Loading...
PRC 1988 01 26 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION ~?GULAR MEETING _ANUARY 26, 1988 ! J t W" I Chairman Lynch called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Carol Watson, Curt Robinson, Mike Lynch, Jim Mady, Larry Schroers and Ed Hasek STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mady moved, Hasek seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated December 8, 1988. All voted in favor and motion carried. INTERVIEW COMMISSION APPLICANTS. Sietsema: Your options for the commission applications is to direct staff to readvertise for more applications or to appoint the ones that have applied. It's up to you. Watson moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend reappointment of Jim Mady and Larry Schroers to the Park"and ~ecreation Commission. All voted in favor and motion carried. PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE FEES. Sietsema: I don't know if you want to go over this in detail. Basically what I did is I looked at the study that was done by Schilling Environment Consultants and took a good hard look at what other cities are doing. We seem to be right in the running with what other cities are doing. What I've recommended is that the single family and duplex remain the same. That we consolidate all of the multi-family instead of having the different ones for each kind of unit and what I did is basically I added them all up and divided by however many there are. So I took an average of all those which seemed to be an appropriate figure also. Then I've recommended an increase of 10% for the commercial office and industrial. The reason that the 10% increase was recommended for the commercial/industrial was because the single family units will be filling an increase in dedication fees with the addition of the trail fee. Although that's a different fee and they are not really one in the same, I did not think the timing was right to increase the park fee and add a new fee as well. For the commercial/industrial isn't really effected by the trail fee, or is very minimumly so I've recommended an increase in the industrial. Boyt: I think we should double the industrial. I that at 1,000 homes, $140.00 per acre, we're assuming that the maximum number of people we ~~ould have is 7.5 per acre. These people would then be treated the same .f they had 7.5 per acre as a single family unit. I think it would be more comparable to Eden prairie in our commercial/industrial. The people who work in these facilities generate the same amount of need for additional parks and recreational spaces. I think we're going to have Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 2 ...."" more than 7 people per acre in the industrial facilities. Lynch: You really think they do generate the same amount Sue? Boyt: Yes, like in Eden Prairie. Anyone who works in Eden prairie is eligible to belong to the Community Center. To use that facility. We're going to be having more facilities and you're going to be eligible to use those if they work in Chanhassen. Lynch: I can't imagine, for instance, that they're going in programs in Eden prairie if they live in Bloomington. Boyt: A lot of people who live in Chanhassen, have their kids in Eden Prairie. Lynch: I can understand that because we're on the undeveloped fringe but it's a little hard. Maybe people from victoria but it's a pretty ...on their folks to bring their kids all the way. We used to have that a little bit, even back in the old days because they just liked our programs. Watson: What are demographics of the people who worked at Unjted Mailing? That last article in the paper told alot about where these ~ople came from. There were quite a few from Carver. Most of them ~ere within the County but there quite a few of the people were from west of here. """" Lynch: When I flew for Northwest, I played on their ballteam and the ballteam I played on was a classy thing in Bloomington but I was living in Hopkins and we took no other advantage of any park system except just that basketball league. Boyt: That's not where I see families who live next to a community that has nice facilities. Lynch: We're not going to attract Eden prairie people this way. Boyt: We do. We do attract Eden Prairie. The kids play on our baseball teams. They play on our soccer teams. They're coming over here. Lynch: Why? Boyt: We're developing a different sort of athletic program with all our coaches are required to be certified now and we're putting the emphasize of really being and giving your time rather than the league so we evaluate our whole program and it's made a big difference. People are coming in. Aynch: To my knowledge, when I was coaching, never had, ever, an Eden ~ prairie kid. Like I said, we'd have some come from Victoria but never Chaska. Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 3 """ Boyt: We still have Victoria kids. We have Minnetonka kids. Chaska kids and Eden prairie kids. Some of the people coming from Eden prairie are coming because we have smaller programs. They ljke the smaller programs. Lynch: Now are these people then that you know, work here or are they just showing up? Boyt: Some of the work here. Lynch: What if they don't work here? Boyt: They can play in our programs. They can participate. Sietsema: It's the adult leagues mostly that have the stipulation that you should live or work in Chanhassen. For the adult men's softball, if there's a team from Chaska that wants to get into the league, the only way they can get into the league is if there's an opening. If the league has not filled with Chanhassen teams. If it's filled, they're last priority but because the youth programs are run by the Association, the City doesn't have any stipulation on who can play on those because we don't actually administer the programs. Their policy has been that anybody who wants to play, all they have to do is register and become a ~ember of CAA. Lynch: This is getting kind off the subject but I'm interested. What happens when the City takes a program over? Sietsema: At that point, I think what we would do, it would have a lot to do with the numbers. If we're hurting for kids to make a good round robin league so they can play, there's more than two teams, if we're hurting for kids to be in the program, then we would invite other kids in. It would basically run the same way as the adults, as I would see it. The programs are all open to anybody who wants to play in them but Chanhassen residents live and work first. Lynch: There's no legal liability reason that the City wouldn't want any? Sietsema: No, not that I'm aware of. That's never been an issue that I've ever heard of. Mady: I was curious when I read this, why commercial properties should be assessed the trail fee. Sietsema: They would be for their building permit. It's $138.99 for their building permit. Their building permit is just one where single family development has maybe 199. So a developer taking out one ~uilding permit for an industrial that has to pay $138.99 where a eveloper with a single family has to pay $138,999.99. Mady: Shouldn't we be basing that, that $138.99 is kind of based on the fact that per unit usually means it's going to benefit from the trail Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 4 ....-I system, they should be paying a proportion of the trail and it's based on how many units of development it's created. Sietsema: In dealing with the residential, it's really geared toward densi ty but it wasn't appl ied that way to the commercial/industri.al. Now you may want to re-evaluate that. The thing is, the trail fee is designed so that the trails are developed within the development. Along the streets within the development that abut the development, it's to make sure that if a developer comes in and has three streets that go through, we've got a trail on those streets and they contribute toward the whole trail system whereas, there probably won't be as many trails or the trails will already be in place in the industrial park. Mady: I'm just thinking of situations. McGlynn's Bakery bought the corner right across from paisley Palace. They're going, at some point in time, build a large bakery. They'll pay $138.00 for trails. Our trail plan had trails running on both TH 5 and CR 117. That $138.00 isn't going to buy us much more than about 10 feet of trail realisticly. We can't charge them a million dollars for it either. Sietsema: Perhaps you want to increase the trail fee to on an acre. Mady: One-third of the cost. .ietsema: Equal to one-third of the park dedication fee. ...."" Mady: That's where I'm looking at. During the day, we see a lot of people, especially in the nicer weather. Now you don't see it so much but during the day there are people coming out from work who are running, jogging during the noon hour. They probably using the trails more so than the residents are. Lynch: When you take an area such as the Washington Avenue, Eden prairie Drive, bike and drive where I am. There must be a little lake behind the biking headquarters, there's a trail all the way around that now and a new segment north of that, for everyone of those business complexes that's in there to have paid $138.00... Sietsema: Perhaps that's a better way to handle it. That would bring the fee to about $350.00 per acre for the industrial then. Mady: Eden prairie the business complexes to build their trails when they put them in. There's a building like this going up on TH 169 and they put trails in there. Boyt: DataCorp. You always see people on the DataCorp trail and there's nothing up there. They just want to get out and walk. ~ady: That's where I would like to see it go. Something more in line ith what we're requiring the residential developers, should be required of the business developers also. ...." Hasek: You're simply addressing now the trail fee? The $138.00? Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 5 If"'" Sietsema: Yes. Hasek: When I first went through this, I walked out of the office and talked to just about everybody there and the Court says there has to be an equity. If you really want to get down to it, if somebody wanted to come in and fight this thing. The Court says there has to be an equity between what is required or used by the person you're exacting from and what is exacting from that person. It all gets to, I think the bottom line is to people. Who uses it and who doesn't use it. The one thing I noticed in what we've got going here, single family $415.00 per unit and duplexes is still $415.00 and that's actually two families. Sietsema: Per unit. Hasek: Okay, that's per. I think the duplexes is a little bit high then where I think when we get down to some of these other things, they're just a tad low. The bottom question I have is, how much use do we actually get out of commercial and industrial users and there's nothing in here that really tells us anything about how many people that work in those places, what percentage of those people actually use the system. I don't know if there's a study out there that's ever been done, that may suggest things like that but that's what I'd be interested in seeing. ,..... Sietsema: I can tell you that the people that we have in the City, almost everybody in the industrial park has at least one team on the industrial league and some of those play on more than one league. The Press has two teams. DataServ, next year, when they're in operation, will have six teams. Kiowa Corporation has a team. Instant Webb has at least a team. united Mailing has a team. They almost all, all the big ones anyway, have a team and I think it would be a reasonable thing to say that once we get the trails in and around Lake Susan Park, that that will be used by those people quite a bit. ".,... Hasek: The other thing that I wanted to say, was that if you look at a single family user, it's 3 people per household, whatever, a single family house has open space and they do recreate in the open space that they have. They've got spots for the kids to go out in the backyard, throw a ball, hit softballs and shoot golf balls in the front yard. When you get into an apartment complex, the demand on the park system, is higher per user because they don't have that open space available and a lot of times the places to recreate aren't there. It gets even more intense when you get into commercial uses because there's nothing there so they have just a direct demand on the system. I guess what I'm thinking is that there must be someway of looking at this and saying, single family area should have to contribute less than the industrial per user, even though the industrial may not have as many people using it directly. If you've got a single family house, chances are that mom and dad when they're going to take the kids to somplace, there will be a fairly heavy use per user, for single family where when you get to the commercial/industrial uses, maybe the use isn't as heavy but there's more of a demand for the use by those users on the system. Do you Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 6 understand what I'm saying? It's confusing to look at but it seems like the single family here is almost being penalized for being a single family when they've got their own open space to begin with and it should be the industrial user that gets hit the heaviest. If you look at it that way, it can be defended, if it were ever to be challenged. When you start talking about, I know I just got done with a project in Champlin that paid $45,000.00 for a 19 acre multi-use piece of ground. They paid $5.000.00 for their park dedication fee. They also have to put in a concrete sidewalk on two sides of the project. That was in addition to the fee. Incredible what they ask for out there. Nobody's challenged it yet but it should be challenged out there. I think it's way out of focus. They simply say, commercial uses are going to have a higher demand and we're going to charge them more than single family. It just goes up the scale. It's nuts and it's wrong. I think if we can find a way to make it tied to the user, it should be defendable, if anybody should challenge it and it certainly would be easier to exact more for commercial and industrial projects who do have the big teams like they're talking about and do put up fairly heavy use on the big buck parts of the system. ......",. Sietsema: I hear what you're saying and what I would contend is that it's hard, you can not measure how much each person is going to use. If you're going to go by how much each person is going to use it, you've got to wait until they move in and measure it. Some single family person may be out at Lake Ann Park every week and the other may never go out there. What you do is you have it available to everybody. You're offering these programs and they're available to everybody. Whether they use them or not, they're responsible for helping to foot the bill for it. That includes the industrial. They may not have their kids in the programs and they may not play on the softball league but it's available to them. Some of them do. ..." Watson: As we add facilities, and they may use nothing now but we may offer something later on that they will be using. Sietsema: I think it's going to be impossible, and it'd be impossible for any Court to prove, how much single family is going to use the park system compared to industrial because each industry varies and each neighborhood varies. The people that live in Minnewashta use a lot different parks services than the people who live in Carver Beach simply because of what's available but that's to be considered also. Everything in the City is available to everybody who lives or works here and as long as we keep it open to everybody who lives or works... Hasek: If that's the case, if you really firmly believe that, then you can tie it directly to bodies. It should be able to be tied directly to bodies. Sietsema: It should be directly to density. Hasek: No, bodies. Bodies, not density because if you look at for example, a single family there's a statistic. There are 3.4 people on the average per family. If you're getting a 3.4 average family within .."" Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 7 ~ che City. If you get down to industrial uses and you can in fact, there are numbers that will tell you how many for a certain type of use, certain type of industrial or commercial use, how many people typically that generates for business and you could tie it directly to bodies. Sietsema: How complicated do you want to make this? I think that a flat fee... Hasek: If it comes down to bodies, then it's by the use and it's almost by the acre at that point. You can tie it to units where you've got a residential or you can tie it to acreage where you're got commercial and industrial uses. Boyt: I worked with the figure 2.5. Sietsema: The City's is 2.8. Boyt: And assume that the $415.00 per single family unit was for 2.5 people and that we multiple that times 3, we get 7.5 people per acre in a commercial because you multiple $415.00 times 3 and you get what we're charging for commercial. So we're assuming that there are 7.5 people per acre in the commercial/industrial buildings in Chanhassen, if we're going per person. That's real low. We could double that and look at 15 ~eople per acre... r- ~sek: Look at a McDonalds. A McDonalds is roughly an acre site. How many people do they employ? How many people are eligible in that? There's almost a double indemnity. Assuming that those people are outside the city and you're almost double charging, if those people all come from within the city which in the case of a McDonalds or something like that, they probably would. Sietsema: That is probably one reason why some of the cities that were in here charged by the square foot of the building. Some charged 4 cents per square foot of building space and that could maybe be tied in more readily to how many people per square feet of building normally an industrial normally employs and I don't know what those figures are either. Hasek: I guess my feeling is, they have to be adjusted but I don't know that simply throwing out a bunch of stuff at us and asking us to make a decision on it is the right way to go. I don't know if this is even the right study. All it does is tells us what other people have done. It doesn't tell us whether they're right or wrong or not so that's left up to us to decide. I know I called Mark and talked to him a little bit about it and he was, as much as I was by the time we got done talking about it what it really should be. If somebody in the business can't figure i.t out, how in the world if this commission supposed to try and understand what's fair and equitable. I don't know. I guess what I'd ~ke to do it take a little bit of time to see if I can't find a study tat somehow ties it to square foot and make some real logical sense out vf it. I don't want to exact a ton of money for the amount of people. I guess I'd like it to be absolutely fair. I'd like it to be on the high Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 8 -...." end but I'd like it to be fair. It wouldn't hurt me a bit to try for $1,000.00 for single family unit if it was equitable all the way across the system and the park board had more money than anybody in the world. That would be great with me but I think it should be equitable and I don't know that I can make a decision as to an equitable way of doing it. Sietsema: So what do you want to do? Hasek: I think if we had to vote right now, I'd just have to abstain because I don't know that I could make a rational decision. You talked about discussion and the possibility of a motion, that would have to be my decision. Sietsema: So if you were to make a motion to table, what would you want? What would you direct staff or what you want to table it until? Hasek: I would like to direct staff and maybe particularly Mark, or yourself and Mark, just get a few people out there trying to see if there is a decent way of doing it. I guess I almost expected Mark to be here tonight just as kind of a second opinion on things. Maybe it's not that big of issue. I guess this is such a big deal to me is because I have to go through it day by day and you go through these different cities and look at their park fees and so forth, and sometimes you ~ratch your head and wonder where in the world they're coming from and ~ wny they're doing what they're doing. Boyt: I think one of the buildings in town, one of the printing places that is huge, only has like 7 people working in it. It wouldn't be fair for an acreage. Hasek: I can see at the same point, if you really think about it, you've got a McDonalds that's right on the city limits between Eden prairie and the big population is just across the land to draw people from Eden prairie to employ and you have a McDonalds... not even within the city, that would be actually 30 or 40 people per acre for that commercial use where another one might only have 2 or 3. Maybe it's done by employee. Sietsema: There's not a lot of information on this. There really isn't because I did call, I called almost all of these and more cities, to see what their formula was, how they go about it. Some of them have a flat fee. Some of them you have to take the raw land value times what the development costs could possibly be or the average development cost this year in the construction bulletin, or whatever. There are some really far out formulas and we used to have one. We've been trying to clean that up so it is a little bit cleaner and I think what we have is pretty consistent. I don't think that we would have a hard time in Court right now. ~sek: I'm not saying that it's not consistent but I don't know that ~ it's necessarily equitable. I don't know that the right people are paying for the the system is what I'm saying. I don't know that it's Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 9 ,...., llecessarily wrong but I don't know that it's right and why change it if you don't know and I don't know. Watson: Basically what you want is what other cities are doing. Whether it's right or wrong. Hasek: The right way to do it is the equitable way to do it. That's what the Courts will say. Watson: ...what's equitable and we could possibly spend an awful lot of time thereby spend a lot of money because it's going to cost somebody time to figure out whether all these cities figured it out wrong and there's a more accurate way of doing it. Basically we are doing it, if we want to take the time to figure this thing out, we could do that over the next few months but to hold this up to try and figure out something that nobody else has figured out either. Hasek: I don't know that anybody else has necessarily really tried. Watson: I can't believe that nobody has tried. I think there is only so much time and that's because time is money given to figuring this out. If we really thought that this was so wrong but I don't think that we're that wrong. ~\sek: As long as we're in line with everybody else. I'm just wondering A the right people are paying. I would like to see industrial and commercial pay their fair share I guess is the bottom line but I don't want to pull a number out of the hat and say this is fair and then have all of those people in the commercial and industrial uses come through this city and say, boy is this a ridiculous number. Where did you guys come up with this? Sietsema: ...it was to give 10% of the development or money equal to the raw land value and that's where this all originated. That's what the current numbers are based on. That goes back to 1984 when the last time this was changed. That was the old formula. It had to do with a lot of other things and development costs as well. So if it's safe to say that since 1984 land values have increased, then it would be safe to say that we could increase our fees by that much. * A taping malfunction occurred at this point in the meeting. Hasek: ...The reason why Eagan was approached, obviously was because there was some inequity in the system and that's why it was challeneged. Boy~: I ~hink we need to find out how many people per squar~ f~~~ In ~th7~ ~ords, how many people are in our facilities in Chanhassen .we onb ave that many industrial facilities. We could get an ave;age num er per acre per square foot. I"'" . .sek: I would almost think that we could sit down and talk with the ~lanner, between the Planner and maybe LorI' and the . CIty Administrator and some of those and just get some opinions. Mark and his past Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 10 -,. experience. Met Council might have some generalized numbers for industrial uses and commercial uses. How many people are very typical. If we can tie it to something that someone has put together that at least looks half way decent and reasonable, it would be very easy to do. It's so stragith forward. Take commercial. You've got x number of acres is this many dollars. Plain and simple. It's not tied to value of the land, which flucuates, or anything like that. Simply if we could raise it based on cost of living or something like that. Or inflation rate or something. Lynch: I notice we are the lowest on the list as far as the dollars are concerned. Even if we raise the 10% that Lori suggests, we'd still be the lowest. Hasek: That indicates to me that the single family, the people that have the most open space, are the ones that are carrying the burden and I don't think that's fair. Lynch: Ed, are they carrying a burden or is the commercial property not paying enough? Hasek: Either way. Like I said, I'd like to see the single family and residential go up but I'd like to be darn sure that the rest of the land uses are carrying their fair share. I think doubling commercial and 'dustrial, as was suggested by Sue, might not be out of line but I .-, _In't know for sure. Lynch: One thing we have to be certain of, and again, these numbers are based on this 10% of the value of the property, current raw land. We want to be darn sure that we don't exceed that in one of these categories because when we do, that's where we base our flexibility on in the past. So if we still think in some manner, then we become undefensable. Then we're going to have a problem. Boyt: So, we need to find out how much an acre of land is selling for? It's more than $40,000.00 isn't it, in Chanhassen? Sietsema: It depends on where. Hasek: That's great. This City would be plum full if... ~QY~; .~\ WQulQ be ~415.00 for ~40,000.00 per acre. Sietsema: That's raw land value is what you have to go by. Before any improvements. Hasek: Still, they're selling for $12.0~-$15:00 per square foot along TH 12 and obviously that's a different sltuatlon. h th area and putting in a new park .....dy: We're talking about t e ~ou ern ......." Jwn there and talking to Al Kllngelhutz, he says $3,000.00 to $3,500.00 an acre is low. Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 11 JIll""- ..dsek: That's raw land. What would an acre across the street over here sell for? Ma d Y : A lot. Hasek: See, 10% of that is going to be considerably higher and I don't know that necessarily the location of the building, based on land values, is the way to go. I really don't. I think that's unfair. I can't believe, in Minnetonka where they have land values of $12.00 a foot up here that they're paying for a commercial site. Sietsema: The reason you have to do that though is because you can only demand park dedication for the area that the developer is creating the need for. The reason they go by the raw land value is because it's a different value in the rural area than it is for single family than it is for industrial. You see what I mean? Hasek: Let's take that to a step under a logical conclusion, let's go into central Minneapolis where there is no opportunity to do anything more. If somebody comes iq and wants to do something there, they give park dedication based on ~eir location there which is probably $25.00 a foot in the IDS Tower. $50.00 or $150.00 or whatever it was for a foot for that land. ~etsema: The whole premise is that it's a park dedication. The only .ason you wouldn't take park land dedication is because you already have park in that area or it's undesirable land. You don't want it in that specific area so then you will take the fees equal to the land value in lieu of taking the land. So it's equal. You're either taking the value of the land or you're taking the land. They both have the same value. If you're going to put a park in downtown Minneapolis, it's going to cost the City, if they were going to go out and buy it, it would cost the City $25.00 a square foot if they put it in that neighborhood and that's why it's based on the land value because you can't charge, I can't charge Instant Webb for a park I want to put out in Minnewashta. That's not the way it's supposed to work. They're not responsible for the park needs in the Minnewashta area. They're responsible for the park needs that they are creating because of their development. And that's not related to community park needs, it's for neighborhood park needs. Hasek: Then what do you do? How is that exactly figure