PRC 1993 04 27
~
PARK AND RECREATION
COMMISSION MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 27, 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, and Dave Koubsky
MEMBERS ABSENT: "Jan Lash
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer,
Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berg moved, Koubsky seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated March 23, 1993 as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
schroers: I guess Mr. Bob Zydowsky under item A is not present at the
moment so we can move to B, Jack Jensen.
Jack Jensen: Hi. I'm Jack Jensen. I'm President of the Chanhassen
Athletic Association and at our April 20th meeting we were in agreement to
back the recreation facilities that we need here in Chanhassen to
~ accommodate our childrens activities indoor and outdoor. The recreation
center that we feel would, right now that would benefit us as taxpayers
would be the one that was proposed to go, in fact I believe it even went
before you and the City Council, the one in the TIF district. The one
that they have planned over there behind the Dinner Theatre area. And as,
now I'm going to wear a different hat here. I'm also the coordinator for
the 9, 10, 11 baseball program and the City has a policy allowing
accessibility of facilities to organizations outside city of Chanhassen
that allow Chanhassen children to participate within the facilities. The
City has been put into a real awkward position here in the last, I guess
the last week because of not, the guidelines haven't been really set up to
who should have priority over the fields within Chanhassen. And to
eliminate this for the future we're asking you to come up with guidelines
so that city staff and the people in the organizations that are outside
City Hall here, you know really don't have any conflicts with each other
of who should have rights to what fields and who should have first
priority, second priority, and so forth. And we would like you to, I
guess we'd like to make a motion for you to set these policies and
guidelines regarding such facilities, whether it be indoor or outdoor
facilities. One of the things that would help with our outdoor facilities
if we had, with the number of children coming up here in the baseball
program, the younger kids are growing into a little bit older kids and
we're at a point now where the Little League aged children are at the
seams here of being able to have fields available for actually baseball to
be played on here within Chanhassen. There's one field over at Lake Ann
No.2 and then there's Meadow Green can accommodate it but there's also
soccer fields down there that get played. There's girls softball that
~ gets played there and so it's sharing these fields with outside
organizations and also these inside organizations. So what we would like,
Park andRec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 2
as the coordinator of this age group, is to have in place by next year, is
to have two Little League fields and an older children's field,
preferrably a 12 and 13 year old field for that size under the AAU
guidelines to be built or converted from existing fields that are here and
present now within the city of Chanhassen. We feel that we have within
the neighborhood parks I know that there's been some indication that some
of the neighborhood parks that we're not allowed to play on, or we've been
requested not to play on these fields because of parking problems and so
forth. Curry Farms and Marsh Lake is kind of a headache because of teams
coming in and out of there, it's really not much of a, I mean you can't
even turn around in there to utilize that field. Sunset Ridge over in the
Joe Miller development. Be able to utilize that field but to have that
parking, spaces really need to be built so people can access those without
having to really go through the neighborhoods to where that might be
bothersome for those people. Another project that I know has been, I
don't know if it's been before you but it's a city center project and
possibly acquiring that land north of the tennis courts there to also, and
rearrange that whole facility up there to accommodate more baseball fields
and soccer fields within that piece of property uP there. Another one is
to maybe redesign Meadow Green. Now these are ideas that I'm throwing out
to you. Meadow Green so it can be reconstructed so you could get better
use of that large, flat field that we have there to accommodate soccer and
girls softball and boys baseball and the little kids programs too. Just
for number of purposes, last year in basketball we had 300 children
participating in grades 1 thru 4. Because we didn't have the facilities,
and Fred you know how bad facilities. How crammed it was for time and the
kids had late times for the younger kids to be able to play within this
one gymnasium here. We had programs for 1 thru 4 and we cut out of our
5th grade program and had those children go down into the Chaska program.
Well we're going to, I mean with the growth of the children coming up,
we're forced to, if we don't get the gymnasiums and we need it before
really the elementary school gets built here in Chanhassen because of the
numbers coming up, we could really use two full sized gymnasiums for the
programs that we ha~e for the indoor use of the children and the adults.
The facility would not only be for children but it would be for adults.
But the children would use it at the earlier times and the adults can use
it at the later times. That would be our recommendation. But by the time
that the school gets built, we'll need that facility also to use because
of the growth and the children within the area. Right now baseball
fields, I can go back to the baseball fields here. I guess this is gym
hours. Right now we have 43 hours of gym time available to us over at
that school and by the fall of 1994 we're going to need 83 hours of gym
time because of the growth that has been projected, not only by the city
but through our own organization. What has we've seen increased over the
years. So I guess I'll leave it at that. It's just that we need to have
these, we'd like to have the baseball fields and softball fields converted
or built by next summer so we can accommodate our growth here. And then
the basketball and indoor facilities, you know hopefully by the fall of
'94, if that's a feasible thing with the recreation center. That's all
I've got to say.
Schroers: Okay, thank you very much. We have been aware for quite some
time of the community's needs to develop youth activity areas, especially
for organized ~ctivities. We have acquired a parcel of property called
....."
...."
...."",
;1""
;1""
;1""
Park and Rec Commission-Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 3
Bandimere which is 33 acres and the intent of that property, or use of the
property is to accommodate organized youth activities. The Froblem we
have with it is that the funds for developing it aren't readily available.
We're working on it and trying to make it so. As far as scheduling for
the existing facilities that we have, park staff normally does that
scheduling because they have a b~tter awareness of what the uses are and
what the needs of the uses are. I think that we would be looking to staff
for direction as to whether or not we can accommodate some of these
requests.
Hoffman: It would be a position of staff that the policies I think what
Mr. Jensen is referring to is that policies in regards to how those fields
should be allocated. We have had discussions in regard to the Athletic
Association and their offerings of youth activities are open to all
residents of the community. Some citizens of the community choose to
participate in other programs. You as parents, those of you who are,
maybe have more information than those who do not in what those
opportunities are. It has been discussed that that being the case, should
the Athletic Association get exclusive, if not exclusive, get first choice
to the facilities which the city has to offer. And then the other
associations who accept Chanhassen residents, should they get second
choice to those facilities or should it be, since the City represents all
of our citizens, should some type of policy based on percentages of
participants. So what we need, what the Park and Recreation Commission's,
what's your job in taking a look at this is really a policy type of
aspect. We facilitate facility requests currently by taking those
requests, setting a request deadline, and then implementing a facility
scheduling meeting where all the organizations wh6 have requested time sit
down and discuss those requests and come to some type of compromise.
However, prior to getting into that meeting, those requests as they come
in should be put up against some type of a policy. We obviously can't be
fulfilling requests for outside organizations. However, as the Commission
is aware, the situation in Chanhassen with the school districts and the
amount of neighborhoods which identify with a different city or a
different portion of our community, we struggle with those types of
problems or just ways of life on a daily basis. So that is where the need
for some type of a policy comes from. We have families who participate in
South Tonka that would like to see perhaps games played in Chanhassen.
Then we have the Athletic Association who is feeling the crunch of
facilities and they're looking to protect the interest of their
participants in the schedule of facilities that they require as well. So
you're correct Chairman Schroers. To date the Park Commission, or the
Park Department and staff has been successful in making the compromise
happen meeting the needs but now we're to a point where we're going to
have to start cutting out some requests. And what Mr. Jensen is asking
you to discuss is how should we make those cuts. That comes down to a
policy issue at the commission level.
Schroers: Thanks Mr. Hoffman. It appears that we are going to need to
schedule a work session and request staff to bring the information
regarding the groups participating and what their schedule is so that we
have all the information at hand so we can best try to compromise the
situation as best we can.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 4
Jack Jensen: We're all feeling the crunch. Not only OUT organization but
the other organizations that also, you know our Chanhassen kids
participate in. They're also growing so it's not an issue that's going to
be I think a short term thing here. It's going to be a continuing problem
as the kids get older and the numbers of those kids get older, to find
space for these kids to do. I guess we'd rather have them doing something
constructive than destructive so we're trying to show, give them positive
things to do. Whether it be sports activities or whatever. Just so we
can help them make the right choices as they get older. And so it's, you
know we're not the only organization that's climbing but we are climbing
at a higher rate. The other organizations around too, the soccer. The
other baseball organizations. Everybody's increasing.
~
Roeser: Are you satisfied with what Jerry has arranged for this summer,
as far as the ballfields are concerned? You know where he's got the
sharing of the Minnetonka and Chanhassen type thing?
Jack Jensen: I guess.
Roeser: Well, are they going to, you know we've got this letter that you
wrote seems like you were really dissatisfied with what the situation was.
But that's the policy that he's laid out. Are you going to live with that
this summer? That's what I'm wondering.
Jack Jensen: Well Jerry came back also with a compromise with that
situation too. So I guess personally I'm happy with what Jerry has
recommended but I can't speak for the other people within this age group. ~
There's 99 families within this age group so, that this is affecting so
I'm not going to speak for them. There's some of them here and they can
well speak for that.
Manders: I guess my question's really along the same line. Are you
asking for something different than what we've got in place for this
summer? This season? Because you went through a recital of a lot of
suggestions which seem to be quite long term and don't address anything
immediately.
Jack Jensen: Well the immediate needs I guess coming from, you know when
it first came out that I felt and the group felt that I'm representing in
the 9, 10 and 11 year old group, we felt that it wasn't assessed fairly.
And so that's why the letter was sent out to that group of, you know those
families so that they could see what was happening and to inform them of
the situation and to let them respond to that situation. Everyone that
had called me, Jerry had come back with a compromise on kind of trying to
help both organizations and we're not against having any organization come
in here and play on our fields. I guess it's a matter of distribution of
those fields. Who should have the rights.
Manders: What was the compromise?
Jack Jensen: It was a 4 to 1 compromise in day wise at the Lake Ann field
versus, you know I guess what we requested was 5 days. The other
organization required 2 days a week out of that and you all have my letter
of what that had pursued from then. I think you have Jerry's reply after ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 5
'"
that and I guess I would just like you to make some type of guidelines
that for one it wouldn't put Jerry or Todd or any of the city staff in
that situation where we're all, I mean all the organizations and Jerry and
Todd are-in a friendship basis too and we don't want to break any of those
friendships by having what might be a small quorum, or quarrel between the
groups. And you know we're looking out for the best interest of all the
kids and I mean that's the ultimate goal here is to get more facilities so
we don't have to have these family feuds so to speak. And so I mean, it
ends up being that but you don't want it to be that. So we're just
looking for guidance from you to set in place so Jerry doesn't have to
pull the hair out of his head and look like mine. So he's got an easier
way to deal with it and so the organizations all know where they stand and
what they, you know if somebody else becomes in my position or one of the
other positions in these other organizations, as long as the guideline's
already been set, they can go to I guess this type of forum and try to
change what you set as policy then. Or they just live with what's policy
and I think that's what we're asking is to have you set policy on how
those fields should be distributed and just so everybody's knowing going
into it here, this is how you feel and that's how, you know it's a done
deal then.
Berg: Are you also asking us to set a policy as far as gym space is
concerned?
Jack Jensen: Yes. I mean that's a, I mean we're going to get into,
tf/II""'" I mean we'll need to do that too I'm sure. I mean the school distr ict
right now has their priorities of who has, just for an analogy ev~n on the
baseball situation. The school has in place their level of, okay who has
first priority over the gymnasiums or the school facilities. They have,
you know the school district has the first. Community Ed sees to it that
that happens. The city I believe is the next one in line to who has
access to that facility, or those facilities. And then the organizations
after that on a first come, first serve basis is my understanding of how
that works. But I mean there's a tier to that whole process and as long
as everybody understands that tier and agrees to that tier, then I don't
see that there would be any problems whatsoever with, for indoor or
outdoor space.
Berg: Because that's, it's a real different ballgame when you're talking
about indoor space because like you say with the tiers, that first
organization, the school district has an awful lot of say in how those
gyms are going to be used that we have no control over.
Jack Jensen: Which is true.
Berg: They take a big bite of that tier. What we can actually do in
terms of setting any kind of policy as far as gym space is concerned is
severely limited because of the district.
Jack Jensen:
as an analogy
space. I mea n
whatever, then
would have the
Yeah, but you might be able to, I mean I'm just using that
to what they already have set in place. I mean for gym
if it was a city run organization or building or complex or
I think then you would have the presence to say that you
right to say who has first priority over these facilities.
;1""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 6
In case that that, what we're going to try to push for is that facility
being built for so it's over in that TIF district right now but if that
facility was completed, then it goes under the guidelines of Todd and
Jerry's you know staff here and how they should distribute that space. So
I think what you would do here would be in tune, going t6ward that future
facilities too and if at some time that the policy doesn't warrant or it
gets outdated or so, then there's a time for it to be updated at that time
too. But I mean this is, our needs are and our future, our short term
needs here too are to where we need more facilities and more fields to
accommodate the youth here within the City.
.....",
Schroers: I think your request to develop policies is very valid and we
will ask staff to bring forward the information so that we have the
wherewithal to look at the situation in a work session or at a meeting
where we have a lighter agenda and see what we can do to accommodate it
and I think you're absolutely correct. This is a short term fix. We do
have a plan. Basically it is that Lake Ann is going to accommodate most
of the adult activities and Susan hopefully will accommodate the middle
aged groups and the as yet undeveloped Bandimere will accommodate ,the
youth facilities. Also, we hope to be able to capitalize on future
development such as the new elementary school. A proposed community
activity center that would hopefully incorporate some gym space. The
unfortunate thing of all that is that we just do not have the funds on
hand to make this stuff happen right now. It's going to take a period of
time but hopefully there's something to look forward to.
Koubsky: I guess Jack I'd like to thank you for coming in here and ~
letting us know at least a year in advance what your needs are going to
be. We've been badgering this back and forth for probably a couple years.
We've seen this coming. I live up in Joe Miller too. I see the kids and
watch the development there. Some of the things we've been doing is tried
to maintain our current facilities. You know we're putting in some
watering at Lake Ann. We put in some lighting. We're increasing our
maintenance to keep our fields up. We know there's a shortage. When the
first city center proposal came around they were going to take one of our
fields out back here. We were pretty opposed to that. Currently they're
going back and forth on the Council about the rec center. I advise you to
become involved in that.
Jack Jensen: Well we were there last night.
Koubsky: I'm sure decisions are being made today. This is something
we've been working on. I think the next step is one, we identified it and
we knew this year was going to come up and this type of thing would happen
this year. That puts us in a position where we have to start making
decisions on who gets what space and we're going to be squeezed tighter
and tighter. We are trying to plan for the future as the MUSA line
develops. Most of that's already under development or plans are in for
that and we're working with some contractors and developers out there and
arguing for field space. I don't know if we're going to meet these 2 more
fields and indoor gym space. I really don't. We'd like to. And I think
we need to work at it. At least I accept the challenge of setting out and
determining some type of policy of who uses what we have. And that's
goi ng to be quite active I'm sure. But I appreciate the advance notice. I ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 7
""'"
was kind of wondering when this was going to come. Thinking it would come
pretty early this year and it did. We're trying to increase the use of
what we have and maintain what we have and I guess everybody on the Board
here is very receptive to youth athletics. Myself in particular. And
others. We're doing what we can. But maybe keep us informed too of your
intentions and your efforts.
