Loading...
PRC 1992 08 11 ""'" CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST ii, 1992 Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Andrews, Randy Erickson, Wendy pemrick, Larry Schroers, Dave Koubsky and Jan Lash MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Berg STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR TARGET. RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. ,...., Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers, Commissioners. This evening we have with us John Dietrich who is with RLK who is working with Ryan Construction on this project. I'll go over the staff report and if you have any questions of either myself or Mr. Dietrich, we'd be glad to answer those. Ryan Construction Company proposes rezoning 25 acres of property from general business to PUD, planned Unit Development. This is a conceptual PUD and site plan approval for a Target development on 18 of that 25 acres~ The site as you know is located just to the south and west of City Hall, where we presently are. City Hall would be in this vicinity, to the north and to the east, with West 78th Street currently in the alignment going straight through. This concept plan shows the detachment of West 78th and this arrangement coming up to connect with Powers Boulevard, Highway 5 to the south and again Powers Boulevard with the lighted interchange at this location. Schroers: Todd, could you point out that area that was proposed for right across the street here for the possible city park. Where is that in proportion to this? Hoffman: Right across the street and as it has to do with the apartments that were recently reviewed? Schroers: No. Right across the street right here. Is the Target proposal on the south side of West 78th Street from there? Hoffman: Correct. South side. If you all know where the Corn Hut is. Schroers: Yeah. r- Hoffman: The Corn Hut is currently located right about in this location. We go from Corn Hut to Target. Again, adjacent zoning to the north is general business district. That will most likely be commercial based. Whether it's a strip ~all or individual properties, nobody knows at this point. To the south, Highway 5. Back east, general business again or the one cul-de-sac drive which is located to the east and then directly adjacent to that, the new mall with the supermarket. Then to the west TH 5 and CR 17. Our comprehensive park plan identifies that this site lies within the service area of all the city's developed community parks, being Lake Ann, Lake Susan, City Center and South Lotus Lake. And within the Park and Rac Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 2 --' neighborhood park service area of Chanhassen Pond. In light of the site's proximity to these park facilities and it's zoning, the need to acquire parkland as a part of this development does not exist. In reflection back onto the Comprehensive Trail Plan, that addresses the need.to accommodate non-vehicular, pedestrian, biking and other transportation movement on three peripheries of the site. To the south or near TH 5, to the north coming down West 78th Street and then to the west or Powers Boulevard. To the south the construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail on the north side of TH 5 has occurred in conjunction with the recent upgrading of that state highway. The newly constructed trail extends west currently to Powers Boulevard and then east to Eden Prairie and beyond. The state is currently in the design development phase of the next phase of Highway 5 traveling from Powers Boulevard,. or just west, to County Road 41. That 8 foot trail north of that highway will continue. To the north, the site in question is located in a general business district of the city as such. The applicant will certainly desire and will be required to install sidewalks to service the pedestrian needs of the site. Planning and engineering departments will review the location and design standards for those concrete sidewalks. T9 the west, the western fringe of this site is comprised of an area which the city will purchase and develop as a gateway to the community from Highway 5 via Powers Boulevard. Future improvements in that area will include the construction of a trail connection linking that Highway 5 trail to the West 78th trail and then farther north to the high density resid~ntial area which yoU reviewed 2 weeks ago. No trails are proposed to be constructed by the applicant, thus no consideration for trail fee credit is necessary and it is the recommendation that the Park ~ and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require the applicant to pay full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per acre rate then in force for commercial/industrial properties. At present these fees are $2,500.00 per acre and $833.00 per acre respectively. Schroers: Okay, I do have a question. On the 25 acre site and the 18 that are proposed for the development of Target, what intent do they have for the remaining acres? Hoffman: The site plan is up here for your referral. John Dietrich: This site plan here is one of three schemes that have been submitted by Ryan Construction. What is being proposed is an outlot of smaller retail pads. The schemes have evolved from, this one identifies 6 outlots, one indicates 5 outlots and one indicates 4 outlots. Our intent at this time was to look at the entire area but We are only asking for site plan approval on the Target site. We are showing potential layouts for this Outlot B as we are now calling it. The purpose for showing those alternative schemes are to look at the roadway connection and also to tie it into the PUD stand~rds of consistent architecture and signage for this entire development. The land use for this outlot area has not been determined yet. It would most likely be some type of restaurant. Some type of retail. Individual commercial type site. Schroers: Okay. I think that from our perspective as Park and Recreation, ~ what we would like to see along with the development of the commercial part Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,-... August 11, 1992 - Page 3 of the city is a balance of green space and I was wondering if Ryan Construction and the developers would be interested in having like a commons type area. Something green. A place where people could maybe sit on a picnic table or a bench or something like that where someone else shops at your store. Is something like that a possibility? John Dietrich: I would say it's definitely a possibility. The property is currently owned by the city so there's negotiations going on as to how much property will be purchased and that's why we presented these three different schemes for Outlot B. Ranging from the 4 to the 6 pad sites because we are interested in trying to work with the city in terms of making a quality commercial development in this area. That is definitely an item that we will take under consideration. Lash: Is it the City or is it the HRA? That has it and has that actually, has that purchase agreement actually taken place, do you know Todd? Hoffman: Purchase agreement for? Lash: For the property. ~ Hoffman: For this property. The HRA will not purchase it directly I do not believe but Ryan Construction will be working through the HRA on potentially some incentives for this property to be developed. Two additional notes. As a part of this plan, Outlot A has been identified. Is identified and you'll notice, you can take a look right at the large aerial behind you. It's that triangular piece of heavily wooded property. The City will be purchasing that to be preserve that as a part of this development and then again a piece of property labeled, I'm not sure if it's outlot...but this area to the west along Powers Boulevard will again be that open space type of area for a gateway. Schroers: when you say the City is going to purchase it as part of the development, does that mean that those trees are going to be removed? Hoffman: No. Correct me if I'm wrong John, but the trees. You can sort of take a look at that map. The trees which are, if you draw a line straight over from the building edge, the top edge, cross straight over to the trees to the north. It will go approximately and those are some of the more undesireable or trees aren't undesireable but scrub trees. John Dietrich: A tree survey was done of that entire triangular area and do you have that? ...but there's primarily three groupings in there. An oak area, which is more along the eastern most edge. A basswood and elm area down along the south and more of a box elder area up along the top. And the site plan does entail removing some .of the mature trees but a great majority of them would be the box elders up along the northern...oak clusters and the elm ~nd these basswood clusters are proposed to remain down in the corner. """ Schroers: Okay, will we see a final site plan review or is this going to go straight to Council from here? Hoffman: Planning Commission first and then City Council. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 ~ Page 4 ....." Lash: Can I ask my question again? Who does own the property right now? Hoffman: Mr. Burdick I believe still owns the property. John Dietrich: I may have misspoken. I apologize. Andrews: Wori't we see it one more time after the PUD, if it gets approved, will come back for a final look by us? Lash: Yeah I think I'm kind of curious why this is coming to us before the PUD has even been approved. Wouldn't it have to go to Planning and Council first to get the PUD approved before it would come back to us? Hoffman: This is a conceptual site plan review. As a part of that, the Pa~k Commission needs to address essentially two items. Park development or trail development. Other issues can certainly be discussed and your concerns can be passed on to .the Planning Commission or City Council, but we are the, this has been to Planning commission once? John Dietrich: It has not been to the Planning commission. Hoffman: It has not been to Planning Commission. So we are the starting point. Then it will go to Planning Commission. It's the standard procedure in a site plan development review process. Lash: But when someone is applying for rezoning? Because if it's PUD, are --' we not able to collect above and beyond the ~equirements? Hoffman: The requirements., Lash: Right. So if it was PUD, we could require more than if it's not PUD. Hoffman: Correct. But when we're dealing with p~rk and trail fees, it. becomes a difficult situation. We can't arbitrarily raise those fees because this is a PUD. Planning Commission will be working on a variety of fronts in the context of the PUD. The narrative which was included in your packet from Target addresses things that they are doing as part of this proposal under the PUD. So in some applications, the Park Commission does address other things more heavily in relation to the PUD in a commercial type development. Typically we might not have the opportunity simply because we are not seeking a neighborhood park or something of that nature. But agai n if you have concerT1S over tree preservation J, over open space, those type of things, I would pass those type of comments up to the Planning Commission. Schroers: Through o.ur; recommendation? I mean can we include that in our motion'? Hoffman: You certainly can. Andrews: I have a couple questions. One would be, it looks as though. the traffic flow access is intended to be strictly off of 78th, is the way this ~ is drawn up. That's the way it looks to me. ,....., Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 5 John Dietrich: The customer traffic flow is off of 78th. It is proposed that the truck service area come down Monterey. Andrews: I guess I feel like this could put an awful strain on 78th for it carrying customer traffic. ,If this is a Target typical of most of generating a lot of, of probably a typical half hour to an hour customer visits, and thousands of visits a day, I would imagine. I guess I'd like to see a proposal perhaps to link maybe a second access through Outlot B or another secondary access to the parking. The other question I had was having to do with ponding, or water storage. We're looking at putting asphalt over a large area of land that's, I guess I'm wondering where's the water going to go? Is it going to be ponded on site or where's it going to go? ~ John Dietrich: It will be ponded. Your first question on ponding. This area directly south. This site plan has already been revised. This is our first submission to the city and the Planning Department basically indicated that we were encroaching too much into the Outlot A where the trees were. They said that;s not going to pass and the trees will basically remain in this area. What we have done is eliminated the parking up there in this area. That will be south of the parking lot. Southwest of the building and at the...from Highway 5 will be the ponding area at this time. So we will be storing the capacity of the runoff in this ponding area. There is an existing outlet under Highway 5 in this approximate location. So we will be holding the required amount of drainage. The northern part of the site has already been proposed to go to a pond that will be on the other side of Powers Boulevard. And in relation to West 78th Street, this proposal does tie into West 78th Street from basically the eastern property line up to Powers Boulevard to be reconstructed. It would be reconstructed with the four thru lanes, a full interchange access with turning lanes outside of the travel lanes to allow the traffic to turn in and wait for the... By city consultant, Strgar- Roscoe-Fausch have already proposed a design for West 78th Street and we are working with that as our base for when this site will go in. Andrews: Now is there a north/south street directly to the east of the property line there? There is isn't there? Lash: Monterey. John Dietrich: This is Monterey and I believe it's Kerber is approximately at this location. Andrews: That doesn't connect up with TH 5 then does it? John Dietrich: Monterey's