out? Is that somehow tied back to the contractor who purchased the land? Sietsema: It's the raw land value before any improvements are made so whatever the developer bought the land for, before he many any improvements, that would be the land value. Not what he can sell it for but what he bought it for. ~nch: I guess what I'd like to see, if there's some other system we n used, fine. I wonder we are right now. How these reduce so if you Lake the high and low, lot size and land value in the City and say, this is the average lot. This is 10% of that now. What about the commercial Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 12 ~. and office and the industrially zoned stuff over here? What's that going for an acre? Hasek: What happens in the case of a Gagne who bought the land 20 years ago. That's the purchased price of the land. Sietsema: It would be the fair market value of that if you were to buy it currently. The assessor. It's current land value and that's what it's tied to the land value. Hasek: It's the current market rate? Is that what they use? Sietsema: Whatever the assessor would assess it today in it's raw state. As it sits before the developer does anything to it. Hasek: Which only by law has to be 90% of what it's really worth. You're only required to assess it to 90% of it's market value. The 10% right's there that we're getting. Sietsema: You wouldn't necessarily use the County Assessor. A developer could bring his assessor in and if the City doesn't agree with that assessed value, we could have it assessed ourselves. Robinson: Doesn't that say it's like $12,000.00 an acre? If $415.00 1 that's about a third of an acre, typical lot. ......" Sietsema: Usually 3 units per acre is what you can go. Robinson: So $415.00, that would be $1,245.00 so that's close to what the industrial. Then if you're going to base it on the market value of the land, if that then is 10%, $1,245.00 would be $450.00. Is that, I don't know any idea, is that quite a bit for an acre of land undeveloped? Hasek: That's free. Like I said, if it was based on that, we could buy land like that, this city would be full of industrial. Lynch: There's a range Curt. If you go down by the farming area, down there where we we're looking for a park, yes, you could buy for just about a $100.00 an acre but you try to buy one of the lots by my place and you're talking... Hasek: There's a lot in my neighborhood, a single family lot, a third of an acre selling for $25,000.00. It just sold. The utilities are in. The services are there. Robinson: but we're talking an average development. Lynch: You almost have to look at what's developing because there's re of the expensive lots being developed here. They're expensive ~~cause they have municipal services and so forth closer to town than .~ these larger lots and of course, what do we have for zoning down south of the MUSA? 5 acres? Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 13 ,.... sietsema: You can't be less than 2 1/2 and it can only be 1 unit per 10 acres. It's 1 unit per 10 acres and the lot size can not be less than 2 1/2 acres. Lynch: Okay, so let's use a for instance with A1's property down there at $3,500.00 an acre. There you're looking at about $9,000.00 for a lot, it's a 2 1/2 acre lot minimum. So $9,000.00 for a lot and let's say you buy an average over by Meadow Green Park, in that area, you buy one those less expensive homes on a very small lot and maybe you pay $12,000.00 to $15,000.00 so not too far off there but once you get 'south, most of those places are 5 acres at $3,500.00 an acre. But again, since it's a single dwelling they're only getting a unit charge. Now you start talking this industrial land, anything that's industrially zoned, whether it's got improvements on it or not, you're talking megabucks. Robinson: But if you're relating it, like Lori said, you can dedicate land or cash equivalent, then it's got to be back to so much an acre. With the average single family dwelling is a ~hird of an acre, then the commercial just about has to be three times t.ne single family. Lynch: Commercial land is worth more anyway. ~y: That's where we're kind of hitting the hard spots. Hasek: I'll tell you what, the Legion is sitting on a gold mine there. Absolutely a gold mine. If they don't move that thing pretty soon and sell it and build a new spot. Robinson: It doesn't have to be then related to the single family. Lynch: This is all related, very vaguely, to the general land values in the area. Sietsema: The Courts say that we can require 10%. They have historically said that 10% is a reasonable taking and that's what it all boils down to is what the Court's determine is a reasonable taking. Historically, 10% has been a reasonable taking so if you take 10% of the raw land or you take 10% of the money equivalent to that, that's what your park dedication fees should be. Hasek: Then really you're saying, by your understanding of the past cases, that it should be tied to the land values rather than to bodies. Sietsema: How it goes with density is that you can justify that 10% or how that varies is that our standard is 1 acre per 75 people. So if you're a single family development, it's generating 1,000 people, you've got to have 1 acre for every 75 of those 1,000 people. ,...... :ek: But you don't have to do it that way. If you do it, you can tie lC directly to the density in single family or in any residential. You can tje it directly to the density because that's really what it's Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 14 ..."",I selling for. zoning really got like R-12 multiple. Commercial is commercial and then everything else, it's is what it is. The zoning in this city is what, you've and R-3 or something. That must be for single family Sietsema: There's R-8, R-12, they're behind you. Hasek: But still this land value, that's what it's being sold as and if somebody wants to build a single family residential area in a commercially zoned district and pay the price for the land... Sietsema: If the Planning Commission lets them. Lynch: Where everybody else is a quarter and a half because he wants more land and 10% of the value of his operation was $415.00 but he says hey, I've only got one household there guys. So again, I don't think you're looking for uniform fairness, you're looking for defenseability. The guy comes in and says this is BS, I'm not paying it. Hasek: But at the same time, what makes it defensible is the fact that it's equitable. So if you shoot for equitable, it's going to be defensible. Lvnch: I don't think you're ever going to get equitable in all cases. Basek: There's always the oddball, no question about it and somebody's ox is going to be gored but that's part of the system I guess. I don't know. I have a motion and I don't know if anybody wants to second it. I guess I'd like the opportunity to look at it and one way or the other I will and whether we do something tonight or not, I guess doesn't matter. ~ Sietsema: Let me just read the motion back. Ed has moved to direct staff to work with Mark and himself to research this further and to table this item until the next meeting. Lynch: Question Lori, is there anything that would make this some more immediate of a problem? Is there anything happening that would make this an immediate problem? Sietsema: No. The ordinance says that the Park and Recreation Commission will review this at their first meeting of every year and submit a recommendation to City Council. If you need more time to look at it, I don't think that's unreasonable. Watson: And the current ordinance stays in effect until it's changed. Sietsema: Right, exactly. 'y: I guess I don't have any problems. a~most sounds like the industrial should times the residential plus some. What I've been hearing is, it be at least a minimum of 3 .."", Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 15 ,..... ~ ~tsema: I think what you want to do is you want to figure out a policy so it's clear in everybody's mind that we're going to say that it's equal to this and therefore it breaks down to this and everybody knows. It's not some obscure number that it looks like staff just picked it out of the sky. Hasek: Can I just read through real quickly what Champlin has done and I'm not suggesting that this is the right one. It just happens to be a very high one and I don't know that it's ever been challenged. Every thing is based on kind of the value of land out there. Single family is assessed this year, and each year they go to the assessor and say okay, what's single family land basically selling for in the city. $12,000.00 per acre and 10% of that is $1,200.00 per acre of dedication so that works out to about the $400.00. Multiple family, $20,000.00 per acre, $2,000.00 per acre of dedication fee. Office and commercial, $45,000.00 per acre, which is about... Robinson: $45,000.00 per acre? Mady: That's where land is hot. Hasek: That's what land is selling for, raw land. 10% of that would be $4,500.00 and all streets are considered as single family so in other ~~rds, if you've got an industrial or PUD for example, and you've got a ~ch of uses in there, the street is also charged on a single family is. PUD's or multiples are whatever the land value is times 15% ... Land values would be given every year by the assessor so if you look at those types of things, that's where we were looking at before. We've got a very open, loose commercial development putting in and it's costing us a fortune to do it but if you consider the fact that we have in town, is this going to be on-line next year? We are offering those services and suggesting that all these poeple have the right to use all those services in the city, then yes, I think if the use is there. Lynch: I'd still be interested to see how the fees that we charge now reduce back or can be tracked to our original intent. Do these really reflect 10% of the average value of the average residential single home and commercial properties? You're looking in other ways or many ways and I'd just be interested to really see if the way we're doing it now seems right. Hasek moved, Robinson seconded to direct staff to work with Mark and Ed Hasek to research the park dedication ordinance fees further and to table this item until the next meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT - LAKE SUSAN PLACE. ~'tsema: That item has been deleted. The application was withdrawn. Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 17 REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT - SCHWABA-WINCHELL ......" Sietsema: This is a 2 1/2 acre site and the proposal is to subdivide it into five single family lots. This is Minnewashta Parkway. It lies on the east side of the parkway and over further is the lake. The Comprehensive Plan shows that they are park deficient and the land use plan identifies the area around Lake St. Joe as potential parkland so this is not included in that area. The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies Minnewashta Parkway as a primary trail system. With the developments that are showing up along Minnewashta Parkway, I asked Mark to come out and we drove and tried to just kind of thumb nail it and figure out what side of the road Minnewashta Parkway. Basically what we determined was that it would be best to stay on the east side until you get to Red Cedar Point, cross at that point and stay on the left side up until you hit TH 7. I think it's pretty reasonable for us to be able to stick to that. That would mean that this would lie within the side that we want the trail on. We are recommending that we get a 2~ foot trail easement along Minnewashta Parkway. I thought the developer would be here because they've called me the last two weeks to see if we're going to have the meeting. I'm surprised that they're not. I hope they didn't get wrong information. But as always, we would try to build this within the road right-of-way if it's possible. I'm not sure how the upgrading of Minnewashta Parkway is going to be done to what width. What area there is available so we're recommending 2~ feet trail easement along and we would give it back if it's not needed at the time of construction. I would think that we would try and time the trail installation with the upgrading of the street. Mady: Have they discussed that they're going to upgrade Minnewashta Parkway? --' Sietsema: It has been discussed but I couldn't give you a time line as to when it's going to be. I know that it's in a goal. One of the engineering department's goals but I don't know at what point. Lynch: Are the driveways for these houses, do I see this right that they're going to propose a drive and come out on Minnewashta Parkway? Sietsema: It would be two curb cuts onto Minnewashta Parkway. The north two would be like a slingshot design. The other two enter right here and one goes to this house and one drives back to this house. Hasek: This is the old nursery property, if you're familiar with that. Where that nursery used to be. Schroers: I have a question. Not necessarily on your recommendation. I think your recommendation is fine but I was wondering why you and Mark decided that you're going to need to cross to the west side of the road at Red Cedar Point and then go up this side. Sietsema: Because of the steep grades that are on the east side of that road. There's no way we could get a trail all the way through there. ~ There's a number of areas along that way. Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 18 """" Schroers: You mean dropping down to the lake. Sietsema: It goes straight down to the lake or there's a wall of dirt right there that's just a cliff to the road. The to~ography, it's impossible to get a trail through there. There's stlll going to be some tricky spots on the other side but it looks much more reasonable on the other side. Hasek: Unless the City bought all of the shore. Schroers: It would be nice to have a trail that ran along the lake side. Sietsema: It would be but even so, we wouldn't be able to pave a path on some of those grades. It would have to be something that's on the Carver Beach trail. Where it's in the woods and it's just a gravel or a chip path because the grades there are pretty steep. Schroers: I know what you're talking. Sietsema: And I think what they really want out there is an off street paved bike trail that's multi-use. ~ Watson: Where you can actually go from one place to another. Sietsema: Multi-use and we didn't think, at the point at Red Cedar Point isn't an unreasonable crossing area. The sights were pretty good and there wasn't a big hill or anything. Schroers: There aren't many straightaways on that whole road. Sietsema: It was the most reasonable place and it was the most logical place for it to cross. Mady: There's no stop sign there right now? Sietsema: No. Mady: At some point in time, they may just put one of those control stop signs up. Schroers: Or a cross walk. Hasek: If they ever tried to do that, I think it would end up like the one they used to have on that road that's adjacent to Minnetonka Country Club. The City of Shorewood took it down. They've tried 3 or 4 times to put a stop sign in to slow people down. It doesn't make sense. You're driving along and all of a sudden you have to stop and there's nobody around. I have a question. If we take 20 feet of easement, how ~ is that going to effect this driveway plan? Sietsema: It does effect but I talked to the planners and they didn't Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 19 think that it was unreasonable. I did talk to the developer too and ~ they didn't voice any concerns. Maybe that's what they wanted to voice here but they didn't mention anything to me. To just be able to push those housing pads back a tad to fit that in. Hasek: What is the approximate scale of this thing? Sietsema: It's way off because it's been reduced. Hasek: There are two that it would tag off of Lot 5 and Lot 1. Sietsema: Jo Ann kind of drew in here a different driveway plan. She didn't think that it would be unreasonable. The chances that it would need to go to the extent of that 20 feet. It just gives us some maneuverability room in case there are some obstacles that we need to get around. Mady moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to approve a 20 foot easement along Minnewashta Parkway, make no land dedication requirements and to request 100% payment of park and trail fees. All voted in favor and motion carried. UPDATE AND MEETING SCHEDULE FOR REFERENDUM. Sietsema: I put in front of you a schedule that's been revised. The -,' old schedule, just throwaway. Don't even think about it. Robinson: This one we got in our packet? Sietsema: Yes. Don't think about that one anymore. That one is wrong. The reason that it's changed is because the date of the referendum changed and I needed to change a number of meetings so the timing would be more appropriate. The other thing that I wanted to mention, February 10th is a call-in talk show on Dowden Cable TV Channel 20 and I've asked Jim Mady to be there representing the Community Center and Jim McMann to represent the Fire Station and Sue, I've asked her to do the parks and trails. There's only room for three people on the panel and there will be a moderator as well. We would like to seed questions because we don't want to have dead air space. We want to make sure that good questions are asked. So that's something we need to talk about before we leave tonight. I think we should handle the meeting first. Lynch: I did this some years back in another community and we had some red cards all made up ahead of time so that if we didn't get calls in, then the moderator didn't say, he said, well we have some questions here on cards. Boyt: From the audience. Lynch: No, they didn't say that either. They just said we have some questions on these cards and they were a certain access, we wanted to see brown and if the callers in didn't ask those questions, we'd cut --' Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 20 ~ them off. To make sure we'd get these in there. We had a red star card or blue star card. Watson: Questions bring other questions. If nobody asked them, nobody knows what they want at all. Sietsema: Sometimes, nobody wants to be the first caller or whatever. Lynch: What you need is to set those questions up ahead of time to make sure they're covered so if somebody calls... Sietsema: We've got that pretty much covered. We'll have a rehersal on that but I'd urge any of you to watch on that night. It's a Wednesday night and it's from 7:00 until 8:00 and the phone number will be put across the screen the whole time so you can call in. You might have a question about the fire station. You might have a question about the community center that you haven't had answered yet. Whatever. Let's just go through the top, starting with the fire department meeting on February 1st. Jim said that he would be there. You're covering the community center items? Mady: I'm covering the community center. .1f1"" Sietsema: I don't think that Jim should cover both because it looks like a one man show up there so if somebody else would want to come and cover. We have another meeting the same night at the Legion at 8:00 so if the same person would want to cover both meetings. Mady: I can cover the Legion one because Scott's going to do the Community Center there. One thing I did with the Hockey Association last night, they asked some very tough