Jack Jensen: Well I can give you some numbers in our baseball program.
Last year we had around 490 kids in the program. This year we have 730
kids in the program. So you can see the increase in the numbers that have
gone up. So it's, we might not have had the problem last year but we
definitely do have one this year and we just see it getting worst because
the numbers of that age group are coming up and you know, you can only
play so much on the little fields. I mean those can accommodate the
younger children. The T-ballers, the ragballers, the pee weers, but as
they get older than that, there's only certain fields within the city
right now that can accommodate hard baseball or the older girls softball.
So there's not enough of those.
Koubsky: Yeah, those are very few. Yeah, we've got 3 more items for land
development tonight so we've watched it come.
Jack Jensen: So we would, I mean we would also like to have your support
too in pushing the Council because when I went to the Council last night,
they said well bring it up before the HRA. So we'll make that
""" presentation with them also but we'd 1 i ke to have your support in trying
to persuade maybe the Council to you know, from a larger perspective, not
just from an individual group here, but from you know, I mean from you as
member here too. We'd appreciate that support if we could get that.
Schroers: Did you feel that the Council gave you a negative response to
your request?
Jack Jensen: No.
Schroers: They were supportive?
Jack Jensen: They were all in favor of having a facility.
know when or where. But so we're going to try and persuade
and where. And we'd also like to see if we can get some of
too because they look at what you recommend to them too. I
Some didn't
them to when
your support
mean that's.
Schroers: I think that everyone here is very much in favor and would
offer their support to the Council. In recent years the Council has
worked well with this Commission so, I think from a support point of view,
that's not a problem. And developing policy is needed as a guide but when
we do that, we have to take the entire picture into account and deal from
a fairness situation and it's unreasonable to expect by setting policy
that everyone concerned is going to come out being a happy camper.
'"
Jack Jensen: Well, we understand that not everybody's going to be happy
but as long as there's a happy median. That's I guess, that's our goal so
like I say these family feuds don't happen. And we don't put the extra
pressure on the .staff here in the recreation department to try and work
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 8
out, especially between friendships I think is one thing too. You know
it's even tougher to go and not agree with some, you know everybody's got
their own opinions on everything too so it's, and people just have to
realize, okay you have your opinion. His opinion and we just have to, if
we know that there's a guideline that we all have to adhere to or at least
have some guidance within the staff and then I believe the conflicts won't
even arise.
-'
Schroers: Because that would be an ideal situation.
Jack Jensen: Yeah, so alright. Thanks.
Schroers: Thanks a lot Jack. Is there anyone else in the audience that
wishes to address the commission this evening on the same topic?
Jim Bergeson: My name is Jim Bergeson. I live at 1661 Wood Duck Lane in
Chanhassen and I have two children that are in the South Tonka Little
League program. I also am on the Board of South Tonka Little League. I
found out that there was a chance that we might not be getting the two
fields that we had last year just recently so I wanted to come down and at
least share some things with you folks so that you know where South Tonka
Little League is coming from. This year there's 170 children that are
from the Chanhassen area that are part of the South Tonka Little League.
We started our planning for the 1993 baseball season last fall and some of
that planning involved finding some additional way to play all the games
that we want to play. We lost a field at Minnewashta because of the
remodeling that's going on at Minnewashta school. We also lost a field --'
called Tonka Mens Club field because of a change in ownership there. So
to accommodate that...we have instituted playing games on Saturdays.
Again, to make up for the loss of those two fields. We also wanted to
make sure that the Chanhassen Athletic Association was aware of what we
were doing. We did change our league organization a little bit. We went
from basically having 3 different leagues to 5 leagues now. We broke
up...7, 8 and 9, 10, and then 11 and 12. There's two 11 and 12 year old
leagues. Communicated that to CAA late last year again so that we could
be sharing information back and forth so that everybody knew what everyone
was doing as far as baseball was concerned. I understand that there was a
timeline established for making a request for this year's fields so that
that request was made and I think we made it in the timeline that was set.
Last year was the first year that we brought the Chanhassen kids back home
so to speak to play games at Lake Ann. And I haven't taken any polls but
I'm sure that most of the parents were very happy to not have to drive so
far. A lot easier on them as well as on the kids to play on their home
turf. If we don't have the opportunity to use the fields at Lake Ann this
year, some of the situations we would be faced with would be doubling up
games during the week. We'd have to go. Instead of having one game,
start at 6:30 and end at dark which is 8:15 which technically is not a
full game. We'd have to be playing two games during the week. Those
games would have to start at 5:00 and again, they'd be shorter games yet.
I'm sure that would be a hardship in terms of the parents getting off
woik. Getting the kids to the ballpark. Probably missing a few dinners
as well. Again, the travel is so much more convenient. I can attest to
that as far as coming to Lake Ann and frankly we like staying home so to
speak. South Tonka Little League represents several communities. Tonka .....".
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 9
;II"
Bay, Shorewood, Excelsior, Chanhassen and again we're very, very glad that
we have an opportunity to play down here. That's all I want to say,
thanks.
Berg: I have a quick question. I don't know if you have this number or
not. There are 170 Chan kids in your program. I'm assuming, or I'm not
assuming anything. Do most of those kids then, will they be playing in
Chanhassen, like at Lake Ann?
Jim Bergeson: This year there will be 68 kids playing in the Major A and
Major B at Lake Ann. That's due to the type of field that is at Lake Ann.
Berg: How many wouldn't be Chanhassen kids? How many non-Chanhassen
residents would be playing at Lake Ann?
Jim Bergeson: It would be, the difference Bill between the total A and B,
68. What is our total A and B?
Bill Kolopolus: I guess I should introduce myself and let you in on some
background. I'm Bill Kolopolus. The other Chairman of South Tonka Little
League's program.
Jim Bergeson: I'll yield to Bill.
Bill Kolopolus: Okay. When we understood the field scheduling problems
~ that we were going to have, you know our meeting that we had I believe it
was on the 23rd of March here with Jerry. We realized then that even
though we didn't know what Jack's final numbers were going to be, they
were growing. He was still registering and it was going to grow so our
philosophy became one to request only the minimal amount of field space we
really required. Matching up the major league divisions, which fit very
nicely on Lake Ann 2. That's a very nice field for major league play. It
has a big mound, etc. So the Major A and B's were the only divisions that
we scheduled and we maxed out all of our field scheduling elsewhere to
make as much room as we could for the Chanhassen program. To answer your
question directly though, the Major A and B, we don't know until we
actually go through the drafting process where the players are coming
from. Okay. As it turns out we're about somewhere in the neighborhood of
50% Chanhassen kids in that league. Okay. But whether or not they play
there depends really on the luck of the schedule and where the schedule
was when we drew up the games to begin with. In other words, one night
you could have a team that has 7 or 8 kids on it playing, from Chanhassen
that are playing against a team that's composed almost entirely of players
from other parts of the South Tonka community as it were. Okay. Other
nights the bounds could be different. So to answer your question, it's
really hit or miss as far as that goes but sometime during the season
those children from Chanhassen cycle through and will play at least 2
games on those fields.
Berg: It's probably a statement of the obvious but then when they're not
playing at Lake Ann, obviously they'd be playing at a South Tonka park.
~ Bill Kolopolus: Right. And from our perspective, you know being a multi
community program, we're sort of mongrals you know. We're really a league
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27. 1993 - Page 10
without a country so to speak: You know we rely on the support of all the
communities that participate in our program to help us out with available
field space. Now up to this point in time, in fact until last year we
didn't make any demands on Chanhassen at all and I was Chairman of the
League last year as well in the Major League division and I got numerous
requests from Chanhassen parents to, you know complaining about driving
all the way to Tonka Mens Club. The field we're no longer using but from,
the difference in driving time from there to Tonka Mens was certainly a
lot longer than they have to face now going up to Freeman Field. But that
was what prompted the interest from the Chanhassen parents to see some of
their games played down here and we got together with the CAA and Jerry
and we tried to accommodate that request within our ability to do so. and
not interfere with the Chanhassen programs that were trying to get up and
running within their own in-house program. And last year we didn't seem
to have any conflicts. I guess this year with your phenomenal growth
Jack, it's been another issue as far as available field space. I think
that's the. that really, that just feeds back into what Jack was saying
earlier about the need for greater field space for all of the Chanhassen
community members that are going to participate in either our program at
South Tonka or the in-house program here. I hope that clarifies things.
As much as I can anyway.
....."
Schroers: Anyone else?
Jay Matronic: Yeah. real quick. My name is Jay Matronic and after you
get all the baseball, we have about 300+ kids that play soccer also and on
the same fields and we're having the same problems. I think a quick fox ~
on that. the problem we see is you can't play softball and you can't play
soccer at the same time the way the fields are set up. If we can either
maybe get some adjoining property or rearrange how we have, I know
Meadowbrook, if you can move the soccer field out a little bit, you can
play two baseball games and a soccer game at the same time. Now whether
we have any adjoining property or we can bring in fill and do it or just
move things around, that might be a quick fix option. But we're going to
have problems with soccer this year also. We've got 15 teams that we've
got to schedule. Just to let you know there's a problem, it's growing.
Soccer's growing big. Ball's growing. It's there. It's a problem and
it's a problem now.
Schroers: Thank you. Anyone else? Further comments from Commissioners?
Okay, are you looking for a formal request or action in the form of a
motion or anything on this? As far as directing staff to come up with the
information and schedule the work session. Do you need a motion on that?
Hoffman: A motion isn't necessary. Direction as to how you would like us
to proceed. As you can see, for a while throughout the past few days I
thought the ground was continually shifting under me and I see now that we
still have two sides of the issue and I would suggest that we hold some
type of. this is a small scale public fOi.um but for staff to make a
recommendation to the Commission which is valid, we certainly need to hear
all of the concerns and the issues from the different organizations which
we represent as a city park and recreation department and commission. r
would suggest that we hold some type of meeting at a regularly scheduled
...."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 11
"....,
Park and Recreation Commission meeting if we can in that regard and then
take it from there as far as policy implementation.
Andrews: I think we have to look at not just baseball or not just
softball but there is, as mentioned here, soccer. That's a conflicting
use that has to be balanced and for us to prioritize baseball without
saying well soccer should have a claim or vice versa to the same space at
the same time on the same day. Maybe we need to look at this like on a
seasonal basis. You know the fall season, the summer season, the spring
season and look at what the requests are and what the total numbers of
people wanting to use the facilities are. Try to balance it based on
participation.
Hoffman: So I am open for suggestions on how the commission would like to
move forward.
Schroers: I think what we need to be provided with the current schedule.
And the perceived needs and any other information you have from the
different organizations involved regarding their requests and we're going
to have to study this information and put it all together and find out if
we can come up with a workable situation.
Koubsky: Maybe too Todd you can, this policy would be set up primarily
for next year's?
" Hoffman: Correct.
Koubsky: I know we have growth and just to take Jack's, going from 450 to
750 I think was about as dramatic the year before growth and I'm sure
soccer is the same way. Maybe we can get back with these groups and try
to get some projections so what we'll be making some decision on next
year's estimates versus this year's numbers. And then before we do make
decisions, we'll get everybody in here. They can justify their growth
figures.
8erg: I guess I'd like to have enough data so that if we're talking about
allotting 2 extra baseball fields to CAA, that we can see some hard
numbers as to the impact that that's going to have on kids in terms of
real raw numbers. What kinds of teams are going to be displaced. What
kind of numbers, ages, whatever. Who's going to be most directly affected
by that.
Hoffman: Jeff, did you have a comment?
Jeff Bros: Well I wanted...CAA and South Tonka, we're willing to do what
we can to help out to provide those numbers for you. We also know with
the redistricting of the South Tonka district by the National Little
League that's going on after this year's season ends, that South Tonka
will no longer be requesting to use Lake Ann Park...stay, not staying but
working with the Shorewood City and Park and they have their...up there.
This year we're in a real...because we're in kind of transition here.
We've got kids that CAA we were not able to provide the program for 12
~ year old boys here because of the numbers. You get down 2 years and all
of a sudden you just explode and so we're right at the break point here
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 ~ Page 12
for where things can...so this year's scheduling...city staff, South Tonka
and CAA sitting down and making...and hammering this out and getting this
finished but we'd certainly like to help you people on the Board get these
things settled. If we can come up with a way of defining field useage on
a fair and equitable basis for everybody, based on demand. Based on the
type of field it is and the level of play that's going to be happening on
that field. These things need to be prioritized by the Association and by
the city staff. We certainly don't need 6 year olds up playing on Lake
Ann No.2 with a mound on it when they don't pitch the ball anyway but we
want to make sure that the kids that are qualified and would benefit most
from these facilities will be playing on them. The lesser quality and
lower, the younger the ages get, the less priority for a better fjeld they
need. We can adapt things like that so whatever help we can offer city
staff.
--/
Schroers: We would certainly appreciate the help. I mean you are in a
better position to know what it is that you need and what may be a
workable situation probably better than we do. And if you want to get
together with the leaders of your organization and formulate some kind of
a plan that you think would be workable and present it to us along with
city staff, and if we can incorporate that into something that would
benefit us all, we'd love to do that. So feel free to put together some
suggestions and requests somehow in writing, in a plan or let city staff
know what your feelings are specifically so that we have something
concrete in front of us to look at and plug into the overall picture and
hopefully find a way to make it work. Does staff feel that they know what
it is that we're asking for in regard of data, schedules and what the
requests are that we need? As far as providing us with the information so
we can hopefully make an educated decision regarding policies.
..."",
Hoffman: I believe so. I want to ask Jerry.
Ruegemer: Yeah. I'm under the clear direction.
Koubsky: I think part of that too Todd, you might come, there are some
existing facilities we're not using. Some of the neighborhood ballfields
which has been up here before but maybe now is the time, as we set policy
for next year, to revisit those and look at the options within the
community and rediscuss it.
Hoffman: Sure. Chairman Schroers, for the record. Mr. Jerry Grieg did
call me. He would like to go on record in favor of some type of
formulation of some policy as well.
Schroers: Okay, thank you very much and thank you to everyone who showed
UP and voiced.
Jay Martronic: Just real quick. Just for myself. What does 33 acres get
you? Two ballfields? Three ballfields? I know you're talking about it.
You must have a plan that you're asking for.
Schroers: We have some proposed concept plans and your testing my memory
now but I believe that what we were talking about was 3 ball fields, 2
soccer fields, tennis court and then there may be a policy that we are ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 13
,..
going to be addressing this evening as a matter of fact regarding tennis
courts so we'll see where we go with that. But I think that, weren't
there at least 2 soccer fields and 3 ballfields for Bandimere?
Hoffman: Currently there's 4 ballfields of varying types and distances
and currently there are 2 soccer fields. But with the development of the
Dolejsi property to the north, we're either looking at that potential land
swap or acquisition of additional property which would allow us to expand
those facilities. So potentially 4 ballfields and 3 soccer fields.
Schroers: We feel that Bandimere is going to offer a lot of potential and
solve a lot of problems and we've been working hard on that and it's kind
of like everything else these days. Funding. Monies available to develop
it are very limited and we're trying hard to work out some of these
problems.
Andrews: We're about half a million short right now to get started on
that.
