Loading...
PRC 1993 07 27 ,..... CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 1993 Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Jim Andrews, Fred Berg, Jim Manders, Ron Roeser, Jan Lash and Jane STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY APPOINTED COMMISSIONER. Hoffman: Last evening the Council did interview the last candidate as a regularly scheduled item to their meeting. They discussed the appointment and I'm happy to announce that they have appointed Jane Meger to the Park and Recreation Commission. Her term is an odd term. It will last through the end of the year and then choose whether, you have the open then to choose whether you liked your experience or not and ask for reappointment so welcome. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berg moved, Lash seconded to approve the ~ Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June 22, 1993 as presented. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Hoffman: There are none from the audience. I would on behalf of a group of young citizens who I had a conversation with on the tennis courts last evening in regard to inline skating. I won't take the commissions time at the present but I would put that off until Administrative Presentations. They had thought they would have representation here tonight to talk to you during visitor Presentation. They chose not to come but I still would like to discuss that issue with the Commission. Schroers: Okay, very good. If there's nothing further then, we'll go onto item 4. LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: 115 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5: Public Present: Name Address Peter .Pflaum Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros Construction, Wayzata, MN Lundgren Bros construction, Wayzata, MN ,..... 1 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 2 -" Name Address Jerome & Linda Carlson Charles & Irene Song Bret Davidson David Stockdale Dennis Jacobson 6950 Galpin Blvd. 7200 Galpin Blvd. 7291 Galpin Blvd. 7210 Galpin Blvd. 6841 Hazeltine Blvd. Hoffman: As the Commission will recall, this item was originally scheduled for review on Tuesday, June 22nd but was omitted from the agenda that evening at the applicant's request. Tonight we have with us Mr. Terry Forbord and Mr. Peter Pflaum, representing Lundgren Bros Construction. This is a proposal to rezone 112 acres from Rural Residential to Planned unit Development Residential. Preliminary Plat to subdivide that 112 acres into 115 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit. The location is west of Galpin Blvd, 1/2 mile north of Highway 5, referred to as the Song property. The...location. Lake Ann Park, ...Highway 5, Galpin Blvd, Swings Recreational Center is located in this location. As you travel north, the Song property is then located just west of Galpin Blvd... Again the present zoning is Rural Residential. Adjacent zoning to the north is Rural Residential and Lake Harrison, which is referred to as a lake but more of a wetland. Open water wetland, is how I would classify it. South you have Agricultural Estate and then the Stockdale property which will be...To the east you have Galpin Blvd. To the west more rural residential and agricultural estates and then also the Dolejsi/Johnson/Turner property, which is also being developed by Lundgren Bros. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being centrally located in park deficient area number 3. The map depicting that... As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, the area identified on the map as Zone 3 is presented> largely undeveloped. Again, -this writing is dated so bear that in mind. According to the land use section of this plan, this area will be serviced by sanitary sewer and water prior to the year 2000. That servicing is currently being coordinated as of 1993. As a result, additional neighborhood parks in Zone 3 should be considered as additional development occurs. Future park plans call for the construction of a trail encircling Lake Ann. The construction of such a trail could effectively link the eastern half of the area to Lake Ann Park. The western half of Zone 3, which lies between Highway 41 and County Road 117 or Galpin Blvd, may require a separate neighborhood park. The land around Lake Harrison would be a possible site for such a facility. That is the text which is included in the City Comprehensive Plan. Attachment C also indicates the recent developments which have been approved in the .....", 2 """"" ,..... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 3 area without the acquisition of public parkland. Put that up on the overhead. The dashed line indicates the service areas of Pheasant Hill Park and the new school park site. Going in across that areas are the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property in this configuration off of Highway 41. This is the other development... Both those destinations being Pheasant Hill and the new school site will eventually be accessible to the Song property via the city's comprehensive trail system. However, again both are located well beyond the site service area. In reviewing this application I have made reference to the following documents. Attachment #1 is the staff report dated August 11, 1992. This report addressed park and trail issues as a part of the application made by Lundgren Bros Construction to subdivide 95.19 acres of property referred to as again the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property to the west. As presented in this report, staff is not opposed to the development of an association or private park. However, concern over how a neighborhood with a private park would interface with the larger community was expressed and at that time discussed by the Commission to some extent. A position was also presented that if Lundgren Bros confirmed their intent to develop a private park, it was staff's preference to retain ~ park fees generated by the development to be used in a combination purchase, land dedication venture in a future development in the area. Proposal to develop the Song property does represent such a development. To reacquaint you with the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property, as discussed this has, it's in close proximity and really ties in with the Song property... Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner concept for the east/west connector road which will connect to Highway 41 from Galpin Blvd. For those of you who are familiar with the region... Lash: That's the development from last year? Hoffman: Correct, 1992. units there. Lash: 120? Hoffman: I believe it's less than that. 112. Schroers: Has the application for zoning from Rural Residential to high density residential been granted? Hoffman: That will be approved as a part of the process. The review process when it comes before the Planning Commission. Schroers: Do we have any input in that decision regarding the rezoning? ;!"""'- 3 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 4 ...."" Hoffman: If you wish to pass up a position to the Planning commission, you may certainly do so. As far as what influence that would have in their decision, I do not know that. Attachment No. 6 is a letter from Mr. Bret Davidson. The content of that letter relates to the need for a neighborhood park in the area of Royal Oak Estates and the Song property. Royal Oak Estates is a 23 home subdivision being developed by Mr. Davidson to the south and east of the Song property. I made reference to that site. If you've been out on the road, they're moving dirt so as these come through you can see the action taking place out there in the community. You also have before you this evening a letter submitted by Mr. David Stockdale, the land owner to the south in this regard as well. Lash: Can you show us where Mr. Stockdale lives again. Hoffman: The Stockdale property is the dotted, 17 acres. Attachment No. 12 is a narrative presenting the Song property, planned unit development concept plan and preliminary plans submitted by Lundgren Bros construction, received by my office on July 21, 1993. In reading the 16 pages and it's attachments, it can be seen that Lundgren Bros has provided details of their proposal in a very thorough manner. Section 10 discusses neighborhood recreation specifically. Prior to discussing this section I will reference sections of the report which are likely to be of interest to the commission. As city Manager Ashworth mentioned in his letter to Lundgren Bros, the issue of whether a developer should be required to dedicate land for a public park if a private park is proposed in the same area has never before been thoroughly debated by our Councilor Commission. We discussed it briefly as part of the last application but it was not the intent or the desire at that time of the Commission to acquire public park properties so this situation is different. The Commission's decision in this regard will in effect be a policy decision which will guide future applications of this nature. Page number 1 entitled History of the Development Proposal. This paragraph, among other things, discusses the relationship between the Song property and the Johnson/Dolejsi/ Turner parcel. Staff concurs that this coordination of efforts results in a unified development making an important east/west connection between Galpin Blvd and TH 41. The applicant will be installing a sidewalk as a part of this connection. The presence of that sidewalk will allow non-vehicular travel to trickle out of the neighborhood, thus gaining access to the future trails on Galpin and TH 41. Again, attached is their overhead 3 and 4 show that configuration...Page 2, in regard to the complicated development purchase agreement and the veto authority by the ....." 4 ....." """" ,.... r- Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 5 Carlson's and the Song's and that the Carlson's and Song's do not want any public park. Their concern being that a public park would invite trespass and disturbance to the quietude and the natural environment lake. The City respects the Song's and the Carlson's position. However, the city represents the interest of not only the Song's and the Carlson's as residents of the community but all other present and future residents as well. In regard to page number 5, under the Development Summary. The acreage noted for homeowner association recreation is 3 acres. In looking into that, that's just an inconsistency with the labeling of the park. There's 4.6 acres. The conceptual plan submitted by the applicants for the park again labels it as 4.6 acres. This would be the association park as a part of the new proposal for the Song property. It's located just inside the entrance off of Galpin. The northerly entrance. Page number 11 of Section 10, entitled Neighborhood Recreation Area. Staff does not dispute that the private or association recreation area, if developed at 4.6 acres in size, with amenities noted, meets the park needs of those residing within the development. However, it is the intent of the City's comprehensive plan to provide recreational services for all residents. Furthermore, if that association park were to be given to the city at some point in the future, that's a common practice for the land owned by associations, revert back to city ownership. The park would lack at least one vital component of all city neighborhood parks, specifically that being an open field. Typically the Commission sets aside an area for open field type of applications within neighborhood parks. I do not know whether residents of the city residing outside of this development would be welcome or allowed to utilize this facility. I think the more important question is would they feel welcome. The gross density of 1.5 units per acre is low throughout this proposal. However, open space associated with private lots, inbetween the private lots, the large lots which are being proposed, while providing for sunlight and fresh air, does not meet the public needs for access to open space or public parks. The site does include two relatively large areas of land unencumbered by structures, roads and utilities. These wetland areas are proposed to remain under association ownership as well. Those areas would be the Lake Harrison outlot, as has been mentioned..This section makes reference to the comprehensive plan as identifying a neighborhood park as being 5 acres in size and serving 1,000 people. These standards have not been applied in the city for the past 5 years. The commissioh is in the process of updating the comprehensive plan. Instead what has been used, or what is now the the applied standard is 1 acre of parkland for every 75 people residing within the community. The narrative goes further in supporting the position of the 5 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 6 ....."f applicant that their proposal meets the needs for parks within it's own development. Again, the policy decision facing the commission is whether this "island" approach to development is in the best interest of the city. Recommendations passed forwary by staff to the Park and Recreation Commission. The recommendations of June 18, 1993 remain valid with the noted modifications. Parks in regard to park dedication, the Commission has many options. The three most obvious being number 1, recommend the rejection of the preliminary plat due to it's lack of public open space. Number 2, identify 0 to 4.6 or any additional acreage of land for acquisition as public parkland and recommend the requirement of this dedication as a condition of approval for the plat. Number 3, recommend the acceptance of park fees in lieu of land dedication subject to the private park being developed. Again that condition is recommended that that condition carry with it that the association park includes sufficient land for an open playfield. In regard to trails, in the comprehensive trail plan. The comprehensive trail plan identifies a trail along Galpin Blvd...and traveling south. As you travel south it crosses Highway 5... Schroers: Todd, does that trail corridor go at all north to hook into the Lake Lucy trail? Hoffman: The Lake Lucy trail. Lake Lucy comes across, the on street trail right here? ...", Schroers: Yes. Hoffman: So there'd be a connection at some point here... Schroers: But along with this proposal, the connection would be made from Galpin to Lucy? Hoffman: No. This proposal we're asking for the acquisition...to allow for future connection. Schroers: Just along the property but then there would be still a connection to be made to the north. Hoffman: Correct. It is staff's opinion that this construction will likely...take place as part of the upgrade of Galpin Blvd when the County comes in and upgrades that to meet the expanding needs of development in the area. It will piggyback on that road project and install the trail at that time. So there's no constrution being recommended as part of this proposal. 6 ....."f ,..... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 7 Schroers: Just an easement. I""'" Hoffman: Correct. As mentioned, in a few short years this trail will play a very important role in transporting grade school students to the new school. It is not known at present which side of the road the first alignment of the trail will be constructed. Eventually, however the trail will be desirable on both sides of Galpin Blvd. due to the nature of the north/south collector, that being Galpin Blvd, and it's relationship to Highway 5, Highway 7, the new school site and the proposed access boulevard that parallels Highway 5. In regard to trails, it is recommended that the following conditions of approval be forwarded to the City Council. One, that a 20 foot trail easement be retained along the entire easterly property line to facilitate the future construction of the trail along Galpin Blvd. A note to the commission. The applicant has stated it would be their desire to have this trail constructed within the road right-of-way. The additional 17 feet of right-of-way required for road purposes. The city will also need a utility easement along this alignment, thus the additional 20 feet beyond that 17 would also be labeled as a utility easement where they interface. Again in conversation with the engineering department, they do not feel that we would be capable of installing a trail within that 17 foot road right- of-way. But they would work with us in a combination easement for utilities and the trail. In addition, any trail easements and/or trail construction which would be necessitated by identification of a park site within this plat should be required. Schroers: Thank you Mr. Hoffman. At this point I guess we could ask the representatives of Lundgren, if they wish to address the commission on this issue. Peter Pflaum: My name is Peter Pflaum. I'm the President of Lundgren Bros and also the principle owner in the company and I'm here, first of all I should back up for a minute. I have not been before a Park Commission in Chanhassen, I think since '78 or '79 when we did Near Mountain, and I had the task of trying to shepherd that project through. The reason I'm here tonight is that I believe there has been way too much emotion exerted on this project to date already, and it's sort of gotten out of hand. I had a meeting with the city Manager and the Mayor yesterday to talk about it. And as a matter of fact, that's the first time I'd met the Mayor and the first time I'd talk to Ashworth in I think 6 or 7 years so the only reason I mention that is it's been a long time since we've had a need to come and chat with one another. My feeling is that what happened, I think I""'"" 7 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 8 --' Lundgren Bros is guilty of getting a little carried away and being emotional when we should have focused in on the topic at hand and had our discussions solely on the topic. In talking to Ashworth, the City should have also done things on their behalf that would have straighten this thing out. The reason I wanted to meet with the city was to see if we could learn from this experience and set procedures in place so it just wouldn't happen, because it's not appropriate. I think, and that's why I'm here is to apologize. It happened and I'm responsible, since I'm the senior guy over there and also I'm involved on a daily basis watching what's going on in the land development. So on behalf of Lundgren Bros I wanted to apologize. We'll still fight with regard to issues that we believe strongly in but we'll try to keep the fight toned down and aimed at the issue and not, and hope it doesn't spread so that's the only reason I'm here tonight. Terry's certainly competent to talk about the project and I just wanted to express that to you all before we got started. Schroers: Thank you very much. Did you have a question Jan? Lash: No. Schroers: I think that I would like to clear the air a little bit on that myself. My position on this is that we're not here to play politics. We are here to deal with nothing except the park and recreation related issues of this project and our focus is what we feel are our best efforts in meeting the needs of the entire city of Chanhassen and we do not make any decisions here specifically. We just make a recommendation based on our best judgment to the City Council and they make the final decision so that's the way the process here works and we're not for or against anybody. We're just trying to do the