PRC 1992 03 24
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
~REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 24, 1992
Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Jan Lash, Jim Andrews, Wendy Pemrick,
Randy Erickson, Fred Berg and Dave Koubsky
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; and Jerry Ruegemer,
Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Schroers moved, Andr~ws seconded to approve the
Minutes of February 11, 1992 and February 25, 1992 amended as noted by
staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW, PRELIMINARY PLAT, BLUFF CREEK, KEYLAND HOMES.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and commission members. You've seen this item
a couple times before. Just to refresh your thoughts on where it's
located...south of Audubon. Just west of the Lake Susan Hills West area
and we talked about it in conjunction with the Hans Hagen piece. These
folks...they're nervous as to what's going to happen with that extension of
sewer and water down in that area. Hans Hagen is moving forward full bore.
Sewer and water will be coming down Lake Drive West and down Audubon Road,
coming back up to the...as well so it picks up those... They don't want to
move forward until they have a definite answer on that sewer and water
~project. So no action is needed.
Schroers: Okay, very good.
discussion regarding this?
Do any commission members have any thoughts or
If not then we'll move onto item 3.
SITE PLAN REVIEW, PRELIMINARY PLAT, STONE CREEK. HANS HAGEN HOMES. INC.
Hoffman: This proposal is to subdivide 81 acres into 141 single family
lots and then provide 8.3 acres of park property as it is shown in your
packet... The layout of the proposal site will most likely change.
There's still some communication down to the County. How many accesses can
we have out onto the county road in that area? How many alternate accesses
will you be constructing? There will be that access north to Timberwood
and potentially pe an access to the east in the future. There's still
wrestling with those type of issues. However, I think we can safely answer
the question about concerned park property. What exactly would the
Commission like to see in that area as park property? As stated in your
packet, that we can require about 5.64 acres of land. Currently they're
offering about 8.2. However, 8.2 acres does encompass that creek bottom.
It's fairly rugged terrain and pretty heavily treed. If we wanted to go in
there and plop in an open field, it's not going to make a whole lot of
sense. I think the Commission bounced that idea off of one another to see
what type of park property they think fits. It's really not a policy
question. We don't have written policies saying you take one or other.
It's really a how does it feel? What do you perceive to be the needs? The
potential of having the school property to the north may take some of the
heat off of a request or a desire for an open field. That type of thing.
~The lot sizes in here are... They're not enormous but they certainly would
provide some on site recreation in the residential lots. Other things to
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 2
consider are the trail connections. There is the trail as identified in
the Comprehensive Plan along the county road and then as well there are
interior trails as noted on your site plan in your packet. Then there
are...as it is shown in your packet. Those would be some potential trail
loops and trail...that could be developed to assist movement within the
development for park and recreational uses. Again the site is shown in
red. Timberwood is to the north of the Chicago-Milwaukee-St. Paul-Pacific
Railroad. We do need to talk about this site in context with the Gram
location. The last time this was reviewed in brief, this lowland area was
talked about. That will mostly likely be taken as an outlot. It's
unbuildable. It's really not desireable to put a park down there either
but it does provide open space. But it's safe to say that we probably
cannot acquire a large parcel of property on that site. We had talked
about traversing from the Gram location through that path, underneath the
railroad underpass and then up into this park. ...trying to reach an area
where you can have open, active ballfield or at least some play equipment
in there is simply, probably not be there. This wooded creek site could be
developed as a trail. Could develop a small play area... To give you a
little better feel for how many lots we're talking about. North would be
to the right of the picture. This would be the proposed park parcel.
These are the last corner lots down in Timberwood. This would be the
street connection to Timberwood. The potential street connection to the
east and this would be the most likely connection straight north to TH 5
making for a fairly convenient access to the location in the future. That
railroad, the railroad tracks...configuration and then that underpass just
to the east there's a site so the underpass is available to pedestrian
traffic. . .
Schroers: To go underneath the railroad underpass?
Hoffman: Correct. There are two large viaducts that are...but that would
accommodate that 'Bluff Creek trail segment...
Schroers: Well we really don't have any other neighborhood type parks or
residential type parks in that particular area.
Hoffman: In fact if you look at the entire area, landlocked area by Lyman
to the south, TH 5 to the north and Galpin and CR 17. That whole blocked
area which is now pretty much all in for development, we don't have a large
parcel of active park property. We did acquire that wooded piece of
property through the Chan Business Center...in this location. It would be
this large wooded lot right there. It was purchased with a development
contract. . .
Schroers: Is what's happening is they're offering us8 acres of that
steep, pretty much unuseable terrain hoping that we won't come back and ask
for our 5.6 acres of better ground?
....,.",
-'
Hoffman: It's certainly a bargaining chi~ on their side, sure. They offer
you 8 instead of 5.64 that we could require. It's the area which, it's
unique. There's a creek bottom there"but it's just a matter of choice.
What would you rather see? The upland area as you can see on the topo, if
you get a chance to take a look at the clear copy, does provide some flat
ground. You could go in there and clear portions of that. ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 3
,.....
Erickson: How you're talking about the northern half of that, tip of that
flag?
Hoffman: The flat area would be that south arm.
Erickson: Okay. Where you've got that trail doubled is what we're looking
at?
Hoffman: You can see the edge of the field. The entire...field and this
area right inhere is fairly unique. It has many large, mature pine trees
in it and there's some open grassy meadows but then it does drop right off
into the street. which it certainly, it's not such a grade. It's probably
a 16 foot drop down to the creek so it's not like a cliff. You're
certainly not going to get down into that creek bottom enough onto the
other side. The only other flat piece of property which is on this site.
Essentially, if you take a look, the site is split. This half is heavily
wooded. Maturing sugar maple forest. Many mature trees in there.
Maturing trees. This half is open agriculture fields. It dqes have quite
a bit of relief to it. Large hills. Up in the top area. We can certainly
go back and request another 5.64 acres be incorporated in that flat open
field area to accommodate an open ballfield. More traditional typ~ of
neighborhood park in that area. They mayor may not like it but they would
simply amend that into their road design plan and their plan. Then what
would mostly likely occur on this parcel, they would alter these lots,
potential lots farther back into it and then bring some private drives and
~split this parcel up into some large wooded lots and that would obviously
settle more for...
Lash: Is that Bluff Creek that's going through there?
Hoffman: It's a tributary to Bluff Creek. Bluff Creek would right down in
this location.
Schroers: It's the creek that comes out of Lake Ann right?
Hoffman: No. It's the creek that comes off of a wetland on the west side
of Galpin Blvd.. Galpin and TH 5 is wetland area. It comes underneath the
road in a culvert comes down under the street and then...through Timberwood
and then down into the Bluff Creek section...
Andrews: Todd, would there be enough room on that flat area of the
existing plan for at least a 2 tennis court, ba~~etball type useage?
Hoffman: Two tennis court, basketball? Most likely there certainly could
be. My impression when I went out and walked this site, if you were going
to clear a large area of that, you would be running into some considerabl~
trees and fairly mature growth. If you wanted to do that, again I think we
should depart from that location.
Andrews: My comment is, this development is roughly the same size as Fox
Hollow where I'm at, and I can tell you the park that they have there is
~about 8 acres and it's pretty good size.
Hoffman: Larger than that.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 4
Andrews: It gets intense useage. It's very important to the neighborhood.
I think if we do not provide an active park facility here, within a matter
of a year or so after this thing starts to fill up, they're going to be
knocking on our door demanding it from us. I guess since you've stated
that you think that that bluff would be suitable as a high valued home area
for them to develop so I don't think there's a whole lot of negative here.
It's not like we're denying the builder a chance to use his land but I
think we need to provide an active park facility for that neighborhood.
That's too big of a neighborhood not to have one.
-'
Hoffman: Tha,t's my opi nion that that can be there. They did show that in
a initial plan but obviously they came in with this concept showing that as
park so they would prefer that to be park. If we go looking for park
elsewhere, we're certainly only going to get what ~e can. 5.64. We're riot
going to be able to get 8.
Erickson: In conversations with the school district and other departments
in the City, what are the likelihoods of this potential school zone
becoming a school zone and having some parks and ballfields there?
Hoffman: The likelihood is there. It certainly can't be funded up at this
time. The City of Chanhassen is interested in pursuing that. However, the
city has tentatively put some negotiations on hold pending the outcome of
the task force, 27 person task force that's been established now to take a
look at demographics and school locations and that type of thing.
Andrews: There have also been commercial ventures that have offered to ~
swap property to take that school zone property and give them a piece in
return further to the west.
Hoffman: Yeah, potential. I mean there's been many, many discussions
about.
Andrews: That's by no means a sure thing at all really.
Koubsky: Say Todd, the area to the south that's a sugar maple. That abuts
this property or this development correct?
Hoffman: That sugar maple, I define as a sugar maple forest?
Koubsky: And that's been dedicated?
Hoffman: Yeah. That's been purchased. That would be through the viaduct
underneath the railroad tracks and over to the other side. That's a
drainage with mature trees as well.
Koubsky: And that kind of is right in here, is that correct?
Hoffman: It's farther, right in this zone.
Koubsky: So we do have at least adjacent to this development some opeD
area with mature trees.
Lash: What is it that's just north of the flag? The park site?
....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 5
,.....
Hoffman: Just north would be large single family home lots. The Timberwood
and then these are 1, 2, 3, 4 individual home sites.
Schroers: Do you know at this time what is proposed for the area just to
the west of the site that we're talking now? I mean we have reason to
believe that there's'going to be a lot of development around that area
wouldn't you think?
Hoffman: Across to the west, across Galpin?
Schroers: Yes.
Hoffman: The zoning I believe, well no, it's still rural. Right now it's
used as a business of tree farm and where they sell the black dirt off of
that location on the south half of it. Presumably we could a$sume that
it's going to be housing...
Schroers: Where is the new commercial development going on in relation to
this? I wish that we would get rid of Galpin and Audubon and Arboretum and
talk 17, 117, TH 5.
Hoffman: Those numbers can be confused very often. This CBC is that new
area which you recently reviewed. But then as well they're talking about
commercial, office type complex up in this area as associated with that
.~ school site. The school site may either be in this location or maybe in
r 'this side.
Schroers: That's what I'm getting at is there is more development proposed
for the area and we probably are going to have some opportunity, especially
in commercial development to acquire more property in that area and
possibly larger chunks.
Hoffman: Acquiring a commercial is somewhat more difficult. This portion
here would be. ..tax increment financing and the holding for that Bluff
Creek corridor...negotiation of the area. You would then be putting a
playfield in with an industrial/commercial park which...residential
development is going to see that as a neighborhood park. This entire
block, this piece came in. Now that Gram's is on the board. Hans Hagen.
This entire northern...is on our doorstep.
Andrews: Can I make a motion and see if we can try it?
Schroers: Well before we make a motion, let's ask if there's any other
discussion?
Erickson: I guess I'm just curious if we took this flag piece of land here
with the creek running through it, as far as future maintenance and
troubles and liability problems. Is that much greater with a creek running
through it than if we just took a nice little flat piece of land?
Hoffman: No. In fact your question about maintenance, it brought up
,.....another thought that I had after writing the report in that a natural area
is going to obviously require minimal, no maintenance. Whereas if we put a
5 acre groomed park in, that does add to our maintenance schedule. I'm not
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 6
saying either is bad or better than the other but it's just another
consideration. As we add additional parks, we need to keep that in mind as
well.
....-I
Lash: What's the rough square footage of the lots?
Hoffman: A majority of them are about 15,000 to 18,000. 20,000.
Andrews: How much space do we need for a ballfield?
Hoffman: Open play field? Open play field, 200 x 300. 200 feet by 300.
Lash: I guess the only thing I'd like to say about this particular one is
we did look at that other site further south and figured we would bank on
providing park service to that development out of this development. Ahd I
would never, ever say that I would be one to pass up natural and natural
open space because I think that those are so important and I'd love to be
able to do both in this if we could because I haven't had the chance to go
over and see it but it sounds like it would be a beautiful site to just
preserve as an open space if we could put anything else in there to
adequately serve all of these residents. It just doesn't sound like we can
do that. We can't actually count on the school site going in. We don't
know that for sure' at this point in time. And even if we do, that's a
pretty long haul for people down in this other site to go all the way up to
the, if a school site is put in up here. That's a pretty long trek for
people in that other site. And then another weighing factor for me is the
size of the lot. When you have smaller lots like that, people just don't ~
have the room in their yard for kids to play ball or do anything really.
They don't even have enough space to put up decent swingsets and things
like that. So I guess my initial reaction was yeah, it sounded great to
just keep it. It would be a beautiful site to preserve but I don't think
we'd be serving the residents in that area without providing them some type
of a park facility that they would actually use for something.
Koubsky: How much useable space would you guess is in that flat area where
you've got the little trail going through? Would that be 2 acres? An
acre?
Hoffman: Yeah, if you look at it, it's approximately a third so 2 1/2
acres. 2 acres.
Koubsky: 2 1/2 acres.
Hoffman: We continually need to weigh what we're glvlng up. If we take
full dedication, we're giving up what is it, 67 whatever thousand dollars
in, $70,000.00 in Pqrk fees. If we acquire an open flat piece of ground
and they begin building houses in there and we get residents asking for
their $50,000.00-$60,000.00-$70,000.00 worth of development, we need to go
out and find those funds as well. This one's a difficult one to deal with
because if you, there's so many different options. If you take the natural
end and have the developer put the trail loop in, you're done. You've
certainly met half the needs but you haven't met the need to pick up a bat
and ball and take your daughter or son out to bat the ball around or fly a
ki te. Those type of potential acti vi ties. So it is one to wrestle with. --'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 7
,....
Schroers: Okay. In order to keep things moving around here, I realize
that you have a motion Jim. I think we should give everyone a chance to
voice their opinion on this and then we'll get to it so why don't we move
on to Dave.
Koubsky: I like the open ground. I think with 141 houses they need some
place for kids to play. It sure would be nice if they could give us Lot 13
or Lot 12 too. That's flat. That goes up on the ridge on this blueprint
which would allow us to put some flat land in there. I'm not sure if
that's with their quarter, half acre lots or third of an acre lots.