Jay Matronic: Then what, how do you get started on it?
Koubsky: It would require a referendum.
Schroers: We have acquired the property. The property is our's. It's
just to develop it from this point is a very costly undertaking and we
~ simply don't have the money.
Koubsky: I think it was about a million two. Is that what we were
thinking?
Jay Matronic: Of the overall...?
Koubsky: Yeah.
Hoffman: It would probably be up to that point at this time. The
Commission addressed this the summer, this past July. You probably recall
this survey which was distributed asking the question, would you support
the construction of Bandimere at a cost of about $800,000.00 at that time.
The response back, it's a non-scientific survey but the response back was
approximately in that 65 to 35 type of range opposed to it. So at that
time a message was sent that maybe this isn't the appropriate time to move
forward with a bonding issue for that development.
Koubsky: Yeah, so there was a 65% opposal rate to that. You know they
were favoring trails but that would probably require a referendum to come
up with that type of funding.
Schroers: Okay, again. Thank you very much for coming in and expressing
your concerns and sharing your information with us. We will do what we
can do and make an attempt to get some type of reasonable quick fix.
Hopefully it will benefit the programs. Thanks a lot. Okay. At this
time then we will move onto item 3 of tonight's agenda.
,.....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 14
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. PRELIMINARY PLAT 8280 GALPIN BOULEVARD. TANDEM
PROPERTIES.
Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers. Commission members. This is a
proposal to rezone 31.83 acres of property zoned A2, or Agricultural
Estate to a Planned Unit Development. This is also a review of
preliminary plat to subdivide that parcel into 48 single family lots and a
wetland alteration permit to alter and mitigate wetlands. The applicant
is Tandem Properties. The current name of the proposed subdivision is
Trotters Ridge. Location is west of Galpin Boulevard and south of Highway
5, so this is just on the other side of Galpin Boulevard from Timberwood.
The official applicant, James Development Companies, 7808 Creek Ridge
Circle, Suite 310, Bloomington, Minnesota. Again, the present zoning is
Agricultural Estates. Adjacent land use, to the north we have
Agricultural Estate, and a future single and multi-family dwelling type of
subdivision. We've talked about that in the past. It's the parcel to the
east of the Opus site, referred to as the O'Shaughnessy at that time. At
the time you last discussed it we didn't know when it would be in for
development. That is also in for preliminary approval so you'll be seeing
that property shortly. To the south we have Agricultural Estate. It's
zoned for future office industrial. To the east, again Galpin Boulevard
and then to the west the City of Chaska and we run directly into their
industrial/commercial park. The comprehensive plan identifies the area
which this development is occurring as park deficient. However, with the
current plans for the acquisition of a park in stone Creek, which will be
taking place shortly, the future development of the elementary school
site, which is across the street and to the north, and the potential
acquisition of a park site on the property north and west of the site on
the Opus parcel, that is no longer the case. As you can see from the
diagram, which is included in your packet, this parcel is now nicely
located in the center of a lot of park and recreational type of
activities. As commission members may recall, a sketch plan of this
proposal was reviewed during the Commission's recent work sessions,
specifically focusing on that northwest corner of the proposal. You have
that attachment, or at least a reduction of it as part of your packet.
The question at hand was whether to allow this region to be developed or
to retain it for preservation. Essentially the preservation of trees and
some natural areas. The concensus for preservation was communicated to
the applicant and they responded by eliminating that northern cul-de-sac
which penetrated that area and identifying...preservation. The contours
of the site in the plat does not easily allow for that designation. I
have walked this site and it's my opinion that the acquisition of Outlot A
is desireable for inco~poration into the city park and open space system.
Dick Putnam is here. He's here with us this evening. He represents the
applicant. I'm going to take off on a tangent now and as far as the
comprehensive plan, as it regards to parks, Mr. Putnam and I had a
conversation this afternoon. Staff time has, we've been pushed with the
number of applications coming in the door. I finally had a full
opportunity to review this. Take a look at some aerials. Double check
that against my site visit and I think we have an opportunity to do
something really neat on this site so I want to review that with you.
Mr. Putnam has stated that as far as the applicant is concerned, that they
would be conducive to that taking place. And what that is, you have a map
with the proposal. We talked about Outlot A...piece of property here.
--'
......"
...""
,....
.t1I1"""
"...,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 15
Within the dotted line here represents a wetland border which is part of
this large wooded wetlands to the north that goes up into the
O'Shaughnessy property and then over to the Opus site. In some long range
thinking, to make that wetland area a really neat facility for the city as
far as parks and open space, it would be the best thing to bring a trail
system down on the exterior of this wetland. Down on this property and
extend that up probably on street or adjacent to the wetland alon9 Galpin
and then around the north side and connecting back up to the Opus parcel
which you reviewed in the past. Taking a look at that, it would be my
recommendation that not only do we incorporate Outlot A but we incorporate
this area of wetland into that outlot and include sufficient land for the
alignment of that trail along that corridor. Again, I discussed that on
the phone with Mr. Putnam this afternoon. I would like to have him speak
in that regard as well when he has the opportunity to discuss this
proposal but I think that, in any recommendation that the Park Commission
makes to the City Council, that should be included and then we will pursue
acquisition of the property necessary to make this type of trail system
happen when we review the O'Shaughnessy parcel, and as you know we're
continuing to work with the Opus site. Moving on to the comprehensive
trail plan. That currently identifies Galpin Boulevard as a Phase 3 or
2000 to 2010 addition. With the advanced pace of development in this area
and the pending construction of the elementary school, that obviously is
going to have to be moved up. We have the parcel to the south, Hans Hagen
Stone Creek. They're building houses, or building a model and will be
building houses soon. You have a piece on the other side of the road. We
have Timberwood already. There are some other residential areas or
subdivisions pending in the wings. So we're going to have to allow for
transportation by the school children up or down Galpin Boulevard to get
back down to those residential subdivisions. It's currently unknown if
that trail will be fully constructed on one side of the highway or both,
or if we'll construct segments on both sides. That being the case, a 20
foot wide trail easement for potential future trail purposes should be
acquired along the entire easterly edge of the subject plat. In a9dition,
it's recommended that the city require a 20 foot wide trail easement
between Lots 17 and 18 and to the rear of Lot 18 to gain access to the
future park being proposed in that area as I've just discussed with you.
The applicant shall be required to construct an 8 foot wide bituminous
trail within this easement and again, depending on which way we go with
the eventual trail construction, that could change to a gravel or more of
an aggregate base type of trail. And that construction should start at
the street and then go north to the property's terminus so we can access
the other property. That connection will be of great value to this
neighborhood and the larger community as they then find it available that
they can gain access to that park site. In discussion with the applicant
pertaining to this issue, found them receptive to these conditions. The
recommendation as part of the platting of the proposed Trotters Ridge
subdivision, the following recommendations are made. I'm not going to
read those to the Commission. You can enter those into your motion this
evening but they aren't detailed enough simply to protect the City's
interest as we go into the final plat approval on this site. Just to run
over those trail easement locations. 20 foot wide easements for future
potential trail purposes only would be along this easterly boundary and
then if it became apparent that we would like to construct that trail, we
would utilize this easement for that construction purposes. The other is
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 16
--'
an internal issue which would take place between Lots 17 and 18. The
grades, it is the most appropriate for trail construction in this area.
We have asked that we acquire 10 feet of easement on either side of those
lot lines and then we need 20 feet on the back lot line of 18 to get up to
this outlot. So the configuration again, if the configuration of this
outlot should change to include this wetland area and then enough property
to allow for that trail construction to take place in that area. We're
going to have to take a look. There's quite a drop in elevation here and
from the wetlands data I would think that we're going to need to construct
a trail on the high side, not on the low side. Now if we can get it on
the low side, that's probably a better situation for the applicant and the
future homeowners in that area so if we can accommodate that, I would
suggest we move it down but we'll have to make that kind of determination
when we gather that information. That's all I have. .
Schroers: Okay. Is there anything that Mr. Putnam would like to add to
this?
Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Putnam. I'm one of the owners
of Tandem Properties. I think what Todd reviewed is going to work fine.
We've met with the Planning and Engineering staff and are sort of tweaking
the plan that you saw this evening and you probably have in your packet.
We've got some small, older ag urban type of wetlands. One of them's a
pasture. Another one is an upland wetland that's kind of on top of the
hill. And then we have the larger wetland that's the one that Todd was
referring to on the north. So we're in the process of trying to realign .....,I
the roads and work with the Engineering Department on creating road
rights-of~way and widths ~nd so forth that will work within the woods.
And I think the plan will be very similar to what you saw this evening.
Property lines between lots and things are going to shift a little bit but
the trail connections that Todd spoke of, along the wetland...the gated
area where we're actually constructing a wetland adjacent to the wetland
and I think the trail that you talked about along that northern wetland
area will work very nicely with that. So I think over the next month or
so of going through the process, we'll be able to get a final plan that
will work for both of us.
Schroers: Very good. Thanks a lot. Commission comments.
Andrews: I've got one and that is, speaking for myself, I very much
appreciate the applicant's flexibility and willingness to help us get the
most out of this property. I think that's to be commended and rather
unusual from what we've seen over the last several years. So appreciate
it very much.
Berg: Ditto.
Koubsky: Todd, is there any trail easements on the Timberwood properties?
Hoffman: On the frontage.
Koubsky: On the east side.
....."
,...
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 17
Hoffman: Not that I'm aware of. They either have to work within the
County right-of-way or go in and acquire easements. Those are rather
large lots.
Koubsky: And we're recommending for that 20 foot trail easement on the
west side?
Hoffman:
Set back from the home?
Koubsky:
From the road.
Hoffman:
From the road?
Koubsky:
Or is that a planning?
Hoffman:
and so it
then they
easement.
Well the 20 feet would come just inside of their property line
would be County road right-of-way and then 20 feet easement and
would still need to meet the building setbacks from that
Schroers: Is anyone prepared to attempt to make a motion on this? Is
there additional information Todd that we need to include in the
recommendation beyond the conditions that are listed on the sheet?
""""
Hoffman: Other than including as part of the dedication of Outlot A, that
Outlot A incorporate the area we discussed tonight. That additional
wetland area with sufficient ground to allow the trail to be constructed.
Other than that it's straight forward. We have not discovered through our
discussion this evening any conditions which would need to be changed or
amended other than that one.
Andrews: How can we refer to this other area in our motion? This
combination of lots to the north of the property.
Hoffman:
both then
could say
there but
As you prefer, as long as the applicant and staff is here, we'll
understand what you're talking about. Outlot A to include, you
the northerly portions of the lot and we've got a lot of lots in
21, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45.
Schroers: Well if you said that you include the northern portions of Lots
41 thru 45?
Dick Putnam:
. . .question.
Schroers: We're just trying to formulate a motion that.
Andrews: People can read.
Schroers: Yeah. And not 4 pages long.
."""" Andrews: I can put together a motion that would be short and concise.
I'll move that we accept the staff recommended as outlined with the
addition to the motion being that Outlot A is amended and identified as
the northerly portions of Lot 40 thru 45.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 18
....".,
Hoffman: We also have Lots 20,21 and 39. Well, 20 and 21.
Andrews: And also adding Lots 20 and 21.
Schroers: Is that acceptable with staff?
Hoffman: Yes.
Schroers: Is there a second to that motion?
Koubsky: I'll second that.
Andrews moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Counicl require the following conditions of
approval pertaining to parks and trails:
1. The dedication of Outlot A, and portions of Lots 20,21,40, 41,42,
43, 44, and 45 as park and open space. This dedication is to include
the staking of the property corners, and the intersection points
of Lots 18 and 19, and Lots 19 and 20. Transfer of fee title of this
property shall occur through an unrestricted warranty deed at the time
of platting. In determining the credit to be granted the applicant
for this dedication, I first asked if the applicant was interested in
donating the property. Finding it their desire to receive credit, it
was calculated utilizing the City's standard of 1 acre per 75
residents that the 48 homes will generate a need for 1.92 acres of ~
parkland (based on 3 residents per home). In assessing the portion of
the outlot for which credit can be granted, it is seen that all but a
very small corner of the parcel lies outside the wetlands' edge.
Therefore, I am recommending that 50% park fee credit, or $300.00 per
home be granted the applicant for this dedication. The balance of
park fees being collected at a rate of 50% of the park fee in force
upon building permit application. At present, this fee would be one-
half of $600.00, or $300.00.
2. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement along the
entire easterly property line. This trail corridor is identified in
the city's Comprehensive Plan, and no trail fee credit shall be
granted for said easement.
3.
The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement between Lots
17 and 18, and to the rear of Lot 18, and construct an 8 foot wide
bituminous trail within this easement from the street edge north to
the northerly property line of Outlot A. This construction is to be
completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street
construction. The final alignment of this trail shall be staked by
the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director. A
credit of trail fees shall be granted for this easement and trail
construction at a rate of $10.00 per lineal foot over a distance of
400 feet, equalling a total credit of $4,000.00. This credit
represents 42% of the total trail fees which are currently assessable
to this project. In light of the willingness of the applicant to
incorporate the desires of the city relative to park and trail issues
into this plat, and for simplicity sake, it is recommended that a 50%
....."
"",.....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 19
credit apply to trail fees as with park fees. The balance of trail
fees being collected at a rate 50% of the trail fee in force upon
building permit application. At present, this fee would be half of
$200.00, or $100.00. Trail fee credit being given the applicant is
therefore $4,800.00.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Hoffman: In addition I would simply like to thank the applicant. In
calling today, you expect to get the perverbial beating around the bush
type of reaction. Mr. Putnam recognized the value of the trail system and
was very responsive to my request so.
Schroers: That's great. Thanks a lot.
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. PRELIMINARY PLAT. ROYAL OAKS ESTATES. GALPIN
BOULEVARD. BRET DAVIDSON.
,...
Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers. Commission members. First let
want to find out if Bret's here... From your letter you can see that Mr.
Davidson thought he would be here probably prior to this time. He
requested that if we arrived at his item prior to this time, that we
postpone it. It's at the Commission's discretion, if you would like to
postpone it further to see if Mr. Davidson does arrive or if you would
like to address it at this time.
Schroers: Does staff feel that there's a conflict with this
recommendation and that Mr. Davidson was going to provide additional
information?
Hoffman: Yes, I believe that it would be best if he was here. He did
indicate that he would be here but I thought it would be prior to this
time.
Andrews: Did he express a wish to not act on this item if he failed to
show?
Hoffman: No, he did not indicate that.
Schroers: Okay. Well, I don't have a problem with postponing and moving
along. If Mr. Davidson shows up before we complete the agenda, fine.
Otherwise we'll just go back to him at that time.