questions of the fire department and it got to the point where it finally got almost uncomfortable because it wasn't a good situation for me. After I got through with myine on the parks and I answered a lot of questions on the community center and actually gave a presentation on the community center. After the community center guys are done, some of them looked at us, what we're saying is, we're asking questions and the voters in Chanhassen are being asked to vote yes on 5 items. Vote 5 times yes for the future of Chanhassen. The Fire Department will be pushing their thing and they're going to let the rest of them tag along but they're not going to do anything about that. You need to make sure that there's a concentrated effort by everyone. Every item on there is necessary to the City. Boyt: We also need the first or the last person that gets up to explain the voting and if you vote yes, this is what it's going to do to your taxes. Sietsema: I think what we're going to do is. have a councilperson come and do that. Tom volunteered to do that. ~ Hasek: I can make the 7:00 one at the Fire Department might be a little bit tough but I could probably be there, for sure make it at 8:00. The 3rd is possible and the 4th, I have commitments in St. Paul. The 10th Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 21 through the 17th I'm on vacation. --' Sietsema: Okay, Jim will be there on the Legion one so if you could handle the Rotary. That's 7:00 in the morning. Wednesday in the morning at the bowling alley. And I do have, I want to make sure I tell you that I do have the big trail map. I have an overhead of the first phase of the trail plan and the whole trail plan and I have a transparency of the Lake Ann Park and the survey results so we want to tie in that the whole thing initiated with the survey. Hasek: Who's going to be at the Rotary besides myself? Sietsema: Bill Kirkvold will be there for the Community Center. Boyt: If you can't make it, give one of us a call. Sietsema: So Ed has committed himself to 7:00 in the morning on Wednesday. I'll bring the projector. I'll bring the transparencies. How about the seniors? Sue, you're going to do Women of Today? Then who else can make it on the 11th and the 17th? I really that's important that we have as many as possible. Jim, you'll be there for both of those? Mady: Yes. Sietsema: And who wants to give the presentation on the parks and ~ trails at those last two meetings? The general information meetings, we just want to give like 10 minutes of what exactly we're doing. Give them all the information. The cost, what it is, how we got to this point will be important and then let them ask the questions. Mostly it will be a question and answer thing. If you watch the Channel 20 talk show, I think you'll get a lot of the information that you need for that so you have the ammunition to answer those questions. Watson: I remember helping to write the Comprehensive Plan and after we finished the Comprehensive Plan we practially went door to door and we were going to tell everyone about the Comprehensive Plan. We went to Minnewashta and we sat there. Nobody came. It was really something. We couldn't dredge up any interest in that Comprehensive Plan. We did everything but tapdance in the street and nobody cared. Mady: There are some very hot buttons in a referendum. Watson: This should be better. Mady: They're charge about the fire department. There are some people very charged about the community center. There are a couple of people have asked some questions about parks but for the most part... Sietsema: I think the parks is the easiest issue with everybody. I haven't heard anything against or for the parks but I've heard a lot of ~ conversation about the other two. Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 22 ,..., Mady: A woman last night asked a couple of good questions about maintenance and what's it going to cost. Sietsema: I'm available to meet with anybody before any of these meetings to give any background information. I'll be at all of the meetings so if you can't field the question, I hopefully can. Some of the bigger, more important ones, Don will be there also. Mady: The funding questions, I think I can handle just about everyone of them. I've talked with Don so many times... I think I know what's going to go on with the funding and the bonding and how that all works. Sietsema: The big thing is, the referendum, the day has been changed. The new date is Wednesday the 24th so get out and vote yes. Mady: We will be having a phone campaign that's being organized right now. It's tentatively planned within the next two weeks we're going to call every resident in Chanhassen. Similar to a political poll taken to find out if they feel yes or no on a quesion. Basically do you support a for or against the referendum. Sietsema: We'll need about 120 callers. 13 nights of calling. We should be able to get a hold of everybody. Then, the last 3 days before the referendum, they want to call everybody, all the positive people back and remind them to get out and vote. ,.... Mady: I'm fearful that we'll have a little more than 600 people vote in the referendum and that's a very small number and people who are vehemently opposed to anything, will be there and vote. We anticipate most of the people will be for it but there are also going to be those that want it and aren't going to show up and do it. We don't want half like in Eden priarie where they lost their thing by 26 votes. Hasek: Isn't it an all or nothing referendum at this point? Mady: There's five questions and each question stands on it's own. Hasek: They were going to lump them together the last time I watched a council meeting on TV. Sietsema: They talked about it but... Mady: The bond attorneys wouldn't allow us to lump, it could be lumped together and that would be the Community Center and Lake Ann expansion and south park acquistion and the trails. Those three could legally be lumped together as one question. Schroers: Lori, you can put me down for the 11th and the 17th. Then if you find yourself short somewhere else, call me and I'll take over. ~ Sietsema: Again, if you can't make the meeting that you are committed to, just give me a couple days advance warning because somebody else can do it or I can fill in but I just want to be prepared. Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 23 ....,; REVIEW 1988 MEETING SCHEDULE. Robinson: Right now we've been operating on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday? I think that's what we're going to have to take. Mady: I don't have anything scheduled. I usually schedule around it. I don't have specific dates that I'm schedule. Lynch: YOu don't have regular meetings then? Mad y : No . Schroers: Mondays are bad. Wednesdays are bad. Fridays are bad. Hasek: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of any week are usually bad for me. The only reason I'm not here is because of work and I can't schedule around that. Lynch: Should we leave them where they are? Sietsema: It looks like it's our only choice. The only reason I wanted to change it to the 1st and 3rd week was because it's an off council week and if you ever drop by on a Friday afternoon and we're trying to get packets out, it's just a zoo. Schroers: What about the 1st and 3rd week rather than... ....,; Sietsema: He can't make it on the 3rd. We'll leave it where it is. It's not an impossiblity. Watson: I've gotten used to where it is. Sietsema: Next month, I've scheduled the first Tuesday of February as a Comprehensive Plan time and I would like you to read through the Comp Plan and make any changes. I know I've said that before but this is your final and last chance. If you have any problems with what I've given you, I've got to have the chances by next Tuesday and we will also be going over the 5 year capital improvement program so get your wish list together of what you want to see done as far as land and building improvements in the parks for the next 5 years. That will be covered next Tuesday. Lynch: I'll be out of town. Sietsema: Can you get me your wish list. Lynch: The main thing I want on the wish list that we really haven't gone after in the last few years is the bath house at Lake Ann or community meeting house or whatever. Some sort of a stand down there where you have a concession stand and restrooms, shower rooms and maybe a deck on top where you can sit and look out. That's part of my wish ~ list. I don't think it's mandatory but I wish we had one. Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 24 ,..... Sietsema: That's your assignment for the next week and Mark will be here to go over it. I'd like to have all of the graphics done by that point in time but I can't guarantee anything because with this referendum, everything is on the back burner except the referendum but I've got Todd working on some of the things so we hope to have the graphics. I've got just bare basics of our capital improvement program worked out and then we'll go over the Comprehensive Plan one more time. That's the only thing that we'll do next Tuesday's meeting. There won't be any other business on that so hopefully it won't take us too long. Then, the regular meeting date of the second Tuesday, that's the 9th of February. Then we'll have our regular agenda items and we should be caught up by then. We have to do election of officers tonight and I wanted to talk about T Bar K. Robinson: Did we do number 8? Update on zamboni. Sietsema: And I wanted to do that too. The zamboni, all of the conditions of approval that were put on by this commission have been approved. The check hasn't been submitted but it will be submitted this week. We got the letter from Bloomberg Companies saying that they would share costs and any major maintenance items. That we would be able to repay that interest free. Security interest at any time that we wanted and whatever else was on the conditions. We got a letter of condition ,..... from a registered mechanic that has said, the date that he inspected it he found it to be in good working order. The hydraulics, the engine, the compression and that's what you asked for but that doesn't hold him to any guarantees but I think he's reliable. We have had the personnel trained on it by the zamboni representative. We've got a very limited number of people that actually operate it. We don't have all the kids that work out at the ice arena able to operate it and the Hockey Association has been given strict orders that if they even look in the general direction of it, that we will sell it. Hasek: What has the response been by the coaches? Sietsema: Minnetonka came down for the first time after the zamboni was used and their eyes poped out of their skulls. They couldn't believe how nice the ice was. Hasek: I was down there twice and just asked people in general in the crowd and they said gee, that's nice ice here, how did you get that? Robinson: How are the condensation problems? Hasek: When I was in there I didn't see anything at all and I was in there a day when it was really cold and one day when it was almost melting outside and I was really concerned about it because the ice surface behind the one net, the entry in was a little wet but they said it didn't make any difference. ,..... Sietsema: It is a problem and I think that Todd is going to be writing a recommendation that we request Bloomberg to insulate the full Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 25 building. In fact, when it does get warm, the moisture rises and the ceiling that's in there and the insulation that is in there, is just water logged and he's afraid that that may all fall in eventually because it's just rotting. He's concerned that there may be a safety problem eventually. He's not concerned this year that it is. He doesn't think it's at that point and he's had the inspectors out there but he's going to see. His recommendation probably will be that something different be done to that ceiling so it eliminates the problem we don't have the water logging either. That was one of the other conditions of approval, was that Bloomberg Companies, and they have agreed to, install insulation to solve the condensation problems the, zamboni doesn't alleviate the problem. The zamboni can shave it off, but when it gets real moist in there, it still is kind of a problem. The ice is good. The other thing, T Bar K. You got a letter in your last, when I sent a notice that we would be meeting tonight and there was a memo in there from Bill Boyt about the alternative that we worked out, that we came up with, and I was kind of concerned. I meant to get a hold of Bill because I think he felt that staff sold out the Commission and I really think, that really wasn't my intention. I'll show you why. I talked it over with Tim Erhart who has walked it in every season and I've gone out there and looked at it myself, although I haven't walked around the whole thing. What was originally, this is Lyman Blvd. and this is how TH 101 comes down, what was originally in the plan was for the trail to come along the edge of this wetland where it's high and dry most of the way and to come along here to TH 101. The plan was for them to walk down this way and work their way back that way. Tim had said there is a high and dry bank pretty much around this wetland except right in this area because this is going to be a tough area to traverse because of steep grades and whatnot. And he also indicated to me that not only is it a nice trail on this side of the wetland but it's beautiful all the way around it and he said it would be a beautiful addition to our trail system. What he suggested was that it would be starting down on the other end of this wetland and work our way around it where it's high and dry and stay on the high and dry area up to Lyman Blvd.. At this point the plan is that there will be an off street trail along Lyman and TH 101 and we will get our way down this way to the bottom side of the wetland and then work our way back down so it would make a circle around the wetland. I thought that it made sense and I hope that I didn't misrepresent the Commission. I indicated to the Council that you had not seen this plan so this was not your recommendation but solely and mine and I indicated to what your recommendation was and this was what they went with. Mady: I talked to Lori that Monday. I didn't figure anyone from the Commission was going to the Council meeting. I called Lori up specifically about this because I felt strongly enough about it that I wanted to make sure the Council understood the Commission felt very strong about. Lori explained to me what Tim- Erhart had told her and what this whole thing came about and it made sense to me so I decided I wasn't going to go up to the meeting. I didn't like the way the whole thing transpired. I'm not certain in my mind why we saw the thing a year ago or whatever and none of that made sense to me but a compromise was reached. I guess it was okay. I didn't see how we could do anything ....", ....."", ....", Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 26 ,.... about it and some of the people on the Council had talked about. I didn't think they would hear the votes on it anyway. Hasek: I guess as long as the intent of the plan was carried, out it doesn't matter to me. The comment about Bill that we should be...but what I'd like to see and I don't know what the City has available for not is aerial photographs and contour plans and section overlayouts to see where the piece of property is and at least have some idea as to how it lays out on the ground. Sietsema: We have them but aerials are real hard to reproduce so they work. Hasek: Are they screened or are they mylars? Sietsema: They're mylars that we run prints onto. Hasek: The only thing that I would suggest, do we have the capability of putting the section over the aerial? Sietsema: Yes. Hasek: Have you ever done that? ,.... Sietsema: No. I don't know if they can run them both together. I've never asked them. I don't know that much about it. Schroers: Are we talking about a bituminous trail here or are we talking about more of a nature trail? Sietsema: No. There's a deer path there. It's a deer path right now so we wouldn't use woodchip but whatever. I don't know that we'd do much of anything. At least not until there was really a need for it because I don't see any reason why people can't walk on a path. It doesn't have to be gravel I don't think. It can be signed or whatever. Hasek: It's my opinion that the intent of the plan is still intact and if it goes on one side or the other, it doesn't make any difference. One thing I don't want to start happening is people corning through and saying, why are you putting it on my land when this guy is developing over. Push it on that side instead and that's what I'm starting to get strong reaction from. Sietsema: That's why it doesn't go right along that property line because right in this area is where it's difficult to maneuver. Otherwise, it would make more sense. When this piece develops in here, this may change all together differently bec~use we're going to have to be going along the streets or along backyards or something but at least we've got an outline that we want a trail that goes from this nature .~ trail up to the paved trail. Schroers: Roughly, how far is that going to be around that loop? Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 27 Sietsema: I don't really know. ......" Schroers: Just roughly. Are you talking a mile to a half mile? Sietsema: I'd say 1 to 2 miles. There wasn't any action required on this. I just wanted to let you know why I did what I did and hope that I didn't misrepresent. Robinson: You did nice work. Mady: Before we adjourn, we brought down the color entries on the Community Center. We really haven't spent a lot of time going over it with you guys. I don't know if you want to hear what the possibilities are and what the costs are. Hasek: I'd like to hear it, quickly. Mady: What you're getting here is, we're buying a 4 million dollar facility for 60 cents on the dollar. 