PRC 1987 11 24
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
~NOVEMBER 24, 1987
Chairman Lynch called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Lynch, Curt Robinson, Jim Mady, Carol Watson, Larry
Schroers, Sue Boyt and Ed Hasek
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Park and Rec Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mady moved, Robinson seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Park and Recreation Commission meetings dated October 7, 1987 and
October 27, 1987 as presented. All voted in favor and motion carried.
RECONSIDER REQUEST TO IMPROVE OUTDOOR HOCKEY RINKS.
Boyt: ...can we build a short boardwalk to the figure skating rink from
the warming house? We have a wooden platform but it didn't seem to go far
enough last year. That probably wouldn't interfere with any ice maintenance.
Sietsema: Between the warming house...
Boyt: Figure skating rink.
,,' it more, 4 or 5 feet more.
.arming house.
Just right out the doors there. Just a little
Kids end up walking in the bushes around the
Dale Gregory: You want something to run alongside the rink?
Boyt: No, what I wanted is just really onto the ice from the warming
house. Straight out towards City Hall.
Dale Gregory: How would they be walking on the bushes?
Boyt: When they got to the rinks before they had their skates on. They
don't want to walk on the ice so they walk in the shurbery that's in front
of the warming house.
Dale Gregory: We just try to leave that part between there snow so they
can walk through there.
Lynch: What's the upshot here then?
Sietsema: Basically what was recommended by Mr. Hanson is that instead of
turning the rinks he wanted to build a boardwalk from the warming house
around to the first rink and bring it down so there would be ice between
the hockey boards and the railroad ties. They would come down in there and
skate and get to the rinks through the middle. The problem with that is
that area fills up with snow and we don't have anything narrow enough to
get in there and clean it out. The second thing is that we didn't have
" ,yway to flood between the boards and the railroad ties to keep that ice
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~vember 24, 1987 - Page 2
down so unfortunately there really isn't any solution that I can think of
to solve