best we can with the park facilities within the city. ...,,; Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Park Commission. I'd just like to add a couple of additional comments to the statement that Peter just made. And I'll keep them brief because I know there's, you want to hear about the project. But the bottom line on this really is, is that no matter who's right or wrong, as adults it should never get to this point and I feel incredibly bad about it and I've come and talked to Todd about it within the last week and I also originally had a meeting with the Mayor and with the City Manager. But really that's the bottom line. I mean what happens is that, you know we're all so busy in the world, sometimes you forget to be level headed and sometimes we make mistakes and unfortunately that's one of the downsides of life is 8 ....." .I"*" Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 9 that we make mistakes. And I feel that I've made a mistake here in not keeping my cool. Not taking the additional extra time that it may take to try to get ahold of somebody. To try to meet with them privately. To work things out rather than reacting in the way that I did. And so I feel bad about that and I told Todd I felt bad about it, because I don't think it should ever get to that. And I'm not perfect. I make a lot of mistakes. Really the bottom line is, what do you do after you make the mistakes so I just hope that you'll accept my apology. I apologized to Todd. To each one of you. Certainly to the Mayor and the City Council and it's never my intent, because I do care about Chanhassen. I think those of you who have seen me make my presentations before and those members of the staff who have worked with me on projects over and over again, they know that we work very hard to try to put forth the absolute best project we can. And what happens sometimes, you get so absorbed by it and...somtimes you lose track of the bigger picture. And I think that's what happened here. And we've talked with the staff about trying to improve communications so if these things do happen, that we have opportunities and abilities to resolve them the way we all wish that it would be done. So I apologize to all of you and certainly ~ to Todd. I'm going to talk a little bit about this neighborhood community, referred to as the Song property. Obviously in any project like this, certainly of the scope that this one is, there's all kinds of challenges and I'm not going to burden you with all of those but the primary challenge for us, and something we started a few years ago was how do we do something that would make our neighborhood communities something a little bit special. Now we don't have all the answers so a lot of times what we do, we travel around the country and find out what people smarter . than we are are doing and we found that something that's been occurring allover the country is that people creating neighborhood communities, in their pursuit of making them something a little more special than maybe what they have been in the past, is they try to add amenities to them that will benefit the people who buy homes within the community. Well there's also an ancilliary benefit to that and I've dealt with that a little bit within the report that's been given to you tonight. Is that there also is a side benefit for those who live outside the boundaries. It clearly wouldn't be fair to say that the only people who benefit from this are the people who live within the community because there's another aspect of this. When we were looking at how we could improve our communities, there was a phenomena occurring in government and that budgets were severely being constrained in all government, State, Federal, certainly local and they were having a hard time delivering the services that their residents wanted. And I know Chanhassen's not any ,..... 9 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 10 ....". different. I know Chanhassen's going through the same thing that many municipalities locally are. They have some budget shortfalls. They're forced to have to cutback on certain things that they'd like to do in their capital improvement program. And the first community that we had an association park in was Plymouth and they had some constraints too. I mean they can't be everything. The Parks Department or the city can't be everything to everybody in the community because their resources are limited and they have to prioritize. So in conjunction with the fact that we're attempting to make our neighborhood communities something extremely special for those who live there, we also know that the cities, especially in the type of amenities we're providing. Things like tennis courts and handball courts and basketball courts. Those are the things that most cities are really having a hard time providing at a neighborhood level. I mean they just don't have the funds so we realized, how do we do something that maybe not everybody else is doing. That maybe will give us a little bit of a competitive advantage. Give our future homeowners a competitive advantage when they go to sell their home, and hopefully that the city will look at and say, you know there's some benefit to the city in this in that the developer's not just putting forth park dedication in land. They're willing to put forth some monies upfront and build these things upfront, which oftentimes cities can't afford to do, even if they did get the land because they just don't, unfortunately have the money. And so we realize that for most cities, especially in Minnesota, this was kind of a new phenomena. Now you would see it in townhome and apartment units throughout the metropolitan area. This is not unique to a townhome project. There are many townhome, multiple dwelling neighborhood communities in the metropolitan area that have tennis courts and things like this but it's probably a new phenomena, in Minnesota anyway, to single family. You just don't see that much of it. So we realized that most cities would probably say well geez, this is really a departure from what we're used to and we also realized that the cities still have park needs outside the boundaries of our project. We certainly weren't thinking that that problem would go away. And so that's why we've, in the communities that we've done this, we've continued to offer to pay park dedication fees. Even though we'll spend quite a bit of money providing amenities that are within these neighborhoods. So actually it's kind of, the city's getting a double benefit. Now there's also an additional benefit is that the association continues to maintain these so the city doesn't have to. And then to give an example in a new neighborhood community called Woodlands in Apple Valley that we're just underway with. The City had concerns well what happens, I mean the City has to look -"" 10 -' ""'" Park and Rec commission July 27, 1993 - Page 11 at it from a worst case scenario. What happens if something terrible happened and 10 years or 20 years or 30 years or 40 years from now the association wasn't getting along and there was a problem. They didn't want it anymore or whatever. Well we can, just like we did on Apple Valley. There's a couple things that we can do. One is we can actually plat those lots, if necessary, for if the city in some point in time, if there's a problem, that might be able to be lots. Or we can have a document that would facilitate the orderly transition of that property to the city if that event ever occurred. Now we don't think that's going to happen because what we've found is if the ones that have been set up right to begin with usually don't have a problem. And all of them aren't set up the same way. I mean so it wouldn't be fair to say that all association parks have a potential liability of this happening because they're not all set up the same way and we spend a lot of time and considerable funds in trying to do it right and studying on how others have done it. So that's really why it is that we're proposing what you see before you tonight. Now Todd explained to me, or shared with me an idea or a concept today that is a concept that has merit that I hadn't had a chance to talk to him about before. And that is that he thinks it's a ~ good idea that if there was some additional flat area in this association park area, it could even be included within it and that's something we would have to look at in our design, where people could throw a frisbee. They could run with their dog. They could fly a kite and things like that. And that's a good idea and that's something that we had not thought about. And if you, we try to put everything in the kitchen sink in this proposal and that's something we did not think of and that was a good idea and it has a lot of merit and it's something we should have thought about and it's something we should put in there. And what that allows for, I mean that's a desire of the Park and Rec Department that if they ever did, for whatever reason, have to have this little neighborhood park back, then it would have some of that area in it that the Park and Rec Department would like to see, so we think that's a good idea. We pretty much have based our proposal and the size of the facility and everything on our understanding of what the comprehensive plan is. We take that document and we try to read it and decipher it and put forth in conformance with it. And so that's how we've kind of come up with the sizes, etc. At this point in time I think it's, you probably may have some questions about this proposal and myself and Mr. Pflaum will do the best that we can to answer those questions. Schroers: Thank you. Questions from the commissioners. If not I have a couple. What is Lundgren's position on the surrounding ,..., 11 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 12 """" community using these facilities? Are you looking at this strictly as a private entity for your development? Terry Forbord: Would you like me to respond? Schroers: Please. Terry Forbord: On these questions, okay. The park is owned by the association which is comprised of those people who live in the community. The association pays taxes on that property, I believe and they also have the liability that's associated with it and they pay the insurance and all the other things. And they pay for the maintenance of it so these people will be paying an annual fee to cover all of those costs and because of the way the laws are, it's important that the association documents the Declaration of Covenants and the association documents themselves are, because it's a corporation, the association is, that they have to have certain language in there to protect the association against things like people getting hurt and just like, if you owned a business. You have to have some kind of a protection in there for that so the purpose of the park is for the ownership of the association and for their primary use. Now that is not to suggest that if Janey or Johnny have friends that live across the street in another neighborhood, that they can't come and play with them because of course that's not the point at all. But it would, it isn't something that's advertised as a public park or displayed as a public park. I believe that for insurance purposes it needs to be posted that it is a park that's owned by the association and that it's for the primary use of those residents. But again, there's no policemen. There's no badges that people wear or anything like that to identify themselves. That's not the intent. ...." Schroers: Okay. There was some mention to wetland alterations or a permit for wetland alterations. Exactly what alteration is intended? Terry Forbord: We'll put a bigger exhibit up here. I don't know if you can see this. North would be up. Galpin Blvd, Lake Lucy; the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner neighborhood...I'm not a wetlands expert so I'm not going to try to represent that to you but I can generally tell you, I assume you're talking about this dark area. . . Schroers: Well my interest is actually to what alteration is going to be done to the wetland. 12 --' ~ Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 13 Terry Forbord: To the entire wetland? Schroers: Yeah. Terry Forbord: Okay. Nowadays you do everything possible you can to stay out of a wetland because it's just a lot of cost and things associated with it. All the different agencies that you have to get your permitting from. It's extremely cost... (Mr. Forbord was away from a microphone and his comments were not being picked up on the tape clearly.) Schroers: Thank you for that explanation. I think we all appreciate the progressive thinking and all the work that you've done on the project. The concept looks very nice. However, from our perspective what you're asking of us is to make an exception to policy here and my concern is that if we do that, in all fairness, that is going to set a precedent and each time that a developer comes in with a new idea, that sort of gives them leverage. They can say, well you let other developments do this and you let other developments do that and that wasn't part of ~ your policy and now we feel that we should have the right to do this. And what I feel is that it is going to disrupt the comprehensive plan and really make the acquisition of our public park and recreation facilities a lot harder to acquire, and it's difficult to do right now. I guess what's not clear in my mind is what you think the major benefit to the city is that we should make such an exception to our policy here. I mean my personal feeling is that if you want to develop a private recreation area for the people in your development, I think that's fine but not to exclude the public park and trail facilities that we require of every development. Andrews: Can I ask some questions? Schroers: wait a minute. Would you care to respond to that? Terry Forbord: Actually I guess, I think there's a number of ways that one could look at this to determine what benefit is it to the city. First of all, there will be about 230 new homeowners that will be citizens of the city that will be living within this 200+ acre neighborhood community and actually the density is less than 1.5 gross. It's about 1.1 on this particular site. I mean it's a very low density and those 230 people, if there was no, for instance just on the Johnson/Dolejsi property to the immediate west. If there was no facility there whatsoever, those 112 people would be going somewhere in the city ,.... 13 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 14 ....", to utilize that facility somewhere, if there was one. The people, 115 people who will be, excuse me households. We're talking more than. It will be 230 households times 3, if that's the basis for what we're using for numbers. So it would be 690. About 700 people. What's happening here is that we will be providing an upfront, the facilities for 700 people at no cost to the city. Plus we will be taking park dedication fees and paying them to the city as well. So I mean just those two things right there I see as a real benefit to the city. When you add in the maintenance component, and that the city will not, the city's budget, the city's park and rec budget will not have to be forced to maintaining these facilities. So a burden of 700 additional homeowners, or residents, will be immediately taken care of by this proposal. I think that's areal benefit to the city. And they get the additional funds from those 230 units and they can take those funds and if they deem that it is necessary in park deficient area no. 3, or any other park deficient area for that matter, they can take those funds and put those to use for those people who live outside the development. Now when they do that, the people, the approximately 700 people that are living within these two PUD's, will not be burdening that new facility as much because they have their own. Now one of the things that I didn't address earlier is that why do we put the type of facilities in that we do? I talked a little bit about the fact that the city can't afford maybe to put in, and the city to my knowledge does have a policy, in neighborhood parks they no longer put in tennis courts and things like that because they just can't afford to. But there's another reason we do it in that in our, through talking with our sales people that sell in our neighborhoods and by talking to our homeowners, these are the kind of facilities they really would like us to put in. It's not necessarily that we have so much vision or anything. We just listen to what our customers are telling us. They're telling us, boy if you're going to build us a park, here's what we'd like to have. We'd like to have what some people call a totlot, but really they're these playground systems. You probably have seen them. I'm sure the city probably has some, an extensive one or maybe more than one somewhere in the city. They're made out of those 6 x 6 timbers and they have all that neat stuff. Well we put those in. We create large sandbox areas around them. The tennis courts, the handball courts, the basketball courts and those types of things we find our homebuyers say these are the systems that we want that the city can't provide us with anyway. So because of those reasons, we think it's a real benefit to the city. ....." Schroers: Okay, I think. 14 ....." ,..... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 15 Andrews: I have some more questions, if I could, for Terry. I guess my question would have to do with talking about 230 homes between the two developments together. Do you think it would be necessary to provide some parking for people within the development to be able to drive to this tennis court to use it or do you think they're all going to be pedestrian travelers to this park site? Terry Forbord: You know that's a good question as well. In fact I think that we should provide some parking by this proposed neighborhood park. I don't think a lot of people will drive there but I think some people may and I think that if you approve this, we should be required to provide some parking spaces. I think that's a good idea. Roeser: I kind of get the impression here that you're saying this park is going to provide all the facilities for these people in this area. They're still going to go out of that neighborhood to swim. They're going to have to go out of that neighborhood to play Little League baseball. They're going to have to go out for arts and crafts. So you know, you make it sound like it's going ~, to provide all the facilities when it really isn't going to provide all the facilities. It's going to provide a tennis court and a small picnic area and playground. Terry Forbord: I regret if that's what it appears to be what I'm implying because that's not my intent. I realize that these families will have boys and girls that may want to compete in Little League. I realize that they may be involved in other activities and obviously we can't put in all those types of facilities and I am not trying to imply that at all. But just from our experience at doing this, and from listening to our customers, we do know that these are facilities that they do wish they could have. And we also know that the other cities that we've done this in, those cities can't provide those needs anymore either because they can't afford it. And I was at a meeting here one night where it was debated here in this chambers about can the city afford to put tennis courts and things like that in local neighborhood parks and it was determined they couldn't. And there were some residents standing here and they really wanted one really bad. And so we realized that we can't provide everything and we realize they will have to go outside the boundaries of the community but we also know that within the certain scope that we're presenting here, we can provide a lot of the things that these people really do want. ,... 