They're giving us more than their allotment but it's also agricultural land
right now which is cleared and it'd be fairly inexpensive or less costly to
develop.
Lash: In our requirements or whatever that we can ask for, isn't there
some mention of actual useable area?
Hoffman: Property?
Lash: Yeah.
Hoffman: Correct. It needs to be,
so you could conceiveably take that
that closer down to the 5.6 acres.
wants to give a...
"'"
the only qualifications is the wetlands
strip, the creek out of there and move
It's not as...as the developer who
Lash: If there WQuld be a way of us doing like Dave said, of acquiring Lot
13, would that give us enough space so we could put something in there that
would make it more active.
Hoffman: You can see on your copy of the topo map that Lot 13, the grade
begins to, certainly would be a grading plan for this development will
change that to some degree but that's essentially Lot 13 comprises the
slope. It flattens out at the rear of the lot and at the foot of the lot
and the lot itself is the entire hillside. So it would be difficult to get
any additional flat property out of that. If you're all 160king at your
copy, you can see the largest flat area with the 953 is down in this
location. It's relatively flat. It's got brush in it. It actually had
some standing water the day I was out there but that could be cleared
pretty painlessly. There's not any unique features there. Then you can
obviously see the two grassy open areas which could be incorporated in that
and then you can see the shadows from the large pine trees. These are 25
foot pine trees which you can see on there. There are some large sugar
maple and other trees that are...to that site. So it's certainly
conceiveable that you could make the mix of clearing it but it's going to
take some loss of tree cover.
Andrews: Compare it to Pheasant Hi 11s. How big is this ,development?
Hoffman: pheasant Hills. Well I don't have an exact number on pheasant
Hill but land area, this one is probably a larger.
;!""" Andrews: I guess the point I'm making is those people had a wild.area that
they could use all they wanted to and they petitioned us quite vigorously
Pa,k and Rec Commission Meeting
Ma,ch 24,1992 - Page 8
fo, ballfields, tennis cou,tsand a basketball cou,t. I'm conce,ned, and
this goes back to whe,e I live too, that those active a,eas a,e getting
intensely used and I would love to p,ovideboth an active a,ea and a
passive a,ea but I'm conce,ned that if we p,ovide a passive a,ea, that
there will be a very heavy demand fo, an active area sho,tly the,eafter and
we won't have the space to provide it and we'll have another c,isis on ou,
hands of where do we find the parkland at this development and maybe
anothe, one that's ac,oss the road right-of-way the,e that we've talked
about before. That flat a,ea at the top, if that could accommodate perhaps
2 tennis courts, combination of tennis cou,ts and basketball, that might be
enough to provide something and then retain that.
...".
Hoffman: Yeah. I think if that is the choice of the commission, we',e
better off trying to locate that somewhat central in the development so we
can have some p,etty good traffic patterns.
Lash: Or even fu,the, south so it would be mo,e accessible to the other
development.
Hoffman: Somewhere to the south and to the east up to the t,ee line. We
obviously don't want to ask for a 5 acre pa,cel in the middle of the matu,e
fo,est, although I mean they',e going to be cutting a la,ge amount of trees
to get thei, lots and streets in the,e. I'm not sure that we want to add
to the toll.
Sch,oe,s: Randy.
Erickson: I just think that Jim's making a real good point. It'd be nice
to have a passive pa,k the,e but I think just by the shee, numbe, of people
and the lack of other park areas that maybe going fa, some other land fo,
mo,e of an active park would be a bette, idea.
-'
Schroers: Okay, Wendy.
Pemrick: I ag,ee.
fo, active parkland
There's going to be
i tsel f to that.
I think we should go for the maximum amount of acreage
because of the high density of houses going in the,e.
lots of children involved. I just think this lends
Schroers: Okay, Fred.
Berg: I tend to agree too. I just have a couple questions. If that is
not developed fo, a school, how fa, a walk is it from where this
development is up to that school zone? And if it's not used for a school,
will it turn into ,esidential?
Hoffman: A portion of it may be ,esidential. The other large, portion
will most likely be comme,cial/office/indust,ial type use. The distance is
estimated at 3/4 of a mile...
Berg: 50 if it's going to be industrial, we're not going to want to put a
park up there?
Hoffman: Probably not, correct.
-'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 9
""'"
Berg: I guess I grudgenly then have to go along too with turning it into
an active park.
Schroers: Yeah, that's the way I feel. I'm grudgenly against it. Not
against it but I really hate to see every nice, natural area be full of
houses. And the trade-off that we have, as I see them, is we can get 8
acres of, we can just acquire 8 acres of green space, a natural area that
we don't have to do anything with. We don't have to stick any money into
or we can get the 5.6 acres of active use and then we're going to have to
come up with money to develop it. So there's really where it's at. I
agree. I think that our job here is to service the needs of the community
but you know also environmental issues are so pressing these days and each
and every tree that we cut down is real effective so I'm going to take the
environmental stand on this. I'm ready for your motion Jim.
Andrews: Yeah, I want to make a motion so we can call the question. I'd
move that we return this to the developer and request that they provide a
suitable active park site in their plan.
Lash: And if they'd like to do that in addition.
Andrews: We can wish for all we want.
Pemrick: I'll second that.
""""Schroers: Okay, let's call the question.
Lash: Todd, do you happen to know where the other site was that they had
mentioned originally?
Hoffman: Originally as park? There was none originally identified. You
need to tack on there then, in lieu of acceptance of that park property.
It's going to be difficult. There are some other changes going on. We
also need to address, that should be in lieu of park dedication charges.
It mayor may not require some trail connections. If not, I would
recommend that the Commission recommend to City Council to require a full
trail dedication fees of this development. If we get this thing located in
a central configuration, I can't see that we're going to need internal
trail connections to the park site unless that major road corridor is
identified as a collector, which will eventually go from Galpin to TH 5.
Then potentially that could be looked at for a 5 foot sidewalk but again we
have passed those types of issues up to Planning and I'd recommend that we
just don't allow for credit for sidewalks. Our trail dedication is for
trail construction. Sidewalks will be constructed at the developer's cost
as part of their road improvements. So Jim I would suggest we go with.
Andrews: A second motion?
Schroers: Since we're proposing ,to sending it back and it's going to have
to come back to us again anyway right?
Hoffman: Correct.
,...,
Schroers: So at that point in time when we look at what area they offer,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 10
what their proposal is, it might be a better time to look at easements and --'
trail connections.
Hoffman: It certainly would be. The only reason I tried to pursue it to
get some clearer definition of I'm not sure what the timeframe is going to
be. We may have to put this on an earlier agenda.
Schroers: Okay, then if no one else.
Andrews: I guess I'm not sure how.
Hoffman: Just say in lieu of, require maximum park dedication in lieu of
park fees and to require trail dedication fees.
Andrews: I will accept your words as an amendment. Will the person who
seconded, is that okay with the person who seconded the motion?
Pemrick: That's fine.
Schroers: Okay, then the rest of the Commission still remains the same?
You've got it.
Andrews moved, Pemrick seconded to table action on the Stone Creek
Development and request that the developer, Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. provide
a suitable area for an active park site. Also, as a friendly amendment, to
require maximum. park dedication in lieu of park fees and to require trail
dedication fees. All voted in favor except Larry Schroers who opposed and
the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
..."""
SITE PLAN REVIEW. PRELIMINARY PLAT. ITHILIEN.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commissioners, again this is a subdivision
request of 9 acres into 17 single family lots. It's zoned single family
residential. The adjoining uses are all single family residential with the
city of Shorewood lying to the north of this property. Our Comp Plan
identifies this area as lying fully within the service area of Curry Farms
Park and then a portion of it could be considered in the service area of
Pheasant Hills Park. Comprehensive Trail plan does not identify any
additional segments or easements in this area. Iri fact there is a trail
connection located in Curry Farms 2nd Addition. This comes out of Bretton,
or excue me, off of Teton Lane. The Commission recalls conversations...
It remains there. It is a viable connection for residents, homeowners to
walk Teton Lane and get into the back of the Curry Farms Park.
.. .indicated there, the interior street sections of Curry Farms 1st and 2nd
Addi tions. . .
Lash: That trail's kind of a one way ticket.
Hoffman: Yeah. If you go down it, it's going to be tough to push back up.
I do not see any outstanding questions. You had a, here's a large
depiction of what the cul-de-sac with an eyebrow cul-de-sac is going to
look like with the 17 lots. It's certainly within the use area of Curry
Farms Park and it is staff's recommendation that the Park and Recreation ..."",,'
.park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 11
"
Commission recommend the City Council accept full park dedication and trail
dedication fees for Ithilien subdivision.
Lash: So moved.
Andrews: I'll second.
schroers: That is for all 17 units?
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council accept full park dedication fees in lieu of
parkland and trail dedication fees in lieu of trail construction for
Ithilien Subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
SITE PLAN REVIEW. CONFERENCE/SPA CENTER.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Park Commissioners, this item is brought. to
you mainly as an informational item. Unfortunately we have, the Park
Commission, have no weapons to go ahead and require anything of this
development. It's not being subdivided so we cannot go after land
dedication. We do not require fees. Park and trail dedication fees from
~this development. However, we have talked extensively about that area and
the Commission re~uested that they be kept up to date if in fact any
development was going to come in that area. It's a unique proposal to
develop that site into a conference center with basically a majority of the
conference and spa, there's a real emphasis on spa and going back to the
mud baths and the refreshing water,curing power which is water down in that
area. Deep holes. So they're certainly hanging their hat on those type of
attributes that the Assumption Seminary was founded on. A couple years ago
I did have a chance to walk this site and actually walked the creek and did
observe the native brook trout which are in there. Fairly extensive group
of people walk this site again as noted in the staff report. That included
the federal folks, the DNR, City Planners, the applicant, building
inspector so they went ahead and looked at the building to make sure that
it would be r~storeable. We walk~d the site, actually walked across the
fen which is back there which the DNR has been very, monitoring very
carefully. Walked the creek and I was amazed at the number of brook trout
that were present in the creek. Once all the people got around and the
trout stirred up the water, you couldn't see them any longer but there was
a pretty high population of brook trout in that creek location. The
. applicant has some desires to go ahead and preserve that area but they
certainly want to clean it up and make it useable which the DNR has some
real concerns over. The applicant voiced a desire to clean up the creek.
To take away the underbrush and that type of thing which takes <;lway the
shade and the natural overhanging habitats for the brook trout so you'll
most likely see a battle waged there. There's two units to the Department
of Natural Resources who are working on this. That would be waters and
fisheries. They don't always have, as many of you may know, they don't
"always have coinciding viewpoints. Fisheries is designated as an official
trout stream. It is the only trout stream in the 7 county metro area with
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 12
a native strand or a native brook trout in it. Water says however that
does not make it a "protected stream", "protected waters" so it may not
have all the rights and regulations attached to it as a protected water.
So we've left it in the hands of the DNR. I'd be curious to hear your
comments on it. Staff has, including myself and the planners will be
continue to be involved with the DNR on this level. The federal folks have
basically washed their hands of it and said we'll let the Department of
Natural Resources take over. I'm not even sure if the thing is going to
fly. I'd be personally, it's quite a commitment and I certainly think if
they can pull it off, it would be a neat center but...
--'
schroers: You know you'd like to believe that there was a way of doing
that, letting them have their center without disrupting the last native
trout stream in the 7 county metro area. I mean that would be just a sin
wouldn't it? To go ahead and ruin the last natural thing that we have
there? It's almost like an elimination of a species, or I mean for in the
area. That would be sad.
Hoffman: The DNR certainly doesn't want to see that happen. Leland
Gholike actually has a trout ranch in northern Wisconsin where he has a
trout stream that he personally owns. Privately owns at the other
conference center. He also has a conference center in stillwater. So he
has some experience with trout streams but that's a commercialized water as
far as planted in that stream and is regulated catch and release. He had
voiced that his desire not to, it's not his desire that he's going to do
the same thing here. He'd just as soon leave the trout alone but he
certainly ought to let people down there to be able to enjoy the creek and
the surrounding areas as you can see by the trail plan which you have
identified.
....",;
Schroers: I guess there's really not a lot we can say about it since it's
not, it's out of our hands. We just have to kind of wait and see what
happens. Does anyone have anything?
Koubsky: Is the Planning Commission overseeing this at all?
Hoffman: Sure. Planning Commission...hands at some point.
Andrews: I guess I'd just like to state that I think the preservation of
these natural Tesources that we have, have to be really emphasized. We
won't get a second change. Like Larry said, even though we may have no
actual jurisdiction, I think we should make it clear that's very important.
Koubsky: Yeah, I think if there's anything the Commission can do to
publicize our viewpoint to that somewhere down the line, we should be
willing to do that.
Hoffman: I can draft a memo in that vein and send that onto our Planning.
Schroers: I'd like to see that, a memo to anyone involved with developing
and looking at the plans for that I guess. I don't know if that would take
a vote and a recommendation on our part or not but we certainly would be, I
certainly would be in favor of not seeing that native t~out stream
developed or disturbed in any way. Anything else? --'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 13
,....
DISCUSSION. GOLF COURSE.
Schroers: Then we can move on to item 6, discussion of the golf course and
that person has not yet arrived. We can go onto item 7 and come back to 6
when that person arrives.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS SURVEY. FINAL DRAFT.
Hoffman: Thank you Larry. Item 7 is a concern of the final draft of the
Park and Recreation Needs Survey the commission has been working on. As
you can see it has been reduced, clarified to a certain degree. We have it
so it can fit back to back on one page. This survey can be printed as an
envelope so when you send it out as a survey, you wouldn't have to send a
self addressed envelope inside the one you're sending out. You'd simply
have the respondent fill this out, fold it, lick the seal which would be
printed onto there and you can send it back. We need to discuss those
types of issues tonight. How we want to distribute it. To every resident.
Through the Villager. Through a random selection of home residents.
There's opportunity to, when we mail it we don't have to pay for every
response we get back. Or everyone we mail out. We just pay for the
responses that we receive back so that the...office can track our responses
and bill us accordingly. So we have some flexibility in that regard.
roremost I think is most important that the Commission decide if this
. answers what the questions at the current time are. If it does that
successfully, if it communicates to the residents what we're attempting to
""'do and if you're comfortable with the survey and then as I stated, if you
have any corrections , additions. Any type oftho,se nit pic ky detai Is which
we need to clean up prior to making some of those 'other decisions, we need
to talk about that this evening.
