Loading...
PRC 1993 08 10 ,...,- CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 10, 1993 Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Fred Berg, Larry Schroers, Jim Andrews, Jim Manders, Ron Roeser, and Jane Meger STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #112. NEW CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRAM AND PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. '" Todd Hoffman and Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item and asked for any questions by the Commission. Lash: I guess I still don't quite understand. Say the money didn't, I know that Jim has some people who are concerned with this. How this whole thing is being played out. So if the money wasn't used for this, what other kinds of things could it be used for? Just the things you listed? Gerhardt: Yep. I mean there's only a certain list of things that you can use money for. You can use it for road upgrades, infrastructures, sewer, water, storm sewer, storm sewer ponding, landscaping and incentives for businesses to locate there, and the limits on that is for soil corrections, land write down and then public improvement costs against the development. Andrews: Must the TIP dollars be spent within the district specifically? Gerhardt: Yes. You can't go outside this dark black border. That highlights the development district boundaries. Those dollars must be spent within that border. Andrews: Is there any creek crossing that's within that TIP district affecting the Highway 5 project? Gerhardt: Pardon me? Andrews: Is there a creek that crosses Highway 5 that would fall within this project, or the ,.... 1 TIP district area? Gerhardt: The way I understand the creek, it goes something like this. ..""tiI Hoffman: It goes to the north of the school. There would be one crossing within, correct. It crosses from this district to the north of Highway 5. Andrews: Okay. Schroers: Is there anything proposed coming into 2-2 that would generate additional monies? Gerhardt: The Weather Service would create increment in there. However, it hasn't been determined yet if we would capture that increment. The laws look at, in an economic development district you can have only so much office space and their facility that their construction would entail is 100% office. So I don't know how the County's going to view that yet. If we would capture the increment off of that facility or not because we cannot provide any incentives to them because of that. You have to have a mix of 30% office and 70% warehouse or production. So right now they do not qualify for assistance under the TIP laws. Lash: And we're planning on doing the things we're talking about would use up all of the money coming from McGlynn? Gerhardt: Pretty much all of it that's available today. Manders: How much thought has been put into any other potential application of that money? The road? ...", Gerhardt: The only thing that we really look at, and Audubon Road has been upgraded. The other streets, Galpin, Lyman on the south side, needs to be upgraded but we're trying to get special legislation at the State level and expanding the redevelopment district for a 3 year period and using those monies in conjunction with Carver County monies in rebuilding those roadways into' a 4 lane divided highway with trails along side of them to an urban section. So you'd have 4 lanes, curb, gutter, and then a trail along side of them. We failed this last year but we're not going to give up. We're going to continue to lobby at the State level for that expansion of that district. It's been a joint effort between the City of Cbaska, Victoria, Chanhassen and Carver County and looking at all three cities and county roads within those cities and upgrading those to meet the demands of the community as they grow. So we're going to continue those lobbying efforts to try to rebuild those roads. That would be the only thing I can think of. Andrews: I'd like to comment about the question. The reason I asked you about the creek crossing is as part of the Highway 5 project, both for Highway 5 itself and also for the potential south boulevard that's been discussed, which I'm sure you're aware of, there's 2 -",' Ii"""'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 discussion of the crossing of any creek that's involved and the cost of building the type of crossing that we'd like to see. I guess I would like to say that it's likely there would be another use for some of this money and that would be to enhance the quality of crossing that can be provided as part of those projects. I know dollars are going to be tight for that project as well, and I think having a well constructed proper crossing of the creek would enhance the trail system that will ultimately be built. So I would say, yes. There are some alternatives and it probably would be in the neighborhood of several hundred thousand dollars would be an adequate amount to consider at this point. Gerhardt: Yeah at that point we would also apply for ISTEA dollars as a part of the Highway 5 project. That's not 100% financing. There's a matching share to that so yes. We would have to, monies could be used for that and the upgrading of that trail to the satisfaction of what we'd like to see with the Highway 5 project and the Highway 5 corridor group has been working on. It's not a typical underpass that they're looking at. They want to look at it more as a bridge section and a little more open than your traditional culvert type underpass. Roeser: So you're saying that that underpass is in this district? Or is it outside of the district? ,..... Gerhardt: Well, I'm going to say half of it's in and half of it's out. It goes right through the middle of Highway 5. But sometimes when you've got a project that's half in the district and extends out, you can go outside the boundaries to do that. You just don't go out and build half a culvert. They take into consideration that these are boundaries but you're not limited to them. Hoffman: The City was successful in the application for the pedestrian overpass, which will be installed here in downtown. Just east of Brown's Amoco...Paul Krauss, in consultation with Barton-Aschman has already initiated the process of that ISTEA application... Lash: Especially with this school site and knowing the development that's going on on the north side of m 5. It's really going to be important for us to have that underpass so that children can access. Gerhardt: No question, that would be a major link to the people on the north side of Highway 5. With the access road that is being built on the north side of Highway 5 too. I'm sure we'll have a trail with that road system. You've got a comprehensive trail plan that is the link down into the schools, the new High School in Chaska and as those projects get upgraded, hopefully we'll have a comprehensive trail system that all connects someday. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What's the timing of, I think we have much more of a chance ~ 3 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 .....", for ISTEA dollars...but what would be the timing... Gerhardt: I don't know where Highway 5 got pushed back to. We're looking at '95 or '98 on the upgrading of Highway 5 out to TH 41. I think that would answer your question. I don't know where we would be on that. You can only make that application when you've got a project...and that's where the connection of Barton-Aschman is. They'll be doing the work on Highway 5 and I do not know when that next phase from CR 17 out to TH 41 will be built. 1995 is sticking in my head. If anybody else has heard. Andrews: I doubt that it'd be that quick. Hoffman: We would know if the ISTEA grant was successful by the time this is... Andrews: Two more questions that kind of relate to questions from the audience. There is discussion as part of the Highway 5 project overall. I'm on the task force so that's why I'm asking about it. There's a south boulevard being discussed, which the way I understand it, would likely not receive any State funding or if any, it'd be extremely limited. That also would be greatly enhanced by a high quality trail crossing at the creek. So again I guess I would say that yes, it's likely that we should consider that when we're using these dollars. I guess my other question would be, is it likely that other developments that would provide increment that's likely to occur that would give us some likely additional cashflow in the future that we could draw on. ...." Gerhardt: Discussions I've had with the property owners of the land due east of the school site, they've had interest. It's zoned industrial. They've had a lot of residential interest in the land. There's a big market for that in Chanhassen. The industrial interests, of course with the way the market is now, there's not a big demand for that. There's a few users out there but everybody's downsizing and trying to fit 20 ton of fertilizer in a 10 ton truck. I see the industrial taking off in the next probably 3 years from now. Right now the market is the residential and they would have to come in to City Council for a rezoning but we would look at them providing their own public roadway system through there. If it was industrial, we could create another district there and capture the increment and have additional increment to build roadways and trails along there too. Lash: Jim, with that south boulevard, how does that affect this? Andrews: That would cut right through the parcel, or right through the district. I'd have to get my book out to see exactly how it would align with the school property but I believe it would cut right along the south edge of the school property. 4 .....", .,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Lash: So do you think it would be this access road, it would be linked to that? Andrews: Yeah, but it would cross the creek at some point and again, I think a high quality crossing would be really important. Knowing that the city is going to have increasing pressure on it's funding, I guess I'm trying to protect our interest in the long term by asking about it. Lash: That's where you think the boulevard will be? Gerhardt: That's somewhat. They've talked about, it's not that straight. It kind of loops down over the and around the wetland. Lash: But ultimately it would be this access road? Hoffman: Correct... Gerhardt: We can come in and build a section to service the school and then once somebody comes in and develops on this piece, then we bring the extension from the...and create ,-... another tax increment district and you'd see another dashed line like sO...to pay for the road and build trails and upgrade. Lash: I have one more question too about the funding for all of these things. Have we gotten any commitment from the School District for a portion of any of the development of any of these facilities? Or is this all just coming out of our pockets? Hoffman: The development of the city program, or the development here? Lash: Well, if you look at the whole plan, I mean there's ballfields and playground and all of that. I'm assuming, well I don't know about the playground but I guess I'm assuming all the ballfields and the hockey and the tennis are coming out of city funding. Or out of our, right? The District isn't, the School District isn't financing any of that Have we gotten a commitment for them. I mean it is facilities that they'll have access to. Hoffman: Correct. Ted and Bob can go over that in more detail but the School District does have a program for athletic...standard. What you need to operate an elementary school. Ballfield, playground, those type of things. Beyond that, they are not intending to create an athletic field complex such as you see on this. Lash: But if they were going to do it with their own money, if we weren't involved, they'd have to provide a ballfield? "" 5 Park' and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 ~. Hoffman: They still are paying for their portion of the improvements. Lash: Okay. That's what I was wondering. Hoffman: Any other questions in regard to the financing area or potential there? If not, for the benefit of the ground I'd like to introduce Colleen Dockendorf who's a member of the City Council who is our audience this evening. As well Jane Meger who's our newest member of the Park Commission... With that, I think I'll turn it over to Ted and Bob. Ted Rosenblum: Thanks Todd. Before we start describing the program and the site, just a couple of comments. We're involved with schools across the country. We do an awful lot of them and what is being attempted here is more the rule than the exception. In fact you have some precedent even in your own community with joint agreements for athletic fields up behind you with the existing Chanhassen Elementary School. So I think that precedents have been established in a number of ways and a number of areas for joint use of both exterior athletic fields and those sorts of things in addition to buildings themselves and portions of buildings. They do present administrative challenges but I think park districts, City Councils and School Districts have found in the past, recent past anyway, that there are more advantages than there are disadvantages in trying to put together, if the economics are right, those type of joint programs. So in this particular case you have the opportunity, in addition to having a site, there were some challenges to the site but not significantly I don't believe. You have another opportunity to produce a school and a park setting which is really a marvelous opportunity. An expanded site essentially that has tremendously compatible functions between the city and the school. So it's an exciting opportunity for the School District and if affordable, for the City of Chanhassen I'm sure it is, they're getting marvelous advantages from it also. It all has to be right of course economically for you but it's certainly something we're doing an awful lot, more often than not Where we are with the School District right now is we've finished programming. We've established what the scope of the project is going to be for the elementary school and we have become schematic design. So now that we're into design, our efforts intensify pretty quickly. We've held back a little bit along the way here. You can probably see a couple schedules in the back of your 8 112 x 11 's here, our original schedule. We're probably a month off of that but we know we can pick it up but it does intensify pretty quickly. So as Todd, both Todd's suggested earlier, the challenge for you is, can you make the decisions quickly enough for the District to keep us moving and get the building occupied for the 625 kids that are going to go into it next fall. We have pulled excerpts of the program document that we presented to the School District that's been approved now by their School Board. Just the excerpts that apply to the Park District. There's probably a 50 or 60 page document that we didn't share the whole thing because a lot of it is not applicable. But we pulled the excerpts and I think it would be worthwhile just walking through those briefly. The 8 1/2 x 11 piece that you have in front of ....", 6 ...." ,-... ,,-.... ,...... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 you that starts on the first page...summary. Why don't we talk about that before we actually get into the site itself. The first page here is a summary of square footage. How much area we need based on the meetings we've had up here with your staff and quite a number of meetings over several months with the School District. You can see at the top here,the total building is about 90,000 square feet for their program only. The two options we explored with your staff were Option 1 and 2, described in more detail later on for an additional 35,000 square feet and 21,000 square feet. It was apparent fairly early that Option 1 was not an affordable option. So we pursued in more detail Option 2 and the diagrams we have here tonight are showing an Option 2. Just flip to the first page, after page 13 in the larger document. Second page here. Option 1 essentially said that we were going to develop what we would call a field house concept for the Phy Ed, physical education portion of the project. Essentially putting together 3 full competition gyms. Those are divisible in the half, or 3/4 courts. So you'd end up with three 3/4 courts. Or I mean six 3/4 courts and three full competition courts. The last one being the District's. We're adding to their program two full competition courts, divisible into four 3/4 courts. It's a little confusing but the diagram represents the combination of both the District's program and your program. That in addition to a mezzanine running track that would go into the field house and additional aerobics fitness rooms. Additional community locker rooms. Your community storage area for exterior and interior storage. And a separate entry. One of the program requirements from your Park District was to make sure that there was access to this facility all day. Not just after hours. If they were going to invest in this sort of facility, they wanted it to be able to be used during the day. This represented a pretty, this is really the only difference between Option 1 and Option 2 would be the additional meeting rooms and so forth are common for both options. The difference here is the idea of a field house as opposed to expanded gymnasiums only. You can see the expanded gymnasiums to get to the field house added another 10,200 square feet on top of what the District had already put in the project for a total of 15,200. You can see down below on the lower left hand corner the diagram for the gymnasium for a total of 60,200. In addition to that we're providing seating for 200. The District...In addition there is a requirement, this becomes a design issue, not a program issue, to locate it close to the kitchen and serving areas so it can be used after hours. That would enhance your ability to use that facility if it was tied to the kitchen. The kitchen is already there as part of the elementary programs. You're not having to invest in the kitchen or serving area. We just have to make sure they're approximate or adjacent to it. In addition you have off hour use of your own toilet, storage area and a separate entry again. Very important that we distinguish, this becomes a design challenge. Not necessarily a program challenge but make sure we distinguish and identify off hour entries for the community separate from the school itself. It's something we're doing, in fact we have one fairly close. I don't know if you're familiar with Delano, the elementary school up in Delano. We have three separate buildings essentially tying together with community access to the physical education complex and meeting rooms with their own entry after hours. We can shut down 7 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 ....", the rest of the building by just dropping a gate. There's a narrow neck inbetween each one of the three buildings. That's a design issue, not a program issue but would be comparable I would guess to what we might have to achieve here. Security is very, very important. especially if we're talking about the same day or during the day usage and not just after hour usage. It is a concern of the District If we're going to have adults in the building at the same time elementary kids are going to be using it. we have to make sure we can segregate them and define their space separate from the rest. I think the program for the multi-purpose rooms, a menu was really put forward to us that is included in here for some of these possible uses of that space and I'm sure that you could add in quite a list beyond that of architectural moves within the community if you choose to lease that space on occasion. That represents the investment in the building. That total is about 21,000 square feet That's option number 2. The combination of page 23 and the scaled back version... Of the approximately $2 million that you'll see budgeted, or not budgeted but estimated at the tail end of the document. All but about $450,000.00 of it we estimate going into the building. The rest of it is in your additional component of exterior fields but I'll cover that in a minute. The economics of the vision. The next page, page 29. Janet probably answers a little bit better the question you had about the District's commitment to exterior fields. This is the District's program. This is what they need for 625 students. They need a soccer field, youth softball field, hard surface play area, playground, normal parking plus drop off and so forth. You can see graphically what their program component is. If you turn to the next page, page 31. This is what the park district suggests the community needs in the way of a youth athletic field. The hope was to have your own parking. Obviously the school district parking, we can take advantage of it because after hours it's not going to be used. As we can take advantage of existing athletic fields after hours but if you have save day use requirements, we're going to need parking. We're going to need additional fields. So here was the desired program. Additional parking. Four additional tennis courts. Or not additional, four tennis courts. Six softball fields. Youth sized softball fields with overlapping soccer fields in the outfield. And the hope for a soccer/ice rink. Soccer's obviously not an official sized soccer...summer could be used as a small soccer field. During the winter, an ice rink. That's the program. ....", Schroers: Can I ask a dumb question here? Is the addition of this tied into either Option I or Option 2 jointly? Ted Rosenblum: Option 1 and Option 2 both have the same exterior field components. The only difference is in the building itself within the gymnasium complex itself. Schroers: Okay, and everything that we have reviewed up to this point. the District #112 School Board has already approved? 8 .....,,; ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Ted Rosenblum: Yes. Schroers: Okay. John Gockel: John Gockel and I'd like to speak on behalf of the School Board. The School Board has approved the concept. One of the things they said in their last Board meeting before they put their blessing on this...they'd like to work with the City of Chanhassen. This is an exciting opportunity. They want to see the two governmental agencies work out their joint use agreement. They've very concerned about the safety of the children, especially during the school day. Use of the, how is the gymnasium actually going to be used so we don't get into arguments down the line. I thought I had it today and the...the use of the meeting room, kitchen, parking and so forth. Those are details that need to be worked out. The concept they're in favor of is an opportunity to better utilize the land that gives us your activities. Will enhance the school. The school facility being there and will enhance the city's park activities. So that's where they're at. Ted Rosenblum: That's a good clarification. I think the agreement, I don't know whether that kind of agreement, that joint use agreement can be put together with the speed that we're ,-...., suggesting for just a concept that we're getting...conceptually. There are some concerns there and I think they'd like to see that agreement in place as soon as possible so they know they can work it out...1 don't know whether the details will actually hang up the project. But that's a good point. There is a difference there. They're on board conceptually. Programmatically. Lash: I have a question. When I'm looking at the big drawing and from looking at the 8 x 11 's, it says that the kitchen facility is supposed to be accessible to the community. So are you saying that an elementary plan, that the kitchen is down in this comer. Somewhere that connects. Ted Rosenblum: We haven't designed the building yet. We've got a site plan...I'd hate to say that we'd have that kitchen located where we want it at this point. We have some ideas but we have to do a lot more work before we're ready to publish. Lash: In the other elementaries of the district, excluding Jonathan I guess, but at Chanhassen Elementary here and at Chaska Elementary and one of the other elementaries, one of the gymnasium spaces is also the lunch room. And this isn't the case here? Ted Rosenblum: No. Lash: Okay. ".-.- 9 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 ....", Ted Rosenblum: They have a separate cafeteria. John Gockel: Chanhassen's is that way. Elementary where they serve double as a gymnasium...separate program for that space. Let me, let's go to page 45 which I think skips the narrative on the site concept and just a brief discussion about the economics associated with option 1 and 2. With a little bit of arithmetic I think you'll fmd that the 90,000 square feet and the construction dollars budgeted for the elementary school, which is the frrst line item in their project budget, which is on that page right at the top. You'll find that's budgeted a little bit more than $75.00 a square foot, or approximately $75.00 a square foot. What we have done is just simply taken the square footage you've added to the project and give you the same $75.00 per foot. It's going to be difficult when we combine the end of one building to ever separate it out and it was frankly just easier to budget it at $75.00 because I don't think we'll ever really know exactly what that number is going to be since it's all part of one building. We feel comfortable with $75.00 a square foot for the building including your square footage. The gymnasium is probably a little bit higher than $75.00. That complex is a lot of volume and flooring and that sort of thing so I bumped it up a little bit. However the meeting rooms are a little less expensive perhaps not very dense with partitions and that sort of thing so $75.00 seems to be, and that's what we budgeted for the rest of the building. So that one you may want some discussion on. That gets you to the $2,038,000.00 if you add $450,000.00 for site improvements. And that number we put together with our in-house estimating group and our civil engineer based on what is remaining on the site, how much terracing we have to do to get in the athletic field. It's a beautiful site but it does have some roll to it and elevation change and we did, without doing earth work calculations, we did some rough estimates on what we thought was reasonable for earth work, grading, fmishing, sodding, seeding, parking. All those components you have in your athletic complex. I mean your exterior of the project so of the $2,038,000.00, $450,00.00 is the site development and the rest of it's in the building. $75.00 a square foot. The $125,000.00, the District has hired us at 6% the value of construction. It's simply a multiplication of 6% times $2,038,000.00 plus some printing costs associated with that so there's some reimbursement related to printing that are in there. We have not gone through an analysis of your furnishings and equipment budgets. For instance you're going to have equipment associated with the athletic fields most likely. Backstops for instance. That sort of thing. That's something that you and your staff should be thinking about. If this is not a project budget, this is a construction budget with architectural engineering fees attached to it. So you have those numbers together. You probably have your own costs. Financing and attorneys and whatever else you need. And of course we did not include off site development for the acquisition of property. So soft costs always come with these projects and it's important that everybody understand that we're talking about construction and the fees associated with designing it. -' 10 ....", ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Schroers: Excuse me. Are the current ADA requirements taken into consideration? John Gockel: ADA, yes. Schroers: In your construction end of it? John Gockel: Absolutely. This will meet ADA. The only thing, I'll take that back. The only thing that will not meet current ADA requirements, if the District does not want to invest in a full, fully compliance ADA accessible playground. That's a really monstrous investment. It will be accessible but it will not comply fully with the ADA. That's the only component of their program that is not ADA compliance. Everything else is. Frankly for an exterior program, this is all going to essentially be on one level. We will have two levels for the classroom portion but your portion, the gymnasium associated aerobics, fitness rooms and the area adjacent to the cafeteria most likely will all be on one level. The main at grade level or very close to at grade. So we're not talking about multiple levels here that we have to worry about for handicap accessibility. Andrews: I have some questions for you. I'm not sure if you can provide the answers or ,...... not. Where does the ownership begin and end as far as the property goes? What property is school district property and what is city property? John Gockel: It has not been defined at this point. I think the logic will come, we're saying roughly in an area of 20 acres to roughly a 40 acre parcel. We're saying roughly 20/20. I think it will come out of a site concept that everybody's comfortable with. That you will approve at the end of schematics or during schematics along with the school district. And I think there will be some logic, as Bob describes we're laying the site out, I think you're going to see the logic of where that demarkation should fall. I think if we did establish it now without designing the site it might be. Andrews: I'm not asking for specifics as much as generalities. Is the site plan as we see it here sketched in a rough form, that's a 20 acre site or is that just a portion of the 20 acres? Ted Rosenblum: This whole thing is roughly the full 40 acres. Andrews: Roughly the full 40. John Gockel: Just take it to the ravine. If you take the east property line and take it right down to the ravine, that's roughly 40 acres. We're assuming that that east property line, there's a natural demarkation there and that's in the ravine and we're just making assumptions at this point that that's where the east property line is. ,..... 