicle now, like a boat. I mean we're not going to build a special lake so someone can run their boats on it and I think the same people that buy...or think about having city snowmobile trails. We need to support the ongoing program for as long as it's practical and .,...., ex ists but. Hoffman: We support it to date. We as well become frustrated when they drive on the parks and the playgrounds and the ballfields, those type of things. But we're supportive. We meet annually with the Public Safety Commission and members of the Association. Obviously the Association members are very interested in kee~ing their rights but they represent a minority of the snowmobiles out there. But they're the voice. They took out the $250.00 some ad or $230.00 some ad, whatever it was, in the paper. The editor, Dean Trippler wrote the article so they're trying to get the awareness out there. Schroers: The example, what I'm trying to say is along with the Highway 5 corridor and that sort of thing, my opinion, pesonal opinion on that is that we ought to be promoting human power trails there. Bicycling, walking, jogging, that sort of stuff but that's only...a non-motorized corridor there where it's going to be a busy area. Lash: I'm not promoting that either but it'd be nice if we could have some areas that are designated that. Hoffman: There's one trail left. Lash: Yeah, and how long before that's going to be gone? people going to do? Then what are "..... Berg: Until they widen that road I suppose. Hoffman: The trail goes north, southeast and northwest and they continue to battle each year for landowner permission. Keep changing their routes and this and that. I don't think it's in jeopardy. What's in jeopardy Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 26. 1993 - Page 48 .....,i sooner is the right to drive your snowmobile from your house to that trail system. Currently yoU have to drive on the roads as a vehicle. but many people drive on the boulevards. Up along lawns. Do tree and shrub damage. That type of thing. That's what brings the complaints into the ci ty. Schroers: I ,have snowmobile tracks allover my yard. Nobody came and asked. I don't particularly care but. Hoffman: Tough issue. Winter jet skis. Koubsky moved, Lash seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10=44 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hofman Park and Recreation Director Prepared by Nann Opheim --' "'"""