Andrews: I have a comment regarding question number 2. It says are you in
favor or opposed to a park improvement bond (tax increase) totaling
approximately $600,000.00 to develop Bandimere Community Park as a youth
athletic park. My concern is that the average citizen will have no idea
what that $600,000.00 represents to them. Is there anyway we can tag some
sort of percentage number on that or anything that would help comm0nicate
to the respondent that, what sort of impact the dollars may have on them.
Hoffman: Certainly. That's a very common exercise to go through in a
referendum type of propogranda. In a questionnaire. We can put it in.
Leave it out. In fact this $600,000.00 question is, it started out at
$400,000.00. $600,000.00 is just a number picked out of the air. So we
need to redefine that a little bit. I've asked.
Andrews: Yeah, if I was reading this, I would instantly opposed bec~use
that sounds like a huge amount of money and if you're going to have me pay
that, I don't want to do it.
Hoffman: You want to know if it's going to cost you a buck and a half or
$2.00 or whatever?
Andrews: Yeah, or maybe a percentage might be better because some
""'homeowners have higher assessed properties than others.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 14
Lash: $20.00 a year, $30.00 a year.
-'
Erickson: That would make a lot more sense. Because that is a frightening
number.
Berg: Maybe give a range of what a homeowner could expect.
Lash: Even if you put at $100,000.00 house.
Andrews: An example, yeah.
Lash: As an example would be $20.00 or whatever it turns out to be. It
gives them a rough idea.
Koubsky: But we ask them in question 5 how much they'd be willing to
donate. I guess my thought is, to me $600,000.00 isn't frightening. It's
just that We give a number for question 2 but we don't supply a number for
question 3. Or any of the items in question 4 so why do we have a number
up there?
Hoffman: Simply because we're closer to realizing the project so we define
it to a great enough degree where we can identify a figure.
Koubsky: We do have about half a page and if you were going to present a
number, I agree with Jim that I'm not quite sure what the $600,000.00
represents. We outline up above that it would include some ball fields,
some soccer fields and some other improvements. If we have some room,
maybe we could itemize those as estimated cost for development or
something. Let them see how the money's spent and then that would total up
to $600,000.00. We do have room to work with you know to keep this at a
one page.
--'
Hoffman: We have just about another 1/16 of a page because we need the
remainder for addresses and mailing.
Koubsky: The thing I thought too when I was reading question 2 was, we got
that for a pretty reasonable deal didn't we?
Hoffman: Correct. $6,000.00 an acre.
Koubsky: Can we sneak that in there? Because when I read this I started
highlighting and I said, what I highlighted was all the tax increases.' We
acquired this with tax increases. We're going to develop it with tax
increases. Here's a number for you and if we can, people know what land
values are today. I think if we can at least show them, hey we got this
for $6,000.00 an acre, I don't know if it's patting ourselves on the back
or not but it was a pretty good buy.
Hoffman: Sure. It was in one of the initial...
Andrews: A 1/16th of a page is only 3 lines.
Hoffman: Yeah, it's an estimate.
-"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 15
,......
Andrews: At 6 lines to the inch, that's 3 lines.
Hoffman: We don't have a whole lot of room. The $6,000.00 could be worked
in there. We could simply eliminate the dollar figure. If we start to
expand upon it and say grading is $250,000.00, ballfields, roadway,
blacktop, tennis courts. We'd have to go into a much more detailed cost
study at this time.
Lash: I guess personally I don't care. I think if they have a rough idea
of how much it's going to be. What they want to know is how much it's '
going to be to them.
Schroers: That's right. That's what the concern is. You can throw a
i:,(,()(I,()on 00 ur $6 million doll!! lHIi iF it only costs me $20.00 a year I
can deal with it. That's what people need to know sol think you can
eliminate the $600,000.00 and then you wouldn't even need that figure in
the,e and just say will you be in favo, 0, opposed fo, park imp,ovement
bond that would increase your taxes by whatever it is per year.
Hoffman: We can take that exe,cise on. It's simply a question of taking
the estimate, adding on our bonding costs and what potential would be our
rate of interest at that time and having those types of calculations and
dividing by our population base, etc..
Erickson: I'd just hate to say $600,000.00 and then come up with a $1.5
~million dollar bond.
Lash: Since you gave us pe,mission to be nit picky. And I can be pretty
nit picky when it comes to this stuff. That's the secretary in me coming
out. On question 2, on the second line where it says the next question is
posed to identify your position. I think just that whole part, if you're
trying to save space, could come out.
Hoffman: Okay.
Lash: Obviously they'll figure out that the question is posed. You know
and the question is posed so if you just take that out and just put if the
city was to p,esent a refe,endum, we're getting into improvement bonds and
stuff quite a big, a referendum to develop this park as a youth athletic
complex and put 6 0, 7 ballfields, socce, fields, tennis courts and othe,
associated improvements, then the next question would be, would you support
or oppose this park improvement bond. And then down below put suppo,t/
oppose. Then you can have costing approximately so much per home. The
othe, question I have is, should pa,k imp,ovement bonds be capitalized in
that sentence?
Hoffman: Are you in favo, 0, opposed to? Is that the one?
Lash: Right.
Hoffman: Park imp,ovement bond. I can check.
r""'_ash: It looks strange to me and in other places where thi ngs li ke bond
referendum and the,e was another place where you had it too. Up in the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 16
second line of the question it says a park acquisition bond and that's not ~
capitalized so either it should be or shouldn't be. I don't know but it's
different in different places.
Hoffman: Do you wish to change the question?
Lash: I just think you can take out the next question is posed to identify
your position. That will save you a little space.
Hoffman: And then just are you in favor or opposed to?
Lash: Yeah. I would like, would you support or oppose this park
improvement bond. And also in the question, at the very end of the second
line where it says, if the city was to present a park improvement bond, if
you just put if the city was to present a referendum to develop this park.
Arid get park improvement bond out of there again. Would you be able to
just sort of off to the side, support/oppose place where they check put
approximately how much per home?
Hoffman: I'll go ahead and include an example and whether that's
$100,000.00 to $150,000.00 or $200,000.00 home or what we come up with as
an example on here.
Lash: I really like the opening paragraph. I thought that explained our
intent pretty clearly. And then where they circle their level of
satisfaction. Underneath where there's a line. I guess I'd like you to
say comments or explanation.
~
Hoffman: We're not asking them for an explanation.
8erg: Question 4 is nice. If we get an overwhelming number of people that
votes for the very last thing, we're out of business.
Lash: Oh, that's the question where it says park improvement bond and then
it's not capitalized. So that was what kind of drew my attention to that.
My question 3, since our last meeting we decided to pass the issue of
sidewalks to Planning, I~d like that taken off and have it say I'm not in
favor of a recreational trail system or I am in favor of a recreational
trail system. And then there again approximately, well Jim asked that but
you said you didn't really know right? Or have any idea what a cost figure
could be for that.
Hoffman: We have to fomulate a package. We're not even close to that.
Lash: On question 4, do you think that the average person knows where City
Center Park is?
Hoffman: I thought about that. Probably not all people do. Certainly all
people don't.
Lash: I thought in parenthesis behind it if we put somethins like
elementary school, City Hall site or something because people may have no
idea where that is. And then on the list also, didn't we talk about that
not having a community center on there was sort of an obvious omission? ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 17
!"'-'
And it's still not on. And also, since we have golf course on the agenda
for tonight, I thought maybe golf course should be added on too.
Schroers: No one's going to know where Bandimere is either.
Lash: Well, except for question 2.
Hoffman: It talked about it.
Lash: It talked about it.
Schroers: Yeah, but it doesn't describe where it is. It just says that we
acquired 32 acres.
Lash: Maybe we should put up in question 2, a 32 acre parcel of parkland
in southern Chanhassen known as Bandimere Community Park.
Erickson: Because location could be a factor in terms of whether or not
they support it.
Pemrick: That's a good idea.
Schroers: Yeah, I think we should just be honest and leave it the way it
is. 32 acres.
Lash: The other thing is, that's where the site is. I mean what are we
going to do? It's there.
Schroers: They can ask where it is if someone's that interested.
Andrews: We can always buy a bus and shuttle them back and forth.
Lash: I mean that was on the referendum. They might be real happy if they
voted to buy park property in southern Chanhassen, so we did. Now we have
it and we want to develop it.
Hoffman: Larry, can you get a clarification on the community center and
I believe the golf course issue will be discussed further when Joan arrives
and then we can either add or not add that under the questionnaire at that
time.
Lash: Do you think that should be added?
Andrews: Right now it's not a part of our park system.
Schroers: Excuse me, you're asking me for a clarification on the community
~center?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 18
Hoffman: On the question being raised on whether or not the community
center issue should be presented here. In question 4.
."",
5chroers: I guess that's something that each one could answer in turn and
I'll tell you right now mine is absolutely not. No. Big no.
Pemrick: That could always come in additional comments too. If people
feel strongly about a community center.
Lash: I'm just really curious. I wasn't even a really big supporter of
the whole thing and I just think it seems like an obvious omission to not
have it on there.
Pemrick: Really? I didn't think of it at all. Because I guess I'm
thinking that's more private industry business.
Lash: Well I agree but if I was one who had been a really strong supporter
of it, I would think it was really strange that it's not on here.
Schroers: Yeah, but if you were a really strong supporter of it, you'd
have been one of the minority and the majority is going to say, here they
are trying to shove this community center down our throat again. I think
if we put that on there, we're going to hurt ourselves for the rest of it,
I re~dly do.
Andrews: I guess I don't exactly understand how that hurts us.
Schroers: I think that if you had been here previously and gone through
the last two referendum processes, that it woUld be more clear but we got,
we sort of got accused of trying to cram the community center issue down
the residents' throats. Okay? 50 I'm thinking that if we mention that on
this, the residents are going to look at it and say here comes that
community center again. We've already told them twice that we don't want
it and it's going to cast a negative shadow over this whole survey. That's
what I think.
.....,;I
Lash: But that's happened with trails too.
Schroers: But the trails we lost by 2 or 3 votes. The community center we
lost by a lot. So you know, if someone feels strongly about the community
center, they can write it in on the comment section.
Pemrick: I agree.
Lash: That's true, they can.
Erickson: We could put a write in. Put other. Yeah, I'd like to see
something like that then. Something at the end of this question. Other
improvements that you see are necessary. There's one other thing, not to
get off that subject. Acquisition of land for the preservation of green
belt corridors, example Bluff Creek drainage. That doesn't seem real clear
to me. I mean I kind of have an idea what that it is but are people going
to look at that, and is there a better way to word that? what that really
is. Just green spaces. Green corridors.
...."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 19
,....,
Hoffman: Many people I think hopefully would relate that to the
Minneapolis corridor park system. It is vague. You can make the judgment
whether people are going to be able to visualize that in their minds and
make a decision if they would like to see that in the future of Chanhassen
or if they think it's not a pressing issue. I can take a look at the
question and see if we can reword it or we can try to muddle through it
this evening and see if we can.
Erickson: What is a green belt corridor?
Hoffman: It's called a linear park.
Erickson: Like Minnehaha Parkway in Minneapolis? That kind of thing?
Hoffman: Yeah. Green belt corridor. sluff Creek is the example there. It
winds from one end of the city to the other. There's another one
identified in our Comprehensive Plan going from Lake Ann Park up to
Minnewashta. That trail system. That green belt corridor.
Andrews: Drainage to watershed.
Hoffman: Watershed?
Schroers: That green belt area doesn't necessarily have to be something
that's developed either. I mean it doesn't have to have paved trails or
"""something running through it. It can be just a green space that is set
, aside for environmental preservation.
Lash: We have a problem right here if one of the Commissioners can't even
understand it.
Erickson: I mean that's what, I read it and I thought I think I know what
they mean but I'm not sure and I'm just wondering.
Lash: We need to change.
Erickson: I mean drainage really kind of threw me off. That was a good
point from Jim. Drainage kind of threw me off. I thought are we going to
buy drainage ditches.
Lash: Can it be open spaces?
Schroers: Open green spaces. Natural spaces.
Lash:
we're
Yeah. Something that the average person is going to understand what
talking about.
Pemrick: Natural spaces I think.
Koub~ky: Todd, why not just get rid of green belt corridors and just say
acquisition of eLther open or natural land for preservation?
~Erickson: That would make more sense.
: Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 20
Lash: Another thing I just thought of. I guess I'm going to be afraid ~
that people or what are we looking for exactly here? If their feeling is
they do not favor raising taxes to accomplish these types of improvements,
.are they just supposed to x that and not prioritize anything? Or are they
supposed to prioritize it but then say I don't support paying taxes? Do we
want to know what their priorities are, even if they wouldn't be able to,
even if they wouldn't support a referendum?
Hoffman: I would think if they're not in favor, they're going to make that
big x down there and probably scratch off.
pemrick: It will be one or the other. I don't think you know.
Lash: But do we want to know how they would prioritize it anyway?
pemrick: I have a feeling like Todd said, if there's an x there, they're
not interested period. Boom. That's how I see it.
Hoffman: Yeah, we're 'certainly not going to be able to accomplish any of
them without the park bond. And this is a process which is somewhat
difficult to venture into but our potential bonding amounts are certainly
much less than the recent ones floating around for schools and $11 and $9
million which failed in Eden Prairie and the $4.5 million which was finally
passed. You all somewhere out in the not too distant future District 112
is going to be looking at an issue. And as we talk about the workshop for
the issues, they'll probably come back in February of 1993 with a $10, $15,
$20, I have no idea how many million school improvement bond for District
112. Do we want to position ourselves just prior to that? Just after it?
There's all those types of questions to address. These numbers are large
but in relation to other things happening in our community, they're
certainly not out of line.
-,.
Schroers: Moving back to the one we were just talking about. The
preservation of the green belt. I think the word environment should be in
there. Can we just say, acquisition for the preservation of environmental
areas, i.e. Bluff Creek area?