LAKE SUSAN HILLS 9TH ADDITION. ARGUS DEVELOPMENT.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members. This is a, if you
would, a cleaning house type of project. The work session scheduled on
April 13th did not allow us to discuss this item. However I had indicated
~ to Jo Ann Olsen that we would review it that evening so I'd like to bring
it to you this evening. As I presented in the attached memo to Jo
Ann Olsen dated March 18th, the configuration of Outlot E and it's
suggestion to swap Prairie Knoll Park, or portions thereof, for treed
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 20
....."
property adjacent to Outlot E would be reviewed by the Park and Recreation
Commission. My report to the Commission would be that in configuration of
Outlot E, that I will review with you a colored overhead. I have that
here which more clearly depicts the proposed changes and the configuration
of Outlot E. Those changes represent a series of give and take areas, if
you can decipher out of that sketchy diagram there, which on the whole do
not detract from the value of the outlot. Thus, no change to that
recommendation is being brought forth to the Commission tonight. As you
can see the colors here come out a little bit better. We've got red and
blue. The red area is located all the way out in here out to this point.
Then we have a little triangle of blue, a triangle of red and triangle of
blue and large area of red. All this red is the area which we're getting
larger than the original depiction of the outlot. The areas of blue are
where they're taking additional properties that were originally dedicated
as part of the outlot. Admittedly when this was platted 7-8 years ago,
this comes very close to what the concept was at that time. And in fact
the exchange of the plan here comes very close to being a wash as well.
Unless the commission feels otherwise again...satisfactory.
Schroers: Okay. And you're not asking for a formal motion, or are you
Todd?
Hoffman: At the end of the item, yes. A motion has been recommended. If
there's any questions on the configuration of Outlot E, I will address
those at this time. If not, I'll go on to the issue of the parkland
exchange. Commission members probably recall the reasoning that, why this ....."
blue area is in there was because of the ponding. The expanded ponding
and it was the then statement of staff that the applicant just did not
have the right to go in there and take additional property. They came
back after receiving those comments in a written form from staff with this
diagram showing that yes, we understand we're taking but we're also giving
additional property in other areas so I feel that this is again a
compromise which is acceptable.
Roeser: Is that just a trail or what are they really talking about there?
I didn't understand that map at all frankly.
Hoffman: We're talking about land areas. The original concept PUD plan
show a property line along the back side of these lots. Simply a property
line coming out through here. These will be homes and this will be the
open space down in this area. When they came through for their final
plat, with the changes in,the alignment for property lines, there's some
minor changes here so if that is the property line coming out in this
location. They moved it in a little bit to this location. So the City
gained a little bit of property here and gained property here, down here.
Loses a little corner of property here because of the configuration of the
lot. Now they're coming straight out to this corner. We're gaining quite
a bit in this area. This is all that canary reed grass, wetland type of
area. And they take a little bit here for ponding purposes, which is a
give and take situation as far as land...
Schroers: And staff is comfortable with that?
"""'*'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
.~ April 27, 1993 - Page 21
,......
,....,
Hoffman:" Yes. I mean there were certainly implications here because of
the date over the 9th Addition of Lake Susan Hills West. That is the
reason that we were so particular as far as the conditions that were
attached to that Planned Unit Development 7 years ago so this is just one
of those steps to assure the residents who are participating in this
proposal that we are looking at everything very closely and we're
comfortable with how things are progressing.
Schroers: Okay, well what I'm having here is a problem in finding the
recommendation. I don't see it.
Hoffman: Alright. I'll
We'll come up with one.
attachment to this page
information then on the
move on to the parkland issue. You're right.
I think what happened there is there's an
which didn't get on the back. Do you need anymore
configuration of Outlot E?
Schroers: I don't believe so.
Hoffman: Okay. Moving on to the issue of swapping of parkland. As the
Commission may recall, that concept carne up where a portion or all of
Prairie Knoll Park would be swapped for additional property contiguous to
Outlot E. They wanted to knock off a chunk or all of Prairie Knoll Park
and let them develop that into homes and then gain more property down next
to Outlot E to save some of those trees. At first glance that sounds like
a pretty good idea. Unfortunately then you have landowners who abut
Prairie Knoll Park who are concerned about that. They bought their
property with the knowledge that it bordered a park. They would assuredly
have a problem when you took that away and put houses there. However,
even more important and the real deterrent is that the city does not have
fee title to that property. That being Prairie Knoll Park. It is simply
a condition of the plat that this land be used for park purposes. If we
wanted to change the condition of that plat, then we would need to get
each entity who was party to that plat, that being every landowner, every
lot, every mortgage company, to sign off and approve on that type of land
easement for that change in plat. That is, at best, very, very, very
difficult to do and most likely nearly impossible. To get around that, or
not to have to face that situation, the city now requires that park
property owner should be transferred through fee title or unrestricted
warranty. But it's really not a feasible option to swap parkland in this
particular site. So it'd be staff's recommendation that the Park and
Recreation Commission recommend that the configuration of Outlot E as
presented by the applicant be approved, and that the swapping of parkland
between Prairie Knoll Park and some treed property adjacent to Outlot E
not be considered.
Roeser: So this whole discussion that we had a couple of months back
about the trees and this lot, really there's no options is basically what
you're saying?
Hoffman: The applicant has progressed to some satisfaction of the
residents of the group in opposition to the 9th Addition. By working with
both the planning staff and engineering staff to do some custom grading if
you want to call it that. Changing of the designation of the type of
homes they're putting in. Taking a look at road alignments so they have
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 22
done quite a bit of alterations to this plat to attempt to be sensitive to
those trees. Again, that has met with some approvals to some of the group
opposing the Addition.
Roeser: That would make the most sense to me. I mean even if they're
going to put a house in there, they don't have to tear down all the trees
to put in that house.
Hoffman: Right.
Schroers: Alright. If there's no further discussion on this item, I
would move to accept the proposal as stated by staff. I guess we have,
yes. Come forward please.
Robert Smithburg: Mr. Chairman. Todd. My name is Robert Smithburg and
I live at 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. I've been involved in this
project since actually when it was initially, the initial plat was
proposed to you about 2 months ago and I'm basically here tonight just to
make a statement for the record, and that's about this proposed
development. And I guess I have to say how ironic this upcoming weekend's
promotion of tree planting, discount tree sales, celebration of Arbor Day
and celebration of Earth Day, Earth Week. It's ironic to me because we
have a proposed development involving approximately 1,000 old growth trees
and I said before, these trees are 12 to 48 inches in diameter. They're
80 to 150 years old. Jo Ann has gone out on the site with a design~ted
DNR person and the trees have been marked and platted. Many of these are
in jeopardy. Staff is allowing 194 trees allowable to be lost. That's
minimum lost. That's what they can take down for pads and streets. Beyond
that, just in the Chanhassen paper here last Thursday from the Arboretum
they show how you should protect trees through custom grading, which the
developer will do but his, from what I understand the way he's going to
custom grade, doesn't at all conform to the way the Arboretum suggested to
do this. So I just wanted to just make a few points here and show you
some of these things that I've come up because of this development. This
is a 1968 aerial view of Chanhassen. I'm sorry I don't have one for each
of you. Here we have the Arboretum, just to get everybody acclimated
here. Lake Ann Park. This is private property. The dark hard treed
areas and the river bottom are here. Okay, number 1 what has been lost so
far to development in Chanhassen is Timberwood, Stone Creek, which was
quite wooded. Number 2 Chanhassen Public Works Building. I'm going to
skip number 3 for now. Number 4 hasn't been lost yet but it's etched in
stone, proposed Highway 212 roadway. Number 5, proposed 212/101
interchange. Number 3 is Chanhassen Hills development, which abuts the
proposed development which is left right here. What you have left in
Chanhassen besides Lake Ann and just a few, small percent, number of trees
left is this development right now, Lake Susan Hills 9th. And that's
central Chanhassen like this. Now I'd just like to show you a map of what
will be lost to development...The red are the trees that will be lost.
And this is either house pads and street only. I haven't, to be fair to
the developer, I haven't put anything else in there. Strictly house pads
and streets. And this is the area off of Powers Boulevard. Which is a
solid wooded area right now but they're punching streets right through the
middle of it...So I, you now like I say, I find it real sad that this will
happen... A few things have happened since the initial proposal. The PUD
....""
....""
..."",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ April 27, 1993 - Page 23
has expired on this project as of December, 1992. The City Attorney says
that this land can be rezoned. I know that can create hassles upon
hassles but the option is there for things to happen with this property
and action to be taken. It is open to amendments and also Chanhassen's
new codes and requirements. They can apply. We, at this point the city
tree code, portions of that will be applied to the development and we're
trying for more. I'm asking you, the Commissioners, to look into this.
To research this and see what you can possibly do to help save more trees.
There are still options. They can make larger lots. They can redefine
boundaries again. There are still things that can be done. 50 I'm asking
you, the Commissioners to do whatever possible to help save these old
growth trees and these are an irreplaceable resource of Chanhassen. Thank
you.
5chroers: If you've been working with Jo Ann, you're probably aware of
the fact that we have formed a Tree Board in the city to address exact
types of concerns that you're addressing here this evening. The problem
is that the Board is very new. We are still in the process of developing
policies and ordinances and until they have been established and are in
place, what we can do from a policy aspect to a development of this nature
that is at the stage that it's at right now is really very little.
,.....
Robert 5mithburg: Right. I realize that but like I say, there still are
things that can be done. And we have incorporated some of the Tree Code
into this project. There has been, the Planning Commission has proposed
and was in agreement that these be incorporated and I'm quite sure the
developer will conform to this. 50 I mean there are things that will
happen. Without the new PUD, or with the old PUD that couldn't have been
put in. 50 what I'm trying to say is without a, well I can't say it
legally but I guess I'm just asking anything you know. Anything you can
do at all to help promote saving trees or just your influence. Anything.
Manders: I have a question. Do you know, or to your best understanding,
what percentage of the trees would be retained and what would be lost?
Robert 5mithburg: Okay. The approximate figures are 900 and, I'll go
down to 950 trees and Jo Ann's report, ~llowable loss is 194. 50 they
figure that many will go for sure. 194. The developer figures, in his
initial, he didn't have the correct figures. We all concluded it would be
approximately 30%. And they've gone out. They have gone to the site. Jo
Ann and I say the DNR and they have must save trees in there and you know,
I mean there are trees of course that are dead and dying that will go
down. But I still feel that with influence, the lot lines can be drawn. I
think lots can be bigger in the treed areas. They've only lost during
this whole time one lot. It's 73 acres and 90 proposed lots. Now it's
down to 89. So I do think that lots could be increased in size to save
trees.
Schroers: I don't know how we can legally force the developer to do that
though since we don't have an ordinance in place. I mean that's one of
~ the things we are trying to develop on the Tree Board and different
numbers have been talked about. 20% increase in lot size to save trees
and up to 40% increase in lot size. But as of yet, that has not hard and
fast so I don't know how we could require this of the developer.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 24
...."",
Robert Smithburg: Well it's been somewhat of a give and take so I guess
I'm asking you to use your influence and ask or promote. Do anything you
can to.
Schroers: It's basically Qur common practice when a situation like this
occurs that we do ask the developer to use all necessary precautions when
working around trees to prevent construction and development damage. And
also to be sensitive to the issue of saving as many trees as possible and
so I think what you're asking for is pretty much in place and pretty much
common practice but it's a good will negotiation, if you will, between us
and the developer and there's nothing really legal that we can require of
him in regard to making him increase his lot size.
Koubsky: What's Jo Ann said with the expiration of the PUD? Because I
know my deck overlooks this area. I know they're tall trees. You know I
sympathize with it. I hate to see these things go. It's hard to believe
that they let a development at that time go through the middle of these
things. But then it's hard to believe Chan Estates went up through the
middle of these things and all this happened. You've obviously talked
to Planning you know Commission. What do they have to say on the PUD
issue?
Robert Smithburg: Well, they left it, 2 meetings ago they left it up to
the, they needed to get legal advice from the City Attorney. Jo Ann has a
memo, actually I have that with me. There's a memo that does explain.
It's loose that this can be rezoned. Changes can be made on the PUD. ~
Requirements can be added. Stipulations can be added. So that has been
legally defined for the city.
Andrews: We already have made a motion requesting that the maximum number
of trees be saved. At the last meeting you were here last time we did do
that.
Robert Smithburg: I know but I'm basically here to also just to update
you on this situation.
AndTews: There's been some progress obviously.
Robert Smithburg: Right, yes. But you know I guess, we'd like to see
more is what we'd like to see as a citizen.
Schroers: I think that we all would like to see more. Some interesting
things are coming to the surface as a result of the formulation of this
Tree Board and Alan Olson is the DNR Forester that we've been working with
and he brought out some good points. Everyone's concern is the mature
trees. Certainly they're the most beautiful and they're the ones we are
enjoying now. But his comment was that if we only protect the old growth
mature trees, 50 years from now when they die, what's going to be left to
replace them? So we're beginning to look at all stages of growth of the
trees and try to recognize the fact that we have to protect and preserve
trees at all different levels to insure that we're going to have trees for
the future. We cannot focus only on the nice mature old trees.
...."",
.1""'"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 25
Robert Smithburg: I agree with you there but also I have to take issue
with one of the Planning Commission member's statement. Something in
regard with this. He said that, I mean yes we do have to save all trees
but I mean myself and I know homeowners when you go into these treed lots.
You hack out the underbrush which means you're hacking. When you have
stately old trees, you're looking at the, it's rare people look 20 to 30
years in the future. They go in, they're going to hack out every small
shurb and bush and small tree there are and that's what in there. These
trees are so large that you have inch and half, 30 foot maples instead of
10 foot maples. These people, I know this aerial like the back of my
hand. These people are going to go in there and I did it on my lot, as
much asI hate to admit it. I went in and snuffed out the small stuff and
left the big, you know the large trees. I have since planted. I mean I
put in trees I want but I really feel in the long run that's what's going
to happen and I mean with much thought I believe 10-15 years from now
we're really going to regret this. I really do. So I really appreciate.
Schroers: Well hopefully this development of our new Tree Ordinance will
help. You know what we hear a lot is, a lot of people weren't nearly as
concerned about it when it was their houses that were being built in the
wooded areas but now that the wooded areas that they're looking at, they
say well...my house here but it's not okay for someone else to put one
over there because I don't want to look at it.
"......
Robert Smithburg: Where the ones that are. ..a few ash and I've got a
great stately box elder. But also what I showed you on the map here. I
mean you should go over there right now. There's a lot of red oaks laying
on the side of the street...7 full semi trucks...were pulled out of there.
All that's left...a perfect example. If you go in the front yard, all
our's are dead trees...which are left, dead oaks, house pad and then you
have a rim, small rim over the back side which was...I guess I keep
bringing this up to you and asking you to be concerned is I want, I'm
asking that the developer with these subs he hires, that these guys are
accountable for what they do and hopefully we've instituted that also in
this development where they are going to be held accountable for which
trees they damage. Because we all know that there's going to be a lot
more damage than what is allowable in this.
Schroers: Okay. That's also things that are being addressed through the
Tree Board. Accountability and actually who is the designated authority
in the city that is going to physically ~heck on site to see that the
general contractors and the subcontractors are adhering to the policies
and these are issues that are in the development stage but not finalized.
So for this particular development here, I think that we're very limited
to what we can do except ask for the developer's cooperation and share our
concerns with him, which has already been done and will continue to be
done through the development.
Robert Smithburg: Great. That's what I'm asking for from the Commission
here.
1fI"'"
Schroers: Okay, thanks a lot.
Robert Smithburg: Yeah, thank you.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 26
Andrews: Larry, I'll second the motion that was on the floor.
