PRC 1991 03 12
,....
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 12, 1991
Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Dave Koubsky, Larry Schroers, Curt Robinson,
Wendy Pemrick and Dawne Erhart
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Andrews
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator; Don
Ashworth, City Manager; Dale Gregory, Park Foreman; and Mark Koegler, Van
Doren, Hazard and Stallings.
LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER - REVIEW DESIGN AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS.
11""".
Hoffman: I believe we all know each other in the room here. There's
different reasons for all of us being here. Mayor Don Chmiel is here for
his own interest and I've invited Dale Gregory, our Park Foreman along.
Obviously Dale and his department will be doing the daily maintenance work
on this building and we certainly want to have his input as early as
possible as well. This afternoon Mark Koegler, Scott Harri of Van Doren,
Hazard and Stallings and Don and myself met to discuss this preliminarily
at that time. We thought it would be adviseable or be worth our while to
have Don in as well to discuss some of the financing options and those
types of things that we're looking at as part of this project. So the
variety of areas we're going to take a look at. We're going to look at
utilities in brief. I know the commission had some concerns about
utilities. We've talked about it in the past. All those areas have been
investigated. The utilities question can be addressed. There's specifics
that we don't need to talk about here. However, if you do have specific
questions on that portion of the project, we can certainly discuss that.
The main brunt of tonight's discussion will center around the shelter
building itself. What type of facilities we want to put in that building.
What type of mateials, construction and we'll briefly talk about a schedule
of this particular project and where it's goi.ng to go from here. So with
that I believe we'll take this in order. We'll have Mark present first or
Don?
"""
Don Ashworth: Probably, maybe if I started out in kind of an overview. We
met earlier today. This is maybe the second or third meeting on the
project and one of the areas we were going through was, I'll call it the
bigger picture because every project that we've become involved with,
you're looking to multiple funding sources and each of our commissions and
the Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, etc., each have a
part in insuring that particular project is done. Very few projects are
solely with one commission versus another. Most of them will go across the
lines of Planning Commission, Park Commission, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, etc.. As we were starting to go through this project, I think
I was losing both Todd and Mark and they asked if I could come in and see
if I could help relay kind of the bigger picture financing associated with
the project. As you're all aware, that's an area that I enjoy is the
financial side of any objective the City is involved with. That's not
really from the debit or credit side. When I talk about the financial
side, you've got, if many of you heard me, give this little lecture but
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 2
we're actually operating somewhere around 150 companies. Each company has
it's own assets and it's own liabilities and it has to have it's own set of
books and you can't really cross barriers. On the other side, as you're
doing projects, each particular funcational area can take a certain
responsibility in terms of assuring that that project gets done and that's
where the fun comes back from my standpoint is insuring that as we look at.
a project like the Lake Ann Shelter, you've got sewer operations and
they're going to come in and they're going to playa part in insuring the
sanitary sewer's extended to this facility. You have water operations and
they're paying the cost associated with the project. I think everyone of
the projects that we get into, again has those same type of aspects and
again the larger the project, the more complicated it becomes in terms of
the number of players that are involved. I think one of the funnest ones,
at least for me, was when we did the Lake Susan Park improvements from this
past year. That project involved a grant, $110,000.00. $110,000.00
locally. Housing and Redevelopment Authority, they were in. They carried
out all of the physical improvements on the site. The paving associated
with the parking areas. The curb and gutter. The lighting that amounted
to about $80,000.00. We got a Community Development Block Grant that
provided the monies necessary for the walkway from the parking area over to
the fishing ramp. We were able to get a grant associated with the fishing
pier itself. And actually the public improvement project, meaning the
street project given the mass amount of dirt that needed to be moved and
disposed of, actually came in and paid a good portion of that project.
There was, I think about $50,000.00 or $60,000.00 as a part of that street
project so it's kind of fun when you're trying to fit all these things
together. Let's talk about our project here. In total we're looking to a
project cost of about $270,000.00 to $280,000.00. I'm always protective of
Park and Recreation funds and so in some instances, when you're looking at
who is in the best position to help fund a particular aspect of a project,
you have alternative sources as to who has let's say the most revenue or is
in the best position to carry out a particular activity and so from that
standpoint I try to be very protective of Park and Recreation dollars in
insuring that we use those to the best extent we can. Again, the Lake
Susan project I think totally your dollars paid about 33% of that total
project so 67% came from other people. This particular project, if you
look at it, I'll call it kind of going backwards $270,000.00-$280,000.00,
we're looking to costs associated with our water expansion fund or water
operations of about $50,000.00 to bring in water. Again, Mark will go
through some of that. What that will do is it will bring in a major
service, a 6 inch line from the front part of the park and provide us with
the ability to at some time in the future, potentially sprinkle but at
least we can bring water into each of the two shelter buildings and
potentially have water available elsewhere in the park. Sanitary sewer for
the facility would actually be pumped over to Greenwood Shores. Cost of
that would be about $30,000.00. You have dollars remaining for electrical
that amount to about $15,000.00. So you total all of those up and you're
up to about $100,000.00. It may get up to $110,000.00 associated with all
of the utilities associated with the project. Working that backwards puts
you then down into an area of about $170,000.00. As dollars that we're
currently looking at, based on the current design standards, that would be
the cost associated with the park shelter. Again, Mark will go through
that aspect. We don't have that amount of funding. You have approximately
$125,000.00 set up under your capital outlay budget and that includes the
previous $110,000.00 plus the most recent 15 to 20 from the Lion's. So
-'
,..,.,
...",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
"'" March 12, 1991 - Page 3
you're at about $125,000.00-$130,000.00 there. We now have to determine,
and that's really coming back then into your bailiwick, assuming that these
other players take care of the other responsibilities associated with the
park shelter construction. How do we make up that difference between what
we're looking at for $130,000.00 versus $107,000.00? We've come through
potential cuts. Mark can go through those with you. It can come through
additional revenue sources. What I might suggest just looking at the
figures as I've looked at them so far, is maybe a combination of the two.
We closed 1990 so starting in 1991 we anticipated a fund balance of
approximately $700,000.00 in Park and Recreation venture capital budget.
You actually closed with about $730,000.00 so you, we ended that 1990 in a
better position than we had anticipated just 2 to 3 months ago. There is a
possibility to make a request to the City Council for literally a budget
amendment to look to that part of those dollars, potentially $25,000.00
back towards the shelter building. I should have put some things in
context. The shelter building that we built at Lake Susan, that was
$220,000.00 and that was back in 1978. That was just, of course that also
is a water pumping facility and actually on that particular project, I
think the Park and Recreation Commission came in somewhere between
$30,000.00 and $40,000.00 so you really leveraged your money on that
particular project. If you would consider that form of recommendation or
if the City Council would consider it, it could put you up to an overall
funding level of about $150,000.00 but that's still short of again what
we're looking to for total budget of potentially $170,000.00. I don't
think we have to make decisions this evening. We're trying to put
~ everything into context as to where we are. What we might have to do and
I told Todd, I said you can hit the bricks. Go out and start finding
people to donate money which may be a possibility as well. I mean
potentially the Legion may be willing to come in and pay some costs
associated with this facility and maybe not. I don't know. That kind of
puts in line the bigger picture. So in other words, at this point in time
Mark would actually be going through the designs that he has come up with
for alternative park shelter buildings and hopefully then as he's
presenting the cost associated with those, you can get a little better feel
for where the current costs are for the design that he's showing in
comparison to the dollars that we may have available. Did I totally
confuse everyone?