Hoffman: Environmentally sensitive? Open and natural land is the other
one we've got going.
Lash: Environmental preservation.
Andrews: That's unclear to me. That's vague.
Erickson: Yeah. And plus I think references to some of the parks,
especially the members that have been around a long time are real clear
what Bluff Creek ~s and where it is. I mean I'm in a brand new
neighborhood and most people there, some of them haven't, even been to Lake
Ann Park yet. Not sure what that big great park ov~r there is called yet.
I think refeTences sometimes, that's speaking from a newer neighborhood
standpoint. They might say Bluff Creek, what the heck is that? Open and
green spaces.
..",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 21
'"
Koubsky: I think it's okay to give them an example. I agree they probably
don't know...
Erickson:
...example I think is good.
Koubsky: If we mention it, it might stir some interest. For me to go
okay, what is Bluff Creek? So they call. So they could go see what it is
and what we're talking about.
Hoffman: Okay. So you like the acquisition of open or natural areas?
Lash: Yeah. Or for environmental preservation.
Andrews: I don't like that.
Hoffman: We're talking about parks. We certainly aren't going to acquire
it for industrial development.
Koubsky: Isn't that going to be a confusion, that just occurred to me.
Park and ballfield improvements at City Center. There's not going to be any
improvement with, or excuse me. Misunderstanding between City Center Park
and the new proposed park?
Hoffman: Central Park?
,.-..,Koubsky: Central Park. Is that going to be?
Hoffman: That's going to be a confusion point.
Eritkson: Improvements to existing City Center Park. Would existing in
there help clarify?
Hoffman: That one should then, the CAA program and the number of parents
that have gone through to one, that sho~ld pick up in there.
Koubsky: I think too the golf issue is a good idea. It may not be part of
our mandate at this point but there are interests in other commissions with
it. Tome it doesn't hurt to put it on here and see what the community's
thinks about it.
Lash: Put what on?
Koubsky: Golf courses. That might assist the Planning Commission Or give
them momentum.
Lash: Or it may pull the plug on the whole thing.
Koubsky: Or it may pull the plug on it.
Schroers: It wouldn't hurt to find out how the residents feel about that.
Pemrick: After all they live here.
".
_ash: ...anything that you can think of that we're forgetting?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 22
Er ickson: So if we put golf course on there and it comes up number 1 then, ,.",
are we dedicating ourselves to the establishment of a golf course?
Schroers: You know what looks kind of funny to me is how many people in
each of the following age groups live in your household. First one is oVEj!r
55 and then adult.
Lash: Yes, I did that too Larry. I think it should be adults over 55.
Adults under 55. And then high school aged.
Hoffman: I like that.
Lash: Are you going to add an Other under question 4? A place wh~re they
can put other.
Hoffman: Yep, sure. Have an Other and then we've got a question on golf
course until we discuss that in further detail.
Schroers: other than that Todd I think it's great. And I also like the
idea that you can just fold it up and don't have to have other envelopes
and all that sort of thing. I guess that if it's within our financial
resources, I just as soon have it sent to every household.
Hoffman: Hopefully that would result in a fairly high.
Andrews: Maybe we could put, get the Villager or the Sailer to put out an
article about the survey and put this in with that particular week's
distribution of the paper. As a loose flyer in w~th it.
--'
Hoffman: We can do that. We've had some examples where flye~s in the
Villager don't get the impact that a piece of mail does.
Lash: what if we had a story in the paper the we~k before the spring
mailing of the park and rec directory went and it was included in there.
And in the article it could say something like next week you'll be
receiving that and in that is a survey.
Pemrick: Please take the time to read and return.
Hoffman: There was discussion about that. At the time we also discussed at
staff level, they're putting on a senior center, senior survey but that's
going to go out in the next 2-3 weeks here so we can't fit into that
timeline. The summer comes out May 1. Or the end of April so we could
feasibly accomplish that one. Have it as an insert. Have the front pag$,
see survey inside and hopefully get some coverage from the paper. Saves us
some dollars.
Erickson: I have one other question too Todd. The question, what is your
age? I'm not in any way opposed to that or anything. I'm just curious
what kind of information we hope to learn. Just the distribution of the
survey who filled it out. Is that what we're going to try to pull from
that?
-'
~ark and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 23
,....
Hoffman: Yeah. Essentially who's answering. Who's taking the time to
respond. We do know, through the demographic information which you looked
at, essentially who our residents are. But if we're interested in knowing
who returned the surveys, i~ it 30 year old class or our older )"esidents.
It can be there. It can't be.
Erickson: I know it doesn't take up a lot of space. I was just curious
what kind of information we were hoping to pull from it.
Koubsky: We also get an idea of who's friendly and who isn't and who needs
to be sold down the hill too. If you have a lot of seniors that are voting
against it, maybe we have to communicate more with the seniors to let them
know what's available for them and whichever group we come up no for
example, we can.
Lash: The other thing is if they're below voting age. How much stock you
want to put on.
Erickson: So when we get this information back we're going to be able to
pullout say the people over 55 voted against any tax increases.
Hoffman: When we calculate the results and tabulate'those, we'll bring
those back.
Erickson: We'll get that detailed in it?
,....
Hoffman: Yeah.
Erickson: Okay.
Pemrick: It will be interesting. I'll be anxious to see the results of
this.
Hoffman: It certainly is a focused survey. I mean you looked at some of
the other ones. Apple Valley, boy you flipped through 6, 8, 10 pages and
the response level should be high. That will provide confidence to the
Park Commission, to the City Council for whatever ventures we do go. And
it provides information for which issues to drop so I think it will be
valuable.
Schroers: Okay, well if there's nothing further on that I guess I'd like
to recommend that we present this survey to the City Council for approval.
As amended.
Andrews: So moved I guess, if that wasn't a motion.
Lash: Second.
Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend approval of the City of Chanhassen Park and Recreation Needs
Survey as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
~Schroers: So we have our survey completed.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 24
Erickson: Did we decide on distribution?
....",/
Hoffman: Right now I think it's leaning towards the. summer city brochu.e.
Summer city newsletter. We'll see how that fits as far as being an insert
o. if we have to actually have it stapled in. We'll run th.ough those type
of details.
Lash: Make sure that we get that info to the pape..
Pemrick: Front page if possible. Do they ever give you that?
Hoffman: Su.e, they'll take suggestions.
Pemrick: Yeah, I was wonder, if it's freebe, you have to probably take
what you can get.
Hoffman: It depends on what's the big news in Chanhassen.
Lash: Well it certainly could be made into a whole article. Why don't you
give them an interview. Grant them an interview and tell them that this'
has really been one of our main focus this winter. We've spent a lot of
time trying to develop this. It's very important fo. us to have input from
the citizens. If you go at it from that point, maybe they'll do an article
on it and it would give people the nudge to take the time to fill it out.
Hoffman: We'll play cat and mouse with the editor. It's always a game.
You give them a little and maybe they'll ask for an interview. Or if you
give them too much, he'll say you're being too aggressive. This is going
to be buried in the want ads.
....."
pemrick: Should we all write letters to the editor?
Hoffman: Sure could.
DISCUSSION. GOLF COURSE.
Hoffman: I think you all know Joan Ahrens, who has arrived.
Schroers: Okay what we'll do is at this point we'll move back to item 6
which is the discussion of the golf course.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commissioners. Just for Joan's benefit, we
just went through the discussion on the survey which is going out...golf
course question should be on there or should not be. We deferred that
until this discussion and go through that type of decision process.
Ahrens: Am I late? ...thought I was on for 9:00.
Hoffman: No, that's fine. You're not late. We just moved ahead quicker
than thought.
Ahrens: au. meetings never do that. I apologize for handing these things
to you now but .1 do have a handout. Some of you were on the commission
last spring and received a similar type of a handout... This basically is
-""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 25
,....
a pretty brief overview of what we've been doing, which isn't a lot at this
point. As Todd calls us, the adhoc golf committee. About a year ago, and
I've explained some of this in..., about a year ago at a Planning
Commission meeting we talked about, as a bit of a background first of all.
We, as you know, have been working on this comprehensive plan, or we were
working on the comprehensive plan for the last couple years and we got a
lot of comments from a lot of people that the reason they had moved to
Chanhassen was'because of all the open space and they liked the park
atmosphere of all the open space around here and we had lots of discussions
on how we could preserve open space in Chanhassen. We recognized the fact
that we were going to be going through a lot of intensive development and
we wanted to kind of jump the gun I guess you could sayan preserving space
before development occupies all the available spaces. So we talked about
ways to do that. We talked about all sorts of ways. Just one of the ways
that we talked about was perhaps developing a municipal golf course. We
thought it was kind of a neat idea because it was a way to not only
preserve some open space but increase the city tax base at the same time.
We didn't have any statistics at that time. We just wanted to look into
the possibility of a golf course so I volunteered to do that work. I
contacted last year several municipalities who are all very willing to
share their information with me as far as their development process went.
Some of them are in here. Just page through here under construction of new
golf courses. Most of them are under that area. We also talked, when I
came before the Park and Recreation Commission la~t year, it was sort of, I
asked at that time for consideration of amending your portion of the
~comprehensive plan to include a study area for a golf course. That idea
never went anywhere as far as I know and I'm not quite sure why. It just
was kind of dropped. We recently-in the last few months picked up the idea
again. We being me and Brian Batzli, who's the Planning Commission Chair
and Richard Wing who's on the Council. We just had a few meetings. I also
met with the Mayor and talked to him about his feelings about just pursuing
the idea of looking into ~ golf course. Whether through acquisition of an
existing golf course 6r development of a brand new golf course. And
correct me if I'm wrong but he supported the idea of looking into the idea
basically. So we have been getting more information and more information.
One of the, as you'll see when you read this. We have had a lot of
discussions about development of a new course versus purchasing of ~n
existing course. We're limited of course in Chanhassen to an existi~g
course. That being Bluff Creek as the most likely choice. A little
history on Bluff Creek. It was purchased in the mid 70's on a contract for
deed from the original land owners. This information is not i~ our packet
but that contract for deed was an unrecorded contract for deed so we don't
know what the terms of that were. I did do a...in Chaska or the Carver
County offices and found out that the purchase price for that was
$135,000.00 or $125,000.00. One of the two. It has a market value now of
approximately $700,000.00. The building has a market value of about,
believe it or not, it has a market'value. It's about $26,000.00 I think.
Several years ago the owners I understand, and this is unsubstantiated,
were interested in doing something with the property other than using it as
a golf course. They came to the city of Chanhassen with a development plan
for housing which didn't go anywhere either. They had a preliminary plat
that they filed but a final plat was never filed. There was all sorts of
rproblems because of the Bluff Creekcorr idor running through there and...
on development. Part of the reason that we were kind of excited about
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24,1992 - Page 26
pursuing the idea of Bluff Creek is because of as you know the Bluff Creek
corridor runs thYough there and we thought this would be a great idea for
the city to be able to save that land and get it through some of the nicest
areas of Bluff Creek corridor r~n through that golf course. So we thought
that that might be a neat idea for the City to pursue. Alsoi because it
would be much cheaper than developing a brand new golf course. It's
existing. It could produce revenue immediately. It needs a new clubhouse.
It needs some improvements on some of the holes but it's a r~ady made golf
course. So that's one of the ideas that we'd like the city to consider and
we have not put together, we don't have any money of course so we can't put
together a feasibility study which is what is really needed for a city to
consider something like this seriously. A feasibility study can run
anywhere from well, I talked to the city of North Mankato. They only paid
$6,000.00 for their feasibility study. Some cities have paid up to
$30,000.00. Now North Mankato says that they have a viable project on
their hands. Their place will be opening in the spring of '93 but they
were able to get a feasibility study done for $6,000.00. But we're not
talking about a budget. We haven't gone to the City Council about money.
We haven't even presented this to City Council yet. Mo~t of the City
Council knows what we're doing. They're aware that we're gathering
information at this point but what we'd like to do, our next step is to set
up a question and answer session with the Council and with you and with
members of the Planning Commission who would be interested in doing that,
and also inviting representatives from these muncipalities who either
developed new golf courses or purchased existing golf courses and developed
them into muncipal courses. Just to have a question and answer session. I
broached the subject with several of the cities and they said that they
would be willing to send representatives to something like that. I think
that we need that kind of information in order to proceed in any kind of
orderly fashion at this point. We can't, I don't have enough information
to ask you to go anywhere with this. All I'm asking is that you consider
this as an idea th~t Chanhassen should look into. I talked with the Mayor
today and we talked about including it in on this questionnaire that you
would be s,ending out. And also perhaps if that doesn't work, to include it
in on the quarterly Chanhassen newsletter as more of an informational
segment and not asking the public to say yes or no...
Schroers: I have a question. Has your committee discussed putting
together kind of an overview of the plan that you briefly described to
include Bluff Creek golf course in with the Bluff Creek Watershed area and
approach the owners of Bluff Creek with that and see how they respond to
it? If that happened before your question and answer period, you would
know whether or not you would be looking at developing a hew course or
purchasing an existing one.
...".,
...."
Joan Ahrens: Well as a matter of fact we did talk about it. I talked to
the Mayor about approaching the owners of Bluff Creek. His feeling was,
and maybe you want to speak to that but his feeling was that the time
wasn't right to approach the owners. That he wanted the Council to approve
that kind of a move and to have more information before we, to at least
have a statement from the Council that we are going to pursue this
seriously and therefore what do we do next? Do you approach the owners of
Bluff Creek? I think we have to do that but it's just a matter of timing
at this point I guess. ...".,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 27
"
Schroers: Yeah,. I think timing is critical. I think it's a pretty tender
area and if you go in premature, people might say ah ha. The City wants
us. They want us bad. They're going to pay and that may encourage them to
increase the cost.
Joan Ahrens: Well I think that's a legitimateconcern...As far as I know
they haven't planned on marketing this property. They don't have anybody
actively pursuing purchasing it. We know what the market value is
according to the tax assessor. We know if they're over inflating the price
of it too so we have some figures on that on our side. But that is a
legitimate concern. The timing when to approach them and I guess there's
never, I mean if the City decides they like this idea and perhaps want to
pursue const)'uction of a new golf course, anybody they would approach would
be excited about selling to the city for a golf course. I mean I think we
can state that as a given but I think that with appraisals and other means
of discovering what the value of land is, I don't think we have to be too
concerned that we would have...