Schroers: Okay.
Schroers moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the configuration of Outlot E as presented by the applicant
be approved, and that the swapping of parkland between Prairie Knoll Park
and some treed property adjacent to Outlot E not be considered. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Schroers: I think at this point now we can go back to item 4 on the
agenda. Is Mr. Davidson present?
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. PRELIMINARY PLAT. ROYAL OAKS ESTATES. GALPIN
BOULEVARD. BRETT DAVIDSON.
Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers, commission members. Prior to
moving forward there's an aerial photo which I distributed to you. In
error I drew a line approximating the existing right-of-way line for that,
at 33 feet on your diagram. The County is requesting that that go to 50
feet so you need to move that over. I'm going to put up an overhead which
shows approximately...The line you have drawn is this line in this
location. The actual right-of-way that they're asking for is that middle
line. And then the additional right-of-way, in talking with Mr. Davidson
prior to the item here, this makes you go about a tenth of an inch over,
but not a quarter inch. Just slightly less than that. The letter which
was distributed to you outlined Mr. Davidson's concerns...speak in
reference to those this evening. What the proposal is is to rezone 13
acres of property currently zoned Agricultural Estate to Rural Residential
Single Family in a preliminary plat to subdivide those 13 acres into 23
single family lots being named Royal Oak Estates. As you are aware,
those 23 lots include Mr. Davidson's residence...that being Lot 1, Block
1. It's located just to the north again of the Klingelhutz-Rottlund
subdivision which you have reviewed a few weeks past. And the applicant,
Brett Davidson, I would like to thank him for hurrying up his schedule and
getting down here this evening to discuss this with the commission. So we
have adjacent land use north, agricultural estates and rural residential.
We should just refer to it as Prince's property. His home site. South we
have agricultural estates rezoned to RSF, Residential Single Family. And
there is the date that that was reviewed by the Commission. February
23rd. To the east we have additional rural residential, and then to the
west, Galpin Boulevard and beyond that mo~e rural residential. The
comprehensive plan identifies this site as lying in a park deficient area.
But again similar to the Klingelhutz property, Rottlund proposal, due to
the size we will most likely not consider this as a candidate for land
acquisition. Under our current ordinance we could take .92 acres of the
13 acres being platted for parkland. Again, that acreage is insufficient
for any type of park and again does not represent something which to build
off of. My recommendation to the Commission will be to accept full park
fees to be paid at the time of building permit application in lieu of
parkland dedication. This application I think would be a slam dunk other
than the issue of the trail and the easements necessary. The
comprehensive plan does identify Galpin Boulevard, or County Road 117 as a
...."
.."."
...",
"..."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 27
trail alignment. Current analysis to determin which side of the road this
trail will be constructed identifies the east as the better candidate,
although both sides are candidates for that trail and again, as the
platting occurs in Chanhassen, we simply gain those easements for an
insurance policy so when the time comes to build then, that we have them.
If at any point in the future of Chanhassen we wish to vacate those
easements, we can do so at that time. But during the platting process,
that is our time. Our window if you will to acquire those easements. You
have a developer and an applicant before you. They need to compromise and
offer the city some, if you would, conditions for what they are receiving
in return as well. To accommodate the construction of that 20 foot wide
trail easement will be required of the applicant. The easement shall be
granted on the westerly property line. That being Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot
1, Block 2. The alignment shall be included in the overall grading plan
for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. Again, that bed
may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the
applicant. Obviously they want to push those out to the road as closely
as possible but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail
construction and subject to the approval as part of the grading plan. And
again, planting of trees shall be restricted to areas east or to the
inside of the trail bench and then full trail fees shall be collected at
the time of building permit applications to assist in the financing of the
future trail connection. Recommendation is stated there. It's very
straight forward. At this time I'll turn it back to Chairman Schroers.
,......
Schroers: Okay, thank you Todd. At this point I'll give Mr. Davidson an
opportunity to address the Commission.
Brett Davidson: Okay, thank you very much. Thanks for sliding the agenda
item too so I could be here to talk. I am the developer and also the
homeowner in this piece of property which I guess is a little different
because normally I guess it would be a homeowner and a developer would be
separate. We did the development under the understanding that we'd need a
trail easement along the west side of the property and we oversized Lot 1,
Block 2 as you can see to 120 some feet because we knew we would have to
do that. So we added extra room in Lot 1, Bl06k 2 for that specific
purpose. We planned on doing the trail easement all along on that one.
In addition, as Todd said now, the city is requiring or the County is
going to require an additional road easement so the total distance,
easement from the center road now with the trail easement would include 70
feet. I guess we had planned that on Lot 1, Block 2. Our concern, my
concern is Lot 1, Block 1 which is where my current house is. If the
house was further away from the road and it didn't impact the house, I
vJould be more than happy to give the trail easement. My concern at this
point however is if you do the 50 foot road easement, which is what the
County is going to require, then add on an additional 20 foot trail
easement, I won't be able to get into my garage without doing some monkey
rigging around to get into the garage. You can see on the aerial
photograph that you have, the house is actually not perpendicular to the
road. The house actually faces a little bit towards the south which
JIll"'" \"equi\"es, and it's south of the entrance to the property line.. .You can
see the driveway is right here and then you actually have to make a left
hand turn to, I'm sorry. Right hand...In fact the current driveway sits
just about along the 50 foot road easement which right here, and...red oak
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27~ 1993 - Page 28
""""
that we transplanted in here. There's also a berm through this area right
here which... If the entire 20 foot trail easement...th~ red oak would
have to be probably removed to get an 8 foot trail in. The clump of birch
in the back probably would stay, depending on what happens with the root
structure...So in addition to this, as Todd said, the land north of my
piece of property is owned by Prince and as I mentioned.in my letter that
you all have a copy of, and...Prince has an 8 foot high chainlink fence
all the way around his property that is on the current road easement going
right through here...ln addition, this is a wetlands area here and a
little bit of one up here. So from here, from a laymen's point of view,
and I just don't have the experience to determine where the trail should
go, but it would appear that the trail would be better...north of my piece
of property on the west side of Galpin rather than on the east side of
Galpin. In addition to that, the piece of property that is on the west
side of Galpin is now under a purchase agreement with Lundgren Bros. So
they will be developing that into a large subdivision and dedication of a
trail easement at that time could, I would assume could occur during
development of that piece of Property. So my concern is, I 'guess what I
would like to see the Planning Commission consider is going ahead and take
the trail easement along Lot 1, Block 2 but hold off on Lot 1, Block 1
until we actually decide what's going to happen with development and
what's going to happen with the future trail easement, primarily because
it's going to severely impact the home that's situated on Lot 1, Block 1.
Specifically it's going to, you can't get in the driveway. Or you could
get in the driveway but what you'd have to do is pull in, back up, pull
forward, back up and finally get in which obviously as you know would be
anything but ideal.
...,;
Schroers: Okay. It's unfortunate that the County has requested that
additional 6 foot easement for the road right-of-way there. However, as
identified in our comprehensive trail plan, we really need to stick to the
commitment that we have made there in acquiring easements. If we make an
exception, we open up a chunk of trail that we'll never be able to connect
which would ruin our entire plan. I think that I'm not sure why it's
proposed that the better location for the trail is on the east side of the
road. It seems to me that the topography on both sides of the road is
somewhat similar and that the east side of the road is much more treed
than the west side is. I know that on the west side there's a lot more
open areas and I'm wondering why we determined that the east side is a
better side for the trail.
Hoffman: In conducting a couple of different site visits out there,
obviously as you know the comprehensive plan does not identify which side
of the road. It simply identifies a corridor. In fact, in many of these
county roads, once ,the population is fully developed and the housing units
are out there, you may want to see it happen on both sides of these county
roads. So long term we'll probably see a trail on both sides of the road.
The short term you're correct. At first glance, I mean we've got a lot of
trees on the Prince property there. Both sides are somewhat similar.
There is a large stand of pines just north of the golf course driving
range which would have to be taken on that side of the road, so that's one
problem area on the west side. And as you get up t.O the, above the Song.
property and get into the Carlson piece, there's an extensive wetland area
there. We would be out into the, quite a long ways out into that wetland
--'
,.......
,....
,.......
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27. 1993 - Page 29
type of vegetation. We would have to do some type of boardwalking in that
area so I have driven it. Again, this is a first glance type of situation
but again, Mr. Davidson has been easy to work with. Congenial but again,
simply in the interest of the city, I recommend in taking of that easement
and then just simply letting it lie dormant. When the time comes that a
trail would be constructed, we would then need to obviously address the
situation as far as how tight the trail would come to the house. What
type of impact you have on trees. As you know, the city does not take the
butcher type approach to it's trail alignments. This is the opportunity
to take that easement. At such time when it becomes necessary to use it,
we will then work with Mr. Davidson or the current owner of that property
to get that trail constructed in that area.
Andrews: I'd like to voice my support also that we take the easement. It
may not be appropriate to build a trail there now. It could be something
that the house gets torn down for a rebuild or whatever at some time in
the future. I think it's in our interest to protect our option until a
point that we actually do build a trail. If we build it on the west side
snd determine it's not needed on the east side, we would abandon the
easement. I think it just makes sense for us to take it and then preserve
our options until a later date.
Brett Davidson: I guess if I could just add one other thing here, and I'm
not sure exactly what city ordinance is but in fact the Lot 1, Block 1 is
actually not even a portion of Royal Oak Estates. In fact the original
plat that ~Jas submitted accepted the Lot 1, Block 1 and the Planning
Commission came back and said, no. You must, simply because we cannot
plat pieces of property with pieces unplatted around it. Not because I
was the owner and also the developer, but because it must be platted.
I do know that there is recent history in connecting the sewer and water.
That there have been some subdivisions, specifically Willow Creek which is
developed by Lundgren Bros where they did not, in fact they could not
force the current homeowner to hook into sewer and water because they were
not specifically a part of the development. I guess what I'm saying is,
I'm not even sure that city ordinance would allow, and maybe you could
knovJ someone else that would know more about it than I do, could speak to
this, but I'm not sure they can even allow a forcing of an easement on a
piece of property that's not a portion of the development. Simply because
the property's being platted at the same time.
Roeser: That's something we'd have to find out.
Brett Davidson: That's exactly right and I don't understand. Or I don't
know for sure. I do know that the Willow Ridge development had similar
problems with sewer and water and an existing home site that was platted
at the same time that Willow Ridge was platted. It was not a portion of
that development however and they came back and said no. You cannot force
that homeowner to hook into sewer and water. That is governed by
ordinance later on and we won't force that owner to hook into sewer and
water. So I guess I'm not knowledgeable enough about city ordinance at
this time to speak to it but I do know that there are, I guess I would be,
there is some doubt there whether or not.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 30
-'
Schroers: I would think that that would be an option for you to pursue.
What we are charged with here this evening is to move on this development
as it's proposed and I think I had an attempt to do that and I think from
a personal point of view, if you want to pursue actually what the
ordinance is and how it applies to your lot, I think it would be probably
to your advantage to go ahead and do that.
Brett Davidson: If the Planning Commission recommends though taking of
the trail easement, and we in fact find out that the city ordinance would
allow for it not to be taking, what would be the procedure then?
Schroers: I guess I don't know.
Hoffman: As you're addressing it this evening, Lot 1, Block 1 is
portion of this plat. You make your recommendation this evening.
1, Block 1 gets removed from the plat, the condition of the trail
cannot be attached to it. So it's a very clear cut issue.
a
If Lot
easement
Brett Davidson: When you talk about remove from the plat, they won't let
me remove it from the plat because I initially tried to except it from the
plat because it's not a portion of the development, and in fact they would
not let me remove it from the plat.
Hoffman: So then again it is a portion of this plat and the city has the
authority then to go ahead and require that easement as a part of the
final platting of Royal Oaks. ~
Andrews: I just would like to say that I don't think it's our intent here
to block your driveway or knock your trees down but I think we're trying
to look at the very long term here and we've had enough experience over
the last several years to know there are many properties that we decided
not to take an easement on years back that we wish we had the foresight to
take the easements for the future development. This may be a situation
where no trail is ever built here in our lifetime. There may come a
situation where the house may be destroyed or burned in a fire or whatever
and be rebuilt and at that time it may make sense then to impose the
easement. Or it may be a situation where we build a trail and decide we
don't need it and then we could abandon it. So I'm not sure it's
necessarily a threat to your particular house at all.
Brett Davidson: No but you have to, I would hope you understand my
viewpoint too which is, when I go to sell this house. If I sell it or if
I stay there and I sell the house and there's a trail easement, across the
driveway that says well they're probably not going to use it but they
might, and the person who's going to buy it says, well how am I going to
get into your garage. I say well don't worry about that because they may
not use it. I guess what I'm saying is, you have to understand whether
it's going to be used or not, as soon as an easement is granted through
there, it impacts the price of the house. I mean that's the bottom line.
It is a financial impact and I would hope you'd understand a little bit. I
feel a little bit like I'm being, not held hostage but almost in a sense
that way because the land has to be platted for the development on it. So
it has to be platted so I have to do that but at the same time it's
financially impacting the home that's on it and I just, I would just hope
-"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
11"". Apr i 1 27, 1993 - Page 31
that we would, and I know that sometimes things have to happen that you
have to, I mean people are going to be inconvenienced for the good of the
city. I know that's going to happen. I've sat in City Council meetings
where it's happened before. I would just hope that where we could, we
could work around those and my opinion, like I say from a laymen's term,
it could be on the west side of the road and that would be a way to work
around it.
Roeser: But we're kind of in the same situation though. You had to plat
the property. We have to take the easements and we'd be making a bad
mistake if we didn't.
Koubsky: We have an easement on this 50 foot extension to the county
road. What's that do to our potential on Prince's property?
Hoffman: As far as?
Koubsky: As far as trail.
.,.....
Hoffman: Trail construction? We would have to work in, at that portion
of, if we came to the point where we wanted to construct a trail on the
east side and Prince was still in his present home. Did not subdivide
during that timeframe, then we would potentially need to work with the
County within their right-of-way to construct that trail. The County has
obviously taken additional right-of-way to protect the interest of the
road system as Chanhassen expands, so you understand that. But again,
forecasting what is going to happen in the future is not what this is all
about. As you can see, the separation here is greater than we work in a
lot of situations. As you reviewed Highway 101, I mean the proximity of
the home and the garage and the driveway is much closer in a lot of those
situations than we have here so. Upon first recollection of what this
housepad looked like, I didn't see a problem. Upon taking a look at the
aerial, there is some potential for some inconvenience there but to say
that it's too great at this time to not take the easement would be.
Schroers: I hope that Mr. Davidson realizes that what staff has said and
that we are very willing as the time the trail actually comes, is put
under construction, that we look and it's not like a straight line. Chop
and cut down everything that's in the way. We do everything that we can
to accommodate saving trees and working with the homeowner within the
framework that we have to best accommodate everyone in the situation and
hopefully we would, we definitely will continue that philosophy.
Brett Davidson: In all honesty, I really do appreciate that. On the
other hand, the minute the trail easement is approved, whether it ever
goes in or not, the value of the home goes down significantly.