Robinson: No, that was good.
,......,
Koegler: Don is always a hard act to follow. The information that I'm
going to run through, I guess I want to state right up front, is in very
preliminary form. A lot of, if any of you have built a house in recent
years, a lot of private home builders will tell you, when you're in the
planning stage, put in everything you might want and then just take it out
later to reflect your budget. We haven't taken that position with this.
We've tried to reflect some of the comments that the Commission has offered
over the last, it's been what? Last 14 months or so, as well as going back
to the original concept that was prepared for this site back in about 1984.
And out of that we put together a couple of schemes tonight for you to
begin to kind of sink your teeth into and what we really want to get is, if
we can, some concensus of what you're really looking for. What bottom
line, you know do you want this building to be. What spaces are most
critical. If we have to make cuts, what kinds of things potentially can be
cut. And as Don eluded to, we'll get into that in a minute. I've got some
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 4
11 x 17's of these and I've got some bigger prints too and maybe we can lay
the larger ones out so you can see them easier. I think I'll save the cost
side of my discussion for perhaps after we've'kind of quickly at least
glossed over these and then maybe after presenting some costs, can get into
some real definitive discussions on what your throughts and comments are.
Both of these schemes don't change the proposed location of the site and I
think you're generally aware of where that is in close proximity to the
beach area. We're talking about a structure that will be a walkout on the
lower level. A walkin if you will on the upper level that will take
advantage of being built into the hill on that site. The exact location of
that is yet to be pinpointed but it is workable within that slope area.
The first concept that we put together is very consistent I think with the
one that was done a number of years ago. It looks at, if you look at the
bottom of the drawing, the upper level floor plan. You would walk into
this building. It would be basically a large open pavillion. The way it's
shown right there, there would not be any doors. There would not be any
screens. Any windows at this time. It's an open picnic type pavillion
type of structure with roughly a 4 foot overhang around all of the open
areas. The center of this particular concept identifies a large fireplace
that could be open side on both sides. It could have some grills
integrated along with that. It's assumed right now, and at least our
concept thinking, to be probably a stone fireplace. We're thinking right
now, at least initially and we've got again some cost information that the
material on the exterior of the building to the degree that it's possible,
may be stone. The only real model we're going from is obviously the
structure that's down at Lake Susan which I think people identify with
themeatically and would like to at least pick up some of the same kind of
elements that are in that building and bring them to Lake Ann Park for some
overall consistency in the city's park system. The upper level then would
basically just house the open picnic function. As you look at the lower
level of this particular building, there is a food area which is meant to
be the sale area for packaged foods. There's a counter there that would
handle rental of paddles or canoes or bike boats or whatever it might be.
The Commission some time ago requested that there be consideration for a
first aid lifeguard station. That is shown as a small little room
enclosure as you can see on the plan. There is a storage area that kind of
sits in the middle of this particular scheme and then flanking that, off to
the south side both ways are the mens and womens restroom facilities as
well as some small changing areas that are shown there and I know that's
been the subject of some discussion before and you may want to get into
that later tonight. Is that something that's desired or should that space
potentially be removed or channeled into another use or whatever? At this
point iD time all of the material thinking for the building is in again, a
real preliminary sense. Typically for this type of installation, we would
use concrete with a concrete block type partition between the toilet
stalls. I don't know if you can make it out on the copies but there are
floor drains that are shown in all of that. The intent would be that you
can just literally go in and hose that whole area down for maintenance
purposes. We'd suggest that that be an epoxy paint on that just again for
maintenance. That it would be a very low maintenance item. The elevation
is just to give you some sense of what this might look like. The way we've
costed this out now, would be a tpyical asphalt shingled roof. That's
something we'll take a look at some other options and ultimately can report
that back to you. So you've got essentially a deck area that sits on the
upper portion of that building that accommodates the picnic space. Then
...."
.."",.
...",
"....
.,....
,....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 5
you've got the utility functions and the restrooms on the lower level. Let
me perhaps go through the second option also fairly quickly and then touch
on some of the costs associated with both of them. They're not terribly
dissimilar. I'll give you that preview. This particular plan shows a few
different things. It kind of reorients the building, the access to the
building to some degree. As you see on the upper level floor plan, in the
bottom corner of the building would be the location of the fireplace. It's
not a central unit here which gives you a lot more space and a lot more
flexibility for actual picnicing on that upper level portion of the
structure. Again we've shown flanking the fireplace and built in as part
of an overall masonry unit. There could be a couple of grills, if that was
desired. Again it's an open area. The large railing area there would be
kind of, if you will, a covered deck type of feel to it as you would look
out then over Lake Ann. The lower level on this one contains the same
essential items that are on scheme one. There's a bit of a different
orientation. Perhaps it's a little more functional in this regard.
There's more control of entry points and corridors. There's a little bit
more room for the stacking of patrons around a food window and things that
could be under an enclosed area which could be nice to get away from the
sun and so forth. It does show the first aid lifeguard station again. It
shows a little different orientation of the rental counter. The food
counter. The storage room but the same types of facilities. Roughly the
same overall footprint. This is 40 x 40 and I think the other was 34 x 40
if I remember correctly on the lower level. Now that size of the lower
level can be changed. What our thinking is at this point in time is that
the upper level probably can't get a lot smaller than it already is. Just
so that you have the ability to accommodate at least the roughly 50 or so
people that you've indicated I think in the past you would like to be able
to house in a building like this for some type of a group picnicing
activity. We do have some flexibility still with the precast floor system
that we'll use to do some cantilever so we can make the lower level smaller
if that becomes necessary without necessarily having a significant impact
on the upper portion. With that as a quick walk through, let me address
what all of this cost. The sheet that I've just distributed identifies
what we've got right now labeled as preliminary construction cost estimates
and so we're dealing with construction costs. Concept one, the first one
that we went through. Right now based on some assumptions on materials and
some preliminary estimates, we're looking at that building price being
about $100,000.00. Just slightly above that. The fireplace as it's
envisioned there is about a $15,000.00 item so we have a total building
cost of $115,300.00. Now you'll note we've shown an alternate for stone of
$14,000.00. The base configuration that's shown right here would be a
decorative block. A break off type of block which from a distance would
have a stone appearance but up close obviously it would look like a masonry
unit. There's an alternate also shown for epoxy paint which we probably
just should have thrown as part of the base amount. That's pretty much a
requirement for this type of facility just for maintenance purposes. So in
round numbers, we end up with about $115,000.00 without the stone and
adding roughly $14,000.00-$15,000.00 more so we're around $130,000.00 for
that Option 1 with the stone type of exterior configuration. The second
concept being it's slightly larger in terms of the footprint on the lower
level reflects just slightly higher costs. We're dealing with $115,000.00
on the building. $20,000.00 in lieu of $15,000.00 on the fireplace just
because of the configuration of that unit. For $135,000.00 roughly of
building costs. Again, there's a little bit more stone exposure on that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 6
....",
second level, or second concept. The way it's shown which adds about
$22,000.00 if stone is to be used as an exterior material there. So that
particular scheme runs up roughly around $157,000.00 again in a very
preliminary sense the way the numbers look right now. Those numbers can be
impacted in a variety of ways. Probably the most significant impact, if
we're looking ultimately at some reductions, would come from a reduction of
the actual floor space itself. Reducing the floor area of that lower level
for example would have probably one of the more significant cost savings
that we could actually employ. The other would be that at this point in
time we're dealing with a range potentially of materials that we would be
using. What we're interested in tonight is hearing a little bit more from
the Commission on what you would like the building to look like. Just some
sense. I think the only thing that I've heard previously is "natural".