not going to connect up with TH 5. So a lot of the traffic off of TH 5 would come off Market or be downtown. J Lash: Or CR 17. ,..... Andrews: Now Market's going to have left turn and fully developed interchange so you've got a way off of TH 5 without having to go up to 78th to get to the property then. I guess I'm concerned the way right now it looks as though everybody has to look back to get in that's coming off of Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 6 -"" TH 5 from the east. I'm just thinking it'~ going to be a lot of traffic trying to enter into 78th from the west side of the property to then come into the Target parking lot. It's sort of going to be a heck of a jam up right there. John Dietrich: There will be some type of development with an access road through the outlots into the Target site. At this time we're.looking at three locations. Andrews: I know it's not really our jurisdiction but I guess I'm just concerned that traffic does detract from our park areas and from the city in general if it's not properly handled. Erickson: The other thing I see is traffic coming in off of TH 5, coming up Market Boulevard, hanging a left on 78th Street and driving right in front of City Hall where I think we're still looking at possibly a future par k . Schroers: We talked about a bandshell and stuff down there. Erickson: Yeah. I see that as drastically increasing traffic right in front of that future park. Schroers: The traffic point is well taken. If you're trying to make a left hand turn onto West 78th Street at 4:30-5:00 any afternoon is bad already. ~ Erickson: Yeah, I think they're talking about putting lights and stuff through there. I'm just mentioning in the future that's going to put a lot of traffic right in front of where we're going to hopefully someday put a park. Schroers: And'also Chanhassen is only about at half it's target population so I mean if you double the population, I don't know ,how that West 78th Street's going to handle it. i Koubsky: Todd, if we're going to have a trail along Powers, that's goin~ to cross 78th right? I'm not going to reiterate my traffic concerns but I certainly have them for the whole downtown area and this will complicate it but how are we going to cross people on our trail system across 78th Street? Hoffman: At an at grade signal crossing. So there will be a signal light at that location. Koubsky: There will be a stop light there? Hoffman: To the best'of my knowledge, yes. Koubsky~ And then there will be another stop light up on TH 5? Hoffman: Yes. ...,.;i Koubsky: Creating a quagmire. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ August 11, 1992 - Page 7 Lash: Well I can't, I know this is not my position since I'm not on the City Council and I'm not on the Planning Commission but I'm going. to be really honest tonight and I've never done this before. I think this is going to be just a disaster for our downtown if this goes through. It's not at all wh~t I had envisioned for our town and I can't think of a positive aspect of it and I wish that there'd be something we could do to prevent it. Koubsky: I'd support that. I'm not in favor of a Target but when you read in the Villager that we're going to have a stop light at every intersection in downtown Chanhassen, there's one lane each way, I guess I'm getting off the park band wagon. My concern is if we do have trails, that we can move people safely along them. But we're going to have a congested area. Schroers: We're going to have like a big downtown Hopkins. Lash: It's going to be a nightmare and this has nothing to do with Target. I'm a regular Target shopper but in coming to Chanhassen, I don't even have a problem with that. I just think the downtown area is not the site for a Target to go. I think Highway 5 ora little further west where the traffic would be able to be taken care of in a different way would be much to my liking and not this. And I know it has nothing to do with parks but I wanted that on so it can be passed onto the Planning Commission and to the City Council and to the HRA. "" Schroers: Any other questions or concerns? Andrews: I guess my only question is to Todd. At this point all we're able to do is either accept full dedication or not accept it. I mean we're not in a position to stop it because that's not our jurisdiction. Lash: We could table this until we see if the PUD is approved or not. Andrews: Well I certainly would like to see this come back in a more developed fashion. I kind of feel like it's pretty vague as to final layout of the project. Where are things going to really be? Lash: We're also the Tree Board. Andrews: Yeah, the Tree Board too. I'd like, to me it's a big project. I certainly feel this is something that has a major impact on the downtown. I would like to see it come back after it's been site planned out and PUD approved to see exactly where the park trail connections are going to be and where the trees are going to be. Where the ponding's going to finally be and go from there. Lash: I'd be ready t? make a motion. John Dietrich: You indicated a Tree Board. May I ask what that entails? ,.... Hoffman: The City's currently forming a Tree Preservation Board. The Park Commission currently serves in that application. Tree Preservation Board will be formed officially and then will continue on in a mission to look at the methods to preserve existing trees. To stop deforestation. To promote Park and Rec commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 8 ...."" reforestation. Those type of aspects throughout the community. I need to caution the Park Commission in some degree. I'm not sure what, if we table this or delay it, I don't know what additional information you're looking for and the premise of park and trail dedication, construction, land dedication or fees. If you simply wanted additional information concerning the Target proposal in general. schroers: My feeling is that tabling of this issue would maybe, the most that it could accomplish would be heighten awareness of our concern about this project going in this location of the city. I don't think that it would have a particular benefit to Park and Rec as far as our trail and park dedication fees are concerned and it would hold up the process. I guess I would be more in favor of voting to or making a motion to go along with staff's recommendation on this but to add in our motion our cocnerns and ask that the Planning commission and City Council take an extra close look at how this is going to effect in the city and make them aware that we have some very strong concerns in regard. Koubsky: I guess I'd agree with that. Lash: Although, what could be changed if the PUD were not granted? Would it be a different proposal? Would that change any of the layout of it as far as the trees or the trail? I know it could possibly even change the fees couldn't it? Not per acre. Well, it wouldn't change the fees but it could change the layout. -' Hoffman: It could change the amount of fees. Not the portion. PUD proposals tend to be in the favor of everyone. I don't believe that you're going to see this denied as a PUD and to come in as general development in the general business district. Underneath the PUD, such things as the tree preservation and the outlot density and parking and those types of issues are being addressed. If this is not approved as a PUD, I would simply see that it would not be proposed as anything. Schroers: I think the Council is going to be taking a whole different perspective on this. I'm sure they're going to share some of our concerns but they're also going to be looking at things like the tax base and that. sort of thing and are probably not going to want to lose a development of this size. I think it would behoove us to try to work within the program rather than to buck it because I think if we buck it, we lose. We're not going to get anywhere. Lash: We're going to lose anyway. Andrews: Mr. chair, I'm ready to make a motion if we want to try to get this voted through. Schroers: Okay, Janet was first. Do you want to make your motion? Lash: Okay, I move that we table this item until final approval for the rezoning has been made by City Council. Schroers: Is there a second? There's no second. The motion fails. """"" Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ August 11, 1992 - Page 9 Andrews: I move that we require a full dedication of fees for the parkland and trails. I also recommend that the City hold the highest standards of PUP development from the developer to ensure a high quality downtown business district. Erickson: Could you repeat that? Andrews: I move that we require full dedication of fees for parkland and trails. Also recommend that the City hold the highest standards of PUD development to ensure a high quality downtown business district. Schroers: Do you feel that that is specific enough to cover any of our concerns? Andrews: I think it's about as far as we can go. Schroers: Okay, I'll ask for a second on that motion. Is there a second? Koubsky: I'll second it. "" Andrews moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require the applicant to pay full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per acr~ rate then in force for commercial/industrial properties. At present these fees are $2,500.00 per acre and $833.00 per acre respectively and that the applicant is held to the highest standards ofa PUD development to ensure a high quality development in the downtown business district. All voted in favor except Lash who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Schroers: Do you have a perspective ground breaking date? John Dietrich: It needs to go to Planning Commission and City Council. schroers: Are we talking this fall or are we talking next year or are we talking 2 years? John Dietrich: We would be optimistically like to begin grading this fall. October. Erickson: Just as a point of interest, are there any other sites that they've considered in the Chanhassen area? John Dietrich: There have been a number of sites considered over the last year in the Chanhassen area. I know that it was considered across the street of 78th Street on the James property at one time. ,.... Schroers: It seems funny that they don't want to have the main entrance and exit off of Highway 5 which is proposed as 4 lanes. Something they could really inhale the traffic and get people in and out without further congesting this downtown 'area. I mean you would think with the expansion of Highway 5, that that would certainly be better able to handle the influx of traffic than West 78th Street would. West 78th Street is a mess right now. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 10 ...." John Dietrich: It is crowded. It is anticipated that a majority of the traffic would be coming off of Powers Boulevard with that interchange there at Highway 5 and Powers. We will have to present that into traffic studies to help show... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Schroers: ...pass on our concerns to the Planning Commission and City Council as well, we'd very much appreciate it. Thank you. Lash: And Todd, you'll do that also? LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW. JOHNSON. DOLEJSI. TURNER PROPERTY; A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT. LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Mike Pflaum Thomas & Darlene Turotte Bruce Geske Don Roy Paul Youngquist Marlene Bentz Lundgren Bros. Construction 7325 Hazeltine Blvd. 7205 Hazeltine Blvd. 7105 Hazeltine Blvd. 7300 Galpin Blvd. ~ Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, commission members. Mr. Mike Pflaum, representative of Lundgren Bros. Construction is in the audience this evening to address this issue as is the rest of the members of the audience as interested parties. This proposal is a rezoning planned unit development and subdivision of 95.19 acres of property into 120 single family lots. It includes the alteration and filling of 2.81 acres of wetland arid is known as the Joh~son,Dolejsi and Turner pro~erty. A single family residential planned unit development, PUD concept. Again the applicant is Lundgren Bros. Construction. The present zoning 1S A-2 or agricultural estate. To the north we have rural residential district. To the south is A-2 again, agricultural estate. To the east or back towards town, is both rural residential and agricultural estate. And then directly adjacent to the west is Highway 41. In reference to the City's comprehensive plan, the intent of the plan, recreation section for public recreation open space is not being met as a part of this proposal. The provision of 2.3 acre private or association park does not meet the City's requirementa providing public parkland as part of a subdivision and development of the parcel or parcels of land~ In addition, open space which is comprised of wetlands is not acceptable for park credit under city oTdinance as the commissioners are aware. The City Code allows for the capture of 1 acre of developable land for every 75 persons platted land could house, based on 3 persons per single family dwelling unit for the purposes of park. The City ordinance is derived from State Statutue. In this application for land develbpment review and acceptance, that amounts to 360 persons or 4.8 acres. If we put aside the proposed development plan ~ for this property and address the site solely on it's proximity to existing .JIf1"'" ~ ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 11 or proposed neighborhood parks, it reveals the void currently existing in this area in respect to neighborhood park sites. Being historically agriculturally based with intermittent estate residential areas, there's been no ne~d up until this point to acquire and develop neighborhood parks. Requiring of public park space as part of this subdivision may be adviseable. However, if the applicant confirms their intent of developing a private, recreational facility in this neighborhood, it is preferable that the city retain the park fees generated by this development as capital to be used later