Koubsky: I think as the...and I understand. I'm a homeowner. That was
the first thing I looked at. You know they ask it on everything. Is
there an easement? But as the city develops, if we lose a section, we
lose our whole.
I"""
Brett Davidson: I understand that and in all honesty, I mean it's just a
concern and I know you guys have to do what you have to do and I even
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 32
""""'"
appreciate the chance to address it.
Schroers: Okay, thank you very much. Anything additional from the
Commissioners? Are we ready to develop a motion?
Koubsky: I move that the City accept full park fees to be paid at the
time of the building permit application at the rate in force in lieu of
parkland dedication; and a 20 foot wide easement shall be granted to the
city along the applicant's westerly property line, (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot
1, Block 2). Furthermore that this easement shall be included in the
grading plan for the project with suitable trail bed being prepared. This
trail bed may be meandered within the easement alignment at the discretion
of the applicant, but eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail
construction and is subject to approval as part of the grading plan
review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to the areas east of the
trail bench. Full trail fees shall be collected at the time of building
permit application at the rate then in force to assist in the financing of
future trail construction.
Schroers: Is there a second?
Roeser: Second.
Andrews: A point of discussion please. Do we want to impose grading on
Lot 1, Block 1 at this time?
Hoffman: It would be a clarification. I don't believe that you're
including your lot in the grading plan and that condition would not be
subject to Lot 1, Block 1. Simply Lot 1, Block 2.
...."
Andrews: Thank you for clarifying that.
Schroers: With that then is there a second?
Roeser: I seconded it.
Koubsky moved, Roeser seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend approval of the following conditions pertaining to the Royal Oak
Estates subdivision:
1. That the City accept full park fees to be paid at the time of the
building permit application at the rate in force in lieu of parkland
dedication; and
2. A 20 foot wide easement shall be gyanted to the city along the
applicant's westerly property line, (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block
2). Furthermore, the easement for Lot 1, Block 2 shall be included in
the grading plan for the project with suitable trail bed being
prepared. This trail bed may be meandered within the easement
alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but eventual alignment
must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to
approval as part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall
be restricted to the areas east of the trail bench. Full trail fees --'
shall be collected at the time of building permit application at the
"...
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 33
rate then in force to assist in the financing of future trail
construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Hoffman: In this type of situation, again we talk a lot about impacts
trails have on property. I would venture to offer the'other side of the
issue. Many people, if we take the TH 101 again for example. If people
would have looked for a home in that particular neighborhood and Highway
101 did not have a trail, many people might not be as quick to buy in that
neighborhood. Once that trail goes in, if that does, people looking at
homes there then realize that they have an alternative form of
transportation to and from their home and thus would probably see that as
a selling point. So the issue of is a trail a benefit or a detriment,
that does go both ways.
Andrews: Obviously if you're taking a total of a 100 foot wide easement
there for the roadway, they're anticipating the...large traffic capacity
there. . .
Schroers: I think that's an individual homeowner's, depending on what do
I want to say, opinion or what their personal preference is. I guess I
would prefer to have the trail...trying to negotiate my bicycle in
traffic. . .
,...
FIRST QUARTER PARK AND TRAIL FEE REVENUE REPORT. ENDING MARCH 31. 1993.
Hoffman: Unless there are any questions from Commission members, I'll let
item 6 stand as presented.
Schroers: Question? Very good.
REQUEST FOR SOCCER KICK WALL AT CITY CENTER PARK.
Ruegemer: In February of this year we did receive a letter of inquiry
from Mr. Dick Maloney of the Chan/Chaska Soccer Club requesting of the
city to provide a double sided soccer kick wall that could be used for
development of skills for the soccer group participants in the area. This
type of request was looked at and thought it would be...to bring to the
Park and Rec Commission this evening. There's benefits of the soccer wall
as far as saving on equipment. That type of thing. At this time there
really hasn't been a location determined. City Center Park was brought up
just because of the convenience of having multiple soccer fields up in
this area and it could be used by a wide variety of people. A couple
possible locations that were discussed were a dual purpose wall. One that
can be used for tennis on one side and one that can be used for soccer on
the other side. There's benefits of having the wall this way so it's
serving that dual purpose and be a better economical use with having that
available for two different groups. That possible location would be over
~ by the tennis court area, City Center Park. So that would be one side.
If we're thinking of doing it for dual purpose. If we're thinking of
possibly just erecting it somewhere in City Center Park to get it away
from the tennis court area, another possible location might be to follow
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 34
-'
the tree line over by Kerber Boulevard. This would better kind of blend
i~ more with the trees and maybe wouldn't stick out as much, if you will.
Better disguise itself. But that is a concern. Having the soccer wall at
City Center Park would be having to look at this type of a wall, I mean as
large as it would be as aesthetics. The soccer wall would be used to
possibly 4 to 5 months out of the year. We'd have to, then it would be
sitting. We'd have to look at potentially the safety aspect of it too,
having this wall out accessible for kids to be hopping around on too. So
we need to take a look at that. If we could possibly put that in an area
where it could minmize that possibility. I think tonight basically what
staff is looking for is, depending on the soccer wall and if it could be
better served in another location or if the idea is very obvious at this
time, if we can accommodate this request. What I would like to, if we
could get ~he opinion of the Park and Rec Commission tonight and then
maybe direotion of where we go from this point.
Schroers: I have a question. How much wear and tear actually in terms of
dollars and inconvenience are we experiencing on...are we talking a lot of
money here?
Ruegemer: No. Not real significant.
Andrews: Is the person who wrote the letter here tonight? Richard.
Hoffman: Dick Maloney. I had a conversation with him today and asked if
he should be present this evening. I said at the looks of our agenda, I'm ....,
not sure when it can be on. At that time we were thinking S:30...and he
chose not to come.
Berg: I guess I have a couple questions too. If you tried to turn it
into a multipurpose or two purpose, you're going to have the added expense
of asphalt to be able to use it at as a tennis hitting wall off grass.
Andrews: And asphalt's no good for soccer balls. Or soccer spikes.
Berg: So you're going to have to divide it somehow that way. And that's
going to be an additional expense. If you put it along the trees along
Kerber, parallel with Kerber, unless these are incredibly gifted soccer
players, there's going to be a lot of balls that miss that wall and go out
into Kerber Boulevard and I'd be concerned about the safety there.
Manders: what kind of dimensions are we talking about on that wall?
Ruegemer: I think we could probably have like an S x 16 I would think.
Stacking 4 x 4 sheets on top of each other.
Hoffman: We can custom design it. Back to the multi purpose. We're
planning on putting a tennis backboard on the inside of that tennis court.
So if we go to the, if you visualize going to the north and then west
corner of the tennis court and if you put a board on the inside and a
board on the outside. They could use it from inside the court and outside
the court.
-'
Ruegemer: So there .wouldn't be any additional asphalt.
,....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 35
Berg: Okay. You'd lose a court but save on the expense of.
Hoffman: Well, if the court isn't being used, it can be used. It's a
multi purpose type of thing.
Andrews: I just want to comment. I've coached youth soccer for, I think
it's at least 6 years. Never had a need for a kick wall as long as you
have at least 2 people. You can kick back and forth and do your passing
and shooting. I've been at facilities where walls have been available.
What's usually happened is it becomes a contest of kind of like annie,
annie, over. Kicking it over the fences of the tennis courts or the walls
that are there. You know from my personal experience as a coach, I'm not
sure there's really that much value. I can teach all the shooting skills
and passing skills, which are even more valuable, better without a wall.
Accuracy and control are much more important than how hard a shot is
kicked. I think that's the main skill to be developed with a kick wall.
That's just my personal observation.
Berg: It seems like you can repair an awful lot of goals and nets for the
cost of what a kickboard would be.
Koubsky: I don't think it'd be that expensive.
II""
Schroers: I'm also wondering what it would do to a tennis game if you're
in there and trying to play tennis and somebody's on the outside of the
wall just continually kicking. Bang, bang, bang.
Andrews: If we do have a kick wall, the turf will get very heavy use in a
very small area. If you're talking an 8 x 16 kick wall, that's probably
at best a 2 kid kick wall. Unless again they're extremely skillful and if
they're extremely skillful, they're probably not going to use it anyway.
They're probably going to pass back and forth to each other or prefer to
shoot on a goal. Which is more entertaining and more realisitic. To me a
valuable kick wall would be something that'd be about 100 feet long and
about 8 feet high and then I could have my whole team line up and kick on
the wall all at the same time. You know there aren't too many people that
would come to the park with a ball and practice by themselves. I mean
that's just almost virtually unheard of in for soccer to practice alone.
So in my personal opinion I don't think there's a lot of value. From a
coaching standpoint and a skill development standpoint.
Schroers: Sounds to me like we're coming up with more negatives than
positives here. Is that giving you the feedback that you need?
Hoffman: That being the case, it would be my suggestion that we simply
table this. Allow Mr. Maloney to come in. State his case. I cannot
represent his request, nor can Jerry. And we'll do that at a subsequent
agenda.
Schroers: 7 then is tabled until Mr. Maloney can represent his request.
.,-...
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 36
...."I
IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY LIMITING TENNIS COURT CONSTRUCTION TO COMMUNITY
PARKS.
schroers: Before we dive into this, I'd like to say that I don't know how
much time we've already spent discussing this. I think everyone is pretty
much of the general opinion, as of our discussions as of late, and I guess
that I would be ready to entertain a motion regarding this policy.
Andrews: I'd like to move that Park and Rec Commission policy, current
policy be that we place tennis courts in community parks.
Schroers: Is there a second?
Berg: Second.
Andrews moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission make
it their policy to place tennis courts in community parks. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Hoffman: Not done with item 9. I need some direction as far as upon
implementing this policy, the Commission is obligated to notify those
residents living near neighborhood parks, etc, etc, etc.
Andrews~I think we should do it in the Villager.
Hoffman: Submit an article to the Villager. That's all I needed.
-'
SUMMER DISCOVERY PLAYGROUND SITE CHANGES.
Lemme: Thank you Chairman and Commissioners. We have an item here on our
proposed Summer Discovery Playground sites. A letter was sent out to
neighborhoods that were concerned on the issues of what we were going to
drop and what we were going to add. These were proposals for this year's
playground program. The neighborhood park that we were proposing to drop
as a site this year would be the North Lotus Lake Park due to low
registration and low attendance and the site that we are proposing to add
is the Curry Farms Park. Due to it's northern location and the amenities
that are at that site. Attached to the memo here, there were copies of
letters that were sent out to the residents and I received over a dozen
calls from the Curry Farms residents. I would say everybody is in favor
of the actual playground program. However, there is some concern over the
putting in of a Satellite at that site. I think the issue has been
addressed before. The Satellite would need to be placed ag~in in the
parking lot. From what I understand, because of the slope of the hill
going down to the park, the Satellite cannot be placed down in that lower
level. My recommendation would be to discontinue the North Lotus Lake
playground p~ogram site and to add Curry Farms Park in it's place. There
are at least one person we have in the audienc~, Kitty Brattin who lives
in that neighborhood. Did you want to address or did you want to talk on
that Kitty?
Kitty Brattin: Yes.
-'"
Lemme: Could you come up to the microphone please.
,.....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 37
Kitty Brattin: I'm Kitty Brattin. I live at 1301 Stratten Court. I'm
directly across from the parking lot. Where the park is. All of the
neighbors signed a little petition. We're in favor of the program and our
concern about the Satellite. As long as there is some kind of camoflauge.
Right now the parking lot is right by the street and there are no trees or
shrubbery or bushes or anything that would camoflauge it or shield it from
view. So basically as you go to the park, you cannot see the Satellite
and all of the houses, we're on a cul-de-sac and we would all see it too.
So we'd like some kind of a camoflauge.
Schroers: Screening of some kind.
Kitty Brattin: Pardon?
Schroers: A screening or barrier?
Kitty Brattin: Some kind of screening. And it can be temporary. We know
that this is only 8 weeks but yet we, we're going to see it every day even
though the program is once a week. So it's just that we feel fairly
strongly that it would be offensive to just our neighborhood, driving and
walking. So that's what we'd like to see. Some kind of camoflauge for
the Satellite.
"",....
Schroers: Do you have any idea what would be acceptable? Something like
a board fence around it or something like that?
Kitty Brattin: It doesn't even have to be, well. I think we would like
to see something like a mature, and my statement...mature shrubbery or
something that would, but even so, or even a, that would be permanent.
Kind of a fencing. But even I thihk for the people using the Satellite.
I mean we're talking, it is right out in the open. So I think...
Schroers: I don't know if the Satellite company itself has any type of
divider screening. Anything like that that they offer. Probably not. We
have some that are in the open and they're ugly and we just have to kind
of live with them. Especially when they're moved. If it's only going to
be in use for 8 weeks. The cost of putting shrubbery in place for that
limited amount of time would pretty much be prohibitive I would think.
Andrews: Do we have any conifers in the nursery we could take out and
drop in front of that?
,.....
Hoffman: I'd like to go ahead and draw a diagram on the board showing the
difficulties which would be encountered in attempting to meet that
request. Dale Gregory is here, Park Foreman, so he can also comment in
that regard...draw a diagram. We turn the corner and head up into the
cul-de-sac. ..entrance to the parking lot, as far as I recall, comes about
in the center of the parking lot. The trail system runs down in this
location to the lower level ahd then a hill... The playground is located
down here. This would be the main activity center for the playground
program. The difficulty is that you have a very limited space here and
wherever you place that Satellite, if you placed it in the corner or in
one of these back corners, to be effective in screening you would need to
place a very heavy massing in this area. The limitations, due to
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 38
...."
utilities, underground utilities in that area, visual barriers to traffic
turning in and out of the parking lot, that type of thing, in my opinion
would not allow for the amount of vegetation you would need to plant in
there to be effective in incorporating any type of screening. Through
resident requests, on this side and in general resident requests, we have
gone and I had them plant some mature, you know taller than myself, type
of coniferous trees down in this location. And then we have installed
trees in this portion of the park so that doesn't meet the application
which is just being discussed tonight bu~ I'm not sure that...
Resident: That's not exactly correct...Those trees on the right hand side
are on the other side of...and the houses are all set up very high on the
hill so the trees look down the hill...
Hoffman: The gentleman is correct that these trees are on this side. As
far as the maturity of those trees, they're not mature as...but they are
very nice trees as far as what can be transplanted into a park.
Kitty Brattin: Yes, but they're about this tall.
Schroers: They're 4 foot trees?
Hoffman: They're 6 foot trees. The one on this side, the ones over here
are taller. It's really not related to this issue...
Resident: I have a suggestion. I live on the other side of the park so I ~
don't have the issue of looking at a Satellite. What's being discussed
here and there are a lot of kids that use the park and I can appreciate, I
wouldn't want to have...ln putting in trees and stuff...if the city feels
they want to use this park for that purpose, want to put a Satellite in
there, which maybe serves a purpose other than...would probably be a lot
more appropriate for this setting...
Kitty Brattin: We'd really like to see it on the lower level but. Could
you tell me maybe who, is it the Waste Company or who says they can't get
all the way down? I mean I'm not exactly sure who has deemed that that's
impossible.