Natural is obviously a very broad base term. Does natural mean wood?
Would you like to work towards the stone exterior? Is a brick off block
acceptable? What are your thoughts there because then we can begin to pare
this down and make some refinements and bring this back to you at a
subsequent meeting. So with that, what we're after tonight is some input
from you. In essence, what do you want this building to be? what are the
really critical components of the building and then we can go and sharpen
some pencils a bit and bring back to you a revised scheme once again which
reflects that as well as a more definitive cost estimate that we can hone
in a little tighter at that time. Do you have any questions on either the
building aspect or the utility aspect, I'd certainly be happy to address
those.
Ashworth: You should note, if I may. These are Mark's best estimates as
to the construction costs. It doesn't include things like any type of
walks, any landscaping. There's no fees associated with this number. You
should be looking to a minimum 20% add on to here and I think that 20% is
very low. I mean typically we talk about 25% to 30% in most of our project
areas. And again, by adding in that 20%, that's where you start getting
into that $160,000.00-$170,000.00-$180,000.00 figure that I had thrown out
earlier.
....",
Schroers: I have one question before we open it to comments to the
Commissioners. Did you get a chance Todd to get information together
regarding how much rent revenue we could expect to generate from a facility
like this within a year's time?
Hoffman: No. No, I don't have. I can certainly do that but I don't have
anything with me presently.
Schroers: Alright. Well, why don't we start with Jan.
Lash:
at the
of dark
that?
I have a question to start with on Concept 2. When you're looking
north elevation, upper floor. Right in the middle there's two kind
things with two little lighter things on top of them. What is
Koegler: Are you right here?
Lash: Yep.
.....".
Pa,k and Rec Commission Meeting
~ Ma,ch 12, 1991 - Page 7
Koegle,: That is a view of, you'd actually see the top pa,t of the
fi,eplace is what that's showing. That would be looking all the way ac,oss
that building and seeing the fi,eplace on that back wall.
Lash: Oh, okay. So what we',e looking at f,om that view, it looks to me
like the,e is wall and then an open a,ea and then a big wall and then open
a,ea but ,eally that's all open?
Koegle,: Right. That is all open.
that wall which is an angled wall of
you can see the two smalle, po,tions
la,ge chimney a,ea.
So that you',e seeing the back d,op of
stone, the way it's shown the,e and
off eithe, side a,e flanking that
Lash: Okay, that was one of my questions was I wanted to make su,e that
the no,th exposu,e had the maximum amount of open space...
Koegle,: Yes. It is open open.
Lash: And then I was wonde,ing how people who a,e upstai,s would get
downstai,s to the ,est,ooms?
Koegle,: What's not shown, and Don ,efe,enced this, the,e's a numbe, of
site imp,ovements that a,e a pa,t of this. The,e would have to be p,obably
a two p,ong system. Fi,st of all a stai,way. Exte,io, stai,way along the
foundation of the building t,anscending down f,om the uppe, level to the
~. lowe, level, and in all likelihood would have to have some fo,m of handicap
,amp p,obably that would come a,ound that may just have to go all the way
back ove, to whe,e that loop ,oad access is now and back a,ound. Just
because the g,ade in this a,ea, the slope diffe,ential the,e is fai,ly
significant. But it will be an exte,io, stai,way that will be pa,t of the
site imp,ovements that a,en't shown he,e yet that will make that
connection.
Lash: Would it be possible to have it be an inte,io, stai,way 0, does that
take up too much space?
Koegle,: It will be possible. The conce,n will be space and cost.
Lash: That would be mo,e convenient I would think. And then I think we
had talked at the last meeting, I know I mentioned that I kind of, I
thought if we needed to cut anything, I thought the changing a,eas would be
the fi,st thing that, I would ,athe, see mo,e toilets and less changing
a,eas. I figu,ed you could change, if you wanted to change you could
always go into a bath,oom stall but being in line fo, womens bath,ooms, I
know what's that like when the,e's 100 people and 3 toilets. And that
might cost too much money to put in mo,e but if you',e looking fo,
something to cut, I guess my fi,st thing would be the changing a,eas could
be cut. And in Concept 2, which by the way I like the best I guess. I
just think it's kind of neat with the thing at an angle. I guess I'd like
to see the ent,ance fo, the mens ,oom mo,e on the exte,io, if that's
possible. Does that cut into the hill?
~
Koegle,: Yes it is.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 8
....."
Lash: I guess people, men would have to go through, go past this food area
with that door to get to the mens room and I'm a little bit uncomfortable
with that. I'm not sure why but I just thought it'd be nicer if you could
get to the mens room a different way.
Koubsky: I guess I was
square footages there.
be in the lower level.
that's what it is right
correct?
wondering on the Phase 1 and Phase 2 you have some
You had mentioned that a possible area to cut would
In the Phase 1 you have a square foot. I think
next to the scale of a 1,068 feet. Is that
Koegler: Yes, that's correct.
Koubsky: Okay. Does that include any of the overhang or is that just
internal building area, do you know?
Koegler: I believe that's actual internal wall building area. There would
be a slab obviously because you can see the outline on there. Underneath
that cantilevered portion above but that square footage relates only to
that useable space within that. It does not count the slab area.
Koubsky: Okay, and then that would be the same for the second option also?
Koegler: Yes. Correct.
Koubsky: I guess if I had a comment as far as which option I like or floor
plan, it would be 2. I know it's more expensive but I like the thought. of
a fireplace out of the way with, it seems to me if you're going to have 50
people or a gathering of people, they've got a lot better access with the
fireplace tucked out. I really don't know how often people would use the
fireplace. Possibly the grills but where's anybody going to get the
firewood. They'd have to bring it in and I'm not sure what the
restrictions the City would have on that in itself. Maybe you guys do.
...."
Hoffman: Potentially, to head off any wood robbers in the woods there, we
could provide that firewood for a charge.
Koubsky: I do agree that the storage areas could be reduced if we needed
to do that. On Phase 2 I guess from, what would that be, the southwest
side you could even take off some square footage there on the basement and
then move the toilets around a little bit and cut the storage area in half.
Or the changing room, I'm sorry. I don't know if really more than, the way
these changing rooms are set up, there'd only be one family or one group of
individuals going in there anyway. I don't see 5 men or 5 women going into
change. They'd probably take turns so really I think you'd only need room
for like a dad and his sons or maybe 3 people or something in there at a
time.
Lash: I just thought of something when you were talking about the changing
area for the women here. If it was me, I would go and change in the stall.
That would be more private than changing in this changing area right in
front of the door where everybody's going to come walking through.
Koubsky: You'd have to have a door on there.
...."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
"... March 12, 1991 - Page 9
Lash: Yeah, but it doesn't show a door so I don't know if we're talking
about a door or not.
Pemrick: Are these open stalls?