15 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 16 -' Berg: I guess I'm looking at it a couple different ways too. If I were a resident of that new development, I'd really be excited. Excited with the possibility of having this park that I could bike to and take my kids to. I'm not a member of that community and I am a member of a commission that has to be concerned about other citizens as well. I just can hear the people coming. Why do they have this park here? What's wrong with you people? Why aren't you supplying a park for us in an area that has been labeled park deficient for a long time. I guess I'm trying, I'm forced to think of the bigger picture at this point. Your benefits to the city are undeniable. But those citizens there are not being served by having that park outside of that development. Terry Forbord: That same thing concerns us too, Commissioner Berg. We think that the city should be providing parks throughout the community and I know the city's rethinking their park plan, or considering it anyway, and contemplating being site specific for specific types of parks. Actually this particular site, I bet you doesn't have a level spot on it anywhere. I mean that's something I haven't talked about. There's virtually, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an acre of land that's level on this particular site. And what's really important for the different types of, I mean there's all kind of different type of park needs that are needed in the city and we believe that it's probably wise to be site specific and find level pieces of property for certain types of uses and other types for other types of uses. And we really do, I think there's a shortage of parks in the city and we have never tried to suggest that there isn't but we think that the proposal we're making, I mean whether it was Lundgren Bros or it was somebody else, if somebody brought in a proposal where they would agree to do this type of facility and still give the money to the city so the city could take care of all those other things, I think they're hitting two birds with one stone. ....." Schroers: I think though the real problem here, what I see is just kind of the idea that this is a somewhat a private park within a community. That's what is really hard to swallow. If the rest of the residents feel that, for whatever reason, that they can't go there and they can't use that facility because they're not a portion of this neighborhood, then we have not serviced the community. We have not done the job that we've been appointed to do here. And that's a real concern to me. I think having a park...is just the fairness of the issue I think is really a major concern and we hear over and over again on every new developing community, when we get to the park issue. What they 16 ....." ,..... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 17 are afraid of is that when we develop a neighborhood park, that there's going to be a big flashy neon sign and it's going to draw the gangs from chicago. It doesn't happen. Just the people who know about it who live in the area come there and the real problem I have with this whole thing is identifying it or labeling it as a private park. ,....~ Terry Forbord: You know just to give you an example. I should have may talked a little bit about the math of this. But for an example. There will be approximately $138,000.00, almost $140,000.00 of money generated by park fees with the homes that are built here. And if land in Chanhassen was going for $25,000.00 an acre, that would give you more than 5 acres of land that the city could buy to buy a park right in this area. If they could find, and again I'm not exactly what type of park it is that you need but let's assume for a minute it was for ball diamonds for Little League or something like that. You could put a few diamonds on 5 acres of land right in this general vicinity for the amount of money that would be received in park dedication fees. Now that doesn't include the trail fees. The trail fees I believe are $200.00 per unit and so there'd be an additional sum of money. But this is just $600.00 times 230 units is about $138,000.00. So when you look at it maybe in that perspective. Okay, there'd be two neighborhood parks built by the developer. The developer would contribute the land. They'd put in the improvements when they develop so the facilities are there when the people move in. And then they'd be maintained. Plus the money that would be received from the park dedication would allow the city to buy at least 5 acres of land and pay for the land. And then the city, all they'd have to do is pay for the improvements and then you'd have the other component of that that seems to concern, or appears to be a concern of the city's to serve the other residents. Schroers: Does Lundgren Bros have a real problem with just labeling it a Chanhassen neighborhood park, like any other neighborhood park in this city? I mean we do not put major signs out on collectors saying Carver Beach Park this way. We don't attempt to draw people from other areas into the park. All we do is like at the entrance to the park we put up the sign that says the name of the park and that's all it is. It's a neighborhood park. It doesn't specify that it's for someone or that it's not for someone or anything. Is there a problem with that? Terry Forbord: I don't think there would be a problem with that. I think for insurance purposes, somewhere on that park, and maybe Peter can remember but it seems to me that in the last ,...., 17 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 18 -"" neighborhood park that we did in churchill, the association, or their insurer and the insurance agents would have to clarify this but I believe that they were required to put up like a small sign posted to say it because then if there ever was something, at least they can say well it was posted. It's not like it's identified in a big sign or anything like that. Schroers: What does that sign say? Terry Forbord: Forgive me for not knowing. I can find that out but I believe that had to be done and the person who does the developing of the parks for us isn't here tonight but it seems to me that for liability purposes they had to do that. Peter, do you recall? Peter Pflaum: I don't remember... Schroers: Does it say something like neighborhood residents only? Something specific like that. Peter Pflaum: ...1 think it says a private neighborhood park or something like that. I think the thing you have to remember is a park owned...owned by the homeowners and they monitor and control it. And the only issue, we have one in Churchill right now, Churchill Farm and neighborhood kids come over and use the totlot all the time. The area that we have concern... -'" Lash: How would the association monitor that? And what would they do if they found it was being monopolized by other people? Peter Pflaum: Well I think probably, I would assume they'd do something like this. They'd probably put, either post it and if it was being abused by other people...I supposed they end up putting a lock on it and the comb~'nation be given to the homeowners. That's the only one lement of the whole park and that's the worst case scenario. ou have to also understand that people buying into this area are actually paying for it... townhouse project or apartments or condominium where people have their own swimming pool and tennis court. They pay for it and they maintain it and they monitor it. If the neighbors want to come on it, it's up to the homeowners association to decide if they're going to...this has gone on for years and years and years allover the country and allover the neighborhoods. Everywhere and the only difference is that they're mUlti-family to single family. 18 ...." I""'" ,...... ,...... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 19 Lash: Well I want to just give you a little history and I'll try and make this short. I happen to live in a neighborhood that had an association and had an association owned park that was developed by our association back in the 60's, or late 50's or something. So it was a long time ago. Before I lived there. Before I was born. But anyway, we moved in there and at that time it had already transferred title to the city because of a breakdown of the association and that I see, you know I hear you guys saying that you're going to try and have this association. The rules very tight so these kinds of things don't happen but I personally have seen that happen where our association broke down, and it happens over many years of people moving in and people moving out and not knowing how the association operates and pretty soon they don't want to pay their dues anymore and the whole thing falls apart. And where our park had the biggest problem was with enforcement of outside people coming in, specifically teens coming at night and wanting to party back in an area that's relatively remote. So the neighbors then would call the police to come and try and break up these beer parties and the police didn't want to respond because it was privately owned property. So it got into, it really got into a mess and it ended up with the city taking over the title, which then led to a whole kind of an ownership. Even though it was on paper, the residents still feel like it's partly their own and they're very protective of it. But yet the city owns it and there's been a lot of friction over the years because of this so I have seen how this, in the worst scenario, it does not work. And from the sounds of it, we've had discussions up here of when we put in neighborhood parks, when we require property, of requiring the developers to develop it just like you guys were talking about doing. And in that situation it's a win/win situation because it's developed right away before people, before the development is full. The people like that. We like that. It doesn't cost us a lot of money and we've talked about doing that in the future. I don't know if it's ever really going to happen or not but it's something we've considered and if you people would want to develop this but still consider it, turn it over to the city, I'd be all for that but I am very, very leery of the association owned park because of my own personal experience. Also, I look at this particular area as having other property owners. There's a 23 home development going in across the road and there are other individual property owners out there who have also paid park fees when they develop their homes. Built their homes and they will not be serviced probably by this park and I don't know, even if we get the fees from you, we can't say, we don't know tonight that we will have the opportunity to acquire a nice 5 acre parcel when something else comes in to develop, and we've 19 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 20 -' been through that problem recently too where developers come in and try to convince us that it's right to take property for a park but just not their property. They want us to take it from the guy next door. Well the next thing, the guy next door comes in and it's the same, we keep hearing the same story over and over and it just, we can't operate like that. Hoping that tomorrow the property next door will come in and we'll happen to get the prime property that we want because we got the fees from you. We can't count on that. So this whole thing has me very uncomfortable. Peter Pflaum: Good point. One of the things that's unfortunate ...isn't a master plan that designates in advance which property...because then the property owner would be...they would know. So I think one of the things you have to look at in the future, to eliminate this kind of discussion would be come up with a comprehensive plan that...and most of the other communities have done this frankly. Schroers: We are doing that currently. Peter Pflaum: Okay. You raised some good points. What happens if the homeowners association does not want to take care of the property...We recently got approval, only like 2 months ago, the same concept in Apple Valley. The Apple Valley Council liked very much the idea of the...What their concern was, suppose the neighbors don't want it, what happens then? They didn't want to take it back and have a problem later on. So what they, in working with them they came up with a program that said, in the event, and this had to be in the homeowners document before you bought the property...it would go back to the city or the city could elect...to be divided into single family lots...and the underlying zoning was single family lots. Lash: So what if the association is split? Half the people want to keep the park and half of them don't anymore. Well, they're going to have to, just like anything else. There's no perfect solution. All I'm getting at, the other point. I don't, you're talking about big issues and are important issues and I don't want to make light of them because we sort of learned by working with you people, and our residents. One of the things I think is important for all of us to understand...the way we've done things in the past isn't going to work and so rather than slapping us and telling us we're bad guys for coming in and doing this, I think we may be onto something that you may want to encourage. I think it's time for the private sector...and they're talking about cutting back in programs. All I'm saying is maybe it's a .....", 20 ---' ,-. Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 21 way for, and again...because this community said well other communities are going to have to learn how to work with the private sector. You can't depend on the government to come up with the money. People are being taxed to death. So all I'm suggesting is, maybe this is...but we are going a step forward. We're putting improvements in upfront. There's no...and we're also paying money so the city's got funds coming up. So that isn't all bad. And it's not...perfect but all we're saying is maybe this is sort of a wave of the future...in order to provide this community or any other community with these kind of improvements...I'm just suggesting that because we know what our residents want... We wouldn't be doing this. This costs a great deal of money... Lash: As every developer faces who dedicates property for parkland. peter Pflaum: Yeah but usually they do one or the other. We're doing both. Lash: Well and, if my comments made you feel like I was slapping ~ your hands I apologize. I didn't mean them to be taken that way. And if you'd like to create a wave of the future, I'd be all for that so if you want to develop the property and put the facilities on there that you have shown and then deed it to the city, we would welcome that and that could start a whole new trend for the developers coming in. That would be our way of working with the private sector. And I know I'd be in favor of that. If you're interested in doing that and then putting, taking away your park fees. We'd have the park and it would be developed but it would be deeded to the city. Schroers: I think you would probably gain all our support on that. That is the one stumbling block. You're asking us to do a public thing here for a private entity. It's not ethical. You're aSking us to do something here that's unethical and we're going to live to regret it if we do that. I think what you're talking about is wonderful. We'd love to see it happen but just to do it and keep it private for the people who are lucky enough or wealthy enough or whatever to be able to live in that community and just target it for that specific neighborhood and just putting the label private on there, we just can't do that. We can't sit here and do that. Lash: Because we are government. ~ 21 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 22 -" Terry Forbord: Maybe I could just add a couple of quick thoughts. As noble as that may sound, it really wouldn't be fair to the people who would have to buy these homes because this money to do these things doesn't just come from nowhere. The place it comes from is that all 230 homes there, those people are going to pay more for their lots and their homes in order to have that. In other words, if you look at the cost of developing land nowadays, those of you who have followed it, there's an incredible amount of exactions that are paid by new development that is not paid by the citizens at large. For example, storm water policies that the city's looking at adopting right now. They're not going to go back to all the people who've already lived here to ask them, pay to contribute to the new storm systems that are going to benefit the entire city. The people, the new people that live here are going to pay for that. And there's a whole bunch of those things like that but that's not the purpose of this meeting. But there's all kinds of additional costs that the new people who move into the community are going to pay. So if you ask the people that are going to live here that they also have to pay more for their lot above and beyond what would be typical in a park dedication scenario, really that wouldn't be fair. Meger: I don't understand the difference in paying a little bit more for your lot upfront than having to pay association fees on a regular basis. .....", Terry Forbord: Because the people then who are paying get the direct benefit. Lash: They still would. Meger: They still would. Terry Forbord: No, it's the benefit is not the same. As a real estate professional I can tell you the benefit is not the same. Roeser: How is it different? Terry Forbord: Because, let's just talk about a different type of facility. Let's say if any other private recreational, whether it's a health club or not. What if the people paid all the dues and they paid everything but then everybody else got to go. Now would that be fair? Would it be fair that everybody got to go but only certain people had to pay? Of course that wouldn't be fair. And I think the issue here, and I think Chairman Schroers really hit the nail on the head when he said that the biggest issue here, and I'm sure that the thing that 22 ...", ,.... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 23 .r- makes all of you feel the most uncomfortable, is private. It's exactly like what happened with the private golf course, Bearpath and their approvals in Eden Prairie. There were a lot of people upset because it was a private club. But you know if you look in the history of Minneapolis, there's private clubs allover the place but in the olden days people didn't get upset about those things. The fact that it wasn't labeled private, it may make everybody feel better. One of the things maybe that you'd consider is that, if you like the concept of getting the park dedication fees and you like the developer contributing the amenities that we've discussed, if you like that concept, and the only thing that really rubs you wrong is how the terminology or the name, maybe there's a way that we can work with staff to come up with some kind of a solution that may be palatable to everybody. It wouldn't be worth it for us as the developer to go ahead and do this and say it's open to the public. Because there's absolutely no advantage to any of the people above, that live there, above and beyond what any other developer is doing. If you look at our neighborhood communities you'll find that we really make absolutely no attempt to do what everybody else is doing. And I'd be happy to take you on tours of our projects and show you that. We could care less what everybody else is doing. We would like to do something special. Berg: The word private'S not what's bothering me. It's the sign you're going to put up that says it's association members only is what bothers me. Terry Forbord: And if we didn't put a sign up like that, would that be okay then? Berg: You have to have a sign up for insurance purposes. And if you don't have to put the sign up, then what are we talking about here? Then it's a public park. Terry Forbord: Well not really because, if you understand the homeowners association and the state Statutue of how you set one up and what it means, it's a corporation. So it means it's privately owned. Berg: Okay, then okay. Then to back up a little bit further, then I'm not upset with... I'm upset with the fact that it's an association's park and it's not a public park. I'm not upset with the word private. I'm upset with the concept. Lash: And if this development were going in an area that was not park deficient and you wanted to do this, I wouldn't have a ,..... 23 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 24 --' problem with it then even. The big part of the problem is that this is a park deficient area and as these developments or these single homes start trickling in, all of those people are paying the park fee but they will not be getting a park. Because they will not feel that they can go and use this park or the one in the adjoining development, so where are they supposed to go? And it's our responsibility to provide a park for them too and this is not doing it. So then we're not doing our jobs. We're really stuck. Schroers: I don't think the people in your development would sacrifice anything by not labeling that as a private park. They are still going to have the amenities right there and that's what is going to attract them to your development. That's what's going to help them to decide whether or not they want to buy the home there. They're going to like the home. They're going to like the area. They're going to like the facilities that they have. All we are saying is we think it's a great plan. Just don't label it private but also don't advertise it that it's there for the whole world but just have it as a neighborhood park. I'll tell you. Just frankly we cannot sit here and say it's okay to do that. I mean it's just absolutely not ethical and we will regret it for the rest of the time that we are in existence if we do that. It's just that it comes down to terminology here and what you suggested working with staff to define some terminology so that it is not labeled as a private entity and that people who develop close to your development and pay dedication fees can use that park if they want to walk over and use it. But I just don't believe that you're going to see an influx of undesireable people coming in there and disrupting the residents of your development as a result of not labeling it private. I don't buy that. But at this point I would like to ask if there is anyone else in attendance here this evening that would like to address the Commission on this issue. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to share some information with us? Would you please state your name and address for the record. --' Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin Blvd. And it is correct that this is the Song property. It is not the Carlson/ Song property. I am, Linda and I are the Song's neighbors directly to the north. I suppose, I don't want to belabor this whole concept of private versus public too much. I think that it's a very gray area and I don't feel it's as clear cut as perhaps some of you do. We bought a nice piece of land over looking the Harrison wetland and we're working hard, along with the Song's who purchased their land some time ago, with the dream 24 -' ,..... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 25 of relocating to a site overlooking that wetland. And paid all the taxes. Made all the payments to the mortgage company, and so forth and so on and I guess I think there is a lot to be said for the rights of private property owners and I would hate to see an attitude in any commission that feels totally compelled at all times, under all circumstances, to look to the public as opposed to the current owners of something. And what they've paid and what they've, the price and the hard work that they've labored in order to gain something. I'm a...free enterpriser and those are just some of my brief philosophical thoughts. As far as this park is concerned and as far as what's in it for the city, perhaps Todd can tell me. What is the distance between Galpin and TH 41? Mile and a quarter? Roughly. Hoffman: Less than that probably. Jerome Carlson: A mile? It depends on what park you're measuring it from because they're both angling somewhat I guess. Hoffman: 3/4 of a mile. ~ Jerome Carlson: Todd and I discussed the park issue at some length and I won't review that whole discussion. I was there on behalf of the Song's as well as myself because I had been working very, very closely with Charles and Irene to try to preserve something very, very special that we both purchased and we own. We think we have a right to own it. But in my discussion with Todd I learned that the studies that in fact are current apparently show that the distance anybody on average or if it's an average or if it's the greatest distance that the average citizen is willing to travel to a park, is 1/2 mile. Is that correct Todd? Hoffman: That's a standard which is put forth by the National Recreation and Parks Association. It is commonplace in the comprehensive plan. Jerome Carlson: And you know I look at this whole development and I do not have any part of the development but if you were to take these two developments together, and if you were to have put a public park right in the middle of them, do you really think people are going to cross Highway 5 from the south to use that? I seriously doubt it. Do you think people will come all the way in from TH 41 a half a mile, having crossed TH 41 to use a park in the middle of that development? I don't think so. Do you think people from Galpin, east side, would go a half a mile to the interior of this development to use the park? Maybe. Not many. """..., 25 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 26 ...." Particularly when there's a beautiful school park, a beautiful school park with a wonderful trail system being developed right up there on that corner immediately south of Prince's property and that other development that's going much more close. It will have all of the big stuff, I'm assuming, for kids. Where are they going to go? Well if I'm a kid, I've got my bike, I'm going to head for the big stuff. I'm going to swing on the big swings. That would be my inclination. I don't think I was any different as a kid than most kids. And so you know, just as a perspective, with all due respect, I've walked over the Song property many times. I probably know it as well as Terry and his engineers do. And I can only assure you that that property is a lousy place for a level park of any kind. It's very, very tough terrain. You know. I wrote the actual numbers down. 112 units and 115. That's a total of on average 3 people. That serves 681 residents. Admittedly they're going to go outside the park for the ballgames and the swimming pool and such. It's $181,600.00 in park and trail fees. If you can do an Apple Valley type thing, take the money and run. Buy some property that is in that zone that's flat. My opinion. You're concerned about the gentleman across the street with 26 lots, just to the east side of Galpin. Add that money to it. Now you're up well over $200,000.00. pick a spot for that community park that is suitable for a real park and equip it with the money. I can't believe that the developers couldn't work out something relative to this, what's the title or name or deed it to the city in the future such as they did in Apple Valley so that if they don't want it, it's history. ....." Schroers: That's what we're asking for. Jerome Carlson: I didn't understand you were asking for the Apple Valley solution but in any event, as a private citizen who pays taxes like all of you, this to me, this is a good deal. Figure out a way to capitalize on it and pick the right piece of property for a real park and use the money that's available. Let the developers have the tennis courts. If that's what their customers, I'm in the business of serving customers. And 681 people. That's a lot of folks. That's a lot of folks and if they're willing to pay for a little extra amenity like a tennis court. If they really get excited about that and they want to foot that bill, and if they don't, it goes back to the city. They subdivide it and create more homes to pay taxes. Itdoesn't sound like a bad deal to me. That's just my attitude. Thank you very much. Schroers: Thank you. 26 ....." JlI""'" Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 27 "... Bret Davidson: My name is Bret Davidson. I live at 7291 Galpin Blvd. A little history here first and then I'll come up to the present day. I moved here in 1986 and I built a home...paid a $600.00 park fee and so it was the first home I'd ever built. I said, what in the world is the $600.00 park fee. They said well the $600.00 park fee is going to pay for a park. And I said, we have a park. Lake Ann Park. They said, no you don't understand. You're going to, we've developed a comprehensive park plan and you'll have a park within about a half mile of where you live. Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Now if you come to the present day, I'm also developing Royal Oak Estates which is a 23 parcel piece of property and just two thoughts. The first one is, if it's an association park, I don't think we can play with the name and say it's a private park or a public park. If it's an association park, the people that live in the other neighborhoods won't be allowed there. I think that if we start to say well we're going to change the sign, all we're doing is we're playing with words. The other part of it is, I don't know if it's a good idea or bad idea. My feeling is, my people in my subdivision and myself have paid for a park. I think we should have a park within the area. Now if there's a better suited spot than the Song property in the area to develop, by all means. By all means get it. My two feelings are first off, if it's an association park, it's a private park and we won't be welcome. And second off, we're paying a park fee and I think we should have a park within our area. Andrews: I have some questions for Mr. Davidson. When we're in the process of competing for land that has potential for residential development, being that you're an experience developer yourself at this point, or you have some experience. What do you think ag rich would go for in that area? Bret Davidson: Let me back up a little bit. Ask me how to fly an airplane and I can tell you because I'm an airline pilot. I'm not a developer and obviously Terry and Mr. Pflaum have a tremendous amount more experience in it than me. This is my first development so I'm not a qualified developer. Now if you ask me what land goes for in the area, is that your basic question? I can tell you that the average land price in the area is around $20,000.00. Andrews: An acre? ,-. Bret Davidson: An acre yes' h C f ' Slr. I ad an offer from the Rottlund ompany or my piece of property at $22,000.00 an acre. Prior to developing my piece of property. Of course I had appraisers do 27 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 28 --' an appraisal for the area as part of my financing for my project and it came in at almost $20,000.00 an acre so I think it's very reasonable and fair to say that land costs in the area is going to run somewhere around $20,000.00 an acre. Andrews: Thank you. Bret Davidson: But I'm not a developer, don't ask me. Okay, thanks. Schroers: Thanks for your input. Dave Stockdale: My name's Dave Stockdale. I have the property mainly south of the Song's. I'm here to express some of my concerns. From what I can see between the Song property and the JohnsonjDolejsi property, we're talking a little over 206 acres the city is in the process of letting go into development and in that 206 acres it appears that there may be no public park? surrounding that between Rottlund, Bret Davidson and the other properties nearby that may be developed, you're talking about maybe 20% of that potential development land. It just seems like if there was any topographic possibility to do it in that development, that would still be the most appropriate proportionate to the number of lots being developed and the impact it would have on a developer. That said, at some time in the future I may be going for development on my land. I've got roughly 17 acres and it appears that if nothing is acquired from the Song property that I have a hunch my property's going to be looking pretty attractive to some people. ....." Andrews: How flat is it? Dave Stockdale: Flatter. And portions of it are more open. The reality is that if in fact what they're after is 5 acres, that pretty much nullifies the financial feasibility of a development. You'll roughly cut a third of my development plan out of the context of development so I have some personal concerns at that level. Practically speaking, it's probably a lot more feasible to look at my land than the Song's. I don't know all the Song's property at this point. In answer to another one of your "\l~~tiOl\S Jl'm 'Nhat is acreage going for. 1 turned do~n an offer ~ I 'ne But more significant to what l.S acreage Of,$24f,OOO.0l.'OS ~~a~l.is.it's potential development return on the gOl.ng or, 'I t h' h Lot higher. So finished developed land. And l.td'stath~s p~in~~. That's mostly I just want that to be o~ rec~r a what I have to say at thl.s pOl.nt. 28 -'" ~ Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 29 Lash: Can you guys turn this thing on again. I need to have another quick crash course just to get my bearings, so we can see what all is being developed here. The big angled one, is that the Johnson? Hoffman: JohnsonjDolejsi..and again the Commission should recall that...concept of that association park right in that location as a part of that. Lash: And the new development now, the Song property is that whole spot. ,,-.. Hoffman: The Stockdale property is the dotted region. Prince's property. And Royal Oaks...wetland down in here. I certainly understand the quandry that the Park Commission...Listening to the discussion it comes to mind that if something is placed out before you where you think it's a good deal and you look at it and the other things aside, some people would place a pretty high value on it as a pretty good deal. You get the park servicing this region of the community if you splice that out, so to speak...and you're still needing...thousand dollars to do things elsewhere. But then again...parkland in this region and then again severing this region to the north which is not depicted on the overlay, be it the Carlson property north...It certainly arises an issue on the values placed on each one. It's a difficult position which you're placed in to make a decision. What's going to be the best for the community. Best solution for the community... Lash: Well I guess I have a comment and we can probably pussy foot around this all night long but if we want to get right to the, cut to the chase here. The private versus the public park is one of the conditions of the sale of the property. We need to consider as a commission if that has any bearing on our decision. And it's putting us I think in a difficult situation. We hate to be the people to pull the plug on a whole development that's coming in but our decision basically has the power to do that. And maybe we need to look at some kind of other options and do some brainstorming type things, and I have complete respect for the private property owner. I have total respect for the Carlson's and the Song's. It's their property. They can do what they want with it. And if they don't want a public park in, and that's a condition of the sale, I don't look at that right now as being my problem. What we need to look at is what is going to service the residents. Serve the residents of our city. If this condition is something that the Carlson's, while they are property owners, are feeling very strong about, we need to ,.... 