Dale Gregory: It isn't impossible but park trails are built, they're only
on about 3 inch asphalt and driving a truck down there continually, that
is going to ruin your trail. Vou can't take it off the side of the trail
or the grass, we can't get up and down the trail. Or if it's wet, we'd
never be able to get up and down with a truck.
Kitty Brattin: So how often do they have to come down to it?
Dale Gregory: Weekly.
Schroers: The season of the year is also very important. At this time of
the year with the frost coming out of the ground, the ground's soft. If
you drive a truck on a path, a trail that only has.a 3 inch pad and you're
guarantee you're going to ruin the trail.
...."
Koubsky: And they're not designed for truck traffic.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
,..... Apr i 1 27, 1993 - Page 39
Kitty Brattin: But we would like to see something, even if it was
something as permanent as a fence. But last year, and I think the reason
why there were so many calls last year. In error the Satellite was put
there and I think those two can...Everybody called right away because
that's the first thing you notice when you come out on the street. That
is true. The parking lot is right there at the street and there's some
trees but they're on the side and in the back. Nothing right in front.
8erg: I guess
at Curry Farms
Meadow Green.
people living
at all.
I'd like to investigate the
but also from the park that
There's the same situation.
across the street. It isn't
possibility of a fence. Both
we use that's near our home at
I've thought many times, those
terribly aesthetically pleasing
Lemme: At Carver Beach playground park there is a three sided fence that
goes around where the Satellite comes in and out but again, that's there
permanently so you kind of have to weigh your options. whether you want
to look at a fence year round or if you want to look at a temporary.
Schroers: Why don't we ask staff to check into cost and if it's, if it
vJould be cost effective and a practical thing to do, I think that we would
probably consider it.
"....
Hoffman: Staff has no concern about cost of constructing a three sided
fence. However, I do ask that the Commission weigh Dawn's comment.
You're going to look at that three sided enclosure for the entirety of the
year. where otherwise you have the option of living with this restroom
facility for the program for 2 months.
8erg: How do you feel about that?
Koubsky: Yeah. How do the neighbors feel about that?
Schroers: Would you rather look at a fence year round or a Satellite for
2 months?
Kitty Brattin: I kind of hate to speak for all of my neighbors. I know
that we all are pretty offended about looking at a Satellite for 2 months.
I personally, and I think that's the reason why we thought about shrubbery
because you would be looking at it. Even something portable. Something
in pots just to put out there. Just something to break it up. I mean
we're talking, it's a flat lot and just the Satellite there.
Berg: They'll become real portable. Like in 24 hours they'll be portably
gone.
,.....
Kitty Brattin: Well I would say, I'd really like to talk to all of the
neighbors. I mean everyone. They all feel pretty strongly about it. But
in lieu of nothing else, I would be, since I'm directly across the parking
lot, I would rather see a fence year round than a Sattelite. Let's face
it. Our summertime's are prime time. We all have, our houses, we all
have porches on our front of our houses. It's a very nice thing to sit
out when you get home from work. That's what you're going to look at from
June thru August is a toilet. It seems like that's, the meeting area.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 40
.....,I
Everyone goes to the park. It is very nice.
wonderful neighborhood park. It is used a lot
problem, if you do have the program, and we're
mean you do need a Satellite and there doesn't
area to put it there.
We all enjoy it. It is a
but I think that whole
not opposed to it at all. I
seem to be an appropriate
Schroers: What seems to me would be nice, if it were feasible, would be
to do a fence now and then some plantings that at some point in time inthe
future would grow to eliminate the need for the fence down the road.
Maybe by the time that the fence would need replacing or repairing or
something like that. Not necessarily repairing but replacing. That would
be some kind of a natural screening that would eventually eliminate the
need for a fence. Do you see that as a possibility?
Hoffman: I would like to hear other comments in regards to my thoughts
that we're so limited in space and that narrow boulevard there. I don't
think we can plant conifers or what have you and allow them to mature and
have our underground utilities and our sight distances. That tree's
either going to grow into the parking lot or into the road.
Schroers: Do you share those same concerns Dale?
Dale Gregory: Oh I agree with Todd that if you're going to be putting
trees or shurbs close to the road, it's going to be very difficult coming
in or out. It's not...
...",
Schroers: It's creating a safety hazard?
Dale Gregory: If you're going to try to bring the Satellite to the other
side, you've got quite a hill that you're going to be going down. It's
not, you're going to have trouble there too. It isn't a good situation no
matter what you go. Once you get off the blacktop.
Resident: Can I make another suggestion? In the...looking at the board
here and my view here. In the lower right hand...that gives you an
advantage here...I don't understand why the plumbing companies can't run
their hoses 50 feet.
Dale Gregory: They don't have that long of hoses on their trucks.
Schroers: It sounds like a good idea but it also sounds like a lot to do
to just accommodate a Satellite. Do you look at this Dawn as being a site
that is going to be used year after year after year for this same program?
Lemme: Yes I do. There is a lot of younger children in that neighborhood
and we get a lot of comments throughout the course of the year that, what
about those Minnetonka/Chanhassen bordering areas. That people want to
see us offering programs out there and because I am proposing to drop the
North Lotus site, which is a Minnetonka/Chanhassen kind of bordering town,
I really don't want to just drop out of all my Minnetonka bordering sites.
And so I do look at this just by, even just driving through that
neighborhood you see a lot of young children and the calls that I received
like the minute this letter went out everyone saying, where do I sign up ~.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
'" Apr i 1 27, 1993 - Page 41
for the program. I've got 2 children. Where do I sign up. I did have a
real favorable response from people.
Resident: There's over 100 kids in that...
Koubsky: Sure. Yeah, that's a new neighborhood.
Andrews: I have two questions. One would be, is there a vandalism
problem when you shelter the portapotty from public view? And also, would
there be any concern from the surrounding neighbors that a child could get
snatched or whatever, bothered because again there's an area that's
sheltered. Can't be seen. Would there be a concern that that would be
any risk to children using the facilities?
Hoffman: We would make the shelter just snug right to the restroom so
there would not be any room to get around the thing.
Andrews: Okay. And we could secure it so it can't be tipped?
Hoffman: If we have an enclosure, it's probably easier to secure it.
Dale Gregory: It's easier to secure it. We're going around and securing
all of them this year. We had a vandalism problem last year with tipping
it over.
,-..
Hoffman: Staking them down?
Dale Gregory: We're staking them down now this year. Hoping that's going
to help.
Koubsky: Maybe this is something we want to consider for all the parks.
Is this a way that we want to present it? If tipping over is a problem.
If we do this here, then why wouldn't we do this somewhere else?
Lemme:
homes.
I think part of it is just the visibility of the Satellite to the
Because some of the parks the satellite can be less noticeable.
Koubsky:
I would imagine.
Schroers: If it's in an open area, the wind can actually tip it over. It
doesn't have to be vandals so it's probably a good idea to at least stake
it or secure it somehow. But it does seem like a reasonable request to
put a fence around it.
Andrews: We could get a prefab fence pretty cheap I would think...
Dale Gregory:
It's cheaper for us just to build it.
Hoffman: How tall is that Dale?
JII""'"
Dale Gregory: You'd have to go about 8 feet high.
Hoffman: Again I mean, I'm not opposed to whatever decision is reached
here but when you put up an 8 foot by 3 foot by 3 foot by 3 foot
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 42
--'
strucuture, it's permanent. It's there.
Resident:
...suggested that maybe you add some trees around it also.
Koubsky: Yeah, that's going to take a while though. Maybe in 15 years or
10 years you're going to have trees but in the interim where you're going
to have a fence. That mayor may not get spray painted.
Schroers: It seems that putting all this together with Dawn's input, that
there's a lot of popularity for the program. There's reason to believe
that it's going to continue on into the future. It would probably be an
issue that would come up again and again and again. I would prefer to
attempt to fix right now. Let's fence it. Let's have park maintenance
staff look and to see if this suggestion is actually workable. If it is,
lay down the aggregate and pad and fence it and then plant some trees that
at some point in time will grow to add to the aesthetic value of it.
Koubsky: And as we budget for trees. I think right now it's, everybody's
vying for trees.
Schroers: I think that we could get some small trees and plant them that
will eventually make things, make it look nicer.
Berg: I guess I'd like to slow down the process just a bit and have you
check again with the people who are on that petition. And just, you
wouldn't even necessarily have to come back in but at least get in touch ~
wi th Todd...
Kitty Brattin: . ..somebody had brought up a fence but I don't really know
what everyone, how everyone feels about it.
Berg: They might just surprise us and think that the 2 months of the the
bathroom is enough and I don't want to look at it for 12 months.
Kitty Brattin: I would prefer really asking my neighbors how they felt
about this and getting back.
Schroers: Also tell them that very few shrubbery is 8 feet high so
shrubbery is not going to cover the whole thing. The area would still be
exposed. Well what you would have is a toilet growing out of ~ shrub bed.
That's what you'd see. I don't think that that would be a big
improvement. You need to totally screen it if you're going to screen it.
Otherwise it's just a half fix.
Lemme: I did have two callers from that ar.a saying that they wo~ld like
to see it fenced.
Schroers: Okay. Well I don't think that this is something that's going
to take formal action on our part. We'll let staff work with park
maintenance on this and provide them with feedback from the people on your
petition and I think that they can hopefully accommodate what you need.
Kitty Brattin: Thank you very much for your time.
-'"
JIll"'"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 43
Lemme: Thank you Kitty.
Andrews: Dawn, did you have any calls from North Lotus protesting?
Lemme: I had 3 calls and I did have one letter saying that they felt that
really the neighborhood in the past has maybe just not been notified as
well about the program. Because many of those children do go to Clear
Springs and we do bring flyers there and we do put everything in the
newsletter which they acknowledged that they received. A couple of the
calls were wondering if we were taking out the entire playground itself.
The structure for the tennis courts. They were some~hat confused because
they weren't really aware that the program was going on.. I think I could
potentially offer this program again and do a direct mail to all the
residents in that area just like I did for this ~Jhole thing. And that
might be an attempt.
Andrews: I think that would be helpful.
Lundgren, you know the Summit and some of
that's relatively new, that would also be
don't know if those people are aware.
I think also with the new
the Near Mountain development
a service area of that and I
".....
Lemme: Right. There is a Minnetonka program that does run over at Clear
Springs school right after their summer school and I think that's ,~here a
lot of the kids have gone in the past. I would be willing to try it again
this year with doing a direct mailing and see how it goes and if we don't
get the response this year, then consider that there isn't a need for
that. The next closest site for those children is City Center Park. And
that's a really busy playground site.
Schroers:
Is there anything else on your item 10?
Lemme: I just knew that this was going to be an issue and that's why
I brought it to your attention.
Schroers: Okay.
Lemme: Or else I was informed that it was going to be an issue.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members, you're all aware of
the tour which is coming up this Wednesday. There's been calls made
today. Who was going? Ron, Fred, Jim.
Schroers: Maybe.
Hoffman: And Larry's a maybe. Okay. So I'll call the callers off and
confirm Ron Roeser, Fred Berg, Jim Manders and Larry, ao you want me to
~ call you or just if you're there? I should get a confirmation sometime
tomorrow.
Schroers: By what time?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 44
....."
Roeser: Somebody, who called me today?
Hoffmar: Receptionist.
Roeser: Yeah. So you don't have to call me again tomorrow.
Schroers: What time do you need to know by tomorrow?
Hoffman: Noon. 1:00.
Schroers: I'll try to get to you at noon tomorrow.
Hoffman: Okay. We're leaving at 5:30 tomorrow. Following that meeting
then is the meeting next Monday evening at 5:00 p.m. when the, not only
the HRA but the City Council, Park and Recreation Commission and some
members of the Planning Commission will sit down and discuss as the only
agenda item that evening. The concept of the community center.
Andr~ws: What's the date on that? The calendar date on that?
Hoffman: May3rd. 5:00 p.m. Most likely be held in the Council chambers
due to the size of the group that evening. That is all on item 11(a).
B. LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER.
Schroers: Okay, is there anything on (b), the Lake Ann Park picnic
shelter?
.....",
Hoffman: Other than it would be good news that they're back out there
working. Questions from the Commission, I would answer those. Obviously
you know this project has not been without it's problems but we can see
the end of the tunnel.
Andrews: Has there been any comment about the...structural cracks there?
Has there been comment back from engineering on that?
Hoffman: There has not been an opinion back from the engineer to this
date? But that has been requested.
C. LAKE ANN PARK BALLFIELD IRRIGATION.
Hoffman: Simply an update. Innovative Irrigation, due to the rain will
probably not be there tomorrow. But we've run into a situation here again
where we're going to have some inconvenience with all of the people using
the ballfields. What we have asked the contractor to do is at the end of
each workday they will need to backfill their trenches which they have
made, if they have made any. They're pulling most of the lines so you're
not going to see a lot of trenches in the ballfields but there will be
some trenches and...and that type of thing. Those need to be backfilled
and compacted. The area needs to be cleaned up and ready for play at the
end of each evening. It's a project which will take place right in the
middle of the active...
-'
II""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 45
D. PARK INVENTORY RESULTS.
Hoffman: No further information there. Upon those manuals being updated,
that will be distributed through your packet.
E. EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT.
Ruegemer: It's pretty straight forward. If anybody has any questions. We
clid, 'we ki nd of did increase sl ightl y this year... performa nee ~oJas very
well received. Positive comments back on that. Easter Egg, the whole
Easter Egg hunt, I was very pleased the way everything turned out...
F. UPDATE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Hoffman: Unless I hear otherwise from the Commission, we'll schedule the
second Tuesday of May for a work session to get through the next section
of the comprehensive plan. That will be reviewing text and taking off
from there and do the other things that we need to do.
8erg: That's May 11th at 7:30?
Hoffman: Correct.
,-.... S,chroers: Is everybody comfortable with that? I mean we're getting a
pretty busy schedule here. Getting right into.
Andrews: Can you check with the Highway 5 calendar and make sure that
we're not, we've been moving our dates around a lot. I'm not sure if
we're on the 11th or the 12th.
Hoffman: The date can be moved forward. I don't know if it's a secret or
not, but staff as well is at a point where, as you can see from preparing
a report and then needing to take a second look at it and then come back
with a recommendation, we're stretched beyond capacity at this point as
well. So if you'd like.
Schroers: what works best for you? I mean everybody's got things going
here and we're really cramming up. I mean with the Tree Board as well,
I can be looking at Monday nights, Tuesday nights, Wednesday nights and
every week. It's getting to be a load.
Hoffman: We could look to the second Tuesday of June. Or I could come
back with an opinion of when we need a meeting and attempt to schedule
something at that time. Instead of working on a timeline, we can get the
work which needs to be done completed and then come back with a meeting to
take action on that portion of the work which has been completed. We're
right on the front door of summer here and things aren't getting any more
comfortable as far as time constraints.
Koubsky: It would make sense to allow you to put together what you need
~ to do for the next meeting before we have a meeting.
schroers: I agree. Running things back and forth doesn't make a lot of
sense.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
ApTil 27, 1993 - Page 46
-'
Andrews:
We're going to skip the May meeting?
Hoffman:
meeting.
Correct. We'll set one at the May, regular May Commission
Establish a meeting that night.