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 -' Ted Rosenblum: If that's the case, it's roughly 40 acres. And you're seeing all 40 acres. Lash: When you were in your 8 x 11, the parking that you showed as 120 spots. Was that the one parking area that's closest to the community area? John Gockel: No, it's the other one. I think the parking that wants to be closest to the... community parking and the one further away...main entry to the site. Lash: But the one that I looked at for the 120, is that the one that's closest to the field? Or is that the other one? Ted Rosenblum: What page are you on? Lash: Well I'm looking, on page 31 it shows parking here 120 spots. John Gockel: Yeah, that's the one to the east. Lash: Okay, so then how many spots in the one to the west then? John Gockel: We don't have it calculated yet...The 120 is the one to the west, you're right. ....". Ted Rosenblum: The one located right below the gymnasium. John Gockel: Yeah, that's 150...Don't try to scale it off. It's only a concept. Ted Rosenblum: The last item before we open it up...you're getting into the site now. We do want to...walk through at least a partial presentation of that which might answer some questions and probably cause a few more questions to come up but the last page is a more detailed diagram of the schedule. The second...city of Chanhassen. I've put in what Todd Hoffman tells the critical dates. Early and schematic design that we're going to be looking for from the city of Chanhassen as we move forward. You can also see on here though that we're looking for approval conceptually. Programmatically and from a budget point of view, but that we have to continue to have reviews as appropriate with your city staff and whatever groups Todd and others feel are important to keep involved throughout the design of the project. We don't expect you to approve a program and have us go out and design a building with a substantial investment in this project so we expect you to review the design with us just as you would with District 112 to make sure you're happy with how it's coming together. The success of this is not just in the program, it's how it's arranged and put together. But with 2 months for schematics, we know that after we get 3-4 weeks into it, we're not going to want to turn back after that. We're well on our way then. At that point we can still take 12 --' ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 out the gym. We can still take out the meeting rooms and be alright. After that then we have a problem. Schroers: That has generated a question from me. I mean why would we approve a concept and then 2 months later do something as radical as removing a gymnasium? Ted Rosenblum: I don't think you would but what we're saying is we need the concept approved essentially the month of August. See we're willing to keep going here the month of August and we know that you're going to...Planning Commission, City CounciL. and you may very well, or your Council may very well decide...then we move on. Remove those portions of the program and we haven't sacrificed an awful lot at that point. In fact that's... Schroers: So you would just go ahead with the District 112 portion of the development and drop the city? Ted Rosenblum: Yes. And I think at that point, depending on long term perspectives from the community and yourselves, you come out of there with a master plan perhaps of what could happen over years on that site at best. With Phase I being essentially the school itself /"'"""' and not community involved. With that why don't we talk a little bit about the site itself. The existing conditions on the site. Before Bob gets started, just a couple points. We came into today's meeting with two, I mentioned earlier, it has a couple challenges to the site but overall it's absolutely a beautiful site for a school and for a park. There are a lot more opportunities on the site then there are disadvantages and I think we eliminated one this evening. The first one is really knowing what's going to happen to Highway 5. We're suggesting, we know the center line of Highway 5. We don't have the profile as yet because it's not engineered fully but we're suggesting where we think that right-of-way is going to falloff the center line, but we're not sure. That's one concern of our's because it does bite into the 40 acres. The second one we have wetlands down in the southwest comer that were identified with the original survey that came out of the city. You have an overlapping aerial survey and topo that suggested wetlands from the surveyor. We have approached DNR regarding this one and frankly some other wetland issues we have on the Chaska site at the High School and DNR, it's out of their jurisdiction. They're not interested in that particular wetland. And Todd, we were going to spend this week going through what amounts to 5 different groups to make sure we get definition to what the wetland is and the Corps of Engineers is probably the most significant of the group. They've advised Paul Krauss of the City that they do not consider that a wetland. That could have had an impact on your athletic fields. So with that we don't have to worry about mitigation and replacing 1:1 somewhere else on the site. That's good news for us. So that one's behind us I think. We'll know by the end of the week for sure but I believe it is. I guess the third one is the collector road that's going to run east/west. That will take a little bit of a chunk out of the southern portion ."""' 13 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 --' of the site. We have, Bob has done a diagram that suggests basically a straight line running east/west. We do know, we took that off of a Barton-Aschman plan. I think there's probably going to be a swing to the north there around the wetlands that we do know we're going to protect and that's on the southeast comer so it will loop around that but as Bob will describe, we're keeping that area of the site soft anyway. We want to protect that area for other reasons. So with that, everything else is very, very positive. It's an absolutely beautiful site. Very nice for the setting of the school and a park...With that Bob, do you want to stand up here and. Andrews: Could I ask a question before you get into the site itself? There's something that confuses me. We talked about the 6 youth fields and 1 child field and on the drawing I only see 5 fields showing which means we're 2 fields short. Are you going to explain where those are going to go? Ted Rosenblum: Yes. What we're going to explain is that with the right-of-way on Highway 5 and the collector on the south, we don't think we can meet the program. That's what that suggests. We don't think we can meet the program. Now we do have, it's not anatomically correct in that the softball fields are really adult sized softball fields. They only have to be 180 feet on a leg rather than 270 feet. That adjustment loosens up the site for us. I don't believe it loosens it up enough to add another field. We're coming up one soccer field and one softball field short if there is some sharing between the district and the community on the 5 that remain. ....", Bob Rothman: As Ted mentioned, it is an extremely nice site. It's bound by Highway 5 to the north, the Timberwood Estates and the collector road to the south, Galpin Blvd to the west and the creek and the wetland area to the east. There's several high points on the site as well as some steep slopes which hopefully we can take advantage of...towards the creek area. When Todd is talking, you were talking about the creek crossing Highway 5. That occurs in this area which would be an instigator for the trail and such underneath Highway 5. The site's been organized as such to put the ballfields for the...on the west side of the site with all access to the fields from the access road. Parking being off the access road. The fields are oriented slightly off north/south. Just to officially use the entire property the best as we can and as Ted explained, we had a little bit of trouble trying to get the entire program on and these are showing as adult softball fields. Things will loosen up a little bit when we downsize those but it's my opinion that we probably won't be able to fit that last softball and soccer field on here. Again, the community park district property, or uses are on the west side of the site. The east side of the site we've got the elementary school and their associated fields. Their parking and bus drop off, playground. We've kept this area over here soft for views. For trails. Potentially for this access road. That swings up this way. We'll be able to work that in also. Again, this is the trail coming underneath Highway 5 and heading up to 14 --' ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 the school grounds. The building footprint is shown here as full, is the option 2. This portion of it. The elementary school program is approximately 80,000 square feet in this section here. I've shown everything on one floor but in reality I think the elementary school will probably, portions of it will be two story to take advantage of the natural slope of the site and also give us a little more room on the site so possibly this building will shrink down in the footprint size a little bit. Tennis court, hockey/ice rink located on the north and south of the...And with that I'll open it up to question. Berg: A couple questions. I don't see it in the description. I'm assuming then that you're not anticipating putting lights on the fields or the tennis courts? Bob Rothman: To my knowledge it's not in the program. That may be something that comes with your equipment budget, playground. Ted Rosenblum: When we talked originally with your staff, we talked a little bit about that. Not very long but youth fields, I believe it was because of the definition of youth fields as opposed to adult fields. We did not invest in the lighting. At least our construction budget Now you may choose to do that but otherwise I believe you're going to, in your master plan .1"""" do you not have adult fields across Galpin on the other side? Planned. Hoffman: That's part of the Opus park site. Andrews: Kind of blue sky at this point. Lash: But you know with the overloading that we have with the kids programming, I can see where someday we're going to have to have some lighting because we could have back to back games sometimes. Hoffman: Sure, that would be a decision of the Park Commission. Highway 5 seems to be the corridor where athletic fields with lights would potentially be located. At Lake Susan, Lake Ann. Berg: That minimizes in terms of... Lash: That was my question too because I could see where maybe the hockey rink would end up getting lighted and possibly the tennis courts but the tennis courts are the activities that are the closest to the Timberwood area. Ted Rosenblum: There is quite a buffer of trees between Timberwood and those tennis courts. .r" 15 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 .....; Bob Rothman: This growth of trees down in the south is extremely dense. Lash: So you wouldn't think that would be a problem. Ted Rosenblum: Well, I don't know how much of it is deciduous and how much of it is evergreen. Bob Rothman: Plus the natural terrain of the site. It's somewhat of a low spot where the tennis courts are located right now also. Roeser: That's the question I have. Is there any particular reason why the courts, the tennis courts are where they are compared to where the hockey rink is at? Or could they be flipped? Ted Rosenblum: I think Don Ashworth asked the same thing for a different reason. We talked through the program with him. He liked the idea of a hockey setting on the site but did not want it that visible because it's not that attractive frankly during the winter months so he was hoping we would be able to get that down closer to the comer and whatever goes up on the other side. We didn't do that primarily because tennis needs parking close. I mean you're going to get a lot more access to those tennis courts and probably need more parking so for that reason we have it down here closer to the street. .J Bob Rothman: Yeah but other than that reason there's no reason that it was located. Roeser: The reason I ask is that that being a low area, just for a hard surface, it might be better served on higher ground and put the other facility down in the softer area. Ted Rosenblum: Yeah, you might have a good point there. Lash: Well I'm thinking of people trying, in the winter trying to access hockey from the parking lot when you're trying to trudge through 3 feet of snow that far. Tennis you don't have to worry about it but to get to the hockey rink, it'd be kind of tough. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Speaking as a resident of the area...tennis courts closer to Timberwood because as a summertime activity it is all deciduous trees and in the winter... activity and noise and there is no buffer... Lash: Maybe it'd be possible to move the hockey down more on the east end of the site. I know you said you were...use during the day and I'm wondering, I have no idea how much 16 .....,; ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 use is there that's being requested during the workday or during the school day for facilities like that. Hoffman: I don't think I could answer specifically what is being requested but I think we could anticipate a fairly heavy use during the day. We have, this is to be financed by business in the economic development area and all of our businesses, or a majority of them have triple shifting or double shifting where there's a lot of activity or a lot of potential for activity during the day. We obviously live, each of us live with a variety of lifestyles where we have different free time throughout the day and I could not explicitedly tell you how much demand we would have until we got into the actual programming of the space but I would certainly venture to say that it would be heavily utilized and greatly appreciated. Lash: I don't have a problem with the concept but I would hate to tie up a lot of money and space that would sit vacant during the day just because we don't want the school district to use it during the day because we paid for it and we want to have it available for other people. So if it's not something that's going to be highly used during the day, I'd rather have it be facilities that we could have just expanding on what the district is already doing so that we ourselves have more gym space for the night time basketball and the exercise space and the ,...... aerobics and all that kind of stuff. I don't, I guess that's my initial reaction is I just don't want to see a bunch of money spent on space that maybe isn't going to be used all the time. Hoffman: Sure. I think it would be, the discussion earlier about the joint use agreement. Those type of things would solve that. There may be certain times during the day where the school could access the additional gym for their programming and that might be a time, a slow time for the city or community activities. Those type of arrangements could be worked out. Berg: Do you think Todd that there will be some time for real use for youth athletics in the second gymnasium, in the Option 2 gymnasium? Is it going to be open strictly to the community all the time or are we talking about the potential of, we certainly have a shortage of basketball courts for example. Is there going to be able to be some time scheduled so that youth specifically can use it? That's a major issue for me. Hoffman: That would not be my decision. It would be a decision of the Park Commission. You've seen that go both ways. In your site visit up to, where'd we go? Shoreview. You heard them say that they did not schedule athletics. It was always open to community use so that was one extreme. You've seen probably in other communities where the youth is really emphasized the usage of the building. If you talk with Jack Jensen, the President of the Athletic Association who's just fmishing up with the summer baseball program. He took an opportunity 2 days ago to stop in the office and talk about his pending request back to the ,..... 17 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 '-' Park Commission to again utilize neighborhood fields. There will be 3 of them on line. New neighborhood fields for the 1994 season. We also talked about the upcoming basketball program and if any of you are familiar with the crunch they have in space for the youth basketball program, they're really in a mess in attempting that. I think they're going from 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.rn. now on a typical Saturday morning at the elementary school and double shifting then. They'll be looking for additional space. I think the commission is aware of that. I think you've heard, and the Council has heard from the Athletic Association that the voice of the community is attempting to let you know that they need this additional space but that's again just from an Athletic Association's opinion. Andrews: I'd like to say that I very much support this concept. I have concerns about the funding and it's impact on all the citizens of the city, which I think my concerns have been answered. But I think this is the type of a facility that I think the general population of Chanhassen will look upon as a wise use of space and money. I know Todd asked us not to talk about particulars but I would like to have some things noted for future meetings so I don't forget. I think it would make a lot of sense to consider electrical and water stubbing out to the intersection of the four ballfields that are shown on the map. I also think it would make some sense to try to locate the hockey rink directly adjacent to the school and try to squeeze it in there where it'd be readily accessible to the daytime use or the kids potentially as well as make it more accessible in the winter. And it would also be much cheaper to flood it if it's closer to the building. .....", Schroers: Okay. I think to comply with Mr. Hoffman's request to stay focused, we're at a point right now where we should ask for a recommendation as to whether or not we want to recommend concept 2 for approval to the City Council and move on. So I guess at this time I would be interested in a motion in that regard. Andrews: I'll make the motion. I'd move that the Park Board recommend proceeding with Option 2, further development of Option 2 as the preferred development concept for the school property. Schroers: And I would like to second that motion. Andrews moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend proceeding with further development of Option 2 as the preferred development concept for the school property located at Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. AU voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Lash: ...and this has nothing to do with the park site but I happen to help children load and unload from the bus every day and that looks like a loading and unloading nightmare... 18 ....." "...., Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Ted Rosenblum: Well, remember this scale is 1 to 100. Bob Rothman: That's actually like 40 to 50 feet wide. Lash: So across the front of the building, how many buses would be able to be there? Ted Rosenblum: We don't know what the programming...because we haven't gotten that yet. Before we move into design much further, we'll have that at a scale that we could actually develop the turning radius and loading and unloading. Lash: You don't want to just be able to load one bus at a time. I just want to make sure on that. Andrews: Todd, one other design detail and that would be to consider the idea of a concrete base for the hockey rink to provide a rollerblade rink for our city. Hoffman: High quality bituminous. .,,-.... Andrews: High quality, I think bituminous being a dark color would tend to melt the ice very quickly so I don't think that would be suitable but yeah. Schroers: It also is hot and more uncomfortable in the summer. Lash: That's a good idea Jim and in the summer you've got your rollerb1aders can use it. Andrews: Speaking from one who has played roller hockey, concrete is much preferable to asphalt as far as when you get road rash. And it would be better for the flooding too. (There was some general discussion at this point in the meeting.) FORMULATION OF 1994 PARK ACOUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Schroers: We seem to be right on track. I was going to ask if we could break this down into more simple terms and just identify that these are the monies that we want to spend in this parks for 1994. We'll move right through it and then if you see something that needs further attention, please interject and we'll try to take care of that business. But I think we should be able to stay focused just on the one particular park for the year 1994 and move right across. JI"""" 19 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 ....,.,. Andrews: Mr. Chair, could I have some clarification if I could on 1993 revenues and expenses? Todd, are you projecting that all planned budget expenditures for '93 will be in fact completed with the '93 budget dollars or do we have to rebudget uncompleted items? I know we ask this question every year. Hoffman: Everything will be completed with the exception of the Lake Susan lights. I don't think that's a project which the Park Commission should move forward with the Fund 410 dollars. I know we've talked about the potential of having the BRA finance that Lake Susan Park project, the project which I referenced earlier which is some 5 1/2-6 years old, also carries a deficit which the BRA will be asked to pick up. So again, we have burdened the BRA in the past We'll continue to ask for them to assist the city in the beneficiaries of those programs but excluding that exception, everything else will be funded. Andrews: With the deletion of the Lake Susan lighting, does that essentially create an additional $65,000.00 available in '94 or does it just disappear from our consideration? It essentially frees up $65,000.00 for 1993 that we were planning to spend. Hoffman: Correct, and it will make it available for expenditure in 1994 but I wouldn't categorize it as we're going to have $150,000.00 in revenues. We add the $65,000.00 which we didn't spend last year thus we have $215,000.00 to deal with. I think the fact that we've taken on the irrigation project which is $50,000.00. We tend to need to be conservative. ......" Andrews: I'm not questioning the conservative approach you're recommending. I just want to make sure I understand where these dollars are. What we can do with them. Hoffman: Does the Commission understand that when a capital project is initiated, that Fund 410 is the home base and then a project fund is created with a transfer out. So if you identify a budget for $60,000.00 for the Lake Ann irrigation. A transfer out occurs of $60,000.00 and that is for accounting practices, principles and so money is removed. Like the Lake Ann Park shelter, $200,000.00 was shifted initially and so now that project shows a deficit because the project contract is $255,000.00 so we will need to be moving more money out of 410 into that project fund prior to the end of the year. Lash: So like maybe this $65,000.00 from the lights would go for that? Hoffman: Sure. Lash: I just don't want to see it disappear. 20 ....."" ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Hoffman: It's not going to disappear. It's all there. It's kind of like a savings account each of us have set aside and we have a variety of projects wrapped up in our mind. The money's there. It just depends on where you spend it.. Andrews: Thank you. Now I understand. Lash: Can you just give me an example of somewhere where there's an italicized... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Schroers: ...Oh okay. So we've established that we do not need to identify anything in the CIF for 1994 in Bandimere Community Parks and also Bandimere Heights Park. With that, we'll move on to Bluff Creek and there are also zero dollars identified for any CIF in 1994 in Bluff Creek. I think that still remains appropriate. Manders: I'm trying to get an idea of where that's located. Roeser: Yeah, I was wondering about a sign for Bluff Creek. ..;""". Hoffman: There's no road to get to it Schroers: There's no access. I mean we're going to stand here and talk about this for 15 minutes and we've talked about it I don't know how many times before. Berg: I don't think the residents would like a sign. I think they'd like it to be as big a secret as possible. Schroers: Until we know where Bluff Creek is, we don't want to spend any money on it Lash: You have to go through the golf course to get to it We did hike through a few years ago. It was nice. Schroers: Okay, moving on. Carver Beach Park for 1994. We do have $1,500.00 allocated for a swimming buoy and signage at the main beach. As of our last meeting it was a commission presentation of mine. It was brought to my attention that residents were concerned over the lack of buoys and ropes due to the intensity of water skiing and jet skiing activity. I think staff has already addressed that issue and I think if we still need the $1,500.00 identified for 1994, that that is a justified use and we should. ,...... 21 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 --' Hoffman: We'll no longer need that. At the direction of the commission we have accelerated that purchase into 1993. The dollar figure is not exactly $1,500.00 but we'll take it out of our contingent fund for 1993. Dale Gregory has placed those items on order with the intent to installing complete buoys and rope and buoys at both beaches. Schroers: Okay then, if you're taking it out of the contingency fund, does that free up this $1,500.00 from the CIP1 Hoffman: You can just cross it out in 1994. Andrews: Just delete it. Schroers: Okay, we will delete it then. Lash: So nothing for '941 Schroers: Nothing for '94. And staff is going to interject if he knows things that we don't so. Hoffman: I caught word that they destroyed the park benches down there but I haven't followed up on that. I haven't heard additional word. ~ Schroers: I think they threw them in the lake is what I heard. Hoffman: Well the park benches were, they were smashed. Lash: Well they're not getting new ones until '96. Hoffman: It may be a replacement issue. A parts issue or we can always buy a replacement bench. Schroers: Okay. Moving on to Carver Beach Playground. We have $6,000.00 italicized for a skating rink, electrical service with lights. If Mr. Hoffman would update us on this, I would appreciate it. Hoffman: Those items originally were indicated in the CIP in 1993. The commission at that time elected to push them off a year in 1994 and again the commission will have to debate the merits of that program for this upcoming year. Berg: Two issues. One is do we need them. Secondly, we've also got them budgeted in '94 for Meadow Green. 