29 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 30 -' respect that but maybe it's something that we can look at as a future solution that if the Carlsons were no longer the property owner, the title could revert to the city. Because that would be a condition of our's at the development of his property or the sale of his property because I look at that as basically the whole crux of this problem. It's a deal breaker and if it's not something that the Carlson's and the Song's are flexible on, and you know Mr. Carlson had good comments on the draw of this property of this park. Who's going to come to it? I think he did the same, he was the perfect spokesperson for us. We were saying it's not going to be drawing in throngs of people from all over the metro area and so therefore that's where we have the problem with not making it be public because we can't understand the problem with it. If the fear is that it's going to be bring in lots of traffic or undesireable people, I dont't think that you're going to see that as the case. As Larry said earlier, and I think you stated it yourself, the only people who are going to come are going to be the people who live fairly close. Jerome Carlson: May I respond to you? Lash: Yeah. And maybe you're open to some suggestions, and I don't know how much you guys have hashed this over. Maybe you've talked it over to death, I don't know but. ...."" Jerome Carlson: I need to clarify. I gave an impression which was not accurate. As I have explained to Terry this evening, and the Song's and I have spoke, I think it's important for the Song's and for myself to make the Song's and my position real clear. We don't know if a public park would necessarily be a deal breaker. If a public park were the decision of the Commission, we would be absolutely opposed to this location because that is not, that would be a deal breaker. We don't want the public park in a place that can be looking into our living room windows. That's not why we bought that land. It's not why we paid all the money we paid and pay all the taxes that we pay. Would the location of a public park somewhere else on the property break the deal? That would probably be largely up to the Lundgren's. They're paying the money and I spoke with Todd. My comments to Todd, there were 3 things that the Song's and the Carlson's were primarily concerned about. If there was going to be a public park in the final analysis, that it would be in a location that would not be viewed or in fact be disruptive to the serenity that we are working hard and paying for to protect. Right around that wetland. Second, that it not have lights. Todd's indication to me was that there may be other alternatives and there would be no lights. And third, that if the Lundgren 30 ...."" """" Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 31 Bros viewed that as a deal breaker, then we would be opposed to that because the Song's clearly have wrestled with the issue of selling their property a great deal and have come to grips with that and have chosen another homesite on the north end of the property. The Song's never asked for the MUSA line to be around their property. That was not their hope. That was not their dream. They never solicited the city. They never came down and supported it one meeting. It simply happened to them. So now they are responding to that and there are forces at work with pipe lines and sewer lines and what have you that need to be dealt with and this whole thing is kind of a big issue, part of which is the question of the park. So I want to make it clear what our position is on the park. We felt this was a fine location for an association park because it would be smaller and it would be bermed and treed in a manner and it wouldn't have the traffic that one could expect that close to Galpin if it were in fact an open public park. And we agreed with that. Schroers: Mr. Carlson I don't, I hope we're not giving the impression here that when we talk public park we're talking about clearing land and flattening out and putting in ballfields and ~. lights. We are saying that the concept of that park is desireable. It's nice in the location. The amenities that you're offering would be fine. We don't have a problem with it. The only problem we have is calling it private. Just make it a public park and that's that. We're not thinking about putting in ballfields and lights and that sort of thing in there. Your plan, your concept is fine. The only thing that we can't buy is private other than public. I mean we just cannot do that. Lash: And if Lundgren is willing, Lundgren Bros is willing to move it to a site that's acceptable to you, I don't have a problem with that at all. Jerome Carlson: I don't know that that's the case. I think they've already got commitments for a park on the other side and my impression is that by providing that uniqueness of the tennis courts and the private park as a part of what people want today, therefore it becomes a marketing tool. As a businessman I can completely understand that approach. Give people what they really are going to use and want and you're going to have good customers and I think that's what I see them doing in this process. Trying to assure themselves that it will have the kinds of amenities that people are really wanting and needing. If there's 4-4 1/2 acres dedicated to a city park, if I remember my conversation with Todd, in lieu of any fees of any kind, there's no date by which it's known that that park would in fact ever be furnished. ,..... 31 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 32 ....", And so you know when I look at this I say, take the money and run and with all due respect to Mr. Stockdale, if he's willing to sell his land to a developer for $24,000.00 or $25,000.00 or $30,000.00 an acre, why would you care if you sold it to the park committee? Who do you care who you sell it to if you get, as the initial landowner, if you get what you want. I'm not trying to speak for you. It just doesn't make sense to me that you would be extraplating this out as to the value to a developer once it was developed. Schroers: He's talking his acreage is 17 acres. We're buying 5 of it. He doesn't have enough acreage then left over to develop. It ruins his whole development. We just continually run into this and the same thing that you're telling us we've heard from Opus and everybody else that wants to develop in this city. Take our money and buy someone else's property. I mean I think that it's really generous to offer someone else's property. We can't buy that. I'm telling you, we cannot sit here and do that. No way. Jerome Carlson: Then I would at least suggest to you that you take a look at the property and decide, is this the right property to try to bulldoze and flatten and put a real useable park in for the public? I maintain. ,....lii Schroers: We're saying that that's not the type of park that we need or want there. We need a neighborhood park. We're not talking about bringing in any bulldozers and leveling and building ballfields and putting up lights. Your concept for the park, Lundgren Bros concept for the park is fine. It would work out, no problem. The only problem is the private and the public. There's the problem right there. It's just that simple. Jerome Carlson: Well I hope I've made our feelings clear. We are, the private/public thing is not a serious issue to us. If it's public, the location is a serious issue up front and if it's a deal breaker in Lundgren's mind, then it becomes a serious issue. I don't know that that's the case. I really don't. Lash: Thanks for clarifying that. We needed to hear that. Schroers: Okay. Mr. Hoffman. Hoffman: In an attempt to, as we look at the potential scenarios which could be concluded here, I think it's my responsibility to flush out some issues that you would be faced with. Let's take a look at if the association park were to be public. If that would be an alternative. That would then most likely, due to 32 -' "...., Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 33 precedence setting and handling park and trail fee credit, that then for the acquisition from the use of that property as a public park space, you would pay the penalty of crediting the park and trail fees, or the park fees, excuse me, as a part of that development. So again that would come into play. It would be a penalty. We would have to most likely credit those dollars for the land acquisition itself and the applicant is correct in stating then that we're faced with as a commission and as a city with developing the property. So it comes down to a very difficult value judgment on where you place that value in taking a look and considering all those different resources and all those different issues as you think through the process. Andrews: Just briefly, we talked about $138,000.00 of park fees, plus what we'd have to spend to develop it. I think we're looking at a quarter of a million dollars if we were going to build that park ourselves. And have it ready to use. Schroers: Okay, we're going to take one more statement here and then we're going to move on. ~ Andrews: We have some new people here too. Schroers: Okay. One moment please. Charles Song: I'm Charles Song. I'm the owner of that property concern. Since my neighbors all expressed their concerns, so I think I should express my own too. Mr. Carlson has stated my concern and my wife's concern very well. I think I need not add much to it. But just my major concern is that since this area is, does not have a flat place and it's very difficult to be a public park there, and if for some reason you force Lundgren Bros to go back on the deal and if our sale does not go through, that's our concern. Then I think the area will not be developed for quite a while. I think Lundgren Bros is a very good developer and that's why we chose to sell it to them. And if this becomes the deal breaker, then I think it will probably take a while, maybe I don't know how many years, before this will come up again and then it will remain undeveloped. Thank you. Schroers: This is the final say and then we're going to have to move on this issue in order to get along with, move onto other city business. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Parks Commission. I just want to make a couple comments here. There's a misnomer in belief that because you have a large piece of property that you ,.... 33 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 34 '-' can afford to do something like this and if you only have 20 acres and develop, that it's going to impact that person more. It's a deal breaker as much for our development, even though it's 100 acres, as it is for somebody who's developing 20. Lay people who are not in my business may not understand that but originally when park dedication fees, from the philosophy behind that was established years and years ago and the statutes were passed giving the city the authority to utilize that too to collect monies, there was some balance in it. And the Park Director can support that I'm sure because we've talked about it. But Mr. Stockdale stated that if that 5 acres was taken from him, it not only was the cost of the land. There's the cost of lost profit that is lost as a result of the taking. Now that same thing occurs whether you have 100 acres or 200 acres or 400 acres. Now if you look at the Song property, this is something I didn't get into because I wasn't sure if you'd care, but maybe you do care. This is not a normal piece of property from a physical constraint analysis. You can clearly see how much of the property is wetland...Most of this open terrain makes it valuable. Okay now when we go out and buy property, those of you who follow us for years, we try to...we try to buy the absolute best piece of property we can. We pay a premium for the property...but when you look at the net developable acreage and you take the total... you can't use, then if you look at your price per acre, it would shock you. The numbers you were hitting around here tonight would be a joke. I wish I could buy property for that. You can't. So the point...there's this incredible risk when a company like ours tries to make what is not a vanilla neighborhood because we have no desire to create a vanilla neighborhood. There's plenty of other land developers out there that are happy to do that. What we're trying to do is we're willing to go the extra mile and have some time...to put in the most unique things and obviously the city...so what we try to do, to minimize our exposure to risk...minimize that risk, all of a sudden the deal is nowhere near where it was when...I'd like to pose the question, if Lundgren Bros was able. Again, I'm not exactly sure what kind of park you're looking for or if there's some other type of a unique thing that would...and you would consider that an alternative. But maybe Lundgren Bros, because of the total amount of land that we have to...Maybe there's someway we can come up with some other thing that the Park Commission would look at and say well you know, if we can't get a public park there, maybe Lundgren Bros can come up with some other idea...all the residents of Chanhassen. And I was sitting here listening to all of you and I'm thinking about it and I thought of a couple ideas...andyou might say you know, maybe Lundgren Bros couldn't do this but they could do this and they -"" 34 ...",I "..... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 35 came up with this idea and if they're willing to do that for public benefit and not private, maybe we'd look differently... And it just hit me as I was sitting here so I really haven't had time to develop and think about it and I haven't had a chance to talk to Peter about it but maybe what I could ask to do is table action on this tonight. Give me a chance to sit down with staff and make some adjustments and then see what they think about it and if they think it's good, maybe we could bring it back... Schroers: I would consider that. I think that that would be a smart thing to do since this is such an important issue. I think that if you like your plan the way it's proposed to us and you want to put those amenities, the tennis court, the basketball court, and all that in your development and sell it to us as is, all you have to do is label that park public. Don't have to advertise it. You don't have to encourage outside people to come in there. I mean that to me is a quick easy sell. Just designate that as public park and we would love to see that development there. If you want to work out some other options with staff, we'd love to see something that staff would be in favor of and we would like and you would like and I'm willing to ask for a motion ~ to table this, if that's what you'd like to do. Lash: So moved. Berg: Second. Schroers: Due to a possible conflict of interest, Chairman Andrews is not going to vote on this item. Okay, so it's been motioned and seconded. Lash moved, Berq seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table action on the land development proposal for 115 sinqle family lots on the Sonq property. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Andrews who did not vote because of a conflict of interest, and the motion carried. Terry Forbord: Thank you very much. Just one final comment. I hope that you all accept my apology that I gave earlier this evening. Again, we regret the situation. It's our goal as professionals and certainly as adults to not have these things happen and so I ask each of you, if you would consider that and please accept it and it won't happen again. Schroers: I think you can consider your apology accepted and we would just like to work hard with everybody involved to end up with the best final product here possible. But remember that we ,.... 35 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 36 ......." have a framework that we have to. Berg: I guess one other thing I'd like you to think about, when you're talking to staff. What I'm hearing is that the practicality of the park that you're proposing and the site you're proposing...certainly respect those too. I guess I wish you'd look at the concept or the thought of a public park somewhere else in the development as a possibility. Andrews: Terry, is the plat finalized for that Turner/Dolejsi property? Terry Forbord: It's in the process of final plat. Andrews: Just glancing at the contour map, is there an area roughly in the center where the two properties adjoint that's relatively, more flat? Terry Forbord: To be honest with you, this is a, and staff will concur with this. Especially engineering department because they've had to live with it too. It's a really unusual piece of property. There's hardly any flat area anywhere on it except for right by TH 41. I mean it's just a very. Lash: What about by the time you're done? Terry Forbord: Well obviously there will be some grading that occurs. The intent on obviously from our standpoint is to always minimize grading because it ends up costing a lot of money and we realize we've learned through years of experience that we're best to leave it as natural as possible. Thank you very much for your consideration. ......., Berg: I'd like to know too the practicality of any other land that could be developed...sowe know what potential we have in other sites. LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: 20 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF HERON DRIVE ON THE ESAT SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD. SHENANDOAH RIDGE. SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT. Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers and Commission members. I would like to move 5 behind 6 and 7. I need to apologize to Mr. Todd Owens who is here this evening. Between noon and 3:30, the timing of the Lundgren presentation went from 7:30 to 9:30 and back a couple of times. Inbetween that time I had talked to Mr. 36 -' ~ I""""'- ,-. Park and Rec commission July 27, 1993 - Page 37 Owens and said Lundgren is going to be on at 9:30 thus he would be early on the agenda. Mr. Greg Reed is also here for item number 6 so if we can take those two successively, I would appreciate that. Schroers: Okay, very good. We will put item 5 on hold and we will go to item 6 first and then 7. Is that fine? LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 4 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6301 CHURCH ROAD. CHURCH ROAD ADDITION. GREG REED. Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers. This is a plat to subdivide 4 acres into 4 single family lots on property zoned residential single family. Again it's Church Road Addition. This is very near to Cathcart Park which is just across Church Road and to the north slightly, depending on how you look at the configuration of the 4 acres. Adjacent zonings are all residential single family. The City's comprehensive plan identifies that Cathcart Park located immediately across the street fulfills the city's park requirement standard for the Church Road Addition. In regard to comprehensive trail plan. The city's trail plan does not identify any trails immediately adjacent to that property. The property being subdivided. Church Road however is the natural connection between the north railroad corridor trail, which is currently in place and being utilized by the public, and the Minnewashta Parkway trail not being constructed. If there ever was a reason, it's not a good crossing point obviously at Highway 7 but you will surely find that some people will want to come out of the West Minnewashta region, cross the road and come up Church Road and then get onto the trailway. From staff's perspective, typically that probably would be bicyclists who would not bother them to ride on on street anyway but I wanted to bring it to the commission's attention for discussion if you so choose. The recommendation made by staff this evening in regards to parks and trails, is that full park and trail fees be accepted as a part of the platting the Church Road Addition. These fees to be collected at the rate in force upon building permit application for each of the applications made. Current park and trail fees are $600.00 and $200.00 respectively. Furthermore, it is recommended that the Commission consider the merits including Church Road as in the comprehensive trail plan as stated earlier. Lash: So you're just recommending that we ask for trail easement along there or trail construction or what? Hoffman: No. Just to consider adding it to the comprehensive 37 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 38 ......,JI plan. We don't have a plan to put a trail there so asking for an easement would not be justified and the small portion of frontage which this applicant has on Church Road, which is on the east side of Church Road, is a small issue comparatively speaking. If a trail would go in there, it most likely would go on the west side because of all the park frontage. Makes it easy to acquire the rights to put that trail in. Schroers: Would the applicant object to the easement? Greg Reed: No. I wouldn't object to it. Schroers: Okay. Any further commission discussion? I'm ready to entertain a motion. Berg: I recommend that full park and trail fees be accepted as part of the platting of the Church Road Addition. That these fees to be collected at the rate in force upon building permit application. Andrews: What about the easements? Do you want to have that too? Berg: Also that the Commission consider the merits of including a Church Road trail connection to the regional railroad corridor trail in the city's comprehensive plan and how would I add about the easement? ..." Andrews: You did but instead of having us consider it, why don't you just have us request the easement. Berg: Okay, request the easement. Schroers: Okay, is there a second? Lash: Second. Berg moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept full park and trail fees as part of the platting of the Church Road Addition. These fees to be collected at the rate in force upon building permit application. Furthermore, it is recommended that the commission request an easement for including a Church Road trail connection to the Regional Railroad Corridor Trail in the city's comprehensive Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 38 --' ,...., Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 39 Hoffman: That's it. And Greg, just for clarification. That easement then would be recorded upon the property if a trail ever was constructed and went on the other side of the road. Greg Reed: ...and how big is that? Hoffman: 20 foot easement. Greg Reed: Do I put that in... Hoffman: Correct. It would be recorded as part of the plat. And then that would become a condition of approval of the planning report. LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. VACATION OF PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON HOPI ROAD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 50.443 SO.FT. PARCEL INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6661 NEZ PERCE. TJO ADDITION. TODD OWENS. " Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, Commission members. They just keep getting smaller. Now we're talking about square feet, not acreages. This is what you would call a remnent parcel of a developable land within a residential neighborhood. Present zoning is residential single family. All adjacent zonings are similar. The location is very near to Carver Beach Park, as the location map. Is there a location map included? Or was that admitted. I apologize for that admission. I'll put. Lash: You know what, it's attached to the packet before. Or wait a minute. Maybe it's the one before that. It's number 5. Hoffman: Collating problem...Carver Beach Park is located then just across Nez Perce and to the south about 600 feet. That, Carver Beach Park does fulfill the city's park requirement standards as identified in the city's comprehensive plan. To get our bearings. Carver Beach Park would be located to the south of here. South and west actually. If any Commissions have questions on where we are, Larry you probably know where it is. Schroers: Yeah. Hoffman: In regard to trails, the city's comprehensive trail plan does not identify any trails immediately adjacent to this subdivision. There is a narrative attached that you could read if you're interested. Recommendation in regard to parks and trails. It's recommended that full park and trail fees be accepted as a part of the platting of the TJO Addition. These .,-... 