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS:
A. PARK MAINTENANCE.
Schroers: Actually, that is probably on there because of something that I
noted and I was wondering if there is a schedule for maintenance on some
of our trails. I know that we have a major focus on our ballfields and
more active use facilities but ther~ are also some trails that are used
quite a lot and my personal observation of the trail between Greenwood
Shores Park and Lake Ann Park was that it could use some work. Some big
tree branches were down along the trail and the trail itself, and I
realize about going on a paved trail in the spring of the year with
equipment. That that is a no no, but I'm wondering if there is'some sort
of a schedule in place or if it's a nice to. You get to it when you can.
Dale Gregory: We usually try to get around to all the trails and sweep
them... This year we broke down the Bobcat. We broke down the sweeper
and in fact it is swept but it's been all beat up since.
Roeser: Yeah, I rode this week sometime.
....",
Dale Gregory: Well the branch was off. In fact I went and swept it
myself today with the Bobcat. We got...But yeah, we do go around to most
of our trails...That's, when you talk about trail maintenance and
everything else, if any of you have walked that trail, look at that trail,
there are some bad cracks...and that's really a wet area. That's a trail
that's. . .
Schroers: Well I'm personally quite familiar with that trail. And as
we're continuing, I mean every time we come to a meeting here, there's more
facilities. More expansion. More this. Is park maintenance going to be
able to continue to meet the maintenance needs of the facilities that are
currently in use? And what are we going to need to do to address future
needs?
Dale Gregory: . ..updated, I used to have 3 1/2. Well actually I've got
3. I've got 1 person that takes care strictly of the downtown area and
I usually have 3 1/2. Now we've gone to another fulltime...year round.
That works pretty good through the winter. That takes care of all our
skating rinks and everything else. And most of our summer work then...
I've got 8 college kids and high school kids that I bring on through. the
summer. And that's up too from last year. We had to just basically keep
up with it. Where we're running into the problem is the park'development
and everything else. My guys can be putting in the play equipment and
everything else but the...and things like that where I end up going back
to the maintenance department and try to get people that are heavy
equipment operators and graders and loaders and stuff out there to help -'
develop, they're getting taxed more all the time with this stuff. They
~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 47
have to do and we're just, we're running short... It's getting tougher
all the time to keep up with...
Schroers: Well that was the origin of this concern because I'm dealing
with a lot of the same issues and my issues are that I can't get help that
in order to get completed what I'm being asked to get accomplished and
it'sa difficult situation to work under and I don't think it's fair and
reasonable for someone to just go ahead and develop and develop and
develop and dump all these new areas of responsibility on an existing work
force that is way over taxed. So that's why this came up and it
definitely was not intended to scrutinize the maintenance. Park
maintenance. It was to acquire information regarding needs for future and
it's good to hear, it sounds like you're pretty comfortable with what you
have so far.
Dale Gregory: Yeah, on the maintenance end of it. I can handle real good
with the seasons because they take care of all my grass cuttings, the
ballfields, the garbage collection and all the day to day... My full time
employees last year and that, they did nothing but put play equipment in
and I know some of them were upset because they...but we had a lot of play
equipment sitting out there. And like I say, basically that's all they
did was put play equipment in. And like I say with the development of the
park and...that's all I have my full time guys doing.
,.....,
Schroers: So at some point in time are you saying that the need to
acquire another experienced, full time operator is reasonable?
Dale Gregory: The day's going to be coming very shortly that we can be
looking at another full time person. I have, I just put out a survey to
30 cities basically getting information as to employees, amount of parks,
amount of parkland.. .and as soon as I get that all put together, I'll give
it to Todd. It's real interesting when you start comparing some of these
other cities. The budgets they have that they're working on with the
amount of people and the amount of land they have.
Schroers: And everything that you do snowballs. If you get an additional
full time experienced equipment operator, then do you have the equipment
for them to operate?
Dale Gregory: That's right. with the amount of park that we keep adding,
we're going to have to continually add equipment. We're mowing right now,
we've got that one large lawnmower. That Toro large, it takes up 17 feet
at a time. If we didn't have that, we'd be dead in the water because
we've got that and all the other ones, we've got 3 other Toro's that are
going basically every day.
Schroers: And you're aware of the process and how long everything takes
so you know, when you know what your needs are and if you can let staff
know so they can bring it to us as soon as possible, the more time we have
to work on it, probably the less time you're going to be waiting.
,.....
Dale Gregory: This year...I'm going to have him, basically we're going to
try to hit every ballfield in the city on a daily basis. Instead of Lake
Ann being a daily basis...twice a week or stuff like that. They're
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 48
....,,;
basically going to be hit every day. Every ballfield so whether the girls
play at Chaparral or wherever they're playing, every field should be ready
to play.
Schroers: I didn't mean to cut you off Todd.
Hoffman: No" Just a side note that something Commissioners can, a simple
thing you can assist in this, and Dale can contend to this. Ever since
the 580, the Toro 580, the big one, ever since that thing was purchased,
it's been a god send for the park maintenance division but the Council,
and I'm not picking on any individual Council member but they've used it
as a butt of a joke that that was an expensive mower. Never should have
bought that thing. The City doesn't need it but in fact we're going to
need another one of those things within the next couple of years so
anything you can do to mention to them about that one particular mower,
I mean we've gone to the point where inviting people out to see what that
thing can do. It's a what, a $50,000.00 investment but the amount of work
that you get done with that mower is just phenomenal.
Koubsky: $50,000.00 doesn't buy much staff.
Dale Gregory: No, and I'm lucky enough, the person I have running it.
I've got one person in the summer, a retired mechanic and he's looking for
something to do in the summer. And I mean he's a great operator and that
so I mean we're paying a seasonal employee to run this thing. And he's
good, there's no doubt about it. But it's cheap. I mean I figured it
out. We're pushing 260 acres, 270 acres of land that we're mowing and
that's tough to keep up with that, especially ballfields that are getting
done at least twice a week or that.
--'
Schroers: You'll get nothing but support for good equipment here. I
definitely know the value of good equipment and it only makes sense if
we're going to continue to expand in the park, we have to expand in
maintenance personnel and equipment so that's something that we have to
focus on as we continue on this, process. There's no doubt about it. So
this was basically an opportunity for you to come in, let us know how you
feel. What you want and give us a chance to go to work for you. Anything
else? Okay.
COMMISSION WORKSHOP: COMMISSIONERS ANDREWS AND MANDERS.
Manders: I just took down some kind of random notes here pertaining to
the facility and some of the other things that we talked about there. The
overall impression of the facility is that it's an outstanding facility.
Price range was in the $10 to $11 million. It's on a 40 acre site. The
population of Shoreview is something like 25,000, almost completely
developed. The community center, the idea of the community center that
we've got here I think has been tossed around that we build some type of
reduced structure and then later on maybe address building another
facility. I'd be of the opinion that if we're going to build one, do it
right to begin with because who's to say we've got the money later on to
build something more elaborate. In terms of the use age of this facility.
Right at this point they're, at least what I took down was they're seeing
about 50% non-residential use, which is quite substantial and the area
.......,
~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 49
that they're in evidentally doesn't have a lot of other options. So it
has a fairly large drawing area and that would be a concern here with Eden
Prairie's and private facilities and Chaska just...the drawing area we
have to work with.
5chroers: And this is the same facility we're supposed to tour tomorrow
evening?
Hoffman: Correct.
Manders: One thing about that facility is that it's on a choice location
in terms of the other amenities around it. Wooded area. Kind of view
ponds and things which makes the appeal e~en that much more. It's a good
site to see. It's well worth going if you have't been there and I'm going
to go again simply because this community center is something that I'm
interested in. I want to see what the options are and what we can do.
What some of the other people think.
5chroers: How do you see this as it relates to what we're proposing and
thinking about perhaps in the area down here adjacent to Filly's and
chan Bowl?
Manders: I think we're talking two different types of locations. The
" location that they have up there is far superior than this location in
terms of the aesthetics. But they don't have a downtown to work with and
this is really what they're trying to build is this community area with
their community library and this community center and City Hall and a few
other things which is a focal point.
5chroers: They don't have a downtown but we don't have $11 million.
Andrews: I want to add a couple comments too. If I remember the figures,
I think the recreational area was about 70,000 square feet. They built
this, I think it was about 1990. They're considering adding on because of
the useage already. It appears from the numbers that we've been getting
that it's an economically viable operation that supports itself. We'll
get more detail on that tomorrow night but from the numbers they were
kicking around, it was quite surprising to hear the revenues they're
generating. The way they funded it was a combination of HRA money and
bond money. I think that's something that we could look at. I think if
we could offer a facility that's as outstanding as this one, similar to
this to our citizens basically saying, you could have a $10 million
facility for only $5 million of bonding, I think it would be possible to
get that through. And I wanted to mention again what Jim said. One of
their main concerns was, they're a building facility and they don't have a
downtown. They were concerned that that may be, may make it harder to
support this facility and they wanted to create a downtown. We already
have our downtown. We have an opportunity to build something that will
enhance the downtown and I'll have to admit that from my position 3 years
ago to now, I'm 100% changed as to what we ought to do. I think we
>~ certainly should consider it... It was a really nice pool. Better then
Chaska's. A nice gym facility. Lots of meeting space which was fully
being utilized and from what the manager of the facility said, it gets
heavy useage. All the meeting spaces for the community.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 50
....."
Manders: Just the way it's set up, it's an open, airy.
Andrews: Feels good, yeah. I like it better than Chaska. Chaska you
feel like hallways. This felt like a community meeting area. There was a
nice fireside room and things that you just felt like you're, it was an
area that you could come just to sit down and read ~ book if you wanted to
or you could come there and work out. It had a lot to offer. And I think
it is doable for the city. Something like this is doable.
Schroers: For the people who have the opportunity to go and see it
tomorrow night, I know that is great. Also I think as long as I've been
involved with the Park and Rec here, and I think we're going on 7 years
probably, the interest for a community center among the commissioners if
overwhelming. At whatever we can get is better than what we've got. And
that kind of attitude and the better. But selling the program to the
community has been the real problem. The real hang-up and that's what we
need to look at. I think everyone is in agreement that we would love to
have a big, beautiful community center but to get the program sold, that's
where it's at.
Berg: Community's change. 7 to 10 years ago you never would have passed
a bond issue for the school district either. We've got a different
community than we had the last time even as we tried to get this thing to
fly.
Andrews: I think the opportunity with this HRA money, being~able to
coordinate with a bond referendum is critical. I mean it'~ got to be
presented as an opportunity for 50 cents on the dollar to get a first
class facility.
....,
Manders: The other thing that I keep thinking about up there is what I
pointed out earlier, is that this community is 98% developed. Their access
to something like this is non-existent basically. I mean there is a YMCA
and some other things but virtually no access so the demand was there and
the resident base isn't going to change that much. It's going to turn
over. Sure, you're going to have new kids. Young kids. Old kids.
Whatever, but they know what they have. Here, this community is yet to
evolve into what it's going to be down the road.
Schroers: Also what Jim said and what we know from watching Eden Prairie
is also very valid. Is that what we would like to have if the arbitrary
number were 70 or 80,000 square feet, actually we should shoot for 100,000
right off the bat. Because we know from just watching what's going on
around us, that people build a community center and within 5 years it's
inadequate.
Andrews: And I did some checking on population trends here for another
issue and we're at about 13,500 and we're projecting at 25,000 by the end
of the decade here. We're looking at a definite demand situation here'I
think that could be justified, or would justify a facility this size.
schroers: And you just said that 70,000 square feet with the population
of 25,000 and they're needing more space.
.."""
..1"'"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 51
Andrews: They're looking at adding to it. One thing to note is, it does
not have an ice rink as part of this direct facility and I think based on
what we're hearing about operating costs, from what the director of this
facility said, I think that's one of the key decisions they made that
makes this an economically viable facility on it's own.
Koubsky: The thing there, I grew up in that area and that area started
out as, well one thing. Shoreview's got about 23,000 or 26,000 people.
Andrews: Roughly, yeah.
Koubsky: That area in 1970 started out as probably the coldest indoor ice
rink in the area. And that indoor ice rink sat there for 20 years you
know and was used and finally, there's all the parking space there. They
built a community center next to it. It's not connected granted but
adjacent to it is your hockey rink.
Andrews: It's in the vicinity. It's owned by the County.
Koubsky: Right.
Andrews: So they're not directly related financially. But yes, they have
a hockey rink. Or an ice facility there but it's not part of their
.~ facility from a cost and revenue basis. And from they're telling us, they
gave some examples of where a civic group constructed an ice rink and gave
it to the city and the city determined later that they would have been
cheape~ to build it and give it to the civic group and let them operate
it. It would have been cheaper, just from an operation standpoint.
Anyway, anybody that goes there. I think you'll be excited by it and
I hope we can mobilize our city because boy, I think it would be a
fabulous thing to do downtown. And I agree 100% with Jim. Either do it
right or don't do it. If we build a halfway facility, it's not going to
work.
Lemme: Do they have an indoor playground?
Andrews: They have a gymnastics only part of the gym but not an indoor
playground per se. No.
Schroers: And we appreciate the fact that you and Jim took off your time
to attend that workshop knowing that it was a nice day and everything
else.
Andrews: It was a good seminar. One other quick point. I know it's
getting late and everyone wants to go. The gentleman from Eden Prairie,
was it Bob.
Hoffman: Lambert.
Andrews: Lambert. Mentioned about how in the city of Eden Prairie they
~ have provided an open air ampihtheater that he thought would be a white
elephant, boondoggle. Much to their surprise, that has been extremely
successful for them and something we may just keep in the back of our
minds as time goes by. We have a facility that...
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 27, 1993 - Page 52
.....",
There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.
Manders: ...the last comment that I have is not necessarily related to
the community center but just related to some of the discussion, panel
discussion. As a Board, what we should be doing in terms of our
responsibility I think is to encourage and promote and however you go
about it the citizens taking ownership in what we have in terms of our
recreation facilities around here. To take care of them and any group
that we can persuade to take that kind of mentality is only going' to prove
to the benefit of the whole community.
Schroers: Agreed.
Berg: I just have one thing. It's going to take 30 seconds and it's
basically just directed to staff. Residents along the new Jasper
development that's coming in along CR 17. They've made a presentation to
us at the last meeting. They called me up and had me over to look. They
just want to be kept apprised as to where the large settling pond is going
to be. What it's size is going to be, etc. I realize that none of that
is available now in terms of answers and also the effect that this is
going to have on the creek that runs through that area. They just want to
be kept apprised so I told them I'd bring it up.
Hoffman: Thank you.
Andrews: Last thing was, there was an agenda item for a dog ordinance. Is ~
there anything that we need to do on that tonight?
Hoffman: We apologize~ From what I understand, we did contact Bob
Zydowsky. He switched shifts and the. person who took his shift was going
to be here but did not attend. Bob requested that he have the time this
evening to come and discuss their control efforts with you so I will
simply ask if he can attend the next meeting. You saw the letter in the
administrative packet. I just received a copy of that. Here they're
doing city wide mailings at a cost of who knows what for postage and
printing to talk strictly about dogs.
Schroers: Anything else in the Administrative Packet?
Andrews moved, Koubsky seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
.....,I