22 .."", ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Lash: We've got them budgeted like all over the place. Berg: But those two in particular are really close to each other. IT we decide to go with them still, I don't think we need them in both places. Lash: IT we need to debate that, do we need to do it now? Is this the time to do it? Schroers: I think we should decide on this and move forward. I don't know. Fred is maybe in a better position to know the intensity of the use at Meadow Green but when conditions are suitable, I know that Carver Beach is used intensely. Andrews: Is there an issue regarding accessibility or cost of installation at either park that would make one superior to the other? Hoffman: Not that I'd recommend. Manders: We're not talking about a warming house or anything like that? 1""". Hoffman: We would include as part of this program was discussed that we would rent the portable warming house buildings. Roeser: Then do you have an attendant there too? Hoffman: Yes. Lash: We talked about this last year I think at length and I was all for it at that time. I'm starting to have second thoughts just knowing of some of these bigger projects that are going to be coming on line here that we need to be dealing with and a lot of the new developments that are coming in that we're getting property but we're not going to be having money to do anything with any of them. Is this something that we've had input from residents that they want a lot more ice skates or is this something we just kind of came up with ourselves and thought it'd be a nice thing to have? I can't remember what got us started on this to start with I guess. Schroers: It was to upgrade current facilities because everything seems to be going into the new developments. The new projects and we were letting our older facilities just kind of stay as they were. The long term residents who have been paying taxes over periods of years are not getting improvements in their neighborhoods and we felt that we needed to continue to upgrade and take care of what we have along with the new and I'm thinking that on projects of this size, I mean $6,000.00 here. That may help but it will help very little in terms of ,...... 23 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 .....", acquisition of properties really. I mean I think what we're going to be able to cut out of 1994 for this CIP is not going to buy us additional park property. I think that is going to be addressed when we ask the Council for funding. We'll be asking for those kind of dollars there and just cutting small amounts here, $1,000.00 there and $1,500.00 here is really not going to bankroll us in terms of acquisition. Lash: I wasn't thinking of acquiring property with this money but we've got some of the newer parks still on line like Pheasant Hills and Herman Field and some of those places that are still waiting for anything and those are the people who have paid money and haven't gotten anything. The already developed parks, they paid their park fees. They have a neighborhood park that's developed and I think it's great if we have the money to go back and give them something new too but that's where we're starting to get into this rob Peter to pay Paul thing is the money that we're taking out to put in these skating rinks now is going to slow down the development in some of the newer parks that are coming in. If we have people in Sunset Ridge or Chanhassen Hills or now these new ones that are coming in out west. If they're going to have to sit for a couple more years with nothing out there because we're putting skating rinks in the already developed parks, I guess I'm not comfortable. Schroers: Well the skating rinks have always been there. The skating rinks have been operating in both of these parks but without. --' Lash: But it's more than just these two parks Larry...! don't know. I can't tell you but as we start going through this, you're going to see. There's only 31 I was thinking there was about 6 of them. Hoffman: 3 indicated in 1994. Total of $18,000.00. And then in 1995, North Lotus Lake indicates a hockey rink with lights at $25,000.00. Lash: And then also if you start putting that with, when you look at this thing and you're also going to see tennis courts in a bunch of the neighborhood parks. So if we start scratching those, like we decided we were going to, and start scratching some of this electrical to the skating rinks, it is going to start adding up to some money. Roeser: This is an old neighborhood though too. I kind of like the idea of putting something there. Those people have been up there for a long time living in that area. I can't see pulling that one at all. Schroers: Are you talking Carver Beach? Roeser: Carver Beach, yeah. 24 .-II ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Lash: But if it's in Meadow Green too, I can see where that's maybe a little over kill. Berg: I can see maybe staggering them. Maybe moving Meadow Green to '95 simply because people in Meadow Green have got City Center and they've got, then they have Carver Beach and then see what happens as the result of not doing it at Meadow Green. Schroers: That seems like a reasonable solution to me. Do you want to. Andrews: May I make a comment? Schroers: Yes. Andrews: Before you propose a solution. I think it is important we look at hockey or ice, lighted rinks as a program for winter which you have virtually none. My suggestion would be that we have three rinks that we're considering. That perhaps we try one and see how it goes. One of my concerns is if we build or provide this, it's a precedent. It's a program that I think people anticipate to be permanent and if it doesn't work out the way we anticipate it, I think we'd find it virtually impossible to stop doing it. So I guess from a word of caution, I"""""' I'd suggest we pick one and try it and see how it goes. Meger: And to maybe piggyback off that. I would wonder if the lights, the location of the lights in the different areas, different parks and where the skating rinks are located, if the lights could serve any dual purpose for the summer months. If there would be any use for that. Or if they pretty much are. Hoffman: The intentions are that this is not athletic lighting. This is a street light. NSP ran power connection with a street light which if located property, could service as a summer security lighting. Lash: Well and we just had a request from North Lotus Lake for that, didn't we? Is that one that we were talking about putting it in? Meger: Yes. Berg: Meadow Green for example would be at the end of one of those little cul-de-sacs by the multi-family. Hoffman: Meadow Green, yeah. Where the ice rink is unless we decided to move the ice rink to another location. But currently it's on the west end of the parking lot there just inside the park. "...., 25 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 -"" Lash: I'd be more interested also if we pick a site, and in picking one where there are some parking near to it so people can get to it I don't know what Carver Beach, there's street parking right? Hoffman: It's a nightmare for parking. Lash: So Meadow Green maybe has better parking. I don't even know where the ice skating rink is there but maybe North Lotus. Schroers: Has parking. Lash: That has parking and there's already been a request for a security light in the summer anyway. Berg: Meadow Green's parking is not terribly accessible to the skating rink. Lash: Is it better at North Lotus, Jim? Andrews: Yes. They have plenty of parking. I guess my other point would be that it's a fairly remote area from the rest of the city's facilities. There is no trail system to get into the city so the people up there have no real access to any of these other facilities, other than by being driven there by. -"" Schroers: And vice versa. The people from the rest of the city, it's inconvenient for them to get there as well. Andrews: The people in the center area of the city do have easier access to city facilities. But as far as the lighting goes. Lash: Is that going to be in like somebody's bedroom window? Andrews: I doubt it. I think it'd be fairly easy to light it. Schroers: I think that people would, these aren't lights that would be going on all the time and I think if your young children were out there, you would prefer the advantages of light over the annoyance. Berg: Where they requested lights going to where the skating is? Hoffman: Well they requested the lights at the parking lot. 26 -"" I"'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Berg: Would it work? Would one light work for both? Hoffman: Probably not. Lash: But at least we'd have electrical there where there isn't any electrical there now. That's going to be one of the major costs isn't it, just running the electrical into these places? I guess that's where I agree with Jim. I hate to start sinking a whole bunch of money into a lot of different sites just putting in electrical and find out maybe it's not going to be a high priority and then we've got electrical running to all these places that we don't need. Berg: The point is a good one of accessibility to the rest of the city too. The people here do have access to City Center. Schroers: Okay. Can we come up with a general consensus then that it's a good idea? We would like to start by lighting Lotus, North Lotus and we will hold off on Carver Beach and Meadow Green? ~ Hoffman: One programming question I would have. In '95 there is targeted $25,000.00 for a hockey rink and lights which would be a totally different program from installing a telephone pole or general skating in '94. So if you're looking to complete the hockey rink in '95 at North Lotus, you would be investing some money. Electrical would be there. We would need to explore if it would be compatible for the installation of hockey lights and then we would have a pole which we used for one season, which if you installed new lighting next year would come down and start over and have a whole new program. Berg: Would you have hockey exclusively? Couldn't you still have, spend the money for hockey but still have the skating rink, the local skating rink? Hoffman: The current location of the open skating would be the location of the hockey rink. Andrews: Well Todd there's another level area right below that. Hoffman: If you put in the hockey rink, then you'd have to move open skating down below. Schroers: So what you're saying is that basically if we did this at Lotus we would lose the investment of our pole, provided that the electrical that's stubbed in is compatible to their requirement for the hockey rink. ,...., 27 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 ,...,I Hoffman: Unless we did move the open skating rink but that would take some grading. It's relatively flat down there but it's not flat enough to put a skating rink down there. Berg: How much of the $6,000.00 is the pole? What would we lose of the $6,ooo.00? Hoffman: Again I called for an estimate from NSP. They did not break out the cost between the pole and running the wire. Lash: So if it works there and we decided to put it someplace else, we can move the pole can't we? Andrews: Yeah. Just move the pole. Schroers: Okay, you don't need a motion to this effect. What we'll do then is push back on Carver Beach Playground the $6,000.00. We will move up to 1995. Andrews: Yeab, for consideration only. Schroers: And we'll see how things went on North Lotus in '94. ....." Hoffman: That's a good plan and again to embellish upon Jan's comments in regard to Peter to pay Paul. These are the type of expenditures which are being eluded to that the commission should approach the Council and say, hey look. We're back out into community parks that have been there for a long time which have been funded by the community's which they belong in and now we're going back in and doing additional improvements. These should really be general tax dollar expenditures. Lash: We want to do it but to do that we end up having to forfeit the new development. The people who are coming in now paying. Schroers: Let's try to move through this and then we'll address the funding from the council in a whole separate issue at the end and see if we can continue to progress here. Okay. That is the only thing that was plugged in '94 for Carver Beach Playground. We have made some other improvements to facilities there recently so I don't believe we need any more attention there. So let's move on to Chanhassen Estates Mini-park and we have $2,500.00 in '94 for basketball court I guess I don't know where we are with that. How much demand? Hoffman: That's in direct response to the inquiry you had from the resident in that area who brought his children in and talked about improvements there. 28 ......" ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Lash: But he wanted playground equipment. He didn't want a basketball court. Hoffman: Correct, and the commission compromised by saying we can't afford the $10,000.00 or $12,000.00 for a play structure but we'll start with basketball. Schroers: Okay. Then we're going to hold to that and not deviate from that. Berg: So the sense is that that would be residential and not for the industry around in the area? Hoffman: Well DataServ, CPT or DataServ. They'd probably come over at lunch hour. They'd certainly find it. Lash: My recollection was that we had this budgeted before the resident came in and we thought it would be more of a noon hour adult recreation time for the businesses down there. And then the resident came in and we said well we've got $2,500.00 for basketball court and he said, well I really don't care for that but we want playground equipment. But we said we just didn't have the money to do that. ,....., Manders: Well wasn't there some other comment along the line of access to the other Rice Lake Marsh park and the facilities there also? Lash: Yeah, but he said that was like 3 blocks away. Hoffman: There's a basketball court there too. That maybe the scenario Jan. Berg: That's my recollection is that the industry kept kicking in my head too. That's what the use was going to be primarily. Lash: Well and that's so small, there really isn't space to put much of a play structure there anyway is there? Schroers: We had some concerns about visibility and safety there too. That it's perhaps not a secure area for young children to be watched and observed by their parents unless they actually come and sit and watch them. ,...... Hoffman: We would certainly design it so if the city or the park commission in the future wanted to install. a play structure, we could do that. This is another Dood eXfJn7n~ a{#~A phenomenon WhlCh can occur if cities wh '" "Jllylll UlII always talked about the maintenance of tho exp~d~ and ha~ all these vest pocket parks. We ose. aVlDg to drive out but can you imagine 29 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 ......" having to outfit each one of those with $25,000.00 or $30,000.00 worth of equipment Because each one, everybody's going to want a play structure and this and this and this. So in that scenario, this is so small. It's a remnant piece of land which was made into park. It's across from McDonald's. It's in residential neighborhoods on the fringe. There's no real access from the residential neighborhood other than between yards. It's a strange piece of property . Berg: And we really are talking about 3 blocks between that and the other park. Rice Marsh. Schroers: So I think that a basketball court for the immediate residents is a nice addition, a nice amenity and we really don't need to go any further than that. Hoffman: We could probably label that frollerblade rink. Schroers: Okay. Let's move on then. Berg: You have a potential idea there. Maybe it can be built as a rollerblade rink. If these people would ever come in and talk to us. ....", Andrews: You need destination parking. Lash: There's a McDonald's lot there. Schroers: Let's just go on. Here we go. Chanhassen Hills Park. We have $10,000.00 for play area expansion. Lash: Can I back up to '937 This is where we got the call or the letter from the resident, right? Saying no basketball court. No trail. No, and he makes it sound like they don't have anything. So are these things in line to be completed this year? The basketball court is? Hoffman: I had a conversation with, upon drafting a memorandum to Dale and Dean, I called Mr. Skubick to give him the update this morning and again, he discussed his concerns and we went over the backlog of work and we talked about the trail issue and Lake Susan tID\s ~ and he' ~ reM comfortable with wnete we're at. Is staff co-&ortable with the projected, the $10,000.00 for '947 Scbroers: Good. 1111' d Mr. Skubick has stated that in his Hoffman: I'm not sure if comfortable is the wor . 