39 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 40 --' fees to be collected at a rate in force upon buiding permit application and the current, just for information sake, are $600.00 and $200.00 respectively. Schroers: I think on this item we could just say so moved and is there a second. Andrews: I'll second. Sohroers moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation commission recommend that full park and trail fees be accepted a a part of the platting of the TJO Addition. These fees to be collected at the rate in force upon building permit application. All voted in favor and the motion carried. LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 20 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF HERON DRIVE ON THE EAST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD. SHENANDOAH RIDGE. SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT. Hoffman: This is rezoning of 11.5 acres of property currently zoned planned unit development and agricultural estate to rural single family and a preliminary plat to subdivide that same 11.5 acres into 20 single family lots. The title.of the plat is Shenandoah Ridge. The location, have you found the location? This is just south of Heron Drive, off of Audubon. The west entrance to Lake Susan Hills West. Heron Drive and then just immediately south is the William Molnau property known as the... property in question. I think the adjacent zonings are clear in regard to the comprehensive plan. The site is located in close proximity to Power Hill Park and Sunset Ridge Park. The proposed Osprey Lane, as you can see on the blue line print there, will eventually connect to the existing Osprey Lane of Lake Susan Hills West. Once that connection is made, upon entering the Lake Susan Hills West, a trail connection to Power Hill is available within 1,000 feet. So you enter Lake Susan West, travel the ring road there, there's a trail stub which comes out and provides you access to Power Hill Park. Access to Sunset Ridge Park would require a walk or bicycle ride of 1/3 mile. In regard to the trail plan, the comprehensive trail plan does identify a trail abutting this proposed plat along Audubon Road. The trail currently terminates just south of, or excuse me. Just north of the subdivision at Heron Drive, as mentioned earlier. The existing trail is constructed, to the best of my knowledge at this time approximately 1 foot outside the residential property line in the right-Of-way of Audubon Road. Recommendations in this regard. It is recommended that land acquisition not be pursued in favor of park fees. And then the fees to be collected ~ 40 ~ ".. Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 41 r- at time of building permit application at the rate in force. Just a point of clarification and asside. You'll hear that in my recommendations time and time again but it is going to become very important as park and trail fees are probably going to escalate fairly quickly over the next few years. So it becomes important to clarify that fees to be paid at the rate then in force upon building permit application. The city has found itself in a position where park and trail fees have been quoted at todays rate. That's gone into the development contract. Four years down the road you're stuck with that rate so that's the reasoning for that. Trails. It is recommended that as a condition of approval of the Shenandoah Ridge, the applicant shall construct a portion of the city's comprehensive trail system previously described in it's report. Specifically that being from the southern curb of Heron Drive to the terminus of Lot 4, Block 2. That's at the southern reaches of the development. This trail to be 8 feet in width with bituminous surfacing per standard city specifications. In consideration for this construction, trail and park fees will be reduced by an amount equal to the cost of construction. The reason for that language is trail fees are not going to cover that construction. Said cost to be determined by the application for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. Current park and trail fees again are $600.00 and $200.00 per single family unit respectively. I did receive a call from a representative of John Oliver and Associates today. They did not dispute staff's recommendation and were comfortable with that recommendation. Andrews: Can we do a so moved again? Hoffman: Sure. Andrews: So moved. Schroers: Second. Andrews moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation commission recommend to accept full park fees in lieu of land acquisition. Fees to be collected at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. The application shall construct a portion of the city's comprehensive trail system previously described in the report. specifically from the southern curb of Heron Drive to the southern terminus of Lot 4, Block 2. This trail to be 8 feet in width with bituminous surfacing per standard city specifications. In consideration for this construction, trail and park fees will be reduced by an amount equal to the cost of construction. Said costs to be ,... 41 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 42 .....",. determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. Current park and trail fees are $600.00 and $200.00 per single family unit respectively. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ESTABLISH AN AGENDA FOR THE 1993 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, that is your item. Andrews: I've got several. Schroers: Go ahead. start with Jim. Andrews: This is one I've talked about before and that is talking to the City Council about providing a city budget funding for replacement and maintenance of our equipment that we're now buying with our capital improvement funds on an ongoing basis. I know that virtually all cities are operating that way and I feel that as we add more and more parks, it's going to become more and more important that we have a budget for that purpose. My second item was, and I don't know how the timing of this would work but would be to discuss with the Council their participation in the Lake Minnewashta Park. The new proposed park. I think that's got to be really important. Third item has to do with the Highway 5 project and that would be trying to relay our wishes as far a the quality and types of underpasses and bridges that would be part of that project. What we'd like to see. And the third item I had was a park and trail fee increase. Four things. -"" Berg: I would agree too. The one I would add to that I think in terms of priority to make sure the City Council understands how important we see the development with District #112 with the new park by the new elementary school. I know going with the meeting we had last week, they need some direction from us. I think we have to give that to them. Very, very clearly and strongly that we want to see the city go together with the district and work on a community park up there. Lash: I would want to add to that. I think the point of 2 hours worth of conversation is, in the future if we would like to make a condition that the developers do more development at the direction of the Park and Recreation Commission at the time of their construction of their development. And as long as we spent so much time talking about the merits of private versus public tonight, maybe we should get a little input from city Council and 42 .....", ,.... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 43 see if we're on the same track as they are or if they would be more open to that idea than we appear to be. Andrews: Kind of along with what Jan was saying about maybe altering what is customarily required from our developers. I know some of our motions were adding things like benching of the trails. Grading of lots and perhaps that should now become just standard city ordinance rather than an addendum to our motion. It saves us money. It saves us discussing it over and over again. It also puts the expectation out in public and out in front of the developer. So they just know that that's expected. Lash: Well I think Lundgren Bros and Mr. Carlson both said, we need to start working more with the private sector and maybe that means making higher expectations from them. Schroers: And what I would like to see discussed of avenues of possible park funding from the city's general fund. See if we can get allocated some monies to work with. Hoffman: Jim's number one. "....... Andrews: It sort of is but it's more detailed perhaps. We have developed a lot as a city and I think we have to start comparing ourselves to cities that have also gone through the same growth process and what our target population is versus what our current population is. I guess I look at Eden prairie in particular and I see their constant development and improvement of their parks. I get very frustrated with the way that we're funded and I feel like it's, we're not given a real fair opportunity at the city's tax revenue as our city grows. I'm kind of lecturing here but I think the Council needs to re-evaluate where we're at as a city as far as how we fund our park development. That's why that's important to me. Manders: One other big item, and I don't know if this is the time to talk about it being it's come up so many other times. But the community center...anything be resolved in that whole line of discussion. Andrews: We can certainly ask to be consulted before they have a design next time. Lash: I think we were this time. Schroers: Any other ideas? ,.... 43 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 44 -' Roeser: Is there anything still open on the Bandimere Park? terms of what we can do or options? In Schroers: You mean with the trade? I think the trade is a done dea I . Andrews: It's a dead deaL Schroers: Yeah. Andrews: It's a dead done deal. Roeser: That's the impression I got and that's where it's being left then? Okay. Hoffman: But staff is still pursuing the potential of acquisition of adjoining properties as the property to the north develops. The question of funding certainly still remains for development. Schroers: Okay. Anything else on for an agenda item? If not. Andrews: Anything, Todd do you have anything? ...."I Hoffman: I didn't take the opportunity to think through that. As I go through here certainly if we can get through all of these, that's enough. If there's one that sticks in my mind I will make mention of it. I will inform the Commission of when that will be scheduled. I'm not sure if the Council is going to prefer a before Councilor before Park Commission night or if they're going to prefer a separate night. Do you have any preference on location? Where do you feel comfortable? Schroers: This is the easiest. Lash: I feel that if it's scheduled before a Council meeting or before our meeting, we're going to be really rushed. Andrews: I agree. We need a separate time. Hoffman: An off night. In all fairness to the Council, I have discussed the issue of the supplementary funding from the general tax revenues during budget hearings with the Council. We have not presented it from a Park and Recreation Commission perspective so I think they'll receptive and interested to hear but budgetary times are, with the breaking new ground, certainly when budgets are developed, to increase something in one place, 44 --' ,... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 45 you have to justify the increase because something else is going to get reduced so that's going to be our. Andrews: I just think it's really important that we just have to keep after it. I mean it's all, you're right. We're working with a fixed number of dollars and it's an allocation decision and you get allocation by showing that your need is more severe than somebody elses and I don't feel that we could make any mistake by talking to the Council and saying it is a problem and it's going to get to be a bigger and bigger problem. Berg: We might not get it the first time but we've got to start. Schroers: Okay. Well we've got enough to work on there to keep us busy for a work session no doubt. SECOND QUARTER PARK AND TRAIL FEE REVENUE REPORT. PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30. 1993. ",...... Hoffman: I'll simply answer any questions tnat the Commission members have. Again we've got budgeted revenues of $185,000.00. Collected to date, 69, close to $70,000.00 so that is below, percentage wise it's below our 50% end of the year but I participated in a meeting today with the issue of the National Weather Service coming in as part of the Chan Business Center. There's $30,000.00 in park fees on line there, if that project becomes a reality so. Schroers: Okay, good. Any questions from the commission members? 1993 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION EVALUATION. Ruegemer: I'm sure you've all reviewed the evaluations. At this time I guess I'm going to go through every event stated. If there's any specific questions that the commission members might have pertaining to a certain portion of the 4th of July or this document, I would entertain those questions... Lash: I have a couple of questions and comments. The first thing is, what's the Happy Hurricane? I didn't even know what that was. Ruegemer: The Happy Hurricane was kind of the Moonwalk... Lash: Oh okay. I underlined the comment here where it says, turkey franks weren't great, and that's being polite. Don't ever do that again. And then when you were talking about people .1""" 45 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 46 ...." leaving early. I noticed that too and I think, did we, I hate to ask this question but did we spray for mosquitoes? Hoffman: No, we did not. It's against your policy. Lash: I know. Because that was part of the problem. I mean the mosquitoes were horrible. Hoffman: Plenty of mosquitoes, no doubt. Lash: And then I thought, if part of your goal was to get people to stay around longer or if you want to end it earlier, I guess it doesn't matter to me but you know a lot of people leave right after the prize board is over. So we could prolong that a little bit if you want to have people last longer. I don't know. And then, I had another thing too. For the schedule for next year where you've got Friday night the street dance and then Saturday and then Sunday is nothing? Ruegemer: Saturday there will be events and Sunday would be. Lash: Right, Sunday was nothing. SO what if you looked at the schedule as being Saturday the dance, and then Sunday the family kids games and then Monday the same as what you had scheduled. And also that ties in with people leaving early. I think half the people have worked all day Friday. They're shot and they start to run out of gas about 11:00 and trickle home. So if you want to keep people there until midnight and keep the band, then maybe move it to Saturday instead, unless that's a problem with the band. ..."" Ruegemer: No, I don't think...at this point but I guess as Dawn and I worked through this evaluation we tried to kind of map out some different scenarios. Next year kind of maps out the same way this year did as far as kind of being an extended, you know if people are taking an extended or long weekend. I think they're more apt to stay Friday night versus...or wherever they might go for 4th of July weekend. Stay that night and then leave in the morning versus staying Friday night and again Saturday night...but into the plans for the weekend. So we tried to make our, I guess our biggest or our premiere event on the 4th of July and keep that a night when people might be more apt to attend. But we're certainly open for suggestions at this point. This is just a real rough schedule or a tool that we can use for next year. Hoffman: Got no facts to base that upon. 46 ..."". ".... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 47 Lash: Either they stay in town for the whole caboddle or they leave Friday night, I think. But if I was going out of town, I wouldn't just stay for the street dance. I'd be gone Friday night but. Meger: Just a general comment about the kiddie parade and the start time. I heard a lot of people talking in the parking lot that they had seen it at two different times and two difference places. One said I think at 5:30 in the paper and then a brochure that was distributed...so there was some confusion there. Hoffman: We were aware of that unfortunately. Meger: My one comment and you were aware of it. Lash: I think there was a little mixup with the newspaper wasn't there? Hoffman: Yep. r-. Schroers: Anything further? I heard, unfortunately I was my basement most 4th of July positive comments so. I think all and all everything that involved with getting water out of weekend but I heard generally very Ruegemer: Commission Schroers too, I'd like to thank all the commission members too that did help out with the celebration. We certainly appreciate going above and beyond the...thank everybody again for assisting in that overall success. Roeser: I thought I read something about having a booth or something as a possibility for next year. Ruegemer: We had, Dawn and I discussed that. Going through the evaluation process of getting involved with the trade fair... I"""'" (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Hoffman: ...to the north there on the grass. I think that would be a huge draw because as staff and volunteers and we have a difficult time meeting the demand for those type of amenities. And what I encourage staff to do is try to contract or make arrangements to do is have as much done for us as possible on ~~~:: ~~~~.type o~ events. If we can contract with a supplier of 1e carn1vals. Have them come in and t the thing on a ticket basis or whatever, I thin~ewe~~ea~~i~~erate 47 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 48 --' ourselves a service and I think we're doing the public a service as part of the event. They just love those things. They eat them up. They can't get enough of those little kiddie games. Schroers: I would add that onto the agenda for consideration for the 1994 4th of July celebration and also we need to talk about whether or not we should allow vendors in that event. Lash: I've always been a proponent to the kiddie carnival because I always liked it without that trap. That parents get sucked into. I mean it's just a money trap and I just hate that because your kids just two buck you to death on those things, you know. And even the, I always sound like such a cheapscape don't I, but I am. But the NASA ride cost me $6.00 you know and it's just one thing I've always liked about these city things is you can go up there and there's some activities for the kids and the adults can sit around and visit and it doesn't have to cost you $40.00 to go up there and pop for your kids to go on every ride 10 times. And my kids have always really, really liked the little games and I like that too. They can go and play for a quarter and it keeps them busy all night long. I would prefer just have a few more games and skip the rides but I'm open to argue with anybody about it next year so. --' Schroers: Yeah, as long as it's on the agenda we can. Lemme: If I could say something. If we're considering a carnival, especially for 4th of July weekend... Andrews: Let's put it on as quick as we can then. Lemme: I would say within the next couple months. Andrews: Maybe we could get a provider to come in and give us some idea of. Schroers: Also about the vendors on there as well. It's an issue that came up that we're going to be confronting at some point in time. We may as well get a head start on it. ~ott~an~ 1 think the Commission's going to find it hard to stay out of the free, not free debate too so you're welcome to get involved in that. 48 .."" ,..... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 49 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A. RESPONSE FROM EARL F. ANDERSON/LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC. PLAYGROUND SAFETY. Hoffman: Item 11 represents an important item for what you would call documentation of allegations presented against the city in regard to safety of playground. The letter which went out to Earl F. Anderson included, I think it's 24 pictures. 23 pictures of alleged allegations which were brought to the attention of the Park and Receation Department so the letter is there addressing that. The responses, I've reviewed them. I find the responses justifiable or in line with what I see happening in those pictures. But again it is an important issue. One which we cannot take lightly and one that I continue not to take lightly in light of all the new regulations. CPSC. We just got through with a new 1991 CPSC guidelines and now there will be some new guidelines called ASTM's coming out in the late fall of 1993 so we need to keep abreast of those type of situations. r- Lash: that. that? So their comments like installation issue or things like Are we dealing with, is the maintenance staff dealing with Hoffman: Correct. The one, number 5, an installation issue was where they had some parallel rungs, handbars where when they matched up the two components they were off an inch and a half so they put in a 2 x 4. Now you'd be hard pressed, or 2 x 6 to make that. You'd be hard pressed to find a problem with that in a court of law, in my opinion but it simply was alleged that this is a problem and this is the response. I'm comfortable with it. Andrews: Was the person that pointed out all these defiencies somebody that was involved in the sale or marketing of landscape equipment or services? Hoffman: Yes. No questions in that regard, I think 11, the second issue as a part of 11(a) is in regard to signage. And again here I received a call from a concerned resident and business person in town discussing an issue of, that the city's play apparatus locations are not signed for age appropriateness. Thus when, I think his children happen to be 2 1/2 year old twins. 2 year old twins and the caller stated that they did not think the equipment was appropriate for their children or the children they were supervising to be playing on it. They came down the slides too fast. They couldn't reach the rungs, etc. When asked what corrective action the city was going to take, my ,.... 49 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 50 -' initial response was that the caller had said they were the supervisor of these children and that they did not think the equipment was appropriate. Thus they had an option there to make the choice not to allow the childrento play on it. But I wanted the opinion because the CPSC guidelines do make reference to signage and age appropriateness. Thus I asked the opinion of the supplier of all the equipment that the city represents, not including the school site, and that is Earl F. Anderson Landscape structures. Thus here you have the response where they would not recommend that we sign the sites because then you start putting out potentially confusing, conflicting information. It costs a lot of money, etc. That's, all I have there. Schroers: Okay. Are you ready to move to the summer program update? B. SUMMER PROGRAM UPDATE. Dawn Lemme gave this summer program update, which was not picked up by the microphones. c. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT: FALL/WINTER 1993. Dawn Lemme gave a presentation on this item, which was not picked up by the microphones. ...." Lash: Last year didn't you have an idea of having, not a flea market but where people could bring produce and like that to sell. Lemme: We did have a... Schroers: How about a softball tournament along with the September fest? Ruegemer: That's usually been coordinated in the past on that same weekend... Lash: It does go into the evening already doesn't it? You want it to go longer? Lemme: In the past we've... Hoffman: We've made arrangement for a two band situation so the umpa bands in there from the dinner hour and then we pick it up with the Killer Hayseeds. Keep the action rolling a little bit. In regard to the farmer's market, we can invite all of the 50 -"" ,..... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 51 individual farmer market people that are around the communities here to come in and do a one day vending option. senior citizens. Roeser: Senior citizens would love that idea. Hoffman: They've been approached. Lash: I mean they could do like canning and pies and I mean you could have all kinds of stuff like that couldn't you? Or crafts. ...Like crocheted things and whatever kinds of things they do. Hoff~an: The petting zoo and the horse rides are coming back, so that will be a part of it. We'll be involved with the Lion's on concessions. Again it will, in the past I think we've had two service lines which has been a drawback. We're going to work with the Lions to try and make that thing flow a little more smoothly. ",..... Lash: Maybe we could throw in there, did I read this or, somewhere I thought it was something from school but like a Taste of Chanhassen. Maybe that could pull in Larrys' idea of vendors. Where they could have, you know you could have Subway and Frankie's and Guy's and all those guys come in and have little samples that people could use tickets to buy samples of their things or maybe they'd want to give it away free as promotional things. You could get the ice cream shop. You could pull that in there instead of the 4th of July maybe. Hoffman: We've had that discussion at a staff level. The problem you have with it is breaks from tradition. The Lions really have come to patting themselves that they are the vendor to make the money. If you bring in a Taste of Chanhassen, typically in those type of situations, I think in our conversations, you have 10-15 booths set up where that is the food for the evening. You go in there, you pay for it, you buy it. Thus you've cut the Lions out of the deal. Except you could make them the exclusive beverage sponsor which is a big part of it but we would need to approach the Lions and work with them in that regard and that's where we left it. If you think it's a good idea. If you'd like us to pursue it, we will do that. Schroers: I think we should look at it and just close enough to see if, the type of vendors that would be interested would really offer the Lions any significant competition. Lash: Another thing I'd like to throw out for the fall/winter program. Kids touch football, and I know it's been attempted .r" 51 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 52 -" before and had to be scratched for lack of participation but I wouldn't mind seeing it thrown out again just to see what happens. I think this year was the start of the new Little League in Chan. It shows that that age bracket is maybe expanding now where maybe we would end up with enough interest to have one. I know we went to Chaska last year for it and there were other kids from Chan who had done that. Oh wait, another thing. For Teen Night Out. I remember last year it was getting, the numbers were getting pretty high. If you think that that's a potential problem in keeping control over it, with chaperones and all of that, maybe you want to look at breaking it into grade brackets or something where you have, you could keep your numbers down and maybe keep a little more control going on. . Schroers: Anything else on ll(c)? D. 1994 BUDGET PROCESS PREVIEW. Hoffman: ll(d) is an item which I would like to take comments from the commission in regard to questions or resources which you feel you need to discuss the budgetary process. But in addition to this item there are going to be other items which I will review quickly this evening, which need the attention of the commission, which we obviously cannot get through this evening. The other particular one being the school site, which Commissioner Berg can respond to or enlighten you. On last Monday the Council only had representation by one commission member, Commissioner Berg. Thus I asked this issue of the school site and the recreation component to go back to the Park Commission to be discussed to come up with some resolutions which then can be passed back to the City Council. The big problem is, we're just on a timeframe which even to go the 2 weeks which will get us to the next special Park and Recreation Commission meeting, tentative date is pushing things so Commissioner Berg, if you want to. ...." Berg: There really isn't an awful lot more to add. Just an opportunity that was presented to be able to take, what is it 2.3 and combine it with the school district funds and create quite an incredible park. If the city is willing to commit the TIF dollars. The McGlynn TIF dollars towards that end. They're concerned whether or not they want to do that obviously. They need some feedback from Park and Rec as to whether or not we think that would be important. Schroers: I think that should be on the agenda item for the work session. 52 ...." "..... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 53 Andrews: I just want to make a quick comment on that. That is that being a member of the Minnetonka School District, there are significant numbers of people that are really wrestling with the two sides of this issue. One is, we'd certainly like to see a nice facility and take advantage of our HRAdollars but at the same time we're providing a school facility that only benefits Chaska School District. It does not benefit Chanhassen citizens attending Minnetonka schools. I'm not going to be the one to ever turn down free dollars but I think we've got to be sensitive to that concern and try to deal with that objection. Berg: In essence what it would provide which would be exclusively for the use of city, during school time and everything else. you might help me as I'm going along here, would be an additional gymnasium. 5 to 6 fields, to be determined whether they be softball, soccer, whatever. That would again be to the exclusive use of the city. ",....., Andrews: I understand. I see the benefit but there are people that are looking at this from the other side and saying, it's a benefit being provided mainly for the benefit of the Chaska School District and not Minnetonka School District. We're paying tax dollars too. Why don't we, how come you don't think about us? And I don't necessarily agree that that's a valid objective but it's out there and I've heard it from more than one person. I'm not one of them but. Berg: It's just that it's such a unique situation. Andrews: Oh I agree. I think we ought to grab it while we can. Lash: And everybody, the kids that go to Minnetonka are playing on the leagues and the things that are going to be using the. Andrews: Sure. I think it's just important that we have the Minnetonka School District people have to be aware that this is a project that will benefit them. Lash: In line with that I think we have to remember that we're having, really struggling with this Bandimere thing. It looks like there's not a big future for that so this is going to be the pressure relief valve that we need that Bandimere was. So you know when you think about the Minnetonka people. If there was a referendum or whatever to do Bandimere, that's coming out of their pocketbook too but it's way over on the other side of town and how much are they really going to be using that. ,.... 53 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 54 ....", Berg: I think it's a matter of selling them too. Making them know what's available there and that it certainly is a 112. Andrews: There's a misconception that it's, you're building a swimming pool and it's being used during school hours and that's the real benefit of the TIF dollars and that's not what's happening but there are people out there that are looking at it that way, and they're upset. And they're just saying, here's just another example of Minnetonka School District being ignored and taking all the dollars and all the programming and. Berg: Yeah but there's school district money involved in that too. Andrews: I understand all that. I'm not saying it's a rational argument. I'm just saying it's out there and we have to make sure that they understand that yeah, it is a facility that's going to be available for non-school use. In fact for. Lash: How would you suggest that we help them to understand that? Put somethng in the paper? Andrews: t's an irrational argument so I don't know. I think it's a lack of understanding of what's being proposed. I think they don't understand it is going to be a full service park. Manders: Do they have some idea of what we should do with it that would satisfy them? Or is it just anything that happens is not for them. .....", Andrews: I think it's just a matter of educating them that what the facilities that are being considered and that they really are multi-use... Berg: And that it really isn't in combination with the district. The district's building is going to stop here, the way I understand it and what they're talking about with that additional money is an add on to that. There will be 2 or 3 fields, if left alone and the city does not get involved. That number goes to 5 or 6 plus another gymnasium plus a couple small community rooms, a track around the gym and the whole thing. But that doesn't have anything to do with the district other than the fact that the district is going to happen to have a building right next to it. That's what they've got to understand. Andrews: And that's what they don't understand. Anyway. 54 ....., I"'" Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 55 Hoffman: And we have to all understand that these are just proposals in concepts and if the downtown fell apart, which might too but we hope not. We certainly don't think it will. Schroers: Anything further on the '94 budget process? Lash: Are we supposed to be going through this? Hoffman: I would recommend that the item be tabled. Again I want to hear if there are other resources you need. I know that was a concern last year. To put this on what, the August 10th. The second Tuesday of August. Finance has asked for our budgets back by the 6th but that's not a problem with negotiating that. Lash: asked these done. And I have to tell you I'm still, and I'm the one who for this last time, and I'm still confUsed when I look things. I know you said it but if it's bold it's been If it's italicized, it's what? at Hoffman: Postponed. ~ Lash: Okay, so like as an example if I look at Carver Beach Playground on page 6 and I look at 1993 and it says bleachers, $1,400.00. How am I supposed to know if that's been done or not? Hoffman: The money's there. It hasn't been purchased yet so it's not postponed. Lash: It's still coming? Hoffman: Yes, still coming. Those type of things show up because we're just getting to 1992 backlog work so we're putting picnic benches together that we purchased last year and putting them out on Kerber Blvd. If you've seen those two, they look very nice. So now we're, there was no reason to spend money to take it out of the fund until we have the time to install and put together the equipment. Schroers: Okay. So we need a motion to table this until the August 10th meeting. Andrews moved, Lash seconded to table the 1994 budget process preview until the August 10, 1993 special Park and Recreation Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Lash: Also will you make a note. I made a note on the front of this to myself regarding the letter of concern from the If!'" 55 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 56 .J Chanhassen Hills resident. That we make sure and. Schroers: I've got that on commissioner presentations. You're talking about the one from... Hoffman: Excuse me, I do have 4 additional items that I've noted. I think we've talked about one under administrative presentations, which I do need to bring to your attention. I'll make it brief. The school site we have talked about. I would recommend that, if you recall if you've retained your packet of information or you would like additional copies made. I would recommend that we talk about that on the 10th. We will have a schedule from the consultant at that time letting us know exactly. This is the school district document on the elementary school from HGA. Andrews: Are they looking for the wish list from us? Is that what we're trying to accomplish here? Hoffman: I don't think it'd be a wish list. I think it'd be a, they're looking for specific direction because they're going to be forced to make a decision fairly...quickly after receiving your information so you need to talk about this. Put it on the 10th agenda? Make packets for you. Okay. I'll give you in the updated information. A meeting was held today in the Council chambers with representatives of the Chanhassen Business Center. You recall that. It's the Audubon '92 Partnership. The Weather Service which I referenced earlier. There's an issue of, they are constructing, as part of their development contract they are asked or required to construct the sidewalks and then the trail which loops around in this conservation easement. I don't expect you to remember it. I just want to explain the concept. Plus they were required to pay park and trail fees. I can honestly not tell you why that requirement was placed on them. Whether it's just, we talked about first about requiring park and trail fees. Full fees and then about development later. I don't recall that the Commission addressed the issue of credit but that's typically been the policy of the commission and Council to give credit where trails are developed by the applicant. They are asking that we consider giving them credit for that. In this instance it adds up to just over $10,000.00 in trail fees. They're constructing just over 600 feet of trail as a part of this application and that ends up to be about $10,000.00 in cost back to the applicant so hear from the commission your opinion in that regard and in fact if you can send me back with some type of information to take to the City Council, I will do that. -' 56 -' "...... /"*'" I"'" Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 57 Andrews: To be consistent we need to give credit. I move that we give them appropriate credit for the construction of this trail that was referenced in the previous comments by Todd Hoffman. Schroers: I will second it. Andrews moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation commission recommend that the City council give trail fee credit as a part of the Chanhassen Business Center in recognition of the 8 foot wide bituminous trail as described in the development contract between the City of Chanhassen and the Audubon 92 Partnership. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Hoffman: Thank you. Just as a small aside to that. It is interesting that in Lakeville they require you to build the trails, if they're identified inthe comp plan, plus they take the fees so we're not the, you have to change the policy but we're not the worst people in the world. I mentioned the inline skating issue. That is an issue of concern to a group of young residents who have made the courts available to them for inline skating hockey games. I've taken 4 calls on that which I specifically recall, and some of those conversations have been very lengthy, with run-ins with this particular group. They're high school aged people in the community who would like a place to play inline skate hockey. They're playing a hockey game on an asphalt surface. So they were very disappointed in having to leave. In fact they didn't show a whole lot of respect for my request that they leave so we were standing there at an impasse They asked me for their options and I said well, if you don't leave while I'm standing here, I'll walk back to City Hall and send over a Carver County deputy to do that. And up one walked, somebody had called on the issue so we continued the conversation there but once they agreed to depart I wanted it more importantly to talk to them about how we could address servicing that need. I think they came into the understanding that there's a lot of damage to the pressure that that inline skate puts on that acrylic surface. That paint surface. It causes damage. It's not proven. It's not researched. It's a pretty new phenomenon and the spokesmen for their group in fact called me today and said, yes I had done some research. I called some tennis construction companies. He said, I dont't think we have much of a case before the Park Commission so we're not going to show up tonight. I said well I would like to bring the issue up. Only had time to call one other city. City of Eden Prairie. They're in the same position. They are amending their park useage ordinance to prohibit that use but they are looking at providing an asphalt 57 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 58 --' surface in one of their hockey rinks for this new recreational component which we're seeing in our city. Andrews: I am an inline skater who likes to play inline hockey. Tennis courts are the ideal place to play because you have the fences. But if you could come up with an asphalt hockey rink, that'd be heaven. Lash: So would you be able to do that like at the hockey rink over here? Just blacktop it but then still flood it in the winter? Hoffman: Not on these rinks. I wouldn't want to do it first of all because they're very old and need replacement but secondly, even if you had new boards there, they're so low that they flood out on a routine basis. They are used more as a natural storm retention pond so we would have to do it elsewhere. Andrews: The other problem you have with asphalt is being that it's black, the melting of the ice will be all that much faster. It could be a problem but. We also have a tennis court in our neighborhood that the kids like to use for inline hockey and I've skated on it too but it does wreck it and I think our policy should remain as is. ....""I Schroers: Any possibility of doing a temporary think in a parking lot? Hoffman: We suggested, in fact the parking lot was vacant enough there where they could play but they obviously have become accustomed to that nice smooth surface. It's very nice for stick handling, etc, etc. They're spoiled. They don't want to play in a parking lot. Berg: Encourage them to come in. Lash: Well you know, if you get them involved, they may be able to come up with a good idea that we're not seeing, since it affects them so much and if they come with an idea, they take a little ownership there and then they're a lot happier with the whole deal. Andrews: Maybe they could go down to Chaska community Center and rent out the rink when it's not flooded in the summer and play there. 58 .."", ,.... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 59 Hoffman: Very briefly on the Minnewashta Park issue. I met with a group from Heritage, including their attorneys and laid out the stipulations. Planning Commission tabled it. Denied action so they refused the plat because it didn't include park. Right now it's at a point where they'll either come in with an amended plat or they'll walk away from their. Andrews: Can I add to that? They did come in with a park but it wasn't where they were talking about it with us at all. It was on the northwest side away from the lake which is totally away from where they led us to beleive they were willing to put it. And I talked to Todd about this. I was absolutely shocked when that developer came in to the Planning Commission because he went just the opposite direction he told us that they were. Lash: How could he do that? Didn't we specify the placement of the park? Andrews: ...it was soundly defeated and rejected so that's where it ended up. ~ Hoffman: That's all I have. Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRESENTATIONS: Andrews: I've got one. will be coming out soon? The Highway 101 trail feasibility study Next few days? Hoffman: Next few days. Andrews: I obviously have a very interest in that issue being that I live in a neighborhood along Highway 101 that is isolated. It is a trail that's identified on our comprehensive plan and I think it would be very helpful if as a Park Board that we reaffirmed our desire to see a trail go there. The City Council's in my opinion taking an attitude of that if we just let this thing lay long enough, it will just kind of go away. That's my personal opinion of what's going on right now at least and I just think we need to, I would appreciate I guess a vote of confidence if that's something the Park Board members are willing to do. If not, I think it'd be equally important for us to, if we are not supportive of the trail concept, we should say that because that will definitely make it easier for the Council to make their d~cis~on. The way I understand it Todd is the feasibility study ~111 Just be presented to the Council. My guess is they'd refer 1t back to us for consideration don't you think? ,.... 59 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 60 ..J Hoffman: That probably would be the scenario that they're going to take. It's, they'll take public comment at that meeting and wrestle with the issues at hand and send it back down to the park commission or back to staff for some resolution. Andrews: Have you heard any dollar figures come back? Hoffman: No I have not. Schroers: So we will have an opportunity to review it then? Andrews: We don't know that for sure really but. Hoffman: We don't know that for sure. If they like the idea and they simp~y want a scenario of funding, they would send it back down to management to come up with some alternatives of funding scenarios to bring back to the City Council. If they have continuing questions over the merits of the trail, then they will send it back down to the Park Commission to hold additional public meetings in that regard. Andrews: I guess I still think it would be at least appropriate at this point to say that we do still consider that to be a segment of the trail system that we feel is important. ..."., Berg: Does that need a motion? Andrews: I think it's like a resolution I guess. Hoffman: Do you want me to draft something? Andrews: Yeah, say it. Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation commission approve a resolution reaffirming the importance of construction of a Highway 101 trail to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Andrews: Thank you. I do appreciate it. Schroers: Your welcome. I've got two things that are real quick and short. One is the letter from Skubics regarding the Chan Hills development. Can you shed a little light on that Todd? Hoffman: Sure. Mr. Skubic has been in as he refer7nced in his letter. I think he set it up like his dentist app01ntment, 6 months to go to the dentist to come talk to Todd as well, so 60 ....." "" Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 61 we've talked over the years. I've kept him up to date with our backlog of work that we have and what's going on with the scheduling so I think other than the shortage of playground equipment, everything else there which has been discussed will be going in this summer because they're actually 1992 items. So I have high hopes of completing all your 1992 items and 1993. Lash: So the basketball court is going in. Hoffman: Basketball court. Lash: That seems to be one of his concerns. Hoffman: I would want to double check if that was approved as part of the 1993 budget. I've got that right here. I don't know if it was. Chanhassen Hills. Half basketball court. There it is. Schroers: Okay, I do want it on record that this issue was dealt with this evening at this meeting. And the other one, a resident approached me with a great deal of concern regarding the fact that we have a designated beach at Carver Beach Park and no buoys ~ to mark off the swimming area and her children were nearly run over both by waterskiers and jetskiers in what would be the designated swimming area were thre buoys there. I think that it's our responsibility, if we are going to label that as a swimming area, that we have some buoys out there and designate it and so the boats and other recreational, motorized recreational people hopefully will give the swimmers a little safe place to play. Lash: We have those in the budget too. We have this year for the mini-beach and next year for the main beach. Hoffman: Replace the ones at the main beach. It always has been the city's policy to put them out at the big beach. They get dragged in routinely because the boaters like to come through that narrow at a wider angle so they move them in. We move them out but then we did come up with the, took the action that we would put them at the mini-beach as well. Lash: Which one are you talking about Larry? The main beach or the mini-beach? Schroers: No, the main beach I'm talking about. At Carver Beach. Lash: Yeah. And you're saying there are buoys there. .,...., 61 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 62 --' Hoffman: There have been in the past. I don't know that, it's a standard practice that maintenance puts them out there. Schroers: Well what the resident told me was that had her daughter not seen the jetskier coming, and dove under to swim out of the way, she would have been struck. And the reason was that there are no buoys at a designated swimming area and she just didn't understand that. Hoffman: I will see to it that they are put in place. However, I certainly would caution that just because there are buoys there doesn't mean we have a safe beach. They disregard those buoys. They use them as as slalom course so we need to. Andrews: That would be something that there should be something written in the paper. That's a major boating offense and people should understand that. Moving buoys is a major offense and somebody that's running swimmers, they should be hit as hard as the law will allow with no warning. There's no excuse for that at all. Meger: So am I understanding correctly that it's just buoys marking the area? That there isn't kind of a rope with floating devices strung between the buoys? -' Schroers: No. They're basically what she's telling me is that there is nothing there. Lash: But if they were there, what would they be? Hoffman: Individual buoys. Lash: Well why don't we get the string ones like we have at Lake Ann? Aren't those stringed one? Hoffman: I think we could attempt that. My fear would be that they're going to be damaged and removed. Andrews: The point here is though that Minnesota law is very specific on those buoys. I tell you if we catch anybody, they ought to be hung out to dry. Lash: It would be a little harder to use a string buoy as a slalom course because then you're getting all tangled up in the rope and everything. 62 -' "..... Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 63 Schroers: Well, if staff would check and see in fact what there is there and come back with a recommendation. Or if you see that there's something that you can do immediately to improve the safety, initiate that process and do what we can do until we have time to take appropriate action. Lash: Well we've got money budgeted this year so there's no reason. Hoffman: Take immediate action on it. Andrews: That's an emergency situation. It really is. Somebody's going to get killed there and we'll get sued. Schroers: Alright, anything else? Motion to adjourn. Lash: Well Jerry's got the softball thing on here you want to. Ruegemer: Yeah just, if everybody had a chance to...I'll be real brief with this...coordinator Don Schwartz approached staff and kind of exploring the possibilities of offering a tournament with .~ the proceeds going to show the appreciation to the Chanhassen Umpires...T-shirt, duffle bag, maybe a Twins game, something on that line. Other communities...do offer that type of a program as an incentive to...have you return from year to yea~ and just to show kind of the appreciation towards the umpires...The tournament is proposed for September 11th and 12th at Lake Ann Park...benefitting the Chanhassen Association, we're looking at possibly the fees are listed. Approximately for 4 fields...I guess I'd like to get some feedback back from the commission of how they'd like to handle that situation in either reducing or having fees paid in full. Possibly waive it in this manner. I'd like to gain some feedback now from the commission so I can proceed with this request. Lash: I'm obviously confused because I figured the point was for them to raise money to buy the umps some kind of a token gift. So if you waive the fee, then how are they going to raise any money to buy a gift? Hoffman: No, waive our rental fee. Ruegemer: Right, the rental. Lash: Oh, okay. HOffman: Our rental fee for t he field. ,.... 63 Park and Rec commission July 27, 1993 - Page 64 .....", Lash: Okay, then they'd have to pay some other kind of cost to play? Ruegemer: Right. The tournament entry fee would cover. Hoffman: Generate revenues. Berg: Is there anything else scheduled for these fields? Ruegemer: No. Berg: So they wouldn't be used if we didn't have this tournament? Ruegemer: Correct, yeah. Berg: More than likely. So we're not out really anything by waiving the fees. Schroers: And it's not going to interfere at some point in time down the road by setting some sort of precedent. Somebody coming and saying that well you waived the fees for those guys. How about doing it for us. Hoffman: No guarantee against that. --' Andrews: The cause being the umpires that's, you know that's a cause we can all empathize with. What if the cause were something, some other money raising function? You know I want to raise money for the fire department, the police department, the Little sisters of the Poor. Where does the good cause cross the line of not being when we waive fees for? Hoffman: We'll leave that up to you. Andrews: I have that same concern that it's going to be, how about a soccer tournament. How about a hockey game. How about a basketball game. Berg: For me the determining factor would be whether or not there's another use for it at that same time. d t I guess I'm in favor d about the prece en . Andrews: I'm cone erne of the concept. t but don't let it become a Let's go with the concep schroers: precedent. 64 .....", ""'"' Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 65 Lash: Famous last words...see if it comes back to bite us like an association park. Andrews: We're going to waive the fee? Hoffman: Yep. Andrews: Do you need a motion on that? Hoffman: Please. Schroers: I move that we waive the fees. Andrews: Second. Schroers moved, Andrews seconded to waive fees for field rental at Lake Ann Park fora softball tournament benefitting Umpire Appreciation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ,..... Ruegemer: Just real quick. As part of the Minnetonka Community Services...they'd like to get a Lifeguard Olympics out at Lake Ann Park. It would be this coming Sunday out there and it'd be Sunday morning from 8:00 in the morning until approximatey noon. The question did arise about possibly closing the beach just for a couple hours while the commencement proceeds. John Rabe did approach staff and wondering if that request could be granted. Or if the public would be...use the beach area but swimming would be at, his request would be that swimming would not be allowed during that time. That would be, the Commission can consider that request or can certainly make it mandatory that they provide an area on the beach and have lifeguards on duty during that time. Lash: When does the beach usually open on Sunday? Ruegemer: 10:30. Schroers: So how much beach time would people lose? Hoffman: Hour and a half. This Sunday. Andrews: I think we need to maintain regular or some sort of beach service. It could be reduced but I think it has to be available to somebody that has made the choice to come without knowing that there's a scheduled event. ,.... 65 Park and Rec Commission July 27, 1993 - Page 66 ....,,' Schroers: That's reasonable I think too. They probably won't have a lot of competition before noon on Sunday anyway. Ruegemer: No, I wouldn't think so. Thank you. Andrews moved, Roeser 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 ...." 66 ...."