Koegler: The way they're shown now, they are open stalls, yes. There
would be side walls that would be the concrete wall. Block wall but there
would not be the metal door or something on them. Again we're after
utilitarian maintenance purposes.
Lash: But everybody coming in the door would walk right past the changing
room.
Koegler: Yes.
Lash: So you might as well change out on the beach. As far as I'm
concerned. It's not very private and maybe that doesn't bother men but.
Koegler: The men we tucked away.
Lash: Yeah, the men is in the back corner here. The women are in front of
the main door.
Erhart: Change bathrooms.
"".... Koubsky: Yeah, you could do that easy enough but still, it's the same
thing. With the toilets then too, do those have the steel doors on in
front of them or would those be open also?
Koegler: They could but right now they're open. The way it's shown
conceptually.
Koubsky: I don't know. Personally I think it's important to have those
doors on the front. You go for a hockey game you know and you look at them
and nobody uses them. They wait. I think that's important. And if you
did put those doors on the front, you could even extend that to make one,
you know a separate private changing areas. Give them a couple extra feet
where if they wanted to change, all they'd have to do is close the door and
you'd have a little more room from the toilet to the door and really
eliminate the changing area all together. Although the changing area is
nice if you have your kids but I think if the kids are young enough anyway,
you're just changing them on the beach or wherever it is anyway. I do.
I don't know if that's allowed... I guess that would be an option. If you
wanted to eliminate the changing area, just extend the stalls and really
you cut your bathroom area in half. I guess that's all I can think about
right now.
Robinson: Would it be practical to have wood on the exterior or is that
too much maintenance? It's natural, when you said natural but it would
require a lot of maintenance and could be damaged.
,....
Koegler: Well the two concerns I think you've just hit. General
maintenance, as far as just upkeep of keeping it stained or treated or
whatever but probably more so the visual aspect of kids carving into it and
burning it and whatever. We don't necessarily have to rule that out but I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 10
....,I
think we'd probably think more along the lines of some type of masonry unit
that would be more durable. At least within reach. We may be able to do
some wood trim higher up or something that would be outside of the flow of
where most people could get to it.
Robinson: I see.
Koubsky: I think wood too would require some maintenance. If not yearly,
every other year. Otherwise that just gets away from you and you start
bleaching.
Robinson: Help me understand the financing. I'm getting up to a lot of
dollars here. If I take Concept.2 and with the alternate stone and epoxy
paint, I get $160,000.00. If we take Don's 20% for what I call
miscellaneous. Landscaping and what not, and say it's 25% to round off,
that's an additional $40,000.00 so just in the building and the landscaping
we're up to $200,000.00. And the utilities and what not are another
$100,000.00. We're talking to put Alternative 2 in there, in the
$300,000.00'range. Is that, am I missing something there?
Koegler: No. I think in a general sense that's accurate. You know Don I
think called out a range of $270,000.00-$280,000.00. We think right now
these cost estimates are conservative. I mean we're not going to come with
something that we're going to have to renig on later. So we're pretty
comfortable that we can make some modifications. We can make some changes
to get within that budget but the way it lays out now, you're correct. I
mean those are the numbers the way they would total. The 25%, hopefully on
this project it will be defined well enough that that would be high. That
the fees and contingencies and so forth would come in no higher than 20 and
perhaps less than that as a final project budget.
..",
Robinson: I too like the second alternative. If for no other reason the
additional space. You're talking 40 x 40 which with a lot of people,
that's still not a real big area. I have no further comments.
Pemrick: I think they're both very aesthetically pleasing. 80th plans but
I do prefer the second one. I think there's a little more style to that.
I have a question on the material. You were referring to a break away
stone. Is that one of those thin?
Koegler: No.
Pemrick: what is a break away stone?
Koegler: We're talking about a masonry unit. Concrete masonry unit.
Pemrick: Like a pre-fab slab kind of thing?
Koegler: No', not necessarily. A lot of the office warehouse type
buildings around the Twin Cities are built out of a decorative masonry unit
and they can be either a variety of widths. That can be a full 12 inch
block and instead of having the typical kind of basement finish that maybe
you have on block in your house, it's a decorative rubble type of exterior.
And so that's what we're talking about and there are a variety of finishes
--'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ March 12, 1991 - Page 11
and colors and everything else that ultimately we'll get into but we're
looking at that as kind of a base and see where we can go from there then.
Pemrick: Did you consider using the concrete slabs? We talked about
that. Jim had brought that up at a meeting. Is that equal in cost?
Koegler: The only precast that we're proposing right now, at least in our
thinking, would be for the floor systems. The tip up panel type
construction has, certainly has benefits with regard to cost. My candid
opinion is that it's not something that you probably want in Lake Ann Park.
Lake Ann Park, at least in my mind, has always been kind of the jewel of
Chanhassen's park system and I think aesthetically we can do better.
Pemrick: Okay. I guess I'd like to see doors on the womens restrooms
there and if we're going to take away, I too agree. Maybe we don't need
those changing rooms but we can always use storage. You can never have
enough storage and so maybe we could add on to the storage of the
buildings. And I guess that's all I have to say.
,....,
Erhart: I'd go along with the other commission members. I prefer plan
number 2 also and as far as some of the comments that were made on the
stone, I agree with Mark. I'd like it to be a facility that we could be
proud of and it may sound a little spendy here but I see it being a
facility that we're only going to probably use more and more as the
community grows. I's personally hate to see any square footage on the
bottom take away. Bathroom doors are a must I think and I'd be interested
in looking into some alternative ways of raising some money. Having Todd
come back to us with that. Like I say, I really don't want to cut anything
away from it. And that's it.
,-....
Schroers: Okay. I have a few comments. I too feel that there should be
doors on the bathroom partitions but that they should not be steel. They
should be marine thick, marine plywood and painted with epoxy. I think
that we want as little steel of any kind in the facilities. Anything
that's not necessary because my experience with that is that it corrodes in
a very short time and you end up taking it out and putting in wood
afterwards. So I think wood is a better plan for the doors. I'm not
interested in relinquishing space for money. I think the more space that
we can have, the better it will be used. Storage is very important. It
seems like storage is something that you can't sell to the general public.
Therefore it's unpopular but from a maintenance point of view, to have some
place to put the necessary items is really a convenience. You don't want
to have to be hauling everything that you need to take care of the building
from your main maintenance shop, wherever that is. A given distance to the
building so storage is important. I agree with everyone else that if we do
have to cut something, the changing rooms would be the place to cut it.
Possibly cut them in half and give the other half to storage or for adding
an extra toilet facility to each the mens and women, if there was a way, an
aesthetic way of doing that. We have changing rooms at French Park where I
work and they are the least used of any of our facilities. Mainly kids go
in there to hide and smoke cigarettes and very few people actually use them
for changing. Most people come to the beach with a bag and they sort of
live out of their beach bag. They come with their swimming suit underneath
and have a pullover for when they're done and the changing rooms are
really not used that much. In the upper level of the facility I would like
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 12
"""""
to see floor drains as well so you can just go in there and hose the place
down. My next comment is going to be very unpopular but. I think that
having a fireplace is very aesthetic and very nice looking but if we had to
cut costs, that would be my recommendation for a couple reasons. Having a
building that is not secured, it's difficult to protect for vandalism and a
fireplace is easily vandalised and ruined. And also my experience has been
that people do not necessarily care to cook in a fireplace. They would
rather cook on a charcoal type of barrel drum type cooker that the City
could provide or that we could rent as an option. We do that. And also
the fireplace is going to lend itself to people are going to be rummaging
around through the park looking for wood. Building bonfires in there late
at night. Kids in particular getting the fireplace hot and then maybe
throwing things at it and cracking the brick or the stone after it's hot.