30 ...", ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 memorandum that he certainly thinks that this play area is not nearly as nice as the new one which went into Lake Susan Hills West down at Sunset Ridge. So there's at least one person's opinion out there. He stated that was the opinion of the neighborhood as well. The play structure's been there for quite some time. It's a Phase I structure. The $10,000.00 is Phase n. I certainly think it's a justifiable expenditure. Lash: Do you think it needs to be bumped up a little bit? I mean $10,000.00 used to be our figure that we would plunk in for different phases and I know costs have gone up so much. Do we need to bump our figure to be a little more realistic? Hoffman: I would say yes due to the increase in border and anytime we go in for an update, we ask for a compliance audit and then they make a bunch of recommendations that you need additional kick plates and you need to separate this and this and this is going to cost another $3,000.00. So bumping that up to $13,000.00 would probably be safe. Andrews: Let's do that Schroers: Okay, it's agreed. We will go to $13,000.00 for play area expansion in '94 in ,.... Chanhassen Hills Park. Okay. With that we can move on to Chanhassen Pond Park in 1994. There are no monies allocated. Does anyone know of a reason why we should? Berg: The picnic tables are great. Schroers: Okay. And then we can move on to City Center Park in 1994 we have $12,000.00 for a plat area expansion and we have $4,000.00 for tennis court maintenance. Do these numbers seem to be still in order and appropriate? Hoffman: Both of those are real soft costs. The $12,000.00, we have a reserve which you established list year which can essentially cross this off. The reserve is there. The commission can direct me to contact the school again for the 1994 budget cycle to see if they'd be interested in adding a second phase to this green and tan playground back here. Then you can take that money out of reserve. $4,000.00 for a tennis court maintenance is based off of a 3 year cycle approximately of going back in there and potentially doing an overlay on the acrylic coating. Lash: I guess that was my question was the $12,000.00 didn't jive with the $25,000.00 that we had back in the reserves. And it's not the right amount and I guess I would be interested in seeing us contact the school board again to see if they're interested in the match. We might as well do it every year. ,..., 31 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 ....,., Schroers: Yes, I agree with that too. Lash: Maybe what we need to do is to send a side letter to the school board member from Chanhassen. That would help us a little more too. IT we went directly to that, I think there's only one person from Chanhassen on the school board isn't there? Pat Donnay. Isn't she the only one? Berg: I don't think any of the others are. Lash: I don't think so either but maybe we need to try and pull in. Andrews: I have to helped a little bit in this understanding. Are we saying that there's already an existing reserve that takes care of the $12,000.00 showing in 1994? Hoffman: Correct. And an explanation back to Jan's question is the $25,000.00 represents the two phases. Right now each phase is scheduled at $25,000.00 but those are 2 year old costs so we put aside $25. We match that with the school's $25 at any time in the future. That covers the Phase IT and Phase ill expansion. Andrews: So we can delete that $12,OOO.00? .....",' Hoffman: Yes. Lash: So in the request to the School Board we could ask them for $12,000.00 to be done in two phases or $25,000.00 to do it all at once, right? Give them choice A, choice B? Berg: r d be interested if that could be tied in with the money that they got from the referendum too. Schroers: Well they have told us repeatedly that they have no money and I guess if that's the way they want to operate, then we are not going to spend our share unless they're willing to spend their's. Lash: Maybe there needs to be, maybe we can go to the PTO or the APT or whatever it's called here. Again, that was how we got some funding before. Berg: And maybe the letter can be worded in such a way as to point out how cooperative we're being over here with the new elementary school. Wouldn't it be nice to jump over here and continue the same project. 32 .....,; "...., Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Lash: Finish that up. Schroers: There are other school districts in the city that probably would be interested on a cost sharing, if it were offered. Lash: Maybe we need to mention how cooperative they were with the Jonathan site. No, don't do that. But they were. Schroers: Okay. Well then, to get back on track. We are only going to be spending that $12,000.00 on City Center Park in '94 if the school district or the elementary school wants to do the share cost program. And then as far as the $4,000.00 is concerned, it's for tennis court maintenance? Hoffman: Yes. To clarify. You can eliminate the 12 out of the '94. The $4,000.00 I think should be left in. I'll callout the consultants on the tennis courts. Take a look at those and then verify if we need to do some work on them. If not, the money will just be expended... other projects. ,...... Andrews: What, if anything can be done about the warming house? Is that paint and. Hoffman: Again, plans on the warming house and the hockey rinks, they're a constant, what would I call it. They're a constant eyesore. A constant concern to me but waiting for Central Park concepts and plans and progression. Doing anything previous to that would be premature and ill advised so that warming house just hangs on. Schroers: Okay. Moving on to Curry Farms. We have nothing for 1994. Anyone know of a need? Lash: Did we ever put basketball in over there? Hoffman: No. Lash: Can we? Hoffman: Probably could. It would take, again back to the conversations on the tennis courts. It's not as big of an area. It would take more money because of... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Lash: ...we need to think of some other kind of an adult activity to replace the tennis courts. ,""" 33 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 ...." I know that's one that got pulled out but I know that had a lot to do with the soil conditions too so if it's not conducive to basketball either, I don't know what we can do but. Schroers: Okay. Well anyway, we have no plans and nothing budgeted for Curry Farms for '94. I think until we identify a need there, we can move on. We will go to Greenwood Shores Park. For '94 there is nothing. Lash: We talked last time about the trail mess at the end. Is that something that's going to happen this year or do we need to put money in for next year? Hoffman: We can take that, we can back that onto some asphalt work that we're doing someplace else. Lash: How about the grills? Are they still coming? Hoffman: Again, I didn't go through ordering a variety of equipment because we had so much equipment stored from subsequent orders and backlogs out at the parks building. Tagging on a bunch more grills to install, picnic tables and everything else...and get on with '93. They'll be coming. -' Andrews: It sounds like we can cancel 1994 and... Schroers: Okay. So there are no monies needed to be budgeted in Greenwood Shores for 1994 then. Moving on to Herman Field for 1994. There also is nothing budgeted. I don't know if anything that is going on there that would require any funds to be identified for '94 either. Lash: Do you think we should omit the tennis courts? Hoffman: Yes. I crossed it off. The park's gorgeous. I mean it's got a parking lot. There's an access road. It's got curbs in the parking lot. It's got new trees planted there. The play structure's going up. We actually moved a play structure to where the tennis court was to be located. It was much nicer location. It had to be squeezed if a tennis court was going to go in there. The park's coming along and those folks should be happy. Schroers: Okay. We'll move then to Lake Ann. All the expenditures on here for 1994 is $3,000.00 for trees. $2,500.00 for some docks. And a total of $5,500.00 for 1994. Andrews: Didn't we need to allocate for the project overage in our dollars here? 34 -' ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Hoffman: I don't know that we have to necessarily have to line item allocate for that. That certainly will be recouped. You could show that if you choose to. The budget contract was for $255,000.00. We had some overages I think which...but there will be an overage of some amount but if you wanted... Lash: That would come out of '93 anyway wouldn't it? Andrews: My question would be, since when we built this project the city provided some general funding that is proportion to the park commission funding. Perhaps we could somehow do that on the overage as well. I think to say that it totally should come out of the CIP is kind of punitive to our other programs based on the fact that this one was a cooperatively funded project to start with. Hoffman: The overages came totally in regards to the park shelter building...! mean we've taken sewer and water right up to the plumbing fixtures. We've attempted to again stretch those park dollars as far as we can. Berg: Will the irrigation show up on '93 also? """'" Hoffman: Irrigation was paid and hopefully the fund will be closed out. Manders: What's the intention for the dock? Hoffman: This intention I believe, my recollection is that we wanted to place that second dock...second dock in. To have two docks...There's a lot of docks down there. We can shift docks around. There's two on the west side of the beach for general fishing. We can switch one of those. The docks have been refurbished. on an annual basis or semi-annual basis. Some are in pretty good shape and to date, I think we have a pretty good program as far as the...so if you wanted to delete that. Schroers: Well let's delete this $2,500.00 for the dock and keep in the $3,000.00 for the trees so we've got. Lash: Where are you planning on putting more trees? Hoffman: Trees were on a replacement basis. In recognition that many of the trees near the beach are... Lash: And then on the 4th of July I mentioned to you about the, and maybe this just be put in with one of your bituminous projects also but connecting that chunk of trail to the boat ,..... 35 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 -' launch so there's a continuous segment there. Hoffman: That, I think you may want to explore that with the commission in a little bit more detail. That would be of sufficient project size that we would need to budget for it... Manders: What> s this? Lash: When you take the trail from Greenwood Shores around, it kind of dead ends there you know. No, wait. Where was it that I wanted to do that? I can't even remember. It was by the boat launch I know but I don't remember if it was on the east side or the west side. Hoffman: The trail currently dead ends at the boat launch and then people want to naturally go to the concession stand on a bike, on a stroller, walking and then you have to cross an area which is many times very wet. Ifs a difficult area. We could take that trail right down to the beach access and then we have that little trail stub. That would work out fairly nicely... Schroers: So just from the west side of the boat access to the trail leading into the beach, that area there. What> s wrong with that? Lash: There isn't anything. There isn't any there now. .....,. Schroers: Well I know but I mean I cross that all the time and have no problem. Lash: On the grass? Schroers: Yes, with my bicycle or walking. Lash: Well yeah but is that what we want people doing is going across the grass with their bikes and their strollers and stuff? Schroers: I think that if they're really isn't that much traffic there that it> worn a path or anything. I mean I don't find when I cross there, I don't find a worn trail or anything. I mean I think just people meander through that area. Lash: I think the problem I had was on the forest and that's because it was so wet and then you had to try and walk through that and it was real soggy. Manders: I've run through there and I mean any time it>s wet. that area is soggy, as is the rest of the trail. 