2 1/2 million dollar facility. This is a view of it from TH 5. Here's the back of the bowling alley. Robinson: What did you say? A 4 million for 60 cents on the dollar. What do you mean? Mady: A 4 million dollar facility. This building, if you built it any other place, with this configuration, would cost 4 million dollars '-, minimum to build. Because we're building it at the site we're building it, we're going to build it for 2 1/2 million dollars. The savings coming in that we're getting a lot of the land and some of the existing buildings for $1.00 from the HRA. The HRA is paying roughly $700,000.00 in demolition costs for some of the building. The existing building that's in this area here is a concrete block building and what has to come out it, the block is deteriorating very badly. That has to go. Boyt: That's where we were? Where the zamboni is being stored. Mady: Yes. That's where the zamboni is currently being stored. This portion of the building, it's a tilt up roof. The roofs are sufficient to accept what we plan in here and we're going to save that intact so there's not a lot that has to be done there. A portion of this building, the old Frontier Lumber building, through about here, will stay intact. We'll have to take the wall down in here and build out, I think it's 35 feet, to accomodate two gymnasiums. The ice arena will be a totally new building. That will be a tilt up concrete building also. 240 by 120 square feet. The main access is here, which is the entry point here but there will be access from all four sides into the facility. All by corridors. The pool, as depicted here, is an L-shaped pool. Currently designed is a L-shaped pool. That's not finalized. The corridor system that goes around the pool will be glass so there will be visual access to the pool. You'll be able to see the pool from any of the corridors. On the other side of that corridor will be retail space. ,~ They plan 50,000 square feet of retail space. When that retail space develops, it will generate $250,000.00 of property taxes for the city Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 28 '" that we currently don't have. The ice arena is in the plan. It's going to cost us $900,000.00 to build it. It's going to save the community center $50,000.00 a year in utility costs because we're going to save the heat that's generated from the ice making equipment and use it to heat the pool. Those numbers are given to us from the Eden prairie complex. They gave us their actual numbers. The ice areana, we've already received inquiries from various hockey associations around here. They're willing to take as much ice time as we will allow them to rent. If we use the numbers Eden prairie is getting, and we think those are very accurate and very close to what we'll be getting in the number of people who want to use the ice, the ice center should by itself give us $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 more money than what it costs to operate just the ice arena which would then be used to cover the costs of operating the rest of the facility. We simply can't charge people enough to operate the gym areas and the community rooms and fitness area. The racquetball courts should generate somewhere in the neighborhood of $40,000.00 a year in excess profit over what it costs to operate them. They're a profit center. The ice is a profit center. The pool should pretty much break even. It should cover it's own costs outside of the building costs. We are saying the whole thing is going to be self-sufficient with the exception of building it and we need general obligation bonds to add as many dollars to build the whole facility. We're telling the Council we have to build the whole facility at one time. We can't put pieces in one at a time because if we don't do it ~ all at once, the taxpayers of Chanhassen are probably going to kick in $100,000.00 to keep this thing operating if you don't put the ice in. That point took us a long time for us to come to that decision. There were a few of us, including me, that didn't think ice was important until about October and then we got swayed then. Schroers: I just wanted to ask, are there four racquetball courts there? Mady: Yes, four racquetball courts being built initially. A fitness center here. Schroers: Are you going to charge additional fee for court times? Mady: Yes, we'll be coming out with a fee structure very similar to the Eden prarie Community Center has. It was not going to be as high as you pay at any of the racquetball clubs and that. It was going to be more of a moderate. Boyt: We have an option for the fire fighters in the town. We could give them free membership at the community center and then they... Mady: What they're saying those is, they want to have their fitness center on-sight so their people are on-sight when the fire call comes in so they can have a better response time, is what they're saying. ~ Watson: It's a block away. Sietsema: They contend that they're in the minute business. 3 minutes Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 29 -' can make or break your house if it's on fire. Watson: That's very true. Boyt: Maybe in conjunction with their one racquetball court, they could be offered a special deal at the community center. Mady: I currently believe that because a racquetball court, I play racquetball and you need more than racquetball to keep physically fit. That's just not enough and they need a program. Lynch: The firemen at Minnetonka, with their new fire hall which I just had a tour of, the one on Excelsior Blvd., they got a fitness room in there. Do you know what it's got in there now? They've got an icebox with beer in it and a pool table. One of the firemen took me up and showed it to me and said, this is our fitness room. Sietsema: They have a great big living room and an expanded kitchen for their icebox with a satellite TV. Boyt: I~ St. Louis Park, I know the pOlice are given free ice time. Mady: I'm sure we should do something similar for our firemen. I'm convinced those guys should have free membership in this thing. One thing that's been a concern of a lot of people is the locker rooms. I don't know if any of you guys have been over to Eden prairie center when the kids come out of the swimming lessons and you just got done playing racquetball, you don't need to take a shower. You're going to be soaking wet just standing there. What we're trying to do, this area of the building is going to be two story. We're going to put in, initially, a one story locker room. We're going to put the rough plumbing in to put a second locker room above it which will be an adult only locker room. Somewhat of a soft locker room. Not as plush as what you've got at Flagship and Crosstown Racquet Club and those but it will be fairly nice. We will have rented lockers versus free lockers you can give to the kids and we're going to try and section off portions of these two locker rooms for adults only that will have pay lockers in them and some signage to try and keep the kids out. You're not going to be able to keep them all out but we're going to try and make it because that's the biggest complaint they've got at Eden prairie right now. -' Sietsema: It's no problem at all keeping kids out of the adults only area. I've seen it at the Y's. It's no big deal. Kids wouldn't even dream of going in the adult side. Lynch: At Flagship, they even have the adults only gym. Hasek: Locker rooms. I saw a comment, I don't know if I heard it on television or if I saw it written someplace, that they didn't want to waste money on the locker rooms. I don't really remember where I saw that and it just appalled me. I'd never belong to a club. The locker --' room and the gym makes or breaks the damn thing. If you can't feel comfortable in the locker room, you're never going back. Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 30 ,....,. Mady: That's why we're going to build nice locker rooms here. We're not going to build locker rooms in the ice arena. If we put everything in this ice arena that we want to do, which includes in the future a running track around it, it would be a mile running elevated above on virtually the second story. The seating in here is not going to be built. There will not be the locker rooms in this area. There will just be a room for the zamboni. We'll buy a zamboni, that's $35,000.00. We will buy a brand new zamboni for the new ice because you do need a big zamboni for that big sheet of ice. The ice arena, we said, okay you guys basically got, the number we first saw was $800,000.00. ...1 can't do it for less than $900,000.00 and he said, okay you've got 9 and that's it. You build the ice arena for 9 so basically there's a building shell, a refrigerated ice floor with the best equipment possible. Lynch: No more than a million two then by the time we figure inflation and cost overruns. Right? Hasek: They're supposed to throw that into that estimate. Mady: They Chanhassen, That is it. can't do it better be. The bonds that we are asking, the citizens of we will not sell any more than 2.6 million dollars in bonds. That is all the money we got to build this thing. If we for that, then we're going to have to start making cuts. "".... Lynch: It would be unusual if you built this and it came in under budget. Mady: You're probably correct. We're working with Bob Davis. He knows what we're under. We came in and said, this is what we've got. We know the City can not, in the first year we can not bond any more than 3 million dollars. That's a given. We can not build every item that we've got on the referendum, the 5 questions being asked, we can not do them all in the first year. A lot of those things will be pushed out providing they're voted yes on. Lynch: Do you have a potentially developed and privately held cut list for when and if you do have overruns? Sietsema: That kind of detail isn't worked into this. lifIII"""'. Mady: This is not a final plan. This is realistically, we said here's what we think we want and here's the configuration we'd like to do. We have not finalized anything. The pool, in an L-shape variety, we've talked about making this into two pools. Making a warm water and cold water pool for lap swimming versus recreational swimming and seniors. This is a whirlpool. It's possible to put in a wading pool. We're trying to do, one of the ideas is to, in one of the L's make a floor so it's moveable. It can be down at the 4 foot level for lap swimming and then when you've got young kids or seniors and maybe you want to bring it up to 3 feet. Maybe you put all your pool intake, all the water maybe comes in from one side of the pool so that's the warm area of the Park and Recreation Commission January 26, 1988 - Page 31 pool. The north side of the pool as the water filters over to the exhaust side, it cools also. There are a lot of things that have to be worked out and we're not sure. The Task Force didn't spend a lot of time on the design. Robinson moved, Lynch seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim ., ...",/ ...""" ....,.,