Hoffman: Joan, did you calculate off of that assessor's value...?
Joan Ahrens: No I didn't.
Andrews: Do you know what the taxes paid by the current owners are on that
property?
"......Joan Ahrens: They're not much. Just a second, I have that. I have a lot
of information here.
Erickson: Joan, when they bought that for 125, that wasn't a golf course
yet was it?
Joan Ahrens: Yes.
Erickson: It was? Okay.
Joan Ahrens: $135,000.00. That's what they purchased it for. The deed
was recorded in 1985 but that was from a Contract for Deed that has been
executed some time ago and I assume it was probably in the late 70's. The
building is assessed at 1991 assessment is $16,700.00 and the land is
$646,800.00. In 1985 the land was only assessed at $345,000.00.
Erickson: What year?
Joan Ahrens: .1985.
Pemrick: How much land is that? How many acres?
Joan Ahrens: Well, good question. I think it's about, I would say it's at
least 230 acres. I have a copy of a half section map showing, it doesn't
have the acreage on here but it shows the location of it.
Schroers: At this point you haven't discussed funding at all? Would you
~be into letting a golf course developer develop ~t and handle the
financing?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 28
Joan Ahrens: Well you know, there's so many ways to go about financing and ~
I think a lot of it depends on whether or nor you're purchasing an existing
course or building a new course. Some of the, and it seemed like almost
every community approached it differently. For instance North Mankato,
they sought a developer who would finance it and develop it. And they
arranged it so that the payments by the city would not start until the golf
course was up and going and the green fees that they would be getting off
the golf course would pay completely for their financing. .
Schroers: It's like getting a golf course for nothing. It's not a bad
deal.
Joan Ahrens: Well yeah, but not necessarily the city is also, he w~sn't
able to tell me the financing on this but I assume it was revenue bonds
because they don't have any payments to make up front and they did not have
to go through a public referendum. The city is building on it's own the...
Schroers: I see. And also that doesn't include the purchase of the
property I wouldn't imagine right?
Joan Ahrens: Right. The City.
Schroers: That's just the development of the course but the property had
to be acquired before.
Joan Ahrens: Right. And some of the cities go and purchase it outright.
other cities like Brooklyn Park, when they built Edenborough, a private
developer donated the land to the city for the golf course in exchange for
park fees and all sorts of other things.
--,"
Lash: Do you know what that's zoned down there right now?
Joan Ahrens: What?
Lash: That property.
Joan Ahrens: Bluff Creek? I believe agricultural.
Lash: So say they were to sell it or they were to come in and wanted to
develop it into homes, it would have to be rezoned.
Joan Ahrens: Rezoned, right.
Lash: And the City is free to reject a proposal like that?
Joan Ahrens: They already did once.
Lash: I guess my question is, the point of it or the goal of it as I
understand it from the introduction is to preserve green space in
Chanhassen. That people moved here for the open space. The green space.
And I think that Bluff Creek personally would be the way to go because then
we would be preserving the Bluff Creek area and that's something that this
Commission thinks is important, but if Bluff Creek is already a golf
....,;
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 29
"......
course, it already is an open green space and so then why would we want to
spend the money to buy it when it's already there?
Joan Ahrens: I guess just because the city has turned down development of
that golf course once doesn't mean that development can't happen again with
the right plan. And once the city owns it, the city owns it forever. And
the city is also purchasing it in the 1990's prices and if they end up
purchasing it 20 years from now, who knows what the prices will be. I mean
for the right price people will sell. Even if these. guys love managing
their golf course. And I guess that somehow, some way once development
moves out that direction, there would be some way of developing that golf
course. As it stands now, with no sewer and water out there any anything
else, it would be tough. And I don't know if it was because, actually the
city has all those records and it would be interesting to go through them
all. The file's about this thick. Kate Aanenson, who's a planner, has all
those files and I think she's gone through them. If you had questions, I
would talk to her about it.
Andrews: I personally support the idea of a feasibility study. I mean
looking at this case study of Brookview and my opposition to this last year
was based upon the fact that this might be a mine loser to the city. Then
they come up with about $300,000.00, I just did some quick calculations. If
you're talking a million dollar purchase plus maybe a quarter million to
put up a nlce clubhouse or a decent clubhouse and some depreciation expense
and extra expense, there apprears to still be room for a cashflow there
~that would be positive.
Joan Ahrens: Well I haven't found and I know Brian and Richard Wing have
also looked, nobody can find a golf course that's losing money. I mean
they seem to be money makers for these cities and a lot of the cities we
talked tOj like Burnsville, they want to build more. Edina wants to build
more. North Mankato bought extra land so they could develop another one.
They seem to, every single one of them seems to be making money.
Andrews: I guess my comment I want to make about that is the accounting
methods used by a city are much different than a business. Like these
examples, there is no accounting for the debt service or depreciation.
It's basically how much money did you take in. How much do you have to pay
for wages. Everything after that is profit and that's not profit in the
real world.
Joan Ahrens: Well, the only reason those items were left out of the net
profit figures is for purposes of comparison. Because some of the golf
courses had already paid off their debt service and some of them hadn't.
So they were just not used in the calculations for purposes of comparison.
Andrews: But it does appear that it'd be very possible this could be a
positive cash flow item. I guess if you look at spending $5,000.00 bucks
to know for sure, I think that could be a good idea.
Schroers: The organization that I work for has two golf courses and they
are money makers. They make money. They don't hold their own. They make
I"""" m 0 n e y .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
M~rch 24, 1992 - Page 30
....""
Joan Ahrens: I think what's neat about these cities is that a lot of them
~re using the club houses for other recreational purposes. They'ye using
the golf courses for cross country skiing in the winter. Building trails
around them. They're using the club houses for, Brookview as a matter of
fact has relocated their entire Park and Rec Department over to the golf
course. They use it for all sorts of community events. Also for the focal
point for the community and I think if residents knew that their golf
cou'Vses were losing money no matter how nice the club house. No matter how
nice the facility, you wouldn't see cities developing them. I mean
citizens are smarter than that.
Schroers: It seems only right that the golf course is provided for
recreation and that revenue earned and generated from that could be
channeled back into the park and recreation department to acquire
additional park space and development into the city. That might be a good
way of acquiring funds for the Park and Rec Commission.
Joan Ahrens: It's been done.
Lash: We'd all be in favor of that.
Joan Ahrens: Well there's not a lot of money in a lot of city budgets
anymore for park and rec. I know Brooklyn Park too has been putting a lot
of their money back into their.
Schroers: See that's the problem that we have right now. When you come to
us talking about a golf course, what we're talking,about is a purchase of a
large chunk of land and that is what we currently have great difficulty
with in the Park and Rec. If we don't get it through the dedication
pi-ocess, we can't afford to go out and buy a chunk of land.
....,;
Joan Ahrens: Well I understand that. I think that there's so many ways
though to get these things off the ground that I think the City maybe
should just look at those options. You know this isn ',t. . . the city has to
make any decision on whether or not they want to go with that just because
they investigate it but as you know, the way development has gone through
the western suburbs, if something isn't looked at in advance, you never get
it. So it's a planning process. And even if this was moving full speed
ahead at this point, we'd still be in the planning stages probably 4 years
from now. You know it's a long process but you have to get started at some
point and that's what planning is all about.
Erickson: I guess one of my thoughts is, if one of the primary goals is
to, at this point is to retain green open space, which I think is a very
good goal, -having that green open space in a more visible area would make
more sense to me than Bluff Creek. Though that's a real nice area, it's
kind of where nobody ever really sees it or knows it. Certainly you can
always go there and enjoy it but you know like Lake Ann Park being right on
the main drag there. You drive by that and it's green and it's open and
you can enjoy that. Maybe every day you don't look at it but you just
think, that's very nice having it right there centrally located. You can
see it. Having something more, a more central location or something where
more people would maybe even notice the green openness, I think that would
be better. I guess what I'm talking about is acquiring new land or
....""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~March 24, 1992 - Page 31
different land than ~he golf course that is already there. I understand
the concerns with financing and all of that but I think if one of the goals
is to have green open space that everybody would enjoy, I think more
centrally located. Maybe once 212 gets through there and some of that,
maybe someplace where more people will see it every day. It's just a
consideration.
Joan Ahrens: I think it would be great to have a golf course on the
Eckankar property.
Erickson: Nice ~lub house.
Joan Ahrens: That's right. You could have an indoor practice range in
there too. But I talked to Kate about locating possible sites and she
could only, at this point, if you can believe this. I mean we think we
have all this open space around us. She could come up with one possible
site for a golf course. Down by the river. It surprised me. I thought we
are hardly even approaching being over developed here and she could only
find one site. That's another thing I think that kind of made us nervous.
We thought boy, this has got to get off the ground. At least the
investigation of it ~t some point or we may lose all opportunity to even
discuss it.
Lash: Randy, last spring some of us went down to Bluff Creek and went
~through the golf course and down into that area and we really set that as
one of our goals to try to somehow acquire that to control it to preserve
it in it's natural state. And this would certainly be an 'avenue for us to
explore to achieve that goal. It was just a beautiful site and we have not
been able to come up with any way other than this option for us to reach
that goal.
Erickson: I guess the fact that there's only one other site kind of puts
it in a new light too. I've got this little map in front of me here and
it's got all this open light space but if a lot of that's already spoken
for~ I think the corner of the TH 5 and CR 17 is going to be pretty hard to
acquire.
Schroers: Well that depends on how it's zoned too. What does the zoning
have to be to accommodate a golf, course?
Joan Ahrens: It's also the appropriate land. Physically.
accommodate a golf course. But if I'm getting the correct
the Planning Department, which I assume I am, we are going
with planning proposals in the next 6 to 9 months.
What land would
information fro~
to be very busy
Schroers: What is it actually that you would like from us at this point?
I don't think that you would find anyone sitting here that's opposed to the
idea of having a golf course.
Andrews: Can we make a motion that we support a feasibility study?
~~oubsky: I think I just even support the idea. I play golf. I've always
~layed municipal courses. Private owned courses are nice but they're only
private for a number of years. Or open to the public for a number of yeaTs
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 32
-'
and then they turn private. We'll lose Deer Run in 4 years. They've lost
Edenvale. It's a thing you like to open up to free enterprise but free
enterprise becomes private. That's the nature of .the beast. Joan I
support your efforts here. It's refreshing to know that the city is
looking into it. I think it's a nice area. I think it adds a lot _and it
solves a lot of problems. It does take up some open space that addresses
that issue. It is potential revenue source that may come back to park and
recreation. We're not on, we don't get tax monies. I think the community,
I think the city would probably take better care of it than it's currently
being taken care of and like you say, as places go out there, it's a long
process. These buys bought that for $125,000.00 and now it's $700,000.00.
We're going to lose the window. It seems expensive. You know a million
dollars seems expensive to everybody here but you look at what other
communities are doing and million dollar referendums aren't much. I don't
say we have to do a referendum for this but a million dollar$ isn't that
much today. You know lots, we were just talking about that Jim, now
they're $40,000.00 to build a house. These guys had a golf course for
$125,000.00. I just support your efforts. I haven't attended any of YOUT
meetings. I told Tom I would be at a few and didn't make it.
Joan Ahrens: Well I'd welcome anybody who's interested in this idea to
join us because we would, we need all the input frankly we can get. We
don't have an organized schedule of meetings. We have been meeting an hour
prior to the Planning Commission meeting because that's the only time we
seem to find a hour of time but certainly we would like to start a regular
schedule of meetings and I encourage anybody who~s interested, give me a
call.
...."
Schroers: How about notifying staff. Yeah, let Todd know so that we know
when the meetings are.
Joan Ahrens: Sure.
Andrews: I would like to make a motion about the feasibility study.
Lash: I don't know if that's something this commission, I don't know.
Andrews:
Cou ncll .
We're not going to pay for it. Just that we recommend it to the
That we'd like to see them do that. I think it helps to.
Lash: Is that what you're looking for? Or are you just looking for us to
support your investigation?
Joan Ahrens: Well I was hoping that you would also want to amend your
section of the Comprehensive Plan to include the study area for a golf
course. After that, it's kind of up to you as to what you want to do. I
don't know if you need to do anything more than to let the Council know
that you're in support of this idea.
Andrews: I think a motion is stronger than just talking about it.
Lash: I think we already did discuss putting that on the survey. Is that
what you're talking about, the survey? ...."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~March 24, 1992 - Page 33
Schroers: No. To amend the Comprehensive Plan to include that and if we
made a motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the golf course,
that would certainly be clueing the City Council in that we were supporting
that idea.
Andrews: We'd have to have hearings for that wouldn't we? ...okay. I'm
not ready to support that that quickly. I mean I think the feasibility
study is first. Before I would say let's designate this as a municipal
golf course zoning area, I would want to get more informatio~ about the
feasibil i ty.
Lash: We wouldn't have to designate a site. We would just have to put in
the verbage.
Hoffman: Obviously tHat white region as Randy stated, it would be the
location for a study area. I briefly talked to Kate. There is probably
one real nice location for a golf course but many communities deal with
trying to squeeze in another one. Look at the Minnetonka issue. So there
probably are other potential sites which could be looked at which are less
than ideal but would certainly accommodate a golf course. Amending the
comprehensive plan is very easy to do but we do need to include with that
some explanation as to what this golf course area is. What it's trying to
accomplish. So prior to doing that it would be helpful to have clear
direction on where the city is headed in that regard.
~
Schroers: It seems to me that since we don't really have anything organized
and we're not off the ground with this, we would be premature in making a
formal motion or recommendation regarding this issue right now. But I
think that we would certainly like to be kept informed of any progress and
your meeting dates and I think it's something that we're very receptive to
and we'd like to see and help if we can move ahead with it.
Lash: And possibly Todd can come back to us on a future night with some
ideas of amending the comprehensive plan.
Hoffman: Sure. As well I think it is vitally important that if this
committee now gains some momentum,. that this commission, if one or two
people do not volunteer, that we try to encourage some folks to get onto
that, take a position on that commission. Obviously if this thing comes
down the pike, it's going to fall right into the laps of park and
recreation and the operation taken over by the city. We'll be talking
additional staff and all those types of issues will be certainly addressed
by the Park and Recreation Commission so if you feel so inclined, to jump
on the band wagon, I would encourage you to do so in pretty strong fashion.
We can only ride the issue so long if we're going to look into it.
Obviously if we're going to take the time to look into it, there's a
possibility that a course will be acquired by the city and people will
start to recognize that. I think it's important for the Park Commission to
become involved.
Joan Ahrens: We will be making a presentation to the City Council, a
~formal presentation and it would be nice if we had somebody, 1 or 2 or 3 or
however many people from your commission, to be involved in that
presentation.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 34
.....,i
Schroers: What nights do you generally have your Planning meetings?
Joan Ahrens: Wednesdays. They're the first and third Wednesday of every
month.
Schroers: And you usually meet an hour prior to both of them?
Joan Ahrens: No. No, we haven't had that many meetings. We've only had
about 3 or 4 meetings and we've had a lot of phone calls back and forth
because the adhoc committee has been so small that hasn't been a problem.
But the only reason we're meeting those 3 or 4 times...wasbecause Brian
and I are the majority of the committee and we're at the Planning
Commission so. It's not like those meetings, times and dates are written
in stone. Certainly if when we start expanding this committee, we're going
to have to consider a lot of schedules... I know the last thing you want
to"do is become involved in more meetings but I think I agree, the Park and
Rec does need to be involved in it. \
Erickson: Are you looking for just regular Chanhassen residents to be on
the committee also?
Joan Ahrens: . . . we tal ked about
have community leaders...once we
need the city to say, yes or no.
needlessly.
this also. Eventually we would like to
have something to do. At this point we
Otherwise we're spinning our wheels
Koubsky: So are we looking for the City to authorize some funding for the
feasibility study?
--""
Joan Ahrens: Eventually that will have to be done. We can't do it on our
own.
Andrews: I guess I keep trying to make a motion. I would like to at least
have out commission verbally support via a motion that we agree that a
feasibility study is necessary so that can come back to Council so
something will happen. I feel like we all are agreeing but we're not
taking any action whatsoever. I think it would be helpful to your cause if
we did.
Joan Ahrens: _ I don't think you're putting yourselves on the limb or
committing yourselves to anything by stating that.
Andrews: I'm not saying we're going to pay for it. I'm just saying we
support the idea of a golf course and we'd like to see more information and
I think a feasibility study is the next step.
Joan Ahrens: I agree.
Andrews: I move that the Park Board, that we support or recommend that a
feasibility study be funded by City Council regarding a golf course.
Koubsky: Second.
....,.;
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
I"'" March 24, 1992 - Page 35
Erickson: If we could do it to amend it to the point saying that we wish
to.show our support for the Planning Commission by asking or by supporting
the idea of a feasibility study. Get both of it in there so there's no
question.
Andrews: Sure.
Schroers: Okay. And second okay?
Koubsky: Yeah that's fine.
Andrews moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to City Council to authorize funding of a feasibility study for a
municipal golf course as presented by the Planning Commission. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Joan Ahrens: Does anyone want to volunteer now?
Schroers: That was going to be my next question.
Koubsky: Why don't you call me Joan.
Joan Ahrens: Okay, one volunteer.
~Andrews: If you meet at Brian's house I'll come. He's down the block from
me.
Schroers: You can call me also.
Joan Ahrens: Brian's out of town but I suppose I could volunteer for him
now. He's not here. Anybody else want to be called about the next
meeting?
Hoffman: Maple Grove also conducted a, as it's called in here, a case
study feasibility study and I have some of that information includes some
of these golf courses but it has others as well. Some of the comparisons
showed their entire debt in that and they still broke even or made out
better and as Jim and eveiybody iecognizes, theie's a myriad of ways which
they showed how well their golf course did but certainly none of them were
struggling.
Schioers: On our survey anywheie does it ask anything about a golf COUise?
I don't remember.
Hoffman: That's the question.
Koubsky: Put on number 4.
Schroeis: We did add it iight?
tonight.
~Joan Ahiens: Oh you did?
So we did that befoie you even came
Schroers: We added it into our sUivey.
Pal k and Rec Commission t1eeti ng
March 24, 1992 - Page 36
......",
Hoffman: Well we had talked about it. We wanted to find out the consensus
of this discussion.
Joan Ahrens: Well thank you for your time.
WORKSHOP, PARK IMPROVEMENT BOND ISSUES.
Schroers: So now we're up to item 8 on the agenda. It's the workshop and
pa,k improvement bond issues.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Park Commissioners. This item goes hand
and hand with the ,ec,eational needs survey. Obviously any issues raised
in there would be items which we are considering or would be considering
putting on a refe,endum. As noted, the City of Eden P,ai,ie recently, last
Tuesday, St. Patrick's Day, passed their 4 1/2 million dollar bond issue.
The vote counted there to provide some information for comparison of when
and potentially when you should not present a park issue. Ours have, the
last few or at least one of the last two and maybe both of them were du,ing
the general election. One of them at least was during the Presidential
election as we have coming this fall. As discussed with the City Manage,
and Mayor Chmiel who was present here this evening, potentially, first of
all we don't have the timeframe to do it. And it becomes a hot potato in
the arena for the folks running for City Council and it becomes a
cumbe,some issue. People have to choose sides and it's really better off
left alone potentially and brought up in the spring of 1993. Then we have ~
the issue of bistrict 112 park bond. Do you want to be bringing these
things back to back? Do you want to push this thing off 2 years? What
type of time frame do you think is necessary in order to bring some of
these improvements on line?
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Hoffman: ...past commission meetings. We promised you some numbers on
resident use as fa, as adult softball and youth athletics. The handout
which was placed at your counter earlier was collected that inform~tion was
collected by Jer,y and I'll give Je,ry just a few minutes to highlight what
our numbers are for the 1992 season and potentially where we're going from
he,e.
Ruegemer: Thank .you Todd. Specifically, we'll just go over this real
briefly. Looking at the whole league, we ale down cu,rently in the
industrial league but I think that's due to some of the recent economy.
Some of the 10fal industries did, I have hea,d th,ough the g,apevine, have
laid off a number of people such as UMI and Rosemount and some of those b~t
last year we we,e at 20 teams and that was pushing capacity with the
facilities\ that we do have. Tuesday night is, we do have loom in that area
and we finally glowing in numbe,s fo, the Women's League which is
encouraging. And the Over 35 we're really at full capacity right now as
far as the four softball fields that we are using at Lake Ann currently.
That would accommodate up to 6 teams so we're almost pretty close to
capacity on that night. Thu,sday night was a shock to ou, department with
the Men's Open League. Last yea, in 1991 we had 18 teams total. This year ~
we had 26 teams show interest in playing in those leagues. What that means
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~March 24, 1992 - Page 37
is that we will be having to be using Field #1 which has really been used
primarily last season as a baseball field. So we will be taking a night
away from the AAU Legion program, baseball program to accommodate the
additional teams for Thursday night. Also we will have to spill into
Friday nights...accommodate the 26 teams. So that's an area which we could
use additional fields really for that area and projecting in the future and
seeing an increase in that in the next couple of years also. And Friday
nights, currently this is, when I wrote this memo we were at 13. Now we're
at 14 teams for the Co-Rec so we would be using all the Lake Ann fields
that night with Co-Rec and the Mens Open trickling into Friday night. So
we really have seen a significant growth from last year. We're up roughly
8 to 10 teams from last year. So we are pushing capacity with our softball
leagues right now as far as the facilities that we do have at Lake Ann.
...increase and since it did dedicate Field #2 at Lake Ann as a Little
League field, we did lose a field right there so we increased our youth
Little League which was greatly needed but we suffered in our adult
program. So we'll have to take a look at that. CAA approximately has 400
kids registered to date and they're still taking registration for that
program. As you can see T-ball added 2 new teams and really looking into
the near future, that program is going to grow and the younger programs are
going to grow significantly with all that. For example Lake Susan areas.
There's many young people down in that area and other areas of Chanhassen.
So we're in need of youth areas also. And currently the ragball has 100
kids. Pee'wee has 75 kids. 2nd and 3rd grade softball is a new program
~this year. That has 50 kids currently registered. 12 and under softball
has 45 kids so we're constantly from year to year growing in numbers and
number of teams in the youth programs. And we can only see constant growth
in the next 3 to 5 years or in the near future. South Tonka Little League
is servicing from year to year a higher percentage of Chanhassen kids. As
you can see, it's roughly 45% of the kids of that program are kids of
Chanhassen so they'll be primarily be using Lake Ann Field #2 for at least
half their games the way it sounds this year so some of the 10, 11, 12 year
old kids will not have to go over to Excelsior, Shorewood, Minnetonka area
for their games. Now they will have at least half of those games at Lake
Ann this year which will make the parents of the Chanhassen kids very
happy. And they will also be using the North Lotus field 2 nights a week
to accommodate some of the overflow. The AAU program is also growing.
They added one team in the 13 year old league this year which is the South
Tonka program is the feeder program into the AAU program so it's just a
progressive. As they grow year to year, they j~st go from AAU, 13, 14, 15
and then into a 16 or older AAU program and then into the Legion program so
it's just going to be a constant feeder program from the time they start to
the time they reach Legion. The Legion program if that's possible. 14 and
15 year olds age catagory will also have three teams this year and you will
be adding a brand new 16 year old. There's enough interest in the 16 year
old te~m this year so they will be having probably 15 or 16 kids play in
that age catagory. And that's taking away Field #1 on Thursday nights and
possibly Field #1 on Monday nights for adult softball. That puts an
additional strain on their program. As they continue to grow, they will
also be needing facilities for their program. Currently they will be using
Lake Susan extensively. The Legion field over on the TH 5 and TH 101 and
~also Lake Ann Field #1 when that is available and also Freeman Field. Even
Nith those 4 fields there are still somewhat in a facility crunch and
trying to accommodate all the upcoming teams. And then we get to the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 38
,...,I
soccer program. They still have 3 weeks to go on their program. They're
already up roughly 55 kids from last year in that program and with Lake Ann
being in pretty decent shape this year, a lot better shape than it was last
year, they're going to be using that probably 5 nights a week and also
using Meadow Green and Noith Lotus for soccer games and the overflow I
think will go down to the track area down at the high school area. And
they will also be using City Center Park on odd days from the Atheltic
Association. So there's a number of fields and as we get older, as the
kids start growing up from the younger programs, they will be in need of
some larger fields. Some of the younger kids can be accommodated in
smaller fields than what we presently have to accommodate them but looking
to the future, we're in dire need of full sized fields.
Schroers: Jerry, are we obligated to accommodate every team that wants to
join the league?
Ruegemer: As far as softball?
Schroers: I mean is there a limit? Can we just say, when you say it's
putting a strain on the existing facilities, I mean that is also a strain
on you being able to schedule properly and at some point in time I would
think that it would infringe on the rest of the program and a lot of
shuffling around. one week you're playing on one night and the next week
you're playing on the next night and that sort of thing and we could tend
to deteriorate our program by stressing it too much. I mean is there a cut
off point? Is there a point that we get to where we say hey, we are taking
no more teams?
-...."tI'
Hoffman: That would be a policy statement which would be developed by the
Commission.
Lash: That was kind of my question too and it didn't appear that there was
a problem with any of them except for the Mens Open League which had the
big increase. And if that's gotten to the point where it is stretching the
system so badly that it is now taking away from AAU time, to me it's at
capacity. It's over capacity and we should have turned some tea~s away
because it's now affecting another league. And that's not fair to them.
That's not fair to AAU to say well we have a lot of teams in the Open
League who want to play so you guys aren't going to get as much play time
this year.
Hoffman: Jerry did go ahead and schedule a field concern, field scheduling
meeting with all representatives of these groups and AAU does have an
alternate time slot. Alternate fields to go ahead and use.
Lash: But this is going to start happening more and more and more and we
maybe need to look at that now before it starts happening a lot and figure
out what is capacity and when we're going to draw the line and say.
Schroers: That's what I think. We don't want to exceed to the point where
our program begins to :3uffnl' and we're starting to go backwards.
Lash: Or that other parts of the program are having to sacrifice.
.....""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
"March 24, 1992 - Page 39
Andrews: My concern is can these fields stand the stomping and traffic
they're going to get or are we going to end up with a bunch of dead grass
fields that are going to be totally unuseable by the end of the summer? I
know that's dependent on weather but it seems like these fields are all
getting 3 games a night, 7 days a week and I don't know if they can stand
that kind of use and be coming up to recover. I think we have an
obligation to the city, as trustees of the park system, that I think our
first job is to preserve the assets that we have and then provide as much
reasonable use as we can but I don't think the obligation is to destroy the
property so we can i)! ,)vic\;:, ,l program for everybody t,hat comes to us,.
Hoffman: But the folks who get turned away will certainly argue that you
have an obligation to provide recreation for them. They paid just as much
money. They are a citizen as well. How do you make that delineation? Do
you pull teams out of a hat and say you played last year so you play this
year? Do you say, you played last year so you don't get to play this
year? Many cities that those defined policy statements. It would probably
behoove us to go ahead and look at this this summer so we have.
Andrews: For next year. There's no doubt about it.
Erickson: Did some of the increased numbers come from players on multiple
teams?
~Ruegemer: For the Open?
Erickson: For the Mens Open League.
Ruegemer: They can't play on two different teams on the same night.
Lash: What is the requirement for the Open League? I don't even know what
that is.
Ruegemer: If you work or live in Chanhassen, then you can have 4 non-
residents on the roster.
Schroers: And you've got to be young and fast.
Lash: Well why do you think there was such an increase in that league?
Ruegemer: Some of the teams, maybe 2 are from industrial teams from last
year. Or not industrial teams from last year but some of the, not less
established but like Dexter's is one of the teams. They don't have enough
people employed at their plant to put a team in the industrial league. '
They might have 20 employees. Half of those may be men. Maybe women and
they can't accommodate an industrial team so then they go into the Mens
Open because they can have the 4 non-residents on that roster.
Hoffman: Young males are the population that play the most softball.
Koubsky: Most have got new neighborhoods you know that are getting
~organized and starting teams. Just a sign of population. Are we
sacrificing any of the Legion fields for softball?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 40
....",;I
Ruegemer: No.
Koubsky: That would be a concern of mine.
Lash: Of course you can always go back to the crackdown on the non-
residents thing which you know, I feel like before one chan resident gets
turned away from playing, all the non-residents should be turned away.
Koubsky: Any other cities do that though?
Ruegemer: Eden Prairie resident.
Hoffman: One of the first things that I did when I became employed with
the city was to go through and attempt to promote a non-resident policy.
To date it's been the most heated meetings that I've ever been involved in.
The only meetings where we had to have a Sheriff available at the Council
chambers for Park Commission or City Council meetings. You cannot believe
the debate that that generates. Getting it down to the 4 non-residents was
a victory and a fairly large one at that.
Lash: And that was like right before I started so Larry's the only one
left here who was here.
Schroers: We've been through all that but the real problem that you get in
there is on the team that I have been playing on, there are 4 guys who grew
up in Chanhassen. Went to school in Chanhassen. Their parents still live
in Chanhassen. Their families have been paying taxes here for 30 years but
they happen to live in Bloomington and Minnetonka. Now if you're going to
tell those people that they can't play ball here, you're going to have a
problem. You're going to have ~heir whole relatives up here.
.....",
Lash: Well, their relatives could play. If they want to play, then they
can come. You know they can pay taxes here. They don't have t live here.
But if there's one taxpayer in this city, when we get to the point where
we're stretched and there's one person who lives here and pays taxes and we
have to say to that person, I'm sorry you can't play on these fields.
They've got a real legitimate gripe if there's 4 non-residents on every
team. People who are not paying taxes for the fields. It's legitimate.
Hoffman: What you're saying then as part of his policy statement, you
would like to include no non-residents.
Lash: Maybe it can be, you're going to have to start now. We're saying
we're at the limit right now. From now on, if you'r~ a non-resident, you
can be grandfathered in but no more non-residents.
Schroers: No, we've got that.
Lash: But they can still have 4. Can they bring in a new non-resident?
If one of their non-residents leaves, can they bring in a new non-resident?
Hoffman: Sure. The tracking of that is simply a nightmare, if you have a
policy or not.
.."""
Pal k and Rec Commission r-1eeti ng
~Ma,ch 24, 1992 - Page 41
And,ews: Just ,aise thei, p,ices.
Koubsky: Does staff have a handle on how many teams the system can
handle? I know you p,esented us he,e with some numbe,s and we see that
it's inc,easing. The numbe,s speak fo, themselves and that's why we're
discussing a bond issue and what not. I guess I'd like some staff opinion
maybe. You know he,e you've given us some data. What does the data mean
to you? Do we have to limit things next yea, and if so, by how many teams?
How many, we see the CAA going up. I'm assuming it's going up. That's
going to put more stress on the AAU. Maybe out of this thing we can
de~elop some shott and long ,ange goals. If we need to cut teams, what ale
OUt options? Maybe we have to ,each in the hat and put in anothe,
ballfield or maybe we have to cut teams. How does staff, Je"y, you',e
leal close to this. What do these things say to you? You know we've put
them togethe,. Now I think the next step is what do they mean and what are
some shott and long term goals? And if we have to cut teams, then we can
decide okay, do we cut teams 0, do we cut non-resideilts? We can be faced
with that. If it's two teams, then we kno w a numbe, about and we can
figure out options.
Ruegemer: I guess I did map out something here. If AAU is the concern you
know as far as not using, just letting them exclusively use Field #1 on a
given night. With the fields that we do have we can accommodate 16 teams.
~Lash: In each league?
Ruegemer: On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
Koubsky: AAU, ale those grass fields?
Ruegemer: Grass infields.
Hoffman: Not necessarily. They could be.
Ruegemer: Lake Ann isn't. Or the Legion.
Lash: So maybe that's what we need to do. Establish a 16 team limit per
league.
Andrews: But it's too late fo, this year I assume.
Koubsky: But this year raised some issues.
Lash: B~t then what are we going to do next year when the Open League
already has 26 teams and we're going to have to say to them, 10 of you are
not going to be able to play.
Ruegemer: The first 16 people to get their money in I guess.
Andrews: The top 16 bidders.
~Koubsky: I think we have to figure that out before registration time next
year.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 42
......",
Hoffman: Well certainly. It may be short sighted again to say just simply
16. We had 26 this year. We were successful in negotiating with all
representatives of all athletic associations and leagues, a compromise
situation to go ahead and utilize our fields. We certainly can put some
parameters, bring back some recommendations for parameters. You're going
to have to struggle with the residency clause. Chaska is going through
that process again right now as many communities have. But again it's been
5 years. The first 2 years we scraped for teams you know. We went out
there beating the bushes for teams and now 3 years later, we're going whoa,
hang on. We don't need anymore so if it took us 3 years to get to that
point, I would have to say in 3 years we're going to be, if we don't add
any new fields, we're going to be in a crisis point. Then it's going to
become very uncomfortable again for us. We're going to have to enter into
those situations of turning away non-residents. Turning away the
established softball association as it acts and lives and breathes in
Chanhassen today, which I cannot over emphasize the volatility of that
question.
Schroers: We definitely do not want to time that into in any way impact on
any referendums that we have going or we're going to be seen in a very
negative image at that point in time. I agree with you. I don't think
that we should be turning away residents but I think we may have to come up
with some more of a creative solution. Does the open league also have the
grandfather clause? Why do they need it?
Hoffman: Why?
--'
Schroers: Why does the open league need it? They're not old enough to
have people that have played in that league that long for the most part.
Ruegemer: Some still do t~ough. Some of the teams are still the same but
for the most part they're newer teams. I think wasn't the policy
consistent?
Schroers: Those new teams, they sure don't need a grandfather clause.
Lash: Any new team that signs on, should have no.
Hoffman: They have up to 4.
Ruegemer: Right. Any new team doesn't have anything to do with the
grandfather clause.
Lash: So if you're a brand new team coming, you can't have 4 non-
residents?
Ruegemer: Yeah. You still can, but you can't be grandfathered.
Lash: Okay, but couldn't we say any new teams would have to be all
residents?
Schroers: 'I think we could do that. I mean I don't see why a new team has
to have a grandfather clause. That doesn't make any sense at all. ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
I"'" t-1arch 24" 1992 - Page 43
Hoffman: That was part of the negotiation, the agreement last time around.
Lash: Part of the problem last time. I ~asn't here but I heard about it
quite a bit. The meeting. If we ever do have to get into that issue, and
I know it's hot, is we would have to as a commission and staff sit down and
come up with some guidelines to keep some control in there. We'd have to
be pretty well unified to start with and as far as I'm concerned at a
Chanhassen public hearing, non-residents would have no reason in the world
to be allowed to speak. Their input to us would mean nothing.
Schroers: There was standing room only and I don't know how many times we
were told how stupid we were that night.
Lash: By non~residents. It's mostly non-residents that are hot about it
and the big issue back then was Shorewood didn't have any fields. Okay,
Shorewood's gotten their fields now. They're working on them now. They're
supposed to be, I just read in the paper, they're supposed to be up for
play this year. Okay.
Andrews: Why don't we table this until like August when we know how the
fields survived this summer without being trampled to death. My biggest
concern is if we have a drought summer, we're going to have nothing_ left
for fields at the end of the season.
I""'Hoffman: We went through those two drought years and I mean the fields
turned into slick, dead grass. Hard packed concrete almost and they've
survived.
Schroers: It does the same thing it does in the wintertime. It just kind
of goes dormant and then it comes back.
Lash: And just for your information for the kids stuff. I was at
kindergarten round-up last Thursday night. We had record registration for
next year. Last year at round-up we had 187 registrations. This last
Thursday we had 300 and Dr. Clough spoke and said this year the graduating
class has 265, roughly seniors. There's 430 kindergartners this year and
by 1995 they're anticipating 600 kindergartners. So figure the increase.
Erickson: District wide they're figuring in 5 years in excess of 5,000,
more people. 5,000 more students.
Pemrick: How many kindergartners this year?
Lash: 430.
Pemrick: And how many next year?
Lash: Well we don't know for sure y~ We had 300 registrations last
Thursday night.
Pemrick: And you're right now though at that center, you're doing 430?
r
Lash: We have 408 and there's 20 some...
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 44
....,.,
Andrews: I'd like to see us bring this back like August. Like a graph or
a sheet shOwing what our capacity per...and then let's get this capacity
issue decided long before spring starts so that it's no surprise to these
people. Deal with it then.
Koubsky: Possibly before August too or whatever fits your schedule. I
think the sooner we Gring this up and discuss it.
Andrews: I'd like to get into the season enough though. Of course the
spring season will be over by then but just to see how at this point, how
it worked.
Lash: And maybe we'll know that this is the capacity. Maybe' we'll know we
can accommodate 26 teams but maybe no more.
Hoffman: It's always a balancing act. I think we do need to switch gears
just to get back to the issue of our bond issue. Potential bond issue~
Just in brief to hear some comments from the Commission on your thoughts on
timing for this type of issue. Obviously we haven't gathered all the
information. We're beginning to do that. It's important that we start
taking a look at step by step approach. The article which is attached
there, you may have noticed in one of the past, last February's edition of
the Park and Recreation magazine, it goes through some steps which this
particular park district used to promote and pass their bond referendum...
would certainly be helpful.
Koubsky: I have a thought. I think the sooner we can ask for this thing,
the better. Re~ardless of political or elections. I think everybody's
property taxes went up. You know we just received those. Jan says our
school population's doubling. All I see is new schools and taxes so that's
all I see for the future is property taxes are just going to go up and up.
Th~ City's doing a good job of holding it's own. You know that was noticed
in the statement but if we miss an opportunity now to ask for it, we're
going to get tied up in other referendums and people are just seeing their
property taxes go up and they're going to have to call a stop to it
somewhere and I'd hate to have Bandimere be the stop.
--'
Schroers: As soon as we get the information back off the surveys and ~et
things calculated and know what we should be asking for.
Lash: Yeah, I really think we need to wait and find out what the surveys
say.
Koubsky: Oh I agree. I agree. But I think the survey should be pushed
up. May would be good. I think the faster we can move it along.
Lash: But in your memo you're saying that Mayor Chmiel and the City
Manager are saying that fall is premature.
Andrews: I think Spring of '93 makes sense.
Lash: But that's when the school one is coming too.
Andrews: You don't know that.
"""'"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
"....March 24, 1992 - Page 45
Hoffman: They're certainly pushing hard for it.
Lash: I'm surprised it isn't going to be in the fall. I'm surprised.
Hoffman: It will be in February.
Koubsky: How much are they asking?
Hoffman: I have no idea. They have a study pack for remodeling and
reonstruction of all facilities. All school district facilities.
Andrews: There are large parts of Chanhassen which aren't in Chaska school
district so.
Lash: Yeah, that's true.
Hoffman: About half.
Andrews: I guess I feel this fall is pushing it to try to develop a plan
of what we want to accomplish when it's going to cost to get a bond, some
momentum behind the bond issue so we can get it passed. I really doubt we
can come up with a good plan and get it cost to get some good ideas.
Hoffman: Yeah, if it was going to be fall, it should be out in the minds
~of folks right now.
Schroers: How about shooting for like January or ~ebruary and just getting
in under the wire before the 1993 spring?
Hoffman: It has influence each way. I mean if you put it before the
school issue, people are going to say well we've got that school issue
coming up and I'm not going to vote yes for this one. And then if the
school issue fails and we bring up a miniscual park issue compared to that,
they're going to say well this is an easy one. We'll go for this one and
let the school bring their's back. So there's a variety of different ways
it could go.
Lash: Tough spot isn't it Fred.
Hoffman: Fred ca~ talk to that regard. I think this is all that needs to
be accomplished Larry. We'll get the SUl"Vey out and continue to plug away
at a particular portion of this referendum process at each subsequent
meeting or every other and get ready to knock this thing off.
Schroers: Okay. So with that we'll conclude the discussion workshop for
the Park Improvement Bond Issue for this evening. We will be seeing it
again and move right on to item 9. We have another discussion on Cathcart
Park.
DISCUSSION. CATHCART PARK.
~Hoffman: Thank you Larry. This issue as I briefly mentioned, has been
brought to us by the City of Shorewood. You have a map in there which
shows some potential: improvements. Essentially it's the park master plan.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 46
-'
You all recognize one which the City of Shorewood had developed as part of
their referendum process which they're going through. But then they
questioned it. They said do we want to stick the kind of dollars which are
tabu~ated on the back of the handout which' had Jerry's information on it.
Do we want to spend $163,000.00 in CIP impTove~ents in Cathcart Park which
is in the city of Chanhassen when we have Freeman Field just right up the
street. And then they started questioning themselves. Maybe we should
hand this thing over to the city of Chanhassen. Maybe they'd have some
interest. What are the possibilities of what we could do with this
property? A little background. I think it was 18 years ago, the church
sold this to the city of Shorewood for $10,000.00 because they needed the
money to establish their church on the north side which is in Shorewood.
So they didn't want to sell it to Chanhassen because they were in ShoTewood
so that's the deal that was cut. So the City of Shorewood owns this
parcel...city of Chanhassen. It serves a very small portion of Chanhassen
if you take into account'what State Highway 7 does to the service area. It
essentially cuts it off. There certainly are people that drive to the park
to use it. But it's a small service area so there's things to consider on
what type of position you want to take. We can push it back to the City of
Shorewood and say, filter this thing through and you're right it's not our
problem but they may sell it back to the church for the church to build a
larger facility there. Then we would need to answer to our residents in
losing that facility since we did have the opportunity. But if you
consider this piece of property came in for development and we would review
it today, you would probably say well, it is isolated by TH 7 but they can
get on that trail. They can get up to Freeman Field. You know we don't
need a park there. So another tough thing to crack.
...""
Andrews: So what exactly is ShorewoQd asking us to do? Do we want to b0y
this or is this sort of a point of information?
Hoffman: Just a point of information. They have outright asked us if we
could like to take the park. I'm not sure if that includes paymeDt back to
them but it certainly includes then an obligation to include this park in
our system and schedule it into our CIP and our maintenance budget, etc.,
etc. .
Lash:
...city of Chanhassen?
Hoffman: Potentially.
Lash: If they're willing to give it to us.
Schroers: Yeah, I think we need a little more of a precise indication of
what they're actually proposing. If they want to give this park to us, we
want it. There is no doubt about it. We want it. But that would be one
way of somewhat appeasing the Lake Minnewashta people even though it's not
ideally and centrally located in the western Lake Minnewashta area. It is
a parcel of park property out in that general vicinity.
Hoffman: I don't think it's going to do anything for that. I mean the
park is there. It operates. We would not operate it any differently. It
~",ould be under a di fferent jur isdiction but to your general resident on the .....,/
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
,..... Mar ch 24, 1992 - Page 47
street, they don't really care if the city of Shorewood operates it or you
operate it. I still have to cross TH 7 to get to the thing.
Schroers: That true but if they want to give us that property, we
certainly want to take it. Wouldn't you say? Why wouldn't we?
Hoffman: That's the kind of diyection. The reasons you'd be hesitant to
do that is because then you need to schedule it into your maintenance and
into your CIP program and provide improvements and upgrade and take on the
liability for another piece of park property.
Lash: But that's the same as with any piece of park property.
Hoffman: Sure.
Lash: That's the same as with the golf course.
Schroers: If someone wants to give us a 4.8 acre established park, I
couldn't imagine that we would say we didn't want it.
Hoffman: Okay. In the thought process going through that, sure. Heck,
you'd say, take it immediately but then again, if you backed up and if we
approached it from a new angle. From a fresh perspective. If this entire
area up there was just coming in for development, would you want to have a
"""""par k there? P'i"obably not. There's two di fferent sides to this story.
Lash: That's like the question that I asked Joan tonight. The golf course
is already there. Why should we bother buying it? If they wanted to give
it to us, I'd certainly take it. That would insure that we had the control
over it. And as you said, say the City of Shorewood decided to sell it
back to the church and the church tore it down and made it into a larger
parking lot. We'd be _losing a park facility that does service some
residents in our city. So the benefit we would have for it would be that
we would have the control of it to make sure that it remained a park. That
would be the payoff that we would have over the output of the maintenance
and improvements.
Andrews: That park does need work. The building there is a dive.
Hoffman: It's like a fish house.
Andrews: In some ways I look at this as an attempt of them to give us
their problem which is it needs to be worked on. We'd rather have you guys
spend the money on it than us so why don't we just give it to you. Then
you've got to spend $163,000.00 to bring it up to a good park. I can
understand the philosphy of any park is better than no park but we also
have to look at the fact that if, like Todd said, if this came as a new
development and we were faced with the fact that we could spend $163,000.00
on Cathcart Park or we could take that same $163,000.00 and put some
ballfields in some other place in Chanhassen that needed it, which would we
rather do? That's the dilemma in my opinion.
,....
Schroers: Well I think that that Cathcart Park is being used by the
residents of the Lake Minnewashta area and if for whatever reason they
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 48
~
didn't have that park available, it's like the only thing that they've got
we're taking away, or just about the only thing that they have accessible
to them, we're taking away. We would not look very good in that.
Andrews: Freeman Field is right there. It's 20 times the size. It's
within just a couple blocks of there. It probably is more accessible and
much, much better park. Granted it doesn't belong to the city of
Chanhassen but it's a much better park facility. They've got 4 ballfields
and tons of soccer fields and hockey rink space.
Hoffman: 7ballfields.
Lash: Is this Little League ballfield here already?
Hoffman: It's there. It's in a different location. It's tucked right up
in the corner. Northeast corner.
Lash: But it would help us in our scheduling. We could schedule.
Ruegemer: South Tanka is currently using that field.
Koubsky: So it doesn~t add anything for us.
Hoffman: We're in South Tonka and it's scheduled as part of that South
Tanka program. Again it's a gamble. I mean you can just say, do as you
may city of Shorewood and they may continue to develop and keep it as a
park. There's the discussion of do you split theCIPin half? Do you go
into a joint maintenance agreement and those type of things get cumbersome
and I wouldn't advocate those type of arrangements. Re?li$tically you can
upgrade this park for a half or a third of that and make it reasonable. It
does include a building and it includes some other things. There is
electricity to the site right now. The hockey rink is lighted. Minimally
but it is lighted. There's the old warming house there. But it's aged.
It's an older neighborhood park so there would be some.
.....;
Andrews: The park never has gotten, in my opinion, fair treatment because
I think Shorewood looks upon it as something that's not quite as good as
their own park in their own city so they don't commit to it the way they
probably would if it was in their city limits. And it's kind of the same
way for us. Since we don't own the park, we don't want to put anything
into it either so I don't think it's ever gott~n fair treatment really as
far as a park facility goes. I guess the other approach would be to say,
well what do we have to lose by accepting the property as is and deciding
maybe not to spend any money on it. We're certainly not any worse off by
doing that either.
Hoffman: If we could accept the property and then again I'd have no idea
if they're going to just flat out give it to us. They may do that. Then
you need to come back and fit it into the CIPand whatever that may be.
Schroers: I think that we could accommodate something like that for a park
that's already there and already established. That doesn't mean that we
,just have to take $166,000.00 or $163,000.00 and throw it in there all in ~
one chunk.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
,.....Ma,ch 24, 1992 - Page 49
Koubsky: That's all zoned single family up the,e.
Sch,oe,s: I think that's a fai,ly decent little pa,k. I go by the,e quite
often to access the t,ail and the,e's always .people the,e. Alway~. Eve,y
time. I mean it gets used and I don't think it would hu,t us at all to
acqui,e that park and just invest a little bit now and then to t,y and
b,ing it up to speed and imp,ove it. And the people who al,eady a,e using
it, would ,ecognize the fact that somebody's t,ying to do a little bit
something to t,y to fix it up and I think that'd be acceptable.
Koubsky: And TH 7 will always be a bounda,y. Eventually it will be
developed up the,e. Won't it? It's zoned single family. Will the,e be
additional development no,th of TH 7?
Hoffman: No,th of TH 7 in Shorewood yes. No,th of TH 7 in Chanhassen,
the,e's not ve,y many pa,cels left. Much of it is unbuildable and not ve,y
desi,eable land. But I know the position of the Commission and ce,tainly
this will come up again as discussions, negotiations with Sho,ewood
continue and you would be making some type of final decision on that issue.
Sch,oe,s: Okay, then can we put item 9 to bed and we can ask you if the,e
a,e any Commission membe, p,esentations?
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
,....,
Lash: I have a question about Lake Ann and...G,eenwood Shores Pa,k with
the sewe, and wate, mess that's ove, the,e. All the way out to TH 5 too.
Does completion of that wo,k, was it stopped because of weathe, 0, why is
it not moving fo,ward? It's such a mess.
Hoffman: The excavation was completed in the winte, so obviously when you
backfill you've got f,ozen ground and all that type of thing. We simply
just have to wait until the g,ound d,ies out, thaws out and then they'll
come and do the final ,esto,ation and seed.
Koubsky: The,e will be a lot of settling.
Hoffman: Lot of settling. There's no doubt we',e st,uggling with it at an
administ,ative level. We're going to take a lot of hits on the mess which
has been caused at Lake Ann Park due to the construction and now the
ongoing const,uction with the shelte,. We',e discussing that amongst staff
and the pa,k maintenance and we'll do fencing whe,e necessa,y to channel
people and we'll make g,avel c,ossings which will p,obably be the,e fo, a
couple of years and then once the grass is established along that big
gouged co"ido" then we'll haul that g,avel out and plant that a,ea in
seed. So we'll make those type of accommodations.
Lash: Well I walked down there on Sunday. Down to G,eenwood Sho,es Pa,k
and I mean the whole thing is ripped up. It's a mess and I look at that
and I wonde, if it was really necessary to make that big of a mess just to
dig a little sewer line. And you know we talked about the possibility of
~disturbing a ,oot system of a t,ee putting in a volleyball court and then I
look at the damage that was done by that thing down there. We'll be lucky
if the,e's any t,ees left. It's a mess.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 50
~
Koubsky: How deep is it?
Hoffman: The trench for the sewer? It varies from 4 to 8 feet.
Schroers: A lot of times it varies even more than that depending on the
topography and you just have to maintain that...
Hoffman: Yeah, the water line went much deeper in some locations and it is
going to be ugly.
Schroers: Okay. Well is there any other commission presentations?
ADMINSTRATIVE SECTION:
Schroers: Is there anything on the adminstrative section? Todd?
Hoffman: Not on the administrative section. I just have a few
administrative presentations. The Lake Ann park shelter, there it is
upside down. I think that was included in here that we've gone through all
the final approvals. We'll have a pre-construction meeting with the
contractor tomorrow morning and you should see construction start on that
within the next few weeks as well. We've had some talk at the City Council
level, again this has been an on again, off again thing about park
commissioners attending City Council meetings. Planning Commission has
again made the commitment that they will be attending City Council
meetings. I think it makes sense but only if there is a critical park and
recreation item on the agenda that representation there certainly adds to -""
the commitment by the Commission. It adds to the posi tion that the ,;
Commission has. Planning Commission members speak pretty often at City
Council meetings with issues that they've been dealing with. If you wish
to consider this, I would suggest we layout a time schedule but then if
your lucky number was up and there was an item, I would give you a call and
say, you need to be the)-e. Or if it wasn't, you don't need to be there.
It would be really too cumbersome to go ahead and just put you all in order
and when an item comes up, call you up. This way at least you know you
tenatively may be coming to the Park Commission. But it's really a
question for the Commission to consider. I've had requests at the Council
level that you consider that.
Schroers: I guess I don't have a problem with it personally. Why don't we
start with Jan and let's just buzz through.
Lash: Well I can certainly do that. I guess I feel like any issue that
goes to them, they've seen our Minutes with lengthy discussions on most
items. What more do they want to hear?
Hoffman: Potentially they don't always read the Minutes and they just want
somebody to pick their brain right at that particular moment.
Schroers: And they might have a question.
Koubsky: I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Erickson: I wouldn't have a problem with that.
, ....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
.~March 24, 1992 - Page 51
Andrews: How important is this?
Erickson: Are their meetings once a week on Mondays?
Hoffman: Their meetings are twice a month on Mondays. So we've got 7
meetings, your random order ticket could corne up once every 4 months.
Erickson: That's not a problem for me at all.
Schroers: Once every 4 months and then if there was an important item and
you had a conflict, you could just call another commissioner or call me or
something.
Erickson: How often are our issues coming up in the meetings? Every
meeting is there a park and rec?
Hoffman: It fluctuates. It just depends on when we get busy and that type
of thing. This would be major improvement projects, CIP's, development
proposals, those types of issues. So probably 50%. Okay, I'll go ahead
and prepare a schedule for that and then I would just take that position
that the week prior I'd simply, or when the schedule was set, the agenda
was set I'd give you a call if your turn is up. They also have been, the
City Council has established goal setting meetings for themselves, for the
City Council and staff. They would like to incorporate as part of that a
"""'joint meeting with each individual commission sometime during the year. I
would like the commission to consider when they would like to see that
happen. Potentially that could be an outdoors meeting. A walking session.
Site visits of some particular parks or areas within the city. We can
discuss amongst the commission and think about it. Exactly what issues you
think are important to discuss with the City Council at that joint goal
session meeting and what setting you would like to carry that meeting out
in. And then lastly, revenues are about keeping even with our projected
budget. They're certainly ahead of last year. Building permit starts are
up considerably. We are in a financially conservative time for the Park
Commission for our 410 budget for the department simply because of all the
projects which we've finished out in the last 2 or 3 years. All the
activity which we have undertaken. I'm confident we can carry out our 1992
CIP probably under budget. It's something that we haven't done. Last year
we aggressively hit our CIP. Got things accomplished. This year we're
probably going to be able to do that under budget and I hope our revenues
come in over budget. Not under as last year. Only items I had.
Schroers: Okay.
Lash: We did sit together one time and come up with goals didn't we?
Andrews: Yep.
Hoffman: Goals, certainly. So you could discuss some of those goals at
that meeting or branch out from there.
~Schroers: Would you like us to pick a time now?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 24, 1992 - Page 52
....,.,
Hoffman: Potentially I think June, July, August. You know nice summer
month. Talk about some of these issues when they're...
Schroers: So is that going to be an additional meeting for us?
Hoffman: It would be an additional meeting.
Schroers: Or would it be just an early meeting prior to our meeting? Is
that what it would be?
Hoffman: They would most likely accommodate your schedule and meet at
5:30. 5:30 to 7:30 on a regular scheduled Park Commission night.
Lash: When do you expect the picnic shelter to be.
Hoffman: Looking like something? By late June. First of July.
Schroers: 1 think what we should do, is this going to be up and running by
August? I mean is it going to be.
Hoffman: You bet. There's liquidated damages i~ they don't perform their
contract so I would presume it's going to be-they're going to start paying.
Schroers: Let's schedule it when we ~an have our first joint meeting at
that shelter.
Hoffman: Okay. August potentially huh?
....",
Ruegemer: I have one thing real quick. If any commission members are
interested in helping out the Easter Egg Hunt.
Hoffman: Hit them up one more time.
Ruegemer: We're looking for volunteers. April 18th. 9:30 to 11~30. It
wouldn't have to be for the full time. Just judge coloring contest, Jan or
perform other duties.
Lash: Now I thought I was the Judge last year. I got there and there were
a bunch of other people there that I had to argue with over it.
Ruegemer: So if there's any volunteers, I'll write your name down now.
Lash: Sure, I'll help~
Pemrick: How flexible can YOU be? I'll do it if I can bring my 3 1/2 year
old.
Ruegemer: You bet. No problem.
Pemrick: I'll have to be watching her too, you know what I mean.
Schroers: Is that it? Can we ask for a motion to adjournment.
...."
Pa,k and Ree Commission Meeting
~Ma,eh 24, 1992 - Page 53
Berg moved, Andrews seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Pa,k and Ree Coo,dinato,
P,epaTed by Nann Opheim
,....,
.~