36 ...."I ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Lash: What kind of money would we be talking about? Hoffman: $1,500.00. Andrews: I was going to suggest that since Lake Ann seems to always require some sort of emergency spending every year for some unforeseen project or correction or repair, that we should maybe just budget in maybe $2,000.00 or $2,500.00 to take care of this project and have something so that when some other little break it or fix it comes along, we've got some money. It's a very large facility. It's inevitable we're going to come up with some little thing almost every year. Hoffman: Now that you mention that, I can come up with one. There's a partition wall in the mens lavatory to take care of that sight line problem and we've got a design back on that. You open up the little restroom and you can see thru the urinals...and the architect said well, yeah. You can see that. And then an architect that's brand new in the field, he said that was the first thing we learned in architect school so they must have not been teaching that back then but now they're teaching it. So that project would take a thousand bucks. We'd contract it out and your idea is probably right on. Lake Ann is such a large structure that having it's ,..... own contingency fund is probably a wise investment. Schroers: As far as that trail portion, or that trail connection there is concerned, I see a real problem once that. Part of what's wrong with the other end of that trail going to Greenwood Shores is that someone has driven along it. Created some massive ruts which is holding that water and stuff in place and what I see is, you put a short connection there. People are going to say ah, another place to drive and they're going to drive on that to cut up to, when they come out of the boat launch area. They'll try to cut over to the other road that leads into the picnic area instead of following the routine from the boat launch up and around and circle back around. We're going to have people driving there. Parking there. I mean the couple times you've got to walk through the wet grass, I don't think justifies the problems that it's going to cause. Andrews: Are there other trail or auto? Roeser: I think that brings up a real good point about that driving on that trail. I mean is it unfeasible to put up some kind of a barrier? Andrews: I was just going to ask the same thing. Lash: It's been done. IfI"'"' 37 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 ...,." Roeser: It's been done on the other end but. Lash: No, it's been done on that end too. There used to be a gate there. There used to, what There was a metal post right in the middle of the thing for a while. Schroers: Then it was taken down because of a safety hazard...it should be something more sophisticated like a laser to identify a car. If it is, blow it up. Disintegrate it. Lash: Work on that Larry. Schroers: I will. Lash: Jim, I can't even remember how it's laid out. I said this is going to be helpful for Todd to do this because I can't remember how it works. Hoffman: The boat access, parking lot and the access road comes down in here. So you have the boat access. That trail currently dead ends here and then there's a connection to the fishing pier which comes through like this. Schroers: Todd, draw that in proportion to the ballfields so they can see where the entrance, from the two parking lots, the beach parking lot. ....,I Hoffman: The ballfields are up here and they go down in two lines. The parking lot turn around is here and then the beach parking lot. Schroers: Okay, and the road from the boat access is a separate road and joins at the top there and what we're saying is if you make that little connection, people are going to want to drive up that little connection to the beach parking and go straight out rather than follow the boat access route out? Roeser: I don't think they drive on that thing during the day. Schroers: I think they'll drive anywhere. Roeser: I think it's only kids at night that stay too long in the park. Hoffman: Well we drive it..for park maintenance. I mean...that trail was constructed at 6 feet but a pick-up does not fit on it...Probably a great deal of that is put there by park maintenance. 38 .....",I ,..., Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Lash: What's the little square that you have right down there? What's the little square? Hoffman: The beach area. The rental dock house right here. If you detail that entrance where you have the road coming down, a cut away in the curb and it comes in and then it T's out and goes down to the...This is asphalt. What Ian is looking at is making a connection from here over to there so we can, if you drive on this and make that corner would be difficult but... Schroers: Cars drive down to the other fishing pier and park there so they don't have to walk from the boat rental parking lot to the fishing pier and it doesn't matter if it's daytime or night time or whatever. People, I mean they have a route and I've seen several station wagons back right up to the fishing pier. You give them an opportunity to. drive, they will drive on it. Andrews: Is there good signage down there for permitted vehicle areas? Hoffman: You can only assume that people should park in parking lots. Signage which was created would leave parking in designated areas only. That was part of the standard signage. ,...., Lash: What about the, you know what are those things called? Those round. Hoffman: Bollards? Lash: Yeah, those things. If we stick a couple of those in with reflector tape around them or something, is that going to? But then that stops the park maintenance people from getting through. Hoffman: Those get pretty gawdy you know. We have the western style cedar rail fence in certain locations in the park. We could stick some of that at this entrance point. Here where it was wooded in here...and then stick one of the fences in which we have at the other entrance... Roeser: I mean it sounds like what you're saying is that park maintenance staff is in there. I don't know if there's other people in there driving on that. Hoffman: I think there's certainly other cars that go down there. Maybe Lake Ann, the gate is now closed by the Carver County deputies so there's less of that likely to occur. You also can't get there from the Greenwood Shores side because that is gated as well. Lash: I've been down at the beach at Greenwood Shores, not this year but in past years, in ,..... 39 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 .....". the middle of the day. Hoffman: Park cars? Lash: No, not park maintenance but kids in a Jeep and you know and all of a sudden they just come to the end of this path and they kind of go, like what happened to the road and then they, you can't back up so then you've got to drive out around through the park to get turned around and head back down the other way. Schroers: Well whatever vehicle made the ruts that are existing there was a full sized vehicle. They are terrible ruts and if park maintenance did that and didn't do something to fix it, I guess that they should be given direction. If they do something like that, go back and fIx those ruts because those ruts are holding that water right in place and keeping that whole end of that trail a soggy mess. Manders: Talking about that trail, there's one other big wash out area in there. You're probably aware of that. Hoffman: It comes down from, it's the drainage coming down from Eckankar. Manders: Yeah. It's getting big. ~ Schroers: And it smells like raw sewage running right into the lake. Is that in fact the case? Hoffman: I would have no information in that regards. Manders: There's something pretty sharp coming through there. Hoffman: We could check into it. Schroers: I mean I think it just smells like an open sewer running right into the lake. Andrews: It sounds to me like we need a vehicle... Lash: We need a what? Schroers: Or if park staff is causing those problems, let's just say hey. Lash: Well what are they driving on there? 40 --' """" Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Schroers: Go back and drive in there and make a mess and not fix it. Lash: Why does park maintenance have to drive all the way along that trail to get to Greenwood Shore? What are they bringing over there? Hoffman: They wouldn't be going to Greenwood Shores. They'd be going down there for tree trimming or routine maintenance. Checking the wash out or something. You've got me. In that regard is the Commission aware, currently the city's organizational chart places park maintenance under engineering. I've addressed that with the City Manager saying, I on a daily basis program with the staff and give them direction yet I have no enforcement in assuring that they follow through with direction so, an issue which if the Park and Recreation Commission wants to submit... Lash: Well I'm still in favor of this trail connection and it's coming back to me again now because I walked over there a couple of times with my neighbor and she's got a stroller. And if we want to walk, take the trail over and then we like to go through the whole parking lot and go up to Highway 5 and then we turn around and come back again. And it's tough to try ,..... and push something like that through the grass. Otherwise what we have to do is go up through the boat launch. The boat parking and take that whole other route up which we can do but. Schroers: Well, the way that that's drawn there, you're going right into the sand of the boat rental beach. Is that where you want to run that or do you want to diagonal it up to link into the trail that goes to the beach which is actually what that all is. Hoffman: Again...you have a couple options with an island turn around. Currently now it's got the...parking concrete bollard. If you run it here, you could run it right on the edge of the sand...asphalt right up to the grass here and then come up. If you want to diver it to come up here, you're going to have to access this turn around. Bring pedestrians onto that turn around for a short period of time before you can get them back into the pedestrian trail... Andrews: I think we ought to change the word dock to trail. Do the plan, do it right. And I do think we need a barrier. We do need barriers because cars will drive on that trail. Roeser: Yeah. I mean what's wrong with putting a barrier like there is to not even be able to get along the beach there. That's closed. Schroers: Well okay. Everyone go along with that? We will plug the $2,500.00 into the trail instead of the dock. You can sell me on that one. r 41 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 --,. Lash: Okay, thanks Larry. Schroers: Your welcome. Okay, let's move on. We kind of got off there and we needed to. It was good to talk about it and stuff but we still have a lot of ground to cover here. Lake Susan. $1,500.00 in 1994 for a track ride. Hoffman: I'd recommend you bump it to $2,000.00 and buy it. Lash: I do too. Schroers: $2,000.00 and buy it. Everyone agree? Hoffman: Last time we had a quote it was $1,870.00 something. Lash: And we've got to get that in over there. Schroers: Okay, moving on. Meadow Green. $6,000.00 for a skating rink. We've already addressed this issue. We will bump that up to 1995 providing that we had a successful experience with that at North Lotus. Lash: Can I make a request on this one too? That when, we have bleachers for '93. I'm assuming they're not there. Are they not there? --' Hoffman: Not there. Lash: And where are you planning on putting those? Hoffman: The Athletic Association, in direct response to an Athletic Association request for additional bleachers and they'll go on one of the two fields. Lash: Okay, because there are some on the one closest to the parking lot but there are none on the farther one and we played there quite a bit this year and it was so wet that people were having to sit like up in people's yards because it was so low right by the field that we couldn't sit there. So there needs to be a bleacher over by that field too. So I don't know if that's where this one was supposed to go or what. Hoffman: Yep. Lash: Okay. Schroers: Lake Minnewashta Heights. Also $6,000.00 for skating rink lights and that will be 42 """ ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 the same program. We will push that forward to 1995. Who knows what we'll find out at North Lotus for '94. North Lotus. $8,000.00 for the skating rink lights and $12,000.00 for play area expansion for a total of $20,000.00 going into North Lotus for '94. Berg: Is it $8,000.00 instead of $6,000.00 because of the distance it has to run? Hoffman: Correct. Andrews: Just as a comment. Because we have deferred so many skating rinks with lights to '95, I guess I would expect that we'd likely defer the hockey rink with lights out of '95 and into a subsequent year as well because otherwise we'd be taking on a lot of major projects all in '95. I would suggest that we, for the purpose of planning move that hockey rink perhaps back even one more year. Schroers: We could also do the same with the proposed lighting on the skating rink at Meadow Green and Minnewashta Heights. Stagger them a year. Go to '96. Possibly for Minnewashta Heights or Carver Beach. I""""" Lash: I guess again we kind of kick around the idea of coming up with a service area or we're going to end with them too close together. Hoffman: I'm proposing to bring to the Commission I think in September an itemized of where we want to put... Andrews: One other comment. Todd you mentioned on City Center that they were looking at a 3 or 4 year rotation on tennis court surface replacement. I don't believe this court's ever been resurfaced and it's well beyond that age. I'm not aware that it really needs it. I mean it was in good shape last year but I don't know if that needs to be looked at. Hoffman: For routine maintenance both here and at North Lotus and at Meadow Green, it probably would be wise to get an opinion with regard to what they call acrylic tear. Where you can see the cracks... Lash: Maybe we need to plunk that in for '95. Or '94. Hoffman: Or potentially continue it for '94. Last year I think you had a $9,000.00 contingency which worked out very well. When these type of issues came up, I brought them to the attention of the commission and you authorized... Lash: Did you put down the Lake Ann, sorry to go to that one again but a little fund, r 43 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 --' contingency fund for Lake Ann? Andrews: We did not specific to that? Hoffman: You did not specify that Lash: Maybe we need to do that. That is a good idea. Hoffman: What amount would you like to put there? Lash: $2,500.00 maybe. Hoffman: Okay. Schroers: Okay. So we should be in pretty good shape at North Lotus Lake. The residents should be happy over there. They've got a nice park and we're spending lots of money there. Hoffman: Had we come to a conclusion? We talked about skating is going in? Lash: Yes. .."", Hoffman: Did we discuss play area expansion? Schroers: We didn't discuss it. Plugged in. Is there any reason to change the $12,000.00 for that? Hoffman: The only note I had is that there will be a refurbishment going in which is in part due to accessibility audit and then the donation from Lundgren Bros so there's about a $4,000.00 investment which will be put into that play structure this year in 1993. Lash: A donation from Lundgren Bros? Hoffman: That was a year ago in response last year in response to a negotiated issue on the Summit. Lash: You dontt get a lot for $4,000.00 though. Hoffman: No. We're getting very little. It's more or less an accessibility structure which is being added. 44 --' ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Andrews: It's been 9 years since that originally was built Lash: I don't have a problem with leaving it in there. It probably needs it. Berg: So that $4,000.00, it wouldn't be appropriate to deduct it a third from this $12,000.00 in reality? Hoffman: Probably not. You said Chanhassen Hills had $13,000.00. $12,000.00 would be. Schroers: Keep in mind also that we go through this every year and when we're talking about kicking back the $25,000.00 in 1995, in another couple years we'll be addressing this same thing again next year so I don't think we need to be looking at what to do with the $25,000.00 for 1995. Let's get through '94 because we're going to be addressing that again. Hoffman: I have had requests for expansion at North Lotus. Also had a request today to make the playgrounds in the city no smoking zones. r- Andrews: Just as another comment on the playfield itself. I don't know what can be done to strengthen the grass up there but it still is not very good. I know that field gets intensive use but it should be better considering the amount of rain we've had this year. It looks like aeration could be a problem. It's so compacted it's like concrete out there. Schroers: Okay. Let's move on then to Pheasant Hills. In '94 we have $20,000.00 for play areas. $3,000.00 for picnic tables. $1,600.00 for park benches for a total of $24,600.00. I think that development is due and the residents of Pheasant Hills have been, or are aware of our plans and we should attempt to schedule that. Lash: Are we going to be ready to do this next year? Hoffman: I certainly hope so. That will be part of my discussions with the park maintenance staff. We need to prioritize where we go next. They're fmishing up at Pheasant Hill and the refurbishment at Pheasant Hill. Excuse me, Minnewashta Heights and...Power Hill for grading. Lake Susan, or excuse me. Chanhassen Hills for installation of a ballfield. North Lotus Lake for refurbishment or Meadow Green for refurbishment So we've got some scheduling to do. I want to get the seeding done. We have to get the seeding done...so we'll be concentrating on these grading projects and we'll be installing playground equipment up until it snows. Lash: So this has all been graded and everything already? ,..., 45 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 ...". Hoffman: No, it was rough graded as part of the filling operation last fall so there's some extensive compaction work and grading to take place there and then the seeding. So if we seed this year the disturbed areas, we'll start to become green but if we install these in '94, we'll live through the same situation we're currently doing down at Sunset Ridge where we essentially install playground equipment... Lash: Well there again we can delete the tennis court. I know that's beyond but why don't we just omit that. But we should leave in the basketball hoops and is that something, if they're going to be going in and. Oh, this is where there's not, there isn't any parking lot right? Hoffman: They're parking on...and hopefully the trail... Schroers: You're talking beyond '96 Jan. Lash: Well yeah. I was talking about the tennis court has to come out but if you take that out and you just have a basketball court in there, if they're going to be going in there and doing some other kind of blacktop work, maybe it's not a big deal to just stick the basketball court in at that time instead of making it wait until beyond '96. ..""" Hoffman: It's an investment of time and materials... Lash: Okay. Make sure and leave it in I guess. Schroers: Some of these things as we're going and get into development, it will make sense to do and at that point in time staff usually brings that to our attention at the appropriate meeting. If we were involved in developing Pheasant Hills and they saw as they get into this development that it would make sense to add the basketball court at that time, I'm sure that staff would bring that to our attention. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Andrews: ...and I'd also agree with what Todd said on his report that we should maintain a very conservative approach, perhaps even to return some money to our reserve and just designate it for no particular purpose. Lash: I think tonight going through the budget I think we were very conservative. We axed a lot of different things that we had slated and I think those are two great ideas Jim. And another one that I was thinking of is this land acquisition. We know already that it's going to 46 ...,." I""" Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 be more than that so maybe we need to plunk a chunk of money in there too. Do you have any idea what we really are looking at? Hoffman: Twice of what have we got, $150. Twice of that, $300,000.00. Andrews: Easily. Although, this nothing but a gut reaction. I think the City Council is already emotionally realizing that they're going to have to come up with the difference. Not us. I don't sense that they're looking to us for more than what we've already got in our reserve. Hoffman: It'd drain the account. Andrews: Yeah it would drain our account but I think we set aside $150. I think that they're working under the assumption that that's all we're going to contribute and I guess if that's the assumption they're making already, I wouldn't want to let them down. Lash: But I think this is a perfect example of what you were just talking about. It shows our sincerity that this is something that's a priority for us. We've been bank rolling this money ~ for quite a few years now and I think it demonstrates to the City Council that it's something that is important to us and so if we bank roll money for the trail access, yeah under TH 5 there by the creek, that demonstrates that we think that is a high need area and I think the same thing with the elementary site. We know that's coming and what's the point of having all those ballfields if we don't have backstops and. Hoffman: That will be included in the price tag. Lash: No, he said it's not. Hoffman: Backstops? Lash: Yeah. He said none of that was included. Hoffman: Boy, I was under the impression backstops were included but beyond that. Lash: Because he said tonight you'd better make sure you budget for backstops and. Berg: They talked about all the software that we're still going to need to purchase. Lash: Right. All the equipment involved with these things so. "" 47 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 ....." Hoffman: I'll review that with them. The other issue is, they were at $450,000.00 for 6 fields. Right now we have 4 city fields in there so the cost will be coming back so. Coming down as that thing gets submitted. Andrews: That may wash out some but I still think it would be politically wise to show some sort of reserve for that project It shows some planning on our part Schroers: Okay, we're getting back into the general discussion mode again here. Can we summarize what we need to do in order to get through item 3 on the agenda, which is the capital improvement program and the '94 acquisition. Is there something that we need to. Lash: We need to designate money in the reserves if that's the direction we're going for these projects that we're talking about and see what it totals, don't we? Andrews: Did you total up where we're at? Hoffman: $90,100.00. Andrews: That's with the $lO,ooo.oo? Schroers: Is there a proposal of what you want to designate? """'" Andrews: Yeah, I'm getting to that. We were sort of projecting about another $150 kind of a year. I guess I'd like to see at least half of that be returned to the general reserve. Undesignated. Can we do that? Hoffman: Sure. Absolutely. Lash: Undesignated? Andrews: Undesignated. Just to the general reserve. Build our 410 account back up. Berg: That's approximately 30, correct? Andrews: Pardon me? Berg: That'd be about $30,000.00. Andrews: About $30,000.00. I'd like to see the balance split between the trail and the school. That's my preference. 48 ...."., I""'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Schroers: Is there anyone who disagrees with that? Berg: It's hard to disagree not knowing what the costs are corning. Schroers: You know these things are not, it's not etched in stone anyway. As the situation develops, we can address it more specifically at that point in time so. Berg: It's really more a sign of good faith now than it is a realistic allocation. Andrews: It's not a promise to spend it. It's just holding it in reserve for potential later designation. Hoffman: Yeah, what it gets you is a couple lines down here. Less required reserves. West Minnewashta. City Center Park and it would put in Trunk Highway 10 1 trail and elementary school site. Andrews: I'd like to change that from a suggestion to a motion. "..... Schroers: Is there a second? Meger: I'll second. Andrews moved, Meger seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommended that all funds not allocated in the Capital Improvement Program be designated to the 410 Reserve Fund. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Schroers: Is there any further business that we need to do on item 3 of the agenda? Hoffman: Just there was an inquiry into the cost of park maintenance. The budgeted 1992 expenditures were $198,800.00 in comparison with parks administration which is $218,000.00 so they're basically uniform costs. Andrews: I think it'd be valuable Todd if before our joint meeting that we could kind of break out of our new acquisition capital costs versus replacement of old or defective equipment costs. That way we could discuss that as a maintenance item instead of a capital improvement item. Hoffman: To clarify my position on that. I agree with Jan's recommendation that this is a commission issue. Between the commission and the City Council. You represent the people out there that you're doing business for. I certainly agree with the concept that we need to " 49 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 .....", get something going. I presented that in my budget presentations to the City Council. I've gone over this step by step and what we are doing and obviously one person in front of the City Council holds much more clout with that group than I would at a budget hearing so they need to hear it directly from the Park Commission. Schroers: Okay, thank you. Any further business on item 3? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: . Hoffman: I had none specifically in mind other than the Highway 101 trail feasibility study. The project did report come up. That draft study will go to the City Council, I believe it is on the 23rd. That will not be a public hearing. In fact the public hearing will not be called in this project until some information is included in this study. That has to do with assessments or potential assessments. Prior to putting that in there, you can't call for a public hearing on the project because people do not know coming in what they potentially could be assessed. So they can't react accordingly. Andrews: Just a point of interest. Why is there being consideration given to an as,sessment for Highway 101 when other trails have been built with no assessments against the property owners? ...." Hoffman: It's simply a matter of the funding mechanisms which are available. Andrews: It's just a point of interest and I'm sure it will be one of major interest. Lash: The people on Minnewashta were assessed, weren't they? Hoffman: They were assessed for the overall project. In how costs were broken down, it was shown that the trail was paid for by State Aid. The argument could be made that... Schroers: That's all you have in administrative? Hoffman: Unless there is other things that the Commission. Well they could present those at Commission Member Presentations. No. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Schroers: Are there any further commission presentations? Berg: Do we have a date yet for our meeting with the City Council? 50 ....", ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 Hoffman: I have not received a response back from the City Manager in that regard. They will be setting that at an upcoming City Council meeting. Lash: That was my question too and then I have another one. I think I noticed in the paper that the Lundgren Bros proposal was on the agenda for the Planning Commission. Hoffman: The Song property? Lash: Yes. Hoffman: On the 18th. Not to my knowledge. They're coming to us, this is coming back to the Park Commission on the 24th. Lash: I thought they were going to come back to us fIrst but I thought I saw in the paper. Unless it's been deleted. I thought I saw in the paper I saw it listed. Hoffman: I'll clarify that. Jim did call inquiring what the idea from Terry Forbord was that evening and what that was was the addition of a trail alignment. A trail easement and trail ,..., along the Johnson/Dolejsi piece. So they don't want to change the park issue but they're adding this kind of as an additional amenity to the community. And we walked it on Monday for a couple hours. Very nice area of the city. I'd never been in that area of the city before. I told Terry, you people had to be real excited when you walked back here for the fIrst time because it is gorgeous property so allowing the public to gain access to it via a trail system which lies between rear yards which drop off very steeply down to a wetland area and then putting the trail along the toe of that slope would be a very nice amenity. But it's just an add on. It does not replace your concerns about the park. I will be investigating additional lands, the lands around that area which potentially could be purchased by the city. Lash: And the public would be able to access that trail? Hoffman: Yes. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Schroers: We're down to 6. Administrative Packet. Didn't really see it. Motion to adjourn. Berg moved, Lash seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman ,-.. 51 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - August 10, 1993 --'" Park and Recreation Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim ..""" 52 .."""