on in a combiRation purchase, land dedication venture in a future development in this area. If the applicant chooses not to pursue their private facility, then it is recommended the City require parkland dedication in an amount not to exceed 4.8 acres in a location deemed appropriate and desireable by the Park commission with park fee requirements being reduced by the appropriate percentage. You have in your packets the proposed site plan. This can confirm where the applicant is proposing the so called private park or association type recreation area. Here's Highway 41 to the west. The main access road or Street A as it's labeled running east and west. This will be the future thru road to other developments which will be coming along fr~m the east. Again, this is the location. Currently on the plan it shows a tennis court, full size, half court basketball area, a piece of play structure, facilities which are commonly found in a neighborhood park although on a larger site. These are facilities which again appeal to the perspective buyer o~ these homes. In regard to the comprehensive trail plan, the city's plan calls for the future installation of a trail along State Highway 41, which again is the western edge of this property in question. Highway 41 is classified as a Class I Minor Arterial and currently has a 150 foot right-of-way. The diagram enclosed in your packet shows the future layout of that roadway. And it shows there will be 4 lanes. A 4 lane highway with a median leaving approximately 27 feet of clear zone at it's edges. In many instances, 27 feet will not accommodate the utility, drainage, and construction of a trail combined due to such constraints as the presence of stands of trees or specimen trees, excessive slopes, uneven terrain, etc.. It is therefore appropriate to require the dedication of a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail construction purposes along the entire western border of the subject property abutting State Highway 41. Questions have been raised by the applicant in regard to, has the City undertaken a study looking at which side of Highway 41 the trail would potentially go on. Staff's response to that is that it indeed may go on both sides of State Highway 41. If not, with the presence of the large land holdings of the Minnewashta Regional Park and then the Arboretum property, some of which is on that side, and the Girl Scout, Campfire location, we would assume that higher density residential areas would be developed on the eastern side or the side of the street or highway which this development is occurring. So potentially in that light, the east side makes more sense. As far as terrain, it is difficult on both sides. One side is no better than the other. In fact, they almost mirror each other. When one side of the road drops off on'the west, it typically drops off on the other side as well. It is also adviseable to install a concrete sidewalk along Street A which will in the future be the thru street in this development. The City's planning department will address this need. No trails are proposed to be constructed by the applicant, thus no consideration for trail fee credit is neceSsary. An additional comment from the ~pplicant in regards to, back of the trail. You'll notice, if you've driven along Highway 41... Pa~k and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 12 --,. stands of mature pine trees which ~re there. I can only presum~ that some of those were planted by the Highway Department when that road was put in forbuffers and that type of thing. The stand in question is in this location to the south of their access road. At the time the applicant assumed that those were inside of the property line. The fact that they are not and are currently in the road right-of-way. If you go ahead in the future when they upgrade Highway 41 and these trees are in the right-of- way, they're on the edge of the right-of-way so they would be left but then if you try to put in a trail behind it, it would be squeezing the alignment. That is one reason it is adviseable to take an additional 20 feet of right-of-way for, if you will insurance policy to the city. The trail issue has gotten a real high priority from the community. We don't want to... The area inside those trees is primarily agricultural. To the south is fairly flat. To the north you see some relief 'in this area. In light of these findings, staff recommends that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council, one, accept full park and trail dedication fees in the absence of land dedication or trail construction. These ,fees are to be paid at the time of buiding permit application at the per lot fee then in force for residential property. The current fees are $500.00 per lot and $167.00 per lot respectively. The above recommendation being contingent upon the applicant indicating their intent to develop the "private park" as indicated on the general development plan. Two, the applicant supply a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail construction purposes along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Highway 41. And 3, the inclusion of the private park does not diminish the requirement for public recreation and --' open space as a part of a subdivision, therefore no credit will be considered for the inclusion of this private facility. Mr. pflaum may have some comments in that regard or either Mr. Pflaum or myself will answer questions from the Commission. Schroers: Okay. I think before we get to that part, maybe the Commission would be intere~ted in entertaining comments from other residents or concerned parties in regards to this development this evening, after which maybe our questions, all of our questions could be better addressed. So if that's acceptable at this point, I would invite anyone that wishes to share some information on this development with us to please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record and share your information with us. Paul Youngquist: I just have a question. My name is Paul Youngquist and I live -at 7105 Hazeltine Boulevard which is the 26 acre farm on the north edge of the proposed project. The information refers to a city's comprehensive trail plan and I haven't been at every meeting that there's eyer been so I'v~ never seen ,that. Is that in the room? Do we have one of those around? Hoffman: Currently no. It's a plan which shows all of the proposed trail link systems throughout the city. If you would like to address that, I could certainly give you a copy of it. Paul Youngquist: You don't need to do it now. Is it typically go down TH 41 and all the way to TH 5? ...",I " Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 13 Hoffman: Correct. Typically the alignments are along, as you can see if we reference the map behind the Commission. East to west Highway 5 would be a link and then the major connectors coming through north to south are part of the comprehensive trail plan. Highway 41, Galpin, Audubon, Powers Boulevard, all on down the line. Typically it incorporates a major roads or collector roads. Paul Youngquist: Okay. North of this site, the east side of the TH 41 gets real hilly. Real high and'when you said that the two sides kind of reflect each other, I think that's until you get north of the site. I'm not sure that really means you're going to end up with a trail on the west side though anyway. Is there any concept of where various parks should be? I assume, I mean I know that you've been planning parks around town. Is there thoughts about where parks should be in this whole area between Galpin and TH 41? Is there anything on paper with that kind of stuff or not really yet? \ Hoffman: No. The City of Chanhassen has not developed a long range comprehensive park plan. However, now with this portion of the city is inside the MUSA line, we would be addressing that. Taking a look at the potential future development and specifically keying in on geographical features and areas which would be beneficial to a parks creation. So to answer your question specifically, I could not tell you in reference to your property or this subject property where the park would be planned. ,-.. Paul Youngquist: Okay, thanks. Schroers: We are aware that there is a need for more parkland in the western part of the city and we are looking for potential places to develop parks in that area and hoping to acquire property along with development as the most viable way for us to obtain property out there. And also I believe in the comprehensive plan we have, are the spurs that go to Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and the Arboretum are included in the comprehensive trail plan so there are proposals to connect the trail to the Arboretum and Lake Minnewashta Park. Don Roy: I'm Don Roy and I live at 7205 Hazeltine Boulevard. The question I've got is, I see my property kind of abuts the north part of this project and I don't know just exactly where the park is going to be and I'm concerned about with the type of park it's going to be. The size and...facilities you're going to have for it. So I'd like to know a little more specifics on the park itself. Schroers: I think that Lundgren Bros. would have to address that question for you. Don Roy: Alright. Then I have one other question. Is there a time table on the widening of Highway 41? Hoffman: We would not have that information. lt's a State Highway. You ~, would need to give a call down to the State Highway Department. Don Roy: There won't be any coordination with the development? There won't be any highway widening at that point then? Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 14 -"'" Hoffman: There may be, not highway widening but allowance for deceleration acceleration lanes. Don Roy: Yeah, that's a very dangerous highway right now getting on and off. Hoffman: Right. And those types of concerns would be addressed by the City Engineer and Planning Department and City Council. Koubsky: The only thing I've noticed is they are widening the intersection down on TH 5 and TH 41 to allow for turn lanes. Don Roy: Well when you want to make a left turn off of TH 41 it's, you've got your life in your hands. Koubsky: Yeah, I do that every day. Don Roy: But the main thing I just wanted to be... I'd like a little more detail on it. Schroers: Okay, we'll make sure that that question is asked. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the Commission this evening? Okay then, we'll open it to questions from the commission. Andrews: I'd like to have the applicant speak here briefly. -.I Schroers: Would you like to? Yeah, that'd be fine. Mike Pflaum: I'm Mike Pflaum anq by way of a little bit of introduction and an apology. I have not been involved in the planning phase of this project. A gentleman by the name of Terry Forbord, with whom I think you are familiar, has been doing from our end that is, from a corporate end, all of the coordination and planning work on this. And as a consequence I am not in an entirely desireable position to answer specific questions about the proposal. Terry had suggested that this meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission be postponed until he could be here. The Planning Department however wished that this meeting occur so that the results of the meeting would be available for inclusion in the Planning Department report. Hence I am here. Now Terry would have been here but he had another meeting equally important which he had to attend and it was heads. So that's where he is. To answer the que$tion. to the best of my ability about what would the park be like. It is not, I'm sure definitely planned at this point. Typically the final planning of features is done at the final stage of plan development which is after preliminary approval. I am familiar with similar sorts of parks that we have built elsewhere and I would imagine that the same general facilities and type of use would be carried over here. One such facility is in Plymouth in a project called Churchill Farms and it contains a prefabricated play structure of the sort that you would see a grade school. It is a very sophisticated, efficient in it's design structure. That particular play area also has integrated with it, at a different location actually down the street, facilities for older kids and adults. There's in that instance a tennis court and a half --' court basketball court. So as far as traffic is concerned, the objective Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ August 11, 1992 - Page 15 is to have a private facility used by the owners of properties within the development. It is a walking use. Walking or bicycle riding use. It is not a drive in use. And there would be no provision for extra parking for people that might want to drive to it. Fundamentally thatJs how these things are set up. They're designed as an amenity to provide close at hand recreational opportunities and in a certain sense provide supplementation to the community's own park plan, park schedule. So far as other specifics of the development I can only offer generalities and kind of muddle my way through. Todd probably knows more about it than I do. But I'd be happy to attempt to answ~r your questions. Lash: Do you know what the approximately size is? Mike Pflaum: Of this park area? According to the report, it's 2.3 acres. Schroers: And if we were to ask for park dedication, parkland dedication from this development we would be asking for 4.8 acres, is that correct? Hoffman: Correct. The 2.3 acres does contain a holding pond or wetland area so of what the Commission would call park property, it's less than 2.3 but the total which the City or the Commission could require is the 4.8. Erickson: Todd, is this property covered on the map up here? ~. Hoffman: Just the southern tip I believe. You see the large canary grass type wetland. That is the southern fringe of this area. Schroers: Any questions? Does anybody have any questions? Okay. In light of that then, is anyone prepared to make a motion? Koubsky: I just have one question I guess Larry. As I look at this, and these are tough to read with the contour lines but it seems like there's quite a lot of relief in here and it is pretty hilly. Am I correct? Is there 4.8 acres of flat land in that development? Mike Pflaum: I doubt it. Koubsky: It looks like your park or your play aYea is the only plateau I see. Mike Pflaum: I think that's a fair observation. Koubsky: I'm assuming that your soil correction will just be sufficient to put in the roads and then the building pads. Mike pflaum: I'm assuming the same thing but I wouldn't be sO bold to assure you of that without having seen the preliminary grading plan. We are very sensitive to the value of wetlands, relief and trees and when we lay something out, ~~ try to preserve as much as we can because to us that's value. So I would imagine that the plan... I would imagine that your observation is accurate. The minimum amount would be done. " Lash: From the Tree Board perspective here, are we looking at any stands of mature trees that are going to be getting wiped out Todd? . Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11~ 1992 - Page 16 ..../ Hoffman: Not to my knowledge. There certainly would be tree loss as part of the development but in staff discussions, it has not been pointed out to my attention that we'll be losing significant stands of trees. Erickson: As far as the alteration or filling of the 2.8 acres of wetlands, is that a Planning Commission issue? Hoffman: Correct. That will be part of their review in Wetland Alteration Permit. Andrews: Is the applicant bound by any of the Federal Regulations . regarding park and facility accesses, park type equipment for handicapped people? Hoffman: For ADA? Yes, to certain points. To certain degrees. Andrews: I think you should make it a point and coordinate with the developer about that so they're in compliance if that's an issue. Schroers: Okay. If there are no questions, I guess I'll attempt the motion. Mike Pflaum: Could I ask one question. This is not in connection...on the easement for trail purposes along Highway 41. I guess I have two questions. This being a State Highway, is it prohibited to put the trail in the right-of-way? ~ Hoffman: No, it certainly would not be. It would be again a coordination effort between the State and the City to see that that trail alignment as identified in our comprehensive plan would be built. Again as stated, and as shown in the Commissions packet, once that roadway is upgraded, we have 27 feet of clearance which when allowing for site constraints and changes in elevations, those type of things, tree stands, does not give us the necessary leeway to construct that trail. An additional 20 feet would then allow us only in the areas which are necessary, will allow us to g6 outside of the road right-of-way to see that that trail is put in in the most environmentally sensitive and prudent manner. Mike Pflaum: Not being familiar with this property, presumably the trail is going to travel some distance along 41, is that correct? Hoffman: Correct. Mike Pflaum: Does this mean that the City would be acquIrIng 20 feet of easements from all the other landowners along Highway 41? Hofffuan: Absolutely. As you would, being that this property has just recently been put into the MUSA, Metropolitan Urban Service Area, additional developments will be coming in and we will be obtaining those eas~ments. There certainly will he exceptions but as a rule, we want to take a look at receiving that additional leeway so that that comprehensive trail plan can be followed. ..."" "...., Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 17 Mike Pflaum: Excuse me, I would like to make a request that since it seems to be the general intent to utilize the area close to the highway for trail purposes, that the trail be constructed within the right-of-way wherever it is reasonable and feasible and where it is not constructed on the property of the subdivision, there be a vacation after the trail has been constructed for those areas the trail does not OCCUpy that were set aside as trail easements. So it was only the portion that the trail really needs is set aside as easement. As individual homeowners I'm sure you can see the advantages of not having an easement there. Hoffman: Staff has no objections to that request as long as it's reasonable. We're not going to vacate minor little jogs but as long as some realistic straight lines and that type of thing can be drawn to the easement documents, that can be accomplished. Schroers: Okay. Lash: Mr. Roy and Mr. Youngquist, do you feel like your questions have been answered? "...., Paul Youngquist: Yeah, I do. I was just going to say. I don't know what everyone's thinking about what is happening to the other property along the road but as for our family we'd just as soon, we're j~st going to keep it as our family for a while. We have young kids and it's a great place to live so we don't plan to sell it and I'm not here because I want to see how neatly mine could be developed next'year. I'm here just because this is where we're going to live. Schroers: Thanks. Alright, with that let's attempt a motion. I'll move to accept full park and trail dedication fees in the absence of land dedication for trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property at the time of the permit application. The current fees are $500.00 and $167.00 per lot respectively. The above recommendation being contingent upon the applicant indicating their intent to develop th~ private park area as indicated on the general development plan. Okay. Two. The applicants supply a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail construction purposes along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Highway 41 and that the City not require that easement to be maintained in an area that is not going to specifically be used for trail. And three, the inclusion of the private park does not diminish the requirements of the public recreation and open space as part of a subdivision. Therefore, no credit will be considered for the inclusion of this private facility. Schroers moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council require full park and trail dedication fees in the absence of land dedication or trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property at the time of permit application. The current fees are $500.00 and $167.00 per lot, respectively. The above recommendation being contingent upon: "".... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 18 -' 1. The applicant indicating their intent to develop the private park area as indicated on the general development plan. 2. The applicant supply a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail construction purposes along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Highway 41. 3. The inclusion of the private park does not diminish the requirements for public recreation and open space as part of a subdivision. Therefore, no credit will be considered for the inclusion of this private facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CARVER BEACH PARK. VEHICLE PARKING. Hoffman: Upon receiving the Commission's recommendation in this regard, for the designation of four parking spaces at Carver Beach. I consulted with the City Manager before giving this to the City Council. Finding the Commission's action consistent with the Carver Beach Park adopted master plan, the Manager suggested I include the item in the July 27th City Council administrative packet as an informational item. If no comments were received, I would then move .head with the designation of the four parking spots. No comments or questions were heard from the Council that evening but prior to moving ahead with this project I received a call from ....." a resident of the area. That resident was at the meeting, at the Park and Recreation Commission. This person stated that they did not believe all their questions had been addressed satisfactorily at the Park and ~ecreation Commission meeting. In talking with the individual I could not resolve their concerns and they voiced a desire to speak to the Mayor or somebody else on the City Council. He eventually chose the Mayor. The Mayor upon receiving this call talked to the individual at length. Mayor Chmiel then took the time to arrange a site inspection with me. After which a meeting between all parties, this person and their spouse, Mayor Chmiel and myself, was scheduled to discuss their concerns. This meeting was held on the morning of July 31st. The result of that meeting it's his recommendation to reconsider your previous action in recommending a total of 4 parking spaces be designated. Reconsider that action of recommending 4 parking space be designat~d. Instead designating a total of 3 parking spaces for Carver Beach Park. This is somewhat inconsistent with typical action. Typically it goes t6 the full Council, there for review prior to a recommendation for action coming back to the Commission or approval taking place. However, it is recommended that the Park Commission rescind their previous recommendation of June 23, 1992 recommending the City Council approve the construction and signing of 4 parallel parking spots on the south side of Lotus Trail for Carver Beach Park. One of the four spaces designated for person~ with disabilities as specified and shown on the attached map. And have planning and engineering take a careful look to ensure that there will be no damage done to the existing trees in the area. Instead make the following recommendation. The Park and Recreation Commission recommends the construction of signage of three parallel parking spots on the south side of Lotus Trail at Carver Beach Park consistent with -' the park's master plan. One of the three for persons with handicaps and Park and Rec Commission Meeting JIi1"""- August 11, 1992 - Page 19 that this project be carried out with the assurance that no damage will be done to any existing trees in the area. Any action taken by the Commission, at the request of Mayor Chmiel will then be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for the Chanhassen City Council of August 24th meeting for Council action or question or approval. This re~ommendation is being brought to the Commission only in light of the park's master plan targeted two spots or indicated two spots. In my original recommendation I did not feel that was adequate because of the necessity to designate one as handicap so my recommendation to the Commission that evening was to designate a total of three, one being handicap. After the site visit, the Commission thought the location could accommodate four spots so a recommendation of four was made. However, you did not hear contention from the audience to the level that was reiterated at a later time that evening. Lash: Was that the primary concern was that it was four spots instead of three spots or what were the concerns that they didn't think were adequately addressed? ".... Hoffman: The specific concern that they brought up was that the issue of public safety record and the number of citations being issues for vehicle parking at this time. That evening I stated that I could not address that without looking into the documentation of both the Carver County Sheriff's Department and our CSO's department. That is what this individual came back and said was not addressed that evening. Essentially I think it's an additional move towards just not wanting any advancement or development in that area. However, in the meeting they did say that they recognized the parking was needed there and probably was going to keep happening but just to minimize it to a degree. Koubsky: So how many tickets Todd? Hoffman: Documented there was 3 tickets from the CSb's department. In contacting Carver County, they could not reference unless they do a very detailed and time consuming and costly study, exact locations, they don't have that type of system. But typically Carver County did some drive thrus. Did not issue a bunch of tickets because they were fairly lenient in that area because the residents typically tolerated it. The CSO's another issue. They typically enforce parking and other vehicle type on moving violations to a higher degree. Schroers: Well, if my recollection is clear, all that we're doing there is broadening the gravel base and we are not designating specific sites. We were just going to make the length sufficient to accommodate four vehicles parallel parking with the closest one being signed. And you know, if we have a total of 3 spots, pne is designated handicapped, basically what we have fOT the majority of the use is going to be two parking spots. Hoffman: Correct. " Lash: And I think our original intent also was to start out asking for four and back down to three and at the time we made the motion we didn't back down to three. We thought if there was any resistence from the audience we could always back down to three but then we didn't. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 20 .....,I Schroers: I guess that I'm still not convinced that we should back down to three. I mean 2 spots, that's pretty minimal. I realize that that's not a real highly used area. Erickson:' What did we, you know you were at the meeting with the resident. Did they seem to take great satisfaction in having one less parking spot there or is that their compromise? Why did it seem that 12 more feet of parking space less would make it acceptable? I Hoffman: I'm not sure that it did but in any type of conflict resolution, one side needs to make a step in one direction and the other takes a step the other direction and once that recommendation was voiced, they were happy. Schroers: I would guess that I would like staff's input as to whether or not this reduction of one spot would still adequately service the needs of the area. Hoffman: Yes I do. It was my original recommendation to installing three parking locations. Schroers: Okay, with that then I'm going to ask for a motion. Lash: I make a motion that we rescind our June 23rd recommendation for the four parking spots at Carver Beach and instead change it to three parallel -,' parking spots with one being indicated as handicap and that this project be carried out with the assurance that no damage will be done to any existing- trees in the area. Schroers: Is there a second? Erickson: I'll second that. Lash moved, Erickson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission rescind their previous recommendation of June 23, 1992 recommending the City Council approve the construction and signage of four parallel parking spaces on the south side of Lotus Trail for Carver Beach Park and instead make the following motion: The Park and Recreation Commission recommends the construction and signage of three (3) parallel parking spaces on the south side of Lotus Trail at Carver Beach Park consistent with the park's master plan, one of the three for persons with handicaps, and that this project be carried out with the assurance that no damage will be done to any existing trees in the area. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Schroers: Okay. Then moving on to item 4 I guess we are going to reassemble at conference type seating and discuss the 1993 Park Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program. --' ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 21 Hoffman: One clarification. On item 2. Schroers made the motion seconded by, Lundgren. Jim Andrews. Thank you. One housekeeping administrative item that I can think of at this time. The budget amendment for irrigation at Lake Ann was approved on the Consent Agenda last night at the City Council meeting. No questions were raised as part of that item. Erickson: Which of us attended that meeting? Andrews: Todd did on my behalf. Hoffman: Yeah. Jim called and had some other arrangement. I didn't think it was going to be a problem. The Mayor did request a site visit with myself and we did take that about a week and a half'ago. Some of the concerns that the users of those fields... Lash: Before we move on, I just wanted to check to see also how the survey results are coming. Hoffman: The survey results are probably just over 1,000 back out of 4,800 so response is nearing 25% which is a good response. Preliminary results, I brief them each morning, are,that trails, of all items, all other things that people wanted on here, trails are about here or twice that high. The comments in the desire to see trails in this city were expressed strongly "... as a result of this survey. Bandimere on the other hand will probably come out 40-~0 against. 45. 55 against. Something of that nature. Against being a percentage. Many comments about the neighborhood parks should be completed prior to moving ahead. Coming out of neighborhoods at Lake Susan, Curry Fa~ms, Pheasant Hills, those type of areas. You have to look at that in two ways. You certainly just can't stop all planning and acquisition to finish up the neighborhood parks but you see their point in the same light. So complete tabulation will be completed by, it's going into a database and a computer program can tabulate those. Dawn is currently entering that and the results will be brought to the Park Commission and the Chanhassen Villager. Andrews: How did golf course come out? Hoffman: Golf course is probably second to trails. But below, yes. But very high respons& initially. Again, just from briefing it. ~ Schroers: One other concern, as long as we're on this issue. Lake Ann beach. That beautiful raft that we have in ihe swimming area is enjoyed by the geese as well as the swimmers. I was there this weekend and it was kind of a sad situation. The lifeguards did not have the means to take care of the refuse left by the geese and I think that staff should check into it and see what can be done about removing the goose refuse f~om the swimming raft and looking at maybe not just washing it into the lake. All the lifeguard had was a plastic bucket to try and rinse it off. He didn't have a broom or anything kind of a shovel device for picking it up. And just washing it into the lake did not make for a pleasant situation. Yeah, pleasant swimming environment. The~e you go. So if we can provide the lifeguards with the means to keep that raft clean, I think it would be greatly appreciated. It was a very busy weekend. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 22 .....", Hoffman: This past weekend? Yeah, absolutely. I Schroers: And I got two pamphlets. Two days in a row. I think we should get ourselves a. Lash: You don't have a sticker? Schroers: No. Lash: You didn't get one from your softball team? Schroers: I'm retired. I'm not playing softball. Hoffman: Next item is at your discretion. You can either stay where you're at or we can adjourn down to here and continue on tape and eat food. (The Commission took a short break to change seating positions and due to this, the microphone system did not pick up all of the conversation t.king place.) 1993 PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Schroers: Okay, why don't we just start this kind of officially here. This is the 1993 Park Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program. This item was tabled at both the June 23rd and July 28th, 1992 Park and Recreational meetings due to time constraints. The 1993 CIP was originally intended to be the single item of discussion for the August 11th meeting but the land development proposals, items 2 and 3 on the agenda required our attention as well. It's imperative that the Commission handle these items in a timely manner to leave sufficient time for the 1993 park acquisition and development CIP be completed. At the request of the commissioners, the 5 year CIPhas been interfaced with the CIP .document for the years of 1988 thru 1991 to enable commissioners to identify improvements which were funded and completed in each years. As previously mentiQned, the development of an annual CIP is one of the most important. and detailed requirements of the commission. So we'll proceed to Bandimere Community Park and we have nothing proposed and no current estimates. Is there anything that we wish to include there for 1993? ..." Lash: Any requests Wendy? Pemrick: No. Erickson: What do you guys, you've all lived here a lot long~r than I have. What iathe awareness of the Bandimere Community Park? I mean that the city has doubled in size in the last 10 years. Of those additional 6,000 people and the 6,000 that were originally here. How many people know that that chunk of land is out there? . Hoffman: Everybody...because of the survey. The survey was given to all residents, specifically addressed Bandimere Park. The comment of a very small group...in light of the survey, we probably will not be going ahead .....", with a grant proposal for matching funds and most likely...do not include development in the next 3 to 4 to 5 years. What does the Commission want ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 23 to see that property be? How would you like to see it exist? Agricultural fields are certainly fine...put in prairie grass?What would you like to do? Schroers: I don't think we want to see us put in prairie grass because that's expensive, and if we know that at spme point in the future tear it up, that would be a waste of money. I think we should lease it to a local farmer and get what revenue we can off the property and channel that revenue towards future development of the property. Lash: I like the use of it for the compost site. Erickson: I guess the one thing that, suggestibn I have and it may not be a good suggestion. Would be a sign on TH 101, future site of Bandimere Park. Maybe after several years of seeing that sign, you know seeing the paint faded. Someone saying youth activity park. Maybe someday people would say, that damn sign is faded and you guys haven't done anything. We can come back and say... That's just an idea. I don't know what a sign would cost or if that's a bad idea. I mean right now you drive by, if I didn't have,a little map I wouldn't know that that was a piece of parkland. pemrick: ...survey and it'd be totally opposite of it being a youth community park because...if the golf course was needed... ~ Hoffman: ... anything can be considered but people's perspective is apparently that it certainly will be a youth athletic complex at some point in the future. To change that expectation into a golf course would take a driving force from the Park Commission and City Council. It would also take, requite the acquisition of land to the north... Pemrick: I just happened to mention it because... Erickson: Do you think it would be worth the investment for future awareness of a sign? Maybe not even all that big. Just put it up, future site of Bandimere Park. Because TH 101 is a very busy road. You place it where as you come down the road you see it so that in future years when Bandimere comes up, and says oh, that's that piece of land sitting there. Andrews: Yeah, that's the one I didn't vote for. Lash: But even the people who didn't vote for it who have now paid for it, have no idea where it is. Erickson: ...like the proposed development sign sitting up here on Kerber where that development's going to go. Hoffman: 4 x 8? Erickson: Whatever. Big enough to read as you're driving by and not go off the road. ~ Hoffman: ...$300.00-$400.00. Erickson: Does everyone think that that might be a waste of money? Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 24 -' Hoffman: No, that's probably a good idea. Pemritk: And keep it simple. The less words... Andrews: Future Home of Bandimere Community Park. Schroers: How about Bandimere, we should have youth in there somewhere. Lash: Future Bandimere Community Park. Hoffman: Future Site of Bandimere Community Park. Erickson: Future site is more, I mean Bandimere is the larger word to rea~ly drive home. Hoffman: Okay, super. I think it's a good idea. The other thing which administratively we've got to look at is the signs which you see at State Parks or along County Parks..,.parkland. We have encroachment problems which are increasing so we're going to go ahead and have surveys done and locating the corner posts...putting signs up along the... Koubsky: One thing as an observation as I look through here, there's only two parks, Pheasant Hills and South Lotus Park that are slated for any type of playground improvement in the next two years. Just an observation as we go through here...and a lot of them are for Ijttle kids. Little kids are growing up. Curry Farms I don't think ~as that far off on some of these... ...." Lash: I think that's usually phase 2 isn't it? Todd, if we do it in phase 1 and phase 2, isn't phase 2 usually. Or I mean phase 1 a little more scaled down than phase 2 is. Hoffman: We designate which phase is for what age. 3 to 6 and 6 to 12. The individual play components... Pemrick: Yeah, we need swings at Bandimere. Hoffman: And under the new guidelines...swings need to be off the play structure... Lash: Dave said earlier and I think this is a good point. When you think about it, the little kids stuff, I just dOD't think gets as much use because you know if your kids are that little, You don't want to take them to the playground as much. You Just keep them at home and yoU maybe have a little swingset at home that fills their need but once they get to be about 5 or 6, that's just too small time. They need more sophisticated equipment. Erickson: Todd, if I could just back up one step to that sign. Something just came to me. I don't know if this is stupid to put on that sign too but maybe, how many acres is Bandimere? Hoffman: 32. ...-rI '" Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 25 Erickson: 32 acres. Just to get someone to drive by and... I should have a sign committee... Maybe acreage on the bottom. Hoffman: White sign. One color letter. Green on white. Erickson: I don't think it has to be fancy. Whatever's cheapest. Schroers: Alright, let's move on here. Bandimere Heights Park. Wood identification sign for $250.00 and the current estimate is $200.00. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Schroers: Are we leaving the sand volleyball court, $200.00 in for this year? Lash: Because it was in last year and Wendy says it's not there. Schroers: Well that's what I'm saying. Wendy says it's not there so what I'm asking is, do we want to plug it in for '93? Hoffman: If it's in a past budget and has not been installed, the $200 .00 . . . ~ Schroers: Okay, let's go to Bluff Creek. Bluff Creek we have nothing, nothing. I don't see anything. The only thing that I would recommend that we might want to do at some point in time in the future is border sign that area so people can identify exactly where that is. I'll bet you ,there's very few people sitting at this table that can drive right out there and say this is Bluff Creek. Lash: I walked it. And anything ever happen with that, I think Planning was going to. Andrews: They've got a bluff ordinance. That went through so that's approved. Hoffman: It was an idea that financially was part of the problem because they wanted to develop...the real desire there was to clog up the rest of the zone and expedite that...with a Bluff Creek trail and preservation zone. The City's certainly planning for that... Schroers: Okay, how much money do we need to identify, to put boundary signs on Bluff Creek Park? Hoffman: I would have to calculate the 1 i neal foot distance an'd we need to place a sign every 1,000 feet... Lash: Could we put that in for '94? Schroers: How about '93? ,.... Lash: Well we're already over. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 26 ....,/ Schroers: '94. We've got nothing going there anyway. So '94 we'll put boundary signs. Erickson: Let's put a trap shooting range out there. Clay pigeons. Schroers: Carver Beach Park, Lotus Trail. In '92 we had $2,200.00 for play area refurbishment. For '93 we've got $400.00 for two grills. $1,300.00 for two picnic tables. $1,500.00 for swimming buoys and signage at the mini beach. For '94 we have $1,500.00 for swimming buoys and signage at the main beach. And way down in '96 we've got $2,000.00 for park benches. Lash: Now is this the little swimming beach that we had the no parking thing with? Schroers: That is both. Carver Beach Park is both. Erickson: Where will the grills go? On the big side? Schroers: Yeah, I would assume that they would. Lash: They were supposed to be getting picnic tables and benches and stuff a long time ago weren't they? Hoffman: The picnic table they have down there. Benches were proposed for a10'ng the trail but the trail's not conducive in it's present state unless ..""" it's upgraded. Lash: So have they gotten the things that they were somewhat promised a few years ago when we were doing things there? Did they get all of that? That's what they were complaining about here. Hoffman: The questions I heard that night were garbage cans and garbage can is in and park sign is in. They wanted a play structure at that time at the mini beach but the size of the site did not accommodate it, so that was not, that was taken out of the plans. ' Schroers: They were complaining about the location of the dock but the dock is located exactly where they asked us to put it because that's supposedly was where the best fishing was. Hoffman: The only things that I would, are the benches and the play structures that were discussed. Lash: And is the play structure, the one that's on here for '92, is that at the same beach? Hoffman: The main beach. Schroers: But the benches aren't until '96 so I mean we're not...on the benches. Pemrick: HoW about the Satellites? Wasn't that comment that they didn't ....." have one. ,...., Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 27 Hoffman: They have a Satellite at the main beach but the mini beach did not accommodate one because of City ordinance. Proximity to the water. Lash: So are the grills at the main beach or the mini beach? Hoffman: Mini beach. Andrews: I have a question. Are we in any kind of a liability situation if we sign and buoy one beach but not the other at the same time? ...unimproved beach with somebody be able to come back and say, well you did one the right way and one the wrong way...signage and buoys at both beaches at the same time? Hoffman: Right now we're...so we can probably accommodate for it in '93. Lash: I think we talked about this one time before and we were going to put up a sign or something, swim at your own risk. Schroers: I don't think according to State regulations that if you have a municipal swimming area, I think a sign swim at your own risk does not cover you. Andrews: ,..... both. ...I'm just saying, if we approve a sign at one we should do Hoffman: Let me back up. The mini beach did not have any buoys. The main does have. Andrews: Okay, so we're bringing the mini beach up to speed then? Hoffman: Correct. Andrews: Okay. Then I'm comfortable. Lash: So then the main bu6ys are not in good shape? Hoffman: They're not in good shape so they're targeted later on for replacement. Schroers: Okay" Carver Beach Playground. ~offman: In my opinion we can't suppo~t any skati~g rink improvements this year. It's way over budget and we're going to take what we can. Lash: Push that out to '94? And did all these things in '92 get done then? Hoffman: Sign is in. Swing...all those items that are currently specified. I didn't have to go ahead and order this equipment early because we had it left over from last year: Schroers: Wha~ about the bleacher. I don't think that's in is it? ,...., Lash: That's next year. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 28 -" Hoffman: That's not in. So all these items, the sign is in, the swing, t'he spr i ng animals... Koubsky: One thing I noticed in...general maintenance. Should we be alloting money for maintenance? Andrews: I think we should move the skating out to '94. Schroers: Okay, should we move on to Chanhassen Estates Mini Park~ Lash: Park sign went in. All we have is picnic tables for '93. Erickson: Does this park already have two picnic tables...? I mean it's a 1 acre park. Hoffman: The picnic tables are, if they're in here I don't recall that they're there. See with picnic tables being mobile, they could have been in there in '90 and then moved... We could move them back there and then we could line this item out. Picnic tables are transient and they move around. We typically budget in a lump sum at the end for picnic tables and benches, those type of amenities. In order so they don't forget where we specifically want them... Lash: So we could move? Hoffman: You could line item that out and just instruct that... --' Lash: And is two going to be enough then forever? So just take it out completely? Hoffman: Yeah, we'll need to watch the development across the street. Lash: But we don't want to move it to '94 to '95? Hoffman: At your discretion. Lash: Just take it out? Schroers: Okay, so then we are having nothing in Chanhassen Estates in regards to '93. Lash: And I'm assuming if you had calls from any of the residents on these, you're going to tell us. Schroers: Okay next is Chanhassen Hills. Biggee. Double tennis court, with basketball hoops, $30,000.00. Trees $1,000.00. Total $31,000.00. Lash: Did they get the ballfield this year? Hoffman: Ballfield will go in. Staff comments as a prelude to discussion. Just overall in many discussions with other cities, tennis courts in let's say many cities, are not put in neighborhood parks. They are located at ~ central park locations...because of a typical destination type activity. ~e're an exception to that. We have tennis courts... .~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 29 lash: Which two did you say? Meadow Green. Hoffman: Meadow Green and North lotus currently have them. Our neighborhood parks. South lotus lake will have tennis courts. That's a community park. And lake Susan community park. lash: And lake Ann. Well, you know if we start backing off on all these tennis courts that were on our original plans for these neighborhoods, there could be just a huge uprising. Hoffman: It needs to be addressed. The Commission needs to address... question where exactly in reference to the master plan we want to put the ballfield. Tennis court was moved once. Originally it was located right at the central location. But if you walk the trail, this is the nice open lawn if you will area park. If you plopped in a tennis court, you'd be putting fencing and asphalt in the middle of a very pleasant location. The option to move it here however did not, haven't really addressed parking or access. If you want to drive to this location, you'd have to drive and park on either lake Susan and you can traverse this or potentially cut through yards to get to the tennis court or park in the parking lot in this direction to the tennis court... Lash: What do you hear from the residents there? 1"""""'. Erickson: This is a brand new neighborhood isn't it? lash: Are they pushing for more things and what are they asking for? Hoffman: That is a newly developed park. We get the most calls for lake Susan Hills West. They want whatever was specified. These people get these plans...so when they get a master plan, they think this is what they're getting. And if they don't...we have to call the neighborhood meetings to change this plan. I'm not certain that once we get farther on to Power Hill, that that location is ideal for tennis courts either... Putting tennis courts up there may not be adviseable... So we have two parks in thes~me vicinity and somewhat close to lake Susan where we have a community park with two tennis courts and if you look at them now are serving the need adequately. We're certainly not seeing an overuse of... So I'm tentative to establish... lash: ...overkill to put tennis courts allover everywhere. Schroers: I think so too. Especially in a site like that where you have to cram it into wherever you can and then it doesn't provide decent access. A court like that that's hard to get to will probably not get enough use to warrant the expense of putting ,it in. ,.... lash: What if we just switched it to just the basketball and can we put in a half basketball court? And then maybe this would be an area that would be a site someday for, when we get in to try the warming houses and skating ponds and then they have something for the winter. And put more money towards playground equipment and have a basketball hoop and volleyball and baseball field. . Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 30 ...." Andrews: A comment about the skating rink which I think go along with tennis courts. I think y6u need close parking because...people are going to drive. If you can't park within 20 feet or 20 yards of a skating rink, it gets pretty difficult in the winter to get. Schroers: Good point. Andrew~: And the same for tennis. People drive to one of the neighborhoods and then park right next to...get out and play so I think... say this isn't the place. Hoffman: Community parks, our skating rinks are community park activities is one position. We put down a sheet of ice in a neighborhood park is an expensive operation. They don't see much use for...warming house, lights, maintain it... Lash: So if we were to switch this from double tennis court to a basketball court, what would that do? Hoffman: Single basketball will cost you $500.00 for the pole and backboard and basketball... Lash: So switch this to $1,000.00? Hoffman: Okay, I'll come back with a re-estimate on that. --' Lash: And then is there a volleyball court in there yet? Hoffman: Yes. Erickson: How about the play structures therefor the kids? That's already up? Koubsky: Phase 1 is. Lash: So could we move phase 2 up? Koubsky: They don't have a swing set. Lash: And the trees that we have for next year, now when you're going to be going over to Gorra's property and digging tre~s. Are those ones that you can earmark for some of these areas? Hoffman: Yes. We can put some of those here. The $1,000.00 in '92 for trees is for that... Erickson: This park heeds some trees bad doesn't it? Hoffman: Well the trees that were taken out of Bandimere during that regrading operation were hauled into this park... Lash: So what if we were to put in the basketball hoop next year and some ....,; trees, and then maybe move up the play ~rea expansion to '94-'95. ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 31 Hoffman: Okay. Lash: Which, '94 or '95? Andrews: '94. schroers: Okay. For '94 we're putting a $1,000.00 for trees? Lash: No. For '94 we're putting $10,000.00 for play area expansion. Schroers: You're going to leave the trees in '93? Andrews: Is that enough to do the job on trees Todd?..more efficient in one shot. Hoffman: Yeah, $2,500.00 would be much more... Andrews: Well we're cutting...Put $2,500.00 for the court and $2,500.00 for the trees, we're still 25 ahead. That will give us some leeway on perhaps some of these other parks here. Schroers: You're just calling the $4,000.00 to play area expansion and not designating it half court basketball? .I""""- Lash: trees. No, it's $2,500.00 in '93 for a basketball court and $1,000.00 for And then in '94 it's $10,000.00. Andrews: Are we going to hit the trees a little bit harder? Lash: Well if they take some of those from the Gorra property and put those in and then this $1,000.00 is for the berm that they're putting up along 212. Andrews: Maybe we can set up something... Hoffman: So consensus is at $3,500.00 or $5,000.007 Erickson: $3,500.00. Lash: Total right? Hoffman: Yeah. Okay, and then I call a neighborhood meeting to discuss the changing of the master plan. Erickson: Okay...tennis courts get in the park system in Chanhassen so far. I guess from my own personal experience...the ones in Lake Ann, I never see anybody using them. Not that they're not used but I hardly ever see them used. A couple times I've been in North Lotus, those are used a lot. ~. Lash: The ones up at City Center are being used. Koubsky: Lake Susan somebody's on them pretty routinely. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 32 ....,;I Pemrick: ...a lot. We've never had to wait for a Court but there's always someone coming or leaving... Schroers: There's some activity at Lake Ann but it's not like they're stacked up waiting there either. Andrews: Probably too, if you don't have the sticker... Schroers: Okay, let's go on to Chan Pond 'Park. For '93 we've got $250.00 for a wooden sign and that's up. Hoffman: In '92 we had a sign. For '93 we're proposing a second sign for off of Saratoga and Sierra Trail. At that connection. Lash: But did the picnic tables get? Hoffman: They're here. Lash: Oh, they're here? Hoffman: No, those are on the specification page which just means... Lash: But they're going to be coming out? Hoffman: Correct. Again, we have not, I have not purchased, or purchased very little out of the '92 budget because we had all this work left over from last year that we're catching up on so we're shooting the money to other, things... -'" Lash: I just am checking to see if that's something that got cut. Hoffman: No... Erickson: I have one comment on this Chanhassen Pond Park. The observatory platform in that southeastern corner. Boy is that in bad shape. Is that going to be, that looks like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Hoffman: I would recommend given it's past use, that we take it down and not replace it... Erickson: I don't think it's a bad spot to have a little, because when you walk that distanc. around that park, actually it is kind of a nice place just to ~itand rest, for an old guy like me. It's really kind of a nice place to sit but I guess I would be in favor of budgeting something, having the Boy Scouts come out and redo it. Maybe do a little higher...it's not that bad. Maybe even some, and I guess I don't remember off the top of my head the exact view of the park. Maybe even some selective pruning on some of the trees in the area...just to better see the pond. It's not that bad of a view but it's a lot of just kind of overgrown probably since that was bu il t . Andrews: . How big of a deck is that? -'" ,..... Pa,k and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 33 E,ickson: It's enough ,oom fo, like 4 people to go up and sit down side by side but in it's cu"ent condition you wouldn't want to do that if they we,e all my size. It had to be built quite a few yea,s ago because I don't even think it's t,eated lumbe,. Lash: So what do you think, like $1,000.00? And,ews: That should be enough to take it down and build it once...you figu,e about $10.00 a squa,e fo, a deck. E,ickson: Handicap accessibility. I was just thinking, exactly whe,e it sits on that t,ail. Can you get down the,e with a chai,? It seems like it's adequate. That's befo,e the stai,s 0, those timbe,s sta,t jumping. Hoffman: and. . . ...to about $1,500.00 0, $1,750.00 fo, additional bituminous ~,ickson: ...I've got one mo,e thing on Chanhassen Pond Pa,k. Replacing the stai,s. You did some e,osion cont,ol at one point. No you didn't. Co"ection of e,osion. Lash: That was in '91. ~ Hoffman: And in addition, all e,osion... E,ickson: This is something that I doubt that you've even noticed 0, seen 0, anything but that giant oak t,ee on Ke,be, Bouleva,d, as you',e going no,th on Ke,be, befo,e you get to whe,e the p,oposed pa,king was at one time. Hoffman: It's dying. E,ickson: Yeah. Any ideas on? Hoffman: ...expansion of Ke,be,. E,ickson: That's a shame. It's a beautiful t,ee. It just seems to be that one b,anch but that's on the side whe,e all the fill came. Boy those t,ees take a beating f,om that. One thing that Chanhassen's T,ee Boa,d should look at mo,e too is with this complex that's going to go, 2 weeks ago we talked about it. They',e talking about coming up to the d,ip line. Boy, if you get anywhe,e nea, that d,ip line underneath that you dest,oy those oaks. I was in Minnewashta Regional Pa,k, 0, whateve, the othe, day looking at some things they did when they t,ied to save these t,ees. They came unde,neath that d,ip line and the b,anches a,e dying out on those t,ees like c,azy. . Hoffman: The applicant fo, the Oaks talked about that at last night's Council meeting. They said yes, new info,mation says they'll be staking off... ,...... Sch,oe,s: Is the,e a specified distance say on the d,ip line? Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 34 ....", Hoffman: No. They figure 20 feet past the dripline. Erickson: That makes more sense because everyone of those trees you see there, they're dying off. Part of them. Anyway. It seemed like there wa something else in there. Oh, those steps that go down. What kind of condition are those in? Was part of that erosion, well I've been there since '91. It just seems like there's foot paths where people come off the steps and probably take their bikes and stuff. It seems to be getting... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Schroers: ...some of us old guys are getting tired of baske~ball. Maybe the numbers... Lash: I think I know one team though... Schroers: I think there's probably going to be. Lash: They're getting too old. Schroers: A few of them belly up because, well our team is used to doing a lot of winning and the way I understand it, they're not doing so good this year...I've talked to 3 or 4 ~f the guys and they said, this ain't as much fun as it used to be and that's what I was thinking for the last 2 years. That I wasn't having that much fun anymore. . ...J Lash: Get in the over 35 league. Average age on our team is probably 45. Does anyone know if we did the trail line to Chan Hills? Andrews: Todd says it's in there. Lash: How about the trail line to Chan Hills from Lake Susan, did that get done yet? Hoffman: No. Lash: But it's going to be done? Hoffman: I would presume that when we start it, it depends to how much problems we run into the construction phase and how much time we have. Lash: I'd just like us to keep in mind if it turns out that we over by a big bunch, that maybe the ball lights could get moved back to '94. Hoffman: Okay. Lash: We'll leave them now and see how it works. Hoffman: Alright. Schroers: We're leaving the lights for '93 so actually we're leaving Lake Susan then the way it is. ...J Lash: When's the track ride supposed to go in? ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 35 Hoffman: The track ride came in... Erickson: What's a track ride? It's a piece of play equipment? Lash: Yes. It's a thing you get on on a higher end, you hold onto it and it flies. Schroers: They used to call it a cable slide. How much money is that? Pemrick: $1,400.00. Lash: Is $1,400.00 going to be enough in '94? What's this aeration system installation? Erickson: That's what we talked to th. DNR about. Hoffman: Yeah, that was put in... Lash: So is it all in and everything? Hoffman: The wiring is in... Erickson: Does that put bubbles in the pond or what? ,... Schroers: It's kind of like a 50/50 deal. We did the wiring and they were going to provide the aeration unit. Hoffman: Yeah, it was a grant thing. We put in $4,000.00 in wiring and they were going to supply a $25,000.00 aeration unit but it's contingent on State funding...from here to the wall or is it typical... Lash: I think we need to keep the bleacher in. Schroers: Here's $1,800.00. Lash: Where? Schroers: From the archery. Hoffman: ...because that's coming out of general fund. Not out of your park funds. Lash: I think for Meadow Green we need to keep the bleachers. Andrew: Push the rink to '94. Lash: Or beyond. Koubsky: One year ,at a time here. We're going to put lighting? .~ Schroers: We're going to leave it at $6,000.00 but bump it up to '94. Lash: Center. Now why did you pick Meadow Green for that? Isn't it? That's so close to City Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 ~ Page 36 ...." Schroers: It's a long ways up th~ hill walki~g in the winter. Lash: To this one? Hoffman: I think it's because of the dense population around there. schroers: Fiom Meadow Green to, yeah. The dense population. I mean people from. Erickson: There's a lot of multi-family. schroers: Chaparral. Lash: I just think that seems a little close. Hoffman: Anything else? Briefly to address Wendy's comments. We'll get this p~etty well cleaned up and we get one more crack at it at the 28th meeting and I'll go through it and if there's any recollections I have over specific things..: Lash: Is there a basketball court up here? Hoffman: Meadow Green? Lash: Yes. ....",I Hoffman: Yes. Koubsky: What phase are you at with your play equipment? Hoffman: We've got a phase 1, a phase 2 and now we've corrected it... We have $400.00 in the tree planting... Koubsky: How many trees is that? Hoffman: A couple trees and also try to get some of those... Erickson: Think that's a real prime location to get some trees? Hoffman: The only problem is they have to go to the perimeter of the ballfield in that area. Erickson: Yeah. I guess I'm just thinking along that outlot. Lash: How about the western edge? That'd be kind of nice. Koubsky: I agree. ~ little more greenery there. Schroers: Okay, Minnewashta. Lash: We're doing a play area expansion. ....." Hoffman: Yes. ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 37 Lash: So we're going to push the skating rink? Hoffman: That gets quite a bit of use... Lash: Have they asked for anything else? Hoffman: Not as of late... Erickson: Do they have swings? Hoffman: Swings are there, yes... Andrews: North Lotus. What we need there is a dog dropping removal unit. A lawn rake kind of thing. Lash: That's a Zamboni kind of thing. Andrews: I guess the one little...would be to put some sort of a bench down there... Lash: So we're supposed to move that to '94? ,...., Andrews: Yeah move the rinks and lights off. There's really not a good spot there the way it's set up. There's not enough flat area to have a rink on. Hoffman: These skating rinks with electrical lights and service, the intention at that point was to go ahead and do... Lash: I would almost think any of these that we did would need a bench. And would it be something that you can just, do you guys in the winter go around and pick up wooden ones at the beaches? Schroers: The skating rink with electrical then is included, that $8,000.00 is included in that portable house? The rental on the house? Hoffman: ...specify if we want to take it out of here. This includes"the 410 budget includes rental for... Lash: So there'd ,be nothing for '93? Andrews: No. . . Lash: And there isn't anything that you really need to have in '93? Andrews: That's a n~ce park as it is. Erickson: How about the open area just south of the tennis courts. ~ Hoffman: Soccer fields. Erickson: Is that what that is, soccer fields? Park and Rec commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 38 ...."I Hoffman: People have asked that it be made into a soccer field because it was just open space back there and we could plant trees. We could let it go wild. Erickson: I think it's kind of neat being open. I was up there messing around with my nerd hobby and there's like 6 guys out there doing this Kung Fu stuff. Lash: What would be involved in turning it into a soccer field? Would it still be just an open area? ...Jim says all the time the parking's terrible. You sit there and wait. Andrews: That is more than a neighborhood park. That is almost like a small community park. It's so heavily used with soccer fields and ballfields. I was going to say the one comment I have is the soil, or the turf there is pretty borderline. It needs to be reseeded or aerated or whatever...especially the soccer games attract a lot of cars. Lash: Could we plunk some money in there for '93 for trees? Andrews: Well it's not a barren landscape... I'd say maybe 1 or 2 bigger trees would really help. I'd say we need a couple big ones in there would be nice. pemrick: $1,000.00. ...,I Andrews: It wouldn't take more than a couple. Koubsky: Because there's not a lot of room up there actually. Lash: And do you want more later down the line? Like some smaller ones or something? Andrews: I don't know if there's... Maybe along the road... Lash: Is there a place to put more parking in there? Is that the problem? Andrews: No. You'd have to put it along Fox Hollow... Hoffman: It's the second largest parking lot in neighborhood parks. Second to Meadow Green. Meadow Green is 64 x 187. North Lotus is 58 x... Schroers: Okay, Pheasant Hill. Hoffman: In the growing season. We'll get in there...project and put in the trail and put in the grass seed this fall. It will be dormant seeded. . . Schroers: Okay, Power Hill. That'd be a good place for a... Koubsky: I don't think that will be ready for anything next year will it? Hoffman: in there. We've got final grading, seeding entrance road and parking area That includes the entrance road and parking in this year's ....tIll ,...., Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 39 bituminous projects. Get it in there prior to the housing, then we have final grading and seeding for '93... Where's the park? What's going on with that park? Koubsky: That whole Flamingo Drive is so populated. Hoffman: That's the one, if you take a look at the master plan. It's kind of a quirky park because it's stuck with the drainage ponds which are a problem because they're routinely are eyesores and people don't like them and they think of this as a park and they want it maintained as a park... holding pond. So we have a playfield to the north. 12 cars parking for the sliding hill, the play area. aut then on top this tennis court. You can see that that has been graded by the developer for tennis courts but again, it backs up immediately in the back yard of a single family residential to the west. Single family to the north. Back yards and then this is open space...so you figure you've got 12 cars to park and then you have to walk down. This is a very narrow strip. This is a person's groomed yard right here. This is a person's back yard right here. Lash: You know and I remember when we-did this too. And now you look at it and you go, why did we do this. ".... Schroers: , Why did we do that Jan? Lash: I don't know. We always somehow get kind of smuckered into this stuff by the developer I think. Andrews: How wide is that little...? Hoffman: It's about 100 feet. Andrews: That's enough for a walk in park. Walking path. It's not ideal but it's not objectionable... Hoffman: That's the thing we're talking about. If you go up there and, take a look, you can drive... The view from here is unbelieveable. Erickson: Put an observation deck up there. Hoffman: Other cities...do many more covered shelte~s in their neighborhood parks for neighborhood picnics. We don't do that here. I think we should start to do that. We haven't done it at Lake Ann yet. Lash: How about at Greenwood Shores? Andrews: You take the no parking sign down, you can put up your shelter. Hoffman: This would be a spot for...you could put a piece of concrete and a shelter and the neighborhood could have their picnics there and have one of the nicest spots in the development rather than put tennis up there and have 4 people go up there and use it. " Lash: For probably the same amount of money. Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 25, 1992 - Page 40 ....", Hoffman: And did your recommendation include the deletion of the $2,000.00 on the repair of the platform? Andrews: I did not. I feel that we cannot responsibly defer that. Schroers: Okay. So that is a motion. Do we have a second on that? Koubsky: I'll second that. Andrews moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the 1993 Park Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program amended as follows: To contribute $8,000.00 towards City Center for 1993 with an additional $8,000.00 for each of the following two years, allocate $1,000.00 for Eagle Scout projects, and put $9,500.00 into a contingency fund. All voted in favor and the motion carried. FALL RECREATION PROGRAM SCHEDULE. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members. The fall recreation program update which is quite exciting, will be brought to you by Jerry and Dawn. Ruegemer: Like Todd said, in looking at our 1992 fall newsletter that did come out I feel is one of our most popular and most exciting newsletter in ~ recreation...to offer that our department has seen in a number of years. There's the programs that effect virtually every age group in our city. We do have programs for preschool kids, elementary kids, teens...and so forth. The adult activities and then senior activities. So it appears that we are touching every section of populatioh in our city. What we're going to do is briefly kind of go through each age category as it ~ppears on the memo itself. If there's any questions going through the memo, just please feel free to stop and ask away. I'd be more than happy to answer those for you. Starting with our Chanhassen Kids Club. In the past we've talked to various groups in our district and it appeared to me that there was a need for an after school program. This summer Dawn and I have both talked about it throughout the summer and...take the opportunity to act on that notion and try to offer a program for after school. That after school program will be on Mondays and Fridays when school is in session. It would be... That will be daily occurring from 3:30 to 5:30 to 6:00 is what we're putting in... That would be at the elementary school...having the gym available for kids who'd like to play basketball or do other types of activities in there. Different special events. We will.be...occasionally field trips and going to...so it will really be kind of a socialization program verus traditional education... Andrews: Is this a fee for service program or no charge program? Ruegemer: It is a fee. It's a self supporting program. Lash: What is the fee, do you know? ..J ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 41 Lash: You know what we need to look at too is the size of the park and the location. So say we had one earmarked originally for Curry Farms and then we had one earmarked for Pheasant Hills. Well they're only a half a mil~ apart. That's a little overkill. Maybe what we need to do is, if North Lotus is a good sized neighborhood park, when Bandimere goes in, there'd be one down in that area. There's one at Lake Susan. There's one at Sunset Ridge. Just kind of get them in general areas. Almost like we do the radius of where we need to have, parkland. Maybe have a certain radius for tennis courts set up so that we don't. Schroers: Yeah, that and we could make a little list of criteria for tennis courts. Number one, it's got to be readily accessible from parking. Koubsky: The soil has to be good. Schroers: Soil has to be good, yeah. Lash: And it's got to be a decent sized park so we're not trying to put in all these things. Schroers: And it shouldn't be within a quarter of a mile or something of another existing tennis court. But when you come up with that situation, that both the tennis court is 3/4 of a mile away, here we have the space. ~ We have the parking available. This would be a really good spot for a tennis court. Then go on it but not try to cram a tennis court in someplace where. Lash: Maybe in our plans what we should do is do that with the picnic shelters and the tennis court., One or the other. Andrews: Good idea. At Power Hill there we could have a possibility. Erickson: You say that's such a beautiful view up there, I think it would be almost silly to put a tennis court there and not something where people could go and really appreciate the spot. Hoffman: I think $10,000.00 or $15,000.00, something. We've often put just general development, general improvements. We leave that in for '93. Refine that at a later date and I think this neighborhood is real interested in this park area...call a neighborhood meeting to amend ,the master plan... PTobably the play structure in '93 is what these folks are going to want. If we have the road in there. The sidewalk and the street. Everybody up and down Flamingo and the adjacent areas, they can walk up there. Go into the parking lot and...play structure. Lash: Do you think that the trees could get moved up from '94 to '93 and then the play structure from '95 to '94? Koubsky: I don't think the trees are a big issue there. ~ Lash: Well you were saying you thought $10,000.00 would be plenty so in that $10,000.00 do you think we could incorporate some trees too? Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 42 ...." Hoffman: Well, if we want to do a phase 1 play structure say in '93, next year. We have the parking and we want to get that play structure in... 5chroers: What you're saying is plug in $15,000.00 in 1993 for general improvements? Hoffman: Yep and then hold a neighborhood meeting and...which is my belief that that play area. Andrews: I think that's a good idea. Koubsky: That will be all graded and seeded and ready? For a play area. Hoffman: ...where we can do that... Lash: How about in th& $10,000.00 there, does that include the ballfield? Hoffman: To the north? Lash: Yeah. Hoffman: It's called an open playfield. Lash: There's no backstop or, anything? Hoffman: There is a backstop on the plans. If people would expect that, then we should clarify that at the neighborhood meeting. .."", Lash: 50 would that be in the $15,000.00? Hoffman: No. That would be additional... Lash: 50 put trees and backstop in in '94? Hoffman: Okay. lash: How much would you have to put in for a backstop? Hoffman: $500.00... Lash: 50 make that $3,500.00? Erickson: Power Hill Park sitting on top of Williams Pipeline. Lash: Well I've also penciled in picnic shelter but I've got it like '96 and beyond. 5chroers: What was your last one Janet that you just put in now? Lash: I have $15,000.00 for '93 for phase 1. And then for play area phase , 2 left at '95. And then trees and backstop in '94. That would be $3,500.00. And then a picnic shelter, that's '96. and beyond instead of. -" ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 43 Schroers: Well, we're leaving the trees at $2,500.00 and then adding $1,000.00 for a backstop, is that what you did in '94? Lash: Yes. Do they get volleyball or anything like that? Hoffman: Not on the plan. Lash: Would it go in outside a picnic shelter? Something like that fit in there? Hoffman: No. It's very sloped, graded flat area. schroers: We've got too many parks. Prairie Knoll. We have site preparation in 1994 for $4,000.00. Erickson: Where is this park? Koubsky: Just south of Lake Susan. Hoffman: The thought here is that these people can use the community park but they can't legally because they're not far enough south yet on the development to get their trail easement in so they have to cross the private property to get to that...Lake Susan. ,.... Lash: Are we supposed to put money in for a play area... Hoffman: Again, they're close to Lake Susan but not, it's a jaunt. A trip to get there...some unique spots... Lash: But do we need to put some money down for it? It's listed but there's no money slated anywhere. Hoffman: ...the last time we talked to him, the 5 year plan was to be on in 1996. Schroers: And that probably still would be now if.~.until '94. Lash: That $10,000.00 or whatever it is... Koubsky: Rice Marsh Lake Park. Lash: This is getting done right? Hoffman: Yes. Lash: How about the parking down there? Is there anything that can be done about that? Tha~ used to be a nightmare. Erickson: South Lotus Lake Park could use some trees again. Is that that little bump right by Workman's house? ,..... pemrick: They've got a nice play structure in there... Lash: And you've got $14,000.00 slated for more in '96? Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 44 .J Hoffman: Again, we needed that for our tree conversations. which are being pulled out of the tree farm... We have trees , Lash: Unsurmountable curbing. Does that have to go in next ye~r? Hoffman: Tha~'s in '94. Koubsky: That dock needs to have pads put on it because I've scratched the heck out of trying to boat there this spring. It's pure metal on the edges... Probably buy something at the supply store for $100.00... Schroers: What has ever been resolved with that pump house and stuff down there and was that area now accommodate a neighborhood skating rink? Hoffman: No. That could be a tennis bourt. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Koubsky: ...play area, phase 1 is pretty small. There's a ton of people out there. People have just migrated down there. Hoffman: The biggest phase 1 ever put in in our city. I Koubsky: Get out of here. It's not bigger than... Lash: So Dave, would you want to switch the tennis court and play area expansion around? ....." Koubsky: Yeah. I don't think the tennis courts make any sense until Lake Drive is in. , The same with hockey. If you can't get back there to flood it. Hoffman: '94 and beyond with a tennis court. Lash: What hockey rink? Schroers: So do you want to move the tennis courts to '94? Koubsky: Yeah. Lash: How about '95? Koubsky: I would think '95. Lash: Switch the tennis court and the play area expansion. But how about the basketball? Can that go in without the tennis court? Koubsky: So in '93 we're putting $14,000.00 for play expansion. That'd be unprecedented in the city's history. Putting phase 1 and phase 2 two years apart. Lash: That's why people get on the Park and Rec Commission. Does the --,. field have a backstop and stuff? ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 45 Koubsky: Yeah, the baseball field. Andrews: I think~..pretty good shape... Lash: other improvements, before we totally wrap it up. I think maybe in light of our last two meetings, because of the MMCD or whoever it was, that we should make some kind of effort at budgeting, some money for bat houses and swallow houses or whatever. Schroers: I like that too. As a matter of fact, the Wqy they went up... and other communities and bad mouthed us, I think...a year from now on all prograMs. I have my sources. La~h: What did they say? Schroers~ They said that we voted to ban the adulticides because we didn't know what else to do...city of Maple Grove. Lash: I think we should write a letter to the City of Maple Grove and tell them our reasons. Koubsky: Well just ask for the Minutes. ,~ Lash: Ask for their Minutes? Koubsky: Yes. Lash: Or supply them our Minutes? Andrews: Were you aware that they flew up... Schroers: We told them that we wanted them to have 5 minutes and the other party to have 5 minutes and then equal time for other unassociated people with concerns and they really took advantage of us. Tried to give us this big sales pitch and then acted terribly offended when we didn't buy it. Andrews: ...he gave the techriical half answer and then afterwards he gave the other half and... It was obvious what I was trying to ask and he tried to only tell me the technical part of the question... Koubsky: ...to say that I don't agree with your decision. I don't agree with the way that they presented it. I thought they blew it. I thought they put together a terrible case. Erickson: That)s the only reason I voted the way I did. ~ Lash: That was part 'of my reason too. But a big part of my reason was the fact that at the meeting before, having sat there for 2 or 3 hours and listened to all that and heard promises from them that they were going to do this and that and wouldn't do this and that and they turned around and just did-it the same as always. How can you trust them to do what they're supposed to be doing? They act like they don't have any accountability to anyone and that annoyed me and we're paying for ~hat service. Well we still have to pay for it and that... Park and Rec Commission Meeting August 11, 1992 - Page 46 -' Schroers: They don't, no one else knows anything else about it. They've got their own little program ther. with their own little source of money and they've got a good thing going. That's what they're doing. They're sitting here fighting for all the help and support they can get. And thet's one thing but I don't believe one word about that that stuff is totally and completely unharmful to the environment. It's not. It kills something in the environment and that's going to have a more far reaching effect. I mean it.'s not a good similarity but 20 years ago smoking cigarettes was the thi ng to do. Now everybody's knows bet'ter. 20 years from now it's very possible that they'll be saying the same thing about... Koubsky: I think as far as chemicals.... in reading those health criteria they gave at least me. the stuff breaks down pretty rapidly and the stuff as far as an insecticide. I have to think is a pretty safe thing to use. It's not like DOT that has. is very persistent and remains in the environment a long time which they'd love to use because they didn't have to reapply. The reason they have to reapply this stuff every time it rains is because the stuff naturally breaks down. Lash: Well and that was my other thing. I don't even know if I'm that concerned with the health risks because they haven't been proven one way or the other to me clearly but also I don't feel like the effectiveness has really been proven to us either. And I'm hearing that the last time they sprayed was last August and everybody was thrilled with how few mosquitoes there were i'n July. Now that just makes we wonder how effective it is and if it's worth the money. Koubsky: 'My thought is it worthwhile to spend any... The reason he came back to spray is because of encephalitis mosquito...so they sprayed. 00 we want to adjourn? ..." Lash: Well we have to put money in '93 for our improvements don't we? Hoffman: Correct. Other improvements... Lash: So put in. I don't know if you want to put it in under Boy Scout projects or how. If it can be a winter project when the house guys don't have as much to do and they can make some of those things. Make the bat houses and swallow houses. Schroers: What if we call it something like Park Environment Enhancement. Lash: Mosquito Control. Andrews: Center? Can 'we coordinate any of the bird house projects with the Senior Maybe they'd be interested in building bird houses. Lash: No. They like to go to the Casino. Well figure out what they... Erickson moved, Lash seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11=21 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Coordinator ..."" Prepared by Nann Opheim