Also, having a ready source of fire available like that, burning picnic
tables is a lot' of fun I know. And whatever else may be burnable so in
light of saving money and deterring vandalism and maintenance, I would
recommend eliminating the fireplace and just going with some type of grills
or cookers.
Lash: I don't understand what kind of grill you're talking about. Like
this kind that they have with the hood?
Schroers: Yeah. We call them a super cooker. They have wheels on and you
can move them around to where you want them because invariably you get a
group in there that has a pre-arranged idea of how they want their function
to operate and they want to be cooking over here and they want to be doing
something else over here and so there's room for something else over there.
If you give them just one, you know the fireplace is just one option and
they'll make do with that but they seem to prefer to be mobile. And when
we rent out a shelter, we have one cooking unit like that that comes with
it and then if they want an additional one, they can rent it and it's a
charcoal thing and it has a little hitch on it. We can pull it behind the
truck. It's got wheels on it so we can take it to a place, to a dump site
and get rid of the charcoal. Clean it out and bring it back. It's much
easier to maintain. People like using it much better than they do a
fireplace for cooking. In my opinion, a fireplace is going to be
aesthetically pleasing and it's going to be a toy but it's not going to
function really as a useful cooking facility. And that is what people want
when they come to picnic. They eat.
....",
Lash: No, but I guess my question Larry was, the ones that are shown here.
Even if you got rid of the fireplace idea but you stuck with the permanent
grills with a hood system. I guess I feel like that would maybe be
somewhat more protection as far as someone getting a raging, you know
pouring the lighter fluid on and getting a rip roaring thing going on and
possibly starting a fire or something. If we had them stationary with a
hood system like this is shown, maybe that would be a little more insurance
over, for fire .protection. I don't know. Maybe that doesn't happen but
that's...but you could take the fireplace out and still keep the grills.
Schroers: I think that could happen but I think generally there would be
enough clearance from the grill to the ceilling that you would have to
really have a raging fire in order for it to burn because there's really
nothing else there that would burn other than the roof. I don't know that
the partitions that support the roof would basically be stone. The only ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
,..., March 12, 1991 - Page 13
thing I see with stationary ones is one thing, people can't move them to
where they want and the other thing is, then they have to be serviced and
cleaned in place and when you're trying to scoop ashes out, then you're
going to get them on the floor. So first you clean the grill and then you
have to clean the floor. Whereas a mobile type grill, you can at least get
it out on the grass or you can haul it to a dump site and clean it up and
bring it back and you're ready to go.
Lash: Another thing I just thought of when we were talking about that is,
we did talk about outlets and you're planning on having electricity right?
Koegler: Yes.'
Lash: I was at a shelter one time and I thought this was kind of neat.
They had some like built in just, I think some of them were even hinged or
something, but kind of counters close to where the outlets were so when
people come and they have, you're having a family reunion and there's all
the crock pots and all that, you have a place to set all those things and
plug them in and you don't have to use, pull the picnic tables over and try
and walk around picnic tables to get at the food.
IfI"'"
Schroers: We have those counters and they are nice. People like them.
And the electric outlets are build right into the bottom of the counter so
they're real handy. That worKs out very well. But these are things that
tend to get full of watermelon, baked beans, all sorts of things and you
really need to have the ability to go in there with a power washer, turn it
on full force and blast the stuff off and squeege it out and let it run
down the drain. It's the only practical way of cleaning it. Otherwise
you're going to have somebody in there full time, all the time, spending
all day everyday trying to keep the place in shape. And also, if you don't
have the ability to clean it up with water, the sticky substances are going
to attach flies and bees and all that sort of thing and that gets to be a
nuisance.
Lash: I think at one of the other meetings I mentioned something about the
floor drain upstairs too and somebody said they thought that was too
expensive.
Koegler: That's not shown on here but we've assumed that that would be
included.
Lash: Floor drain upstairs?
Koegler: Yes. Absolutely, to be able to hose it down is as essential
upstairs as it is downstairs.
,....
Schroers: I like the fact that the upstairs is just open and it should be
relatively easy to taKe care of. It's nice looking and it gives you a
welcome accessible feeling. That's really good. I'm not sure what we're
thinking about in ~ r II :,deHI for food sel\il ,I, ,,: I.dl:-: but if
we're looking for a second place to cut, that's what I would cut. Health
codes, you probably are familiar with them Mark but they maKe life
difficult. for you. Everything, if you're going to be selling any kind of
food at all, everything has to be at least 6 inches up off the floor so
you've got room to clean underneath it and it's really a headache to
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 14
.....,
manage. It takes quite a bit of storage area as well to keep items on hand
and additional staff people to operate it which maybe it would be self
sustaining and maybe it wouldn't. I don't know but I think if there's
going to be one major headache in the building, it would be with the food
service, as far as staff is concerned.
Hoffman: Initial thoughts on that Larry are that that would be packaged
food only so we don't have to mess with the food service standards and
those types of things. It would be selling packaged products and beverages
out of that area. It's not shown as a very large area and that is the
intent that it's not real large. It doesn't take up a whole big part of
the area. That you can go there to get the snack items, the packaged food
items. Potentially if it was ever an option, we'd go to the microwave type
of foods if that would be desireable. Other than that, just beverages and
packaged foods.
Schroers: Obviously it would have things like a refrigerator freezer, that
sort of thing. Amenities. Sinks and that.
Koegler: We're presuming that, again there's all kinds of assumptions but
our assumption going into this is that you would have canned beverages for
sale so you would have refrigeration capability there. Typically in these
kinds of installations, they sell bomb pops and all that kind of stuff so
you've got a freezer unit there also. There will be sinks either in this,
either directly here or in this vicinity for clean-up purposes and washing
of hands and that kind of thing. So yes, those would be generally
components of that area. There would be no cooking of food the way it's
envisioned now.
...",
Lash: The area behind, between the food and the rental area. There's sort
of that big. rectangle and then it looks like a little L shaped counter.
what is that?
Koegler: What's shown there is counters that kind of wrap in behind. When
you come out the door of the storage area, what's shown there is counter
and storage space on each side of kind of a corridor that you walk out of
if you will. You then take a right, that becomes kind of the work sell
space for the food area so that you've got food storage back on that
counter. Back on that counter to the left of the window if you wil. I'm
presuming there'd be some storage underneath for whatever other products
need to be there.
Lash: And then is that like a counter behind the rental where it says
rent?
Koegler: Yes. Yes it would be. Or here again, everything is wide open.
That might be rack storage if you had canoe paddles back there. That needs
to be further defined as we go along with this.
Lash: And what kind of window locking devices did you have in mind?
Koegler: Nothing obviously has been speced out yet. It could be a metal,
a steel type metal curtain window that would come down and lock off. It
will be something, the interest will be in terms of maintenance and
""""'"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ March 12, 1991 - Page 15
vandalism and everything else. It will be fortress like shall we say when
it's closed.
Lash: And do you have drinking fountains?
Koegler: Yes. There will be a drinking fountain a! a part of this also.
Lash: Okay. And did you, is the upstairs designed in such a way that
should the day ever come that we would have the money and the desire to
screen it in, that we could do that?
Koegler: It could be. I think what we're interested in hearing tonight if
that is a long term interest. You've touched on a couple things. That's
one that I personally would like some feedback from you on. The other
thing is Larry's fireplace comment struck an interesting cord, if you
excuse the pun. Does the balance of the commission feel the same way?
You've got a Lion's Club I believe that gave you a donation specifically
for a fireplace which kind of to a certain degree negates the ability to
pull that out of the project budget unless you can say well we need the
grills. Maybe the grills are like a fireplace.
Lash: Well I think we were the ones who specified for a fireplace.
Koegler: Oh, it was labeled internally here? Okay.
~ Lash: Although my recollection, and I could be mistaken but I thought that
I remembered it was to be an exterior fireplace that we had talked about
for more winter type gatherings and things.
Erhart: That's what I recall too.
Lash: You could check and see because that's something that could be done
totally separately.
Schroers: I don't think a facility of this particular design lends itself
very well to wintertime activities. I think in wintertime you basically
l~ant to shut this down and don't even plow up to it. Make it as
inaccessible as possible just to deter people from using it in the winter
because without, you don't want to encourage groups of people to come to a
place in the winter where there's no heat.
Hoffman: We're fortunate to have the Arboretum, Minnewashta Regional Park
and then Carver Regional Park which have much better facilities for winter
time activities. Cross country skiing and that type of thing. We'd be
hard pressed to try to compete with those in the small area that we have
for cross country ski trails and then as well in the facility itself.
Lash: Well Don were you including that $20,000.00 or whatever it was from
the Lion's in this already?
Ashworth: That $150,000.00 I'd given you, that was in there.
,....
Schroers: I would be interested in hearing anyone elses thoughts on the
fireplace.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 16
...,.,
Robinson: I think you make some good points. Especially, where would we
get the wood? You know they're going to be scrounging in the woods and
cutting down trees and burning picnic tables and I can see all that. I
thought you made some real good points.
Erhart: Yeah, the only reason why I didn't mention anything about the
fireplace is I guess I was under the impression too that we would probably
use it into the winter. But if we are not going to, that is a very big
ticket item that I would agree Larry, very good point, to take out.
Koegler: This was a fairly grandiose fireplace. I mean it had built in
grills as a part of it. It was all made out of stone. The hood was stone.
It was a $20,000.00 item on Concept 2.
Lash: Yeah, that's a lot of money. And having an 8 year old boy, I know
the fascination of the fire and of putting everything and anything that you
can find in there to see if it will burn and how long it will burn.
Schroers: You can just basically look at fireplaces, in general, and
they're pretty. They're nice. They're aesthetic. Everybody likes them
but as far as being practical, just about no one uses them for cooking and
unless you have a real special fireplace, it generally robs more heat than
it produces so basically they're just, they're an aesthetic amenity and not
terribly functional. .
Koubsky:I think I agree with Larry too with the fireplace. I'd just like
to say that. I think really the concept of a 55 gallon type of grill for a
large group probably lends itself to cooking a lot more than the grills
that would be put on here. You could put all your burgers or whatever you
wanted on a 55 gallon drum and everybody could eat at the same time.
That'd be a lot more convenient for the people who would rent this out.
"""""
Koegler: So in general your thoughts would be that cooking activities
would occur outside of this building but you would like to consider some
counter type space with electrical outlets to handle crockpots and groups.
Lash: I guess I'd like to see that but I wasn't under the impression of
cooking outside of this.
Koegler: I guess I should have clarified it. Portable that you could
bring in and out but not a permanent part of the interior of the building.
Koubsky: And then there would be enough space in here where you could pull
that bar-be-que grill or whatever and light it up without thoughts of the
ceiling sooting up or ventilation concerns?
Schroers: Well you know, that's kind of a judgment call. Most people have
done this sort of thing before and they'll put their charcoal in and
they'll soak it down with charcoal and everything will be fine. That's 98%
of the people. But then the other 2% of the people are going to come in
there and fill it up with wood and dump 5 gallons of gas on it and throw a
match. So you just have to cover your bases as well as you can and I guess
that I really don't know how likely it is that we could start the roof on
fire but I would say that anything is possible. We could maybe have a
caution sign on the grill itself or in the area saying, Caution. Charcoal ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
11""". March 12, 1991 - Page 17
and Charcoal Lighter Only. Absolutely No Gasoline, Kerosene or something
like that. You need some warning signs just to remind people.
Lash: But then people will be bringing their own grills in too.
Schroers: Yeah. They do that all the time. A lot of times people think
that no matter how well you take care of the facilities, they're going to
bring their grill because they know that it's working properly and it's all
neat and clean and all that kind of stuff. So that's another reason that I
think there's a major expenditure on the fireplace that isn't justified
because most people are going to bring their own stuff anyway.
Koubsky: Mark, how high up is that roof? Or the ceiling.
Koegler:
my head.
I'd have to measure that. I can't remember that off the top of
And you guys have all of my, my two scale copies.
Ashworth: While Mark's measuring that, I was wondering Larry if I may,
what has been your experience in terms of these roll down tops where behind
them you would have sinks? Do people enjoy having accessibility to a sink?
I don't think you can just have a sink out in the open. I think there'd be
too much vandalism associated with it but if it was behind one of these
pull down type of grate things where people could check out the key, I
would think that would be real nice.
~ Schroers: You mean like in the upstairs, upper floor level to accommodate
the picnic people for just being able to wash their hands? That sort of
thing?
Ashworth: Well coffee and all of the things you might have along with
picnicing. Sure you want to wash your hands but you also want to start
some coffee and wash off the knife that fell on the ground.
Lash: Wipe off the picnic tables.
Schroers: Well to answer your question specifically, I don't have any
experience at all with the roll down cover over a sink. We don't have any
of those facilities. I've never worked with them. Basically we have
running water available from a spigot that people can just go and get the
water that they need for their coffee and that sort of thing and then as
far as washing hands and stuff is concerned, we have full service
facilities close to the picnicing area and people just go to the bathroom
for their hand washing and that sort of thing. We don't have special sinks
just to accommodate the picnic areas. What we do have in our full season
building and outdoor recreation center where we have you might call them
small convention rooms or whatever that we rent out and we have sinks and
stuff in there that are behind doors but for our outside summertime picnic
use, there's just a spigot available for water and the sinks in the
bathrooms. I think it's a reasonable idea and I don't know how much it
would cost and how you would install one on an open area that doesn't have
a wall.
""""
Lash: Well what about the area that he shows now with the fireplace. If
that area were designated and could be closed in such a way that we could
have a sink area in there and possibly the grill that would be for rent.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 18
-'
And then if they chose to use that, they'd be given the key but then
they're have to pay extra for that and then they'd have access to the grill
and people wouldn't have to bring it each time it was needed to be used.
It would just always be there but locked up. Is that too much of a waste
of floor space? I don't know.
Koubsky: I think it is. Even if, this is only designed for 50 people
which isn't a real large group of people, I think you need as much open
area for people as possible.
Schroers: I think what we're going to find is when people realize that
this facility is there, how convenient and nice it is, you're going to have
groups of 300 that are going to want to go there. And I guess that's going
to be up to staff as to how they want to handle that situation. There
again from experience, you overuse an area. It takes a beating. The grass
gets totally burnt out. All the landscapeplantings and stuff around the
area get trampled to the ground and the bark gets beaten off the trees.
That's one disadvantage with having a nice area because it feels the impact
of a lot of use. I don't know what the plans are as far as maintaining
this building but I do know that if you do have a facility like this with a
full service bathroom downstairs, on your normal busy summer weekend day,
they'll have to be checked like at least 3 times to make sure that there
are the necessary things like toilet paper, paper towels, whatever. I know
that this is something that we're not really into yet but dispensing
machines of various types tend to just be a target for vandals. They don't
generate very much money but somebody thinks there's money in there and
they tear the whole wall down trying to get it open. As far as providing
sanitary napkins or whatever, for the little amount of money and
convenience that you may offer to the public, they'r'e really not a
worthwhile thing to consider. I don't know if they were in your plans at
all.
....,;
Koegler: Not at this point they aren't. The question that was posed a
minute ago on the height. From the floor up to the bottom of that peak.
the highest point of that roof, it's about 22 feet. So that's a large open
space the way it's envisioned right now. Again, that's right at the peak
of the height.
Lash: So how about at the lowest, right over at the edge?
Koegler: The lowest point is about 14-15 feet. 14 feet.
Schroers: Maybe Dale, the fire person here, could maybe tell us better how
much chance he thinks there is of a normal charcoal type grill starting the
place on fire.
Dale Gregory: Well if you're talking 12-14 feet high, again it's all going
to depend on what they all put in there. If they're going to fill it up
wi th wood and throw your kerosene or whatever you want on it, you"re goi ng
to have a fairly good chance of scorching your ceiling or something like
that. You know if you've got the things sitting out by the side. Really
ideal what would be nice is if they had an area sitting outside there, a
cemented out area or something where the thing could be permanently mounted
or have a permanently mounted one sitting outside. It would eliminate your
sitting your grill inside taking up space where people are going to be. ~
,....
Pa,k and Rec Commission Meeting
Ma,ch 12, 1991 - Page 19
It's going to eliminate having 50 people with little kids ,unning a,ound
whe,e you've got a hot g,ill. I mean eliminate it f,om that aspect of
somebody getting hu,t.
Lash: But people a,e going to b,ing them in on the days when it's ,ainy 0,
drizzly. They',e going to b,ing it in and we've got to be ,eady fo, that.
Koubsky: Yeah, you need a cove,.
Lash: Will this have a sp,inkle,? Is that Code that it would have to have
a sp,inkle, system in it 0, something?
Koegle,: At this point no. It's not envisioned to have a sp,inkle,.
5ch,oe,s: That was a good point that you made Dale.
memo,y. The g,ills that we have that a,e permanent,
outdoo, shelte,s that we ,ent, a,e attached by chain
stake that's cemented in the end of the slab that is
,oofline.
That ,ef,eshed my
that go along with
and paddelock to a
outside of the
ou,
Dale G,ego,y: 50 you've got most of you, smoke and eve,ything else going
outside.
5ch,oe,s: You've got most of the smoke and eve,ything going outside and we
still have the ability to move them if we want to by unlocking the lock and
~ then pulling them away. But they a,e locked in position on a slab that is
outside of the ,oofline and then the counte, is just unde,neath the
,oofline so that it's in ,elative p,oximity to the g,ill.
Pem,ick: I think anyone b,inging in thei, own g,ills would just b,ing in
little Webe,'s 0, something anyway so I don't think that'd be a big
conce,n.
Hoffman: And as fa, as some, the,e would not be di,ect supe,v~s~on in that
uppe, p,ea but fo, the majority of the times that picnics are taking place
up there, you know seasonal staff operating the lowe, level in this
building would be present and to some degree keeping some type of a
supervision on the building itself.
5ch,oers: Did you have any maintenance concerns that you wanted to bring
up Dale?
Dale Gregory: Just looking at it tonight and I think you cove,ed a
majo,ity of them as far as ease of maintenance. Being able to clean it up
and everything else. I'd just make a comment of making sure we've got the
spigots a,ound in the bathrooms and everything. Let's not put them outside
somewhe,e whe,e we've got to drag a 100 feet of hose to get in. It'd be
convenient to have one in each one of the bathrooms so we can just walk in
and wash down and they',e right outside the door or something.
5chroers: And also they should be fairly convenient to winterize because
it will need to be drained down and winterized.
~ Lash: I guess following up on Don's earlier comment. If we don't have
some kind of sink or wate, set up in the,e, I would like to see a couple,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 20
...."
at least one spigot upstairs that people could use if they needed water
too. To make coffee or whatever.
Schroers: And I want to make it known that I didn't really mean to step on
anyone's toes by bringing up all this business about getting rid of the
fireplace. If in fact the Lion's or someone else was generous enough to
contribute that amount of money and had specifically requested a fireplace,
I think that that deserves consideration as well.
Hoffman: It just so happened the night that we were accepting that,
recommended to accept that donation that the Lake Ann Park shelter was on
the agenda as well and each time the donations come in from the Lion's, we
seem to try to target a specific area where that could go and the
discussion that evening centered around the fireplace.
Lash: Well we could still put a nice plague in here saying that.
Hoffman: Money from that organization in that fund went towards the
construction of this building.
Lash: And if we get money from other people, we could list them all on
there.
Hoffman: Sure.
Robinson: Was that from the pulltabs?
...."
Hoffman: Correct.
Robinson: And I understand that's gone away.
Hoffman: It's gone from the Filly's location. It's still operating in
Pauly's.
Schroers: Okay, Mark would you be looking for anything further that we
haven't discussed?
Koegler: Well I've taken a red pen and I've bled allover this sheet that
I've got here in front of me with all the comments that you've offered and
I think we can take those now and compile those and then what we're hoping
to do is to bring you back one or two sketches that bring that to life and
then a more definitive cost on that. At that time we'll probably have a
better feel for the utility aspect and services to the building also and
can present that to you for information as well.
Lash: How about the future screening idea?
Koegler: Would you like us to look at that?
Lash: I guess I would like to at least have that be an option that in
years to come, if we wanted to do it, we could do it for a reasonable cost
and not have construction be in such a way that it wouldn't even be
possible to do. I don't know if it's, is that something that you think
would get just vandalised? ~
~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 21
Erhart: Yeah, people I think would punch a lot of holes in that.
Schroers: Yeah, I do too. And I think that if you're going to go with
screen that it would be, after the first season, it would be very
unaesthetically pleasing. It would be all torn up and dented up and look
not good and be full of cobwebs and all this fuzz from the cottonwood trees
and all that sort of thing. Screen probably wouldn't be the answer. Glass
certainly isn't the answer. Plexiglass isn't either. I just think that a
facility of this nature doesn't really lend itself to being closed in
unless you turn it into a four season building that's going to be used year
round and then you're talking about a totally different facility.
Erhart: Also Todd, I'd be interested in just seeing how much money we can
generate out of something like this during the season.
,...
Hoffman: Sure. I'll take a look at the different venues if you will of
what will be offered there and some potential rough estimates obviously.
We can take a look at what those types of operations generate in other
cities in other park systems with the rental system itself. The food
concession area and then as well the rental of the building which probably
for your dollar generates the quickest amount, largest money back the
quickest in the quickest amount of time. Obviously for the rental portion
of it, you're going to have some capital outlay as well in purchasing
docks, equipment to go along with that so it's going to be a long term
investment but one I think that would be well received by the public.
Especially on the lake such as Lake Ann which is non-motorized. The use of
canoes and water bikes and paddleboats and that type of thing would
certainly be viewed as desireable recreational item to include.
Dale Gregory: I had a question for Mark. Did you mention about steps
going down from the upstairs around the outside?
Koegler: Yes.
Dale Gregory: Are you looking at one side or both sides?
Koegler: The assumption was there would be one side for now.
Dale Gregory: I'm just looking at the way you've got two entrances coming
in and I'm sury Larry knows from where he works and that, that kids are
going to go anyway they can around this building and like you say, you're
going to lose shrubs. You're going to lose everything and it may be
worthwhile looking at steps down both sides. You've got people coming from
the beach. They're going to want to go up this side. And you've got
people coming from the other side that are going to want to go down the
other side so you may want to look at steps going down both sides to
eliminate the kids running alongside the building and tearing all of the
shrubs and everything.
Erhart: Because we wouldn't be saving any money then if we lose those.
,......
Dale Gregory: You'd be better off putting your steps there and then put
your shrubs beyond that. At least they would take and run down the steps
anyway.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 22
--'
Schroers: Or possibly you could address that situation by having the steps
on one side and a handicap trail on the other side and thereby kind of
consolidating.
Koegler: That issue is probably also best addressed when we look at the
actual precise location of the building. The sloped area that we're
looking at has a fair amount of tree cover in and amongst it and it may be
such that we'd have enough natural barrier on one side with grade and tree
cover that we can get by with steps just on the other side. We can sure
look at that Dale.
Lash: Todd were you, this will be based on the location too but was it
your thinking that say a larger party wanted to rent this space, could they
then also rent the top of the hill area? Is that close enough together
that they could have the under cover area for, in case the weather was bad
but then also spread out into the top of the hill area too?
Hoffman: Sure. You're correct. We have to evaluate if we want to combine
these or still offer them as two separate areas and then offer them as one
package together so you can operate your food and that type of function out
of here but then have that other area for open space. Access to the
volleyball court which is there for your group and then as well taking a
look at going across to the softball fields as well. That can be used very
well together.
Schroers: I guess one more thing I would like to bring up is that ~
ornamental type of landscaping I would prefer to see kept to a minimum
,because it adds an awful lot of cost. It adds a lot of maintenance time
and it definitely takes away from the natural aesthetics of the place. If
you plug this in amongst a bunch of oak trees and elm trees and ash trees
or whatever and then have a bunch of ornamental plantings around it, that
tends to make the building stand out rather than to blend it in.
Lash: If you're going to have water upstairs for the spigot, I guess I'd
just as soon see a drinking fountain up there too. One up and down.
Schroers: Anything else?
Hoffman: Larry, if I may. Just briefly we'll talk about the schedule or
forecasted schedule for the project so everyone has an idea of where it's
going from here. You're at a special meeting. Normally we meet the fourth
Tuesday. The next meeting in 2 weeks would be too tight a timeframe to
come back to you. Then again I want to get a feeling from the Commission
if they would like to stay away from calling another additional special
meeting the month of April and have this drop back to the fourth Tuesday in
April at the regular meeting? Obviously we have a time schedule where we
need to get the Commission's work done. Get it up to Council for their
chance to take a look at it and their approval so we can go on with the
plans and specs and the bidding process and eventually the construction.
Again we're not real concerned about getting rapid construction schedule
early on in the summer because obviously it's not going to be done for the
rush of this summer so we can have a late summer, early fall type of
construction but we certainly want to get the project done before the snow
flies etc.. So I just want to get your feeling. Would you like to have ~
this come back at the regular meeting in April or a month certainly is
~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 23
enough time if we call an additional special meeting but I just want to
know the feelings of the Commission.
Lash: Well we have a meeting already on the 7th of April don't we with the
Public Safety?
Hoffman: Oh correct. Yep.
Lash: Could we just tack that the end of it? Tack this one on the end of
that one?
Hoffman: On the 9th?
Lash: Yeah, whatever.
Hoffman: That's a good possibility.
Erhart: Would that give you enough time?
Hoffman: Again, we'll have to address that with Mark and Scott at Van
Doren Hazard but those two options would then, either the 9th or else then
the 26th or 24th of April. Whatever it is.
,...,
Koegler: I think we could certainly do it by the 9th. To keep things
moving.
Lash: That's a Tuesday isn't it?
Koegler: That's correct.
Koubsky: Just one last thing too. When you think about the drinking
fountains, you know consider the kids too. I don't know if you need an
adult drinking fountain and a little drinking fountain for the kids but
there should be a lot of kids using it and they should have access without
the parents picking them up.
Koegler: Okay, thank you.
Schroers: Thank you Mark. And generally speaking, everybody liked the
design Concept No.2 correct? And the stone? Everyone agrees that the
stone is the way?
Koubsky: That's a field stone Mark? That's just a broken field stone?
Koegler: Yes.
Schroers: Okay, it will be nice to see what Plan B.
Koegler: Well April 9th we'll take another look at it.
Schroers: Okay, good. Thanks very much.
,....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12, 1991 - Page 24
-'
SITE PLAN REVIEW - SUBDIVISION OF 3.39 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
LAKE LUCY ROAD.
Hoffman: As the report stated, the applicant David Hughes in association
with Mularoni and Associates has presented a proposal to rezone 3.4 acres
of rural residential to residential single family and then to subdivide
that into 4 lots. The 4 lots being the house which is currently there and
3 new lots. I took the availability to bring this to the Commission this
evening. The Planning Commission is going to take a look at it on March
20th so the timing was right. I thought it was important for the
Commission to take a look at it just for an interest point of view since it
is in direct vicinity and abuts the new Pheasant Hills Park property on two
sides. To be again somewhat candid, the Planning Commission and the
Planning staff does not see that the subdivision proposal is that good and
it presents some certain problems about setbacks for wetlands and those
types of things and the private drive that comes in and circles the
existing house and access problems are a potential as well. However, we
specifically need to deal with any fees associated, park and trail fees
associated with this particular piece. Obviously we've newly acquired the
11 plus acre site there. We don't need to look to additional land. No
road segments which are connected are associated with this particular
parcel are identified in our trail plans so we really don't need to look to
anything else except acceptance of park and trail fees if indeed this
proposal does pass through Planning and then eventually go onto Council.
Robinson: Has the Planning commission seen this Todd?
.....;
Hoffman: The Planning Commission will see it March 20th. Planning staff
has reviewed it a number of times. The initial proposal came through that
they wanted to do a land swap with the City and get some additional land to
upgrade that road. subdivide this into potentially 6 lots but we were not
interested in accepting that type of proposal.
Schroers: Are there any other comments from the Commission? Would someone
like to offer a recommendation?
Robinson: I make a motion that we recommend that the City Council accept
the park and trail fees in 'lieu of parkland dedication and trail
construction.
Erhart: I'll second that.
Robinson moved. Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and
trail construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None.
Robinson moved, Lash seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Coordinator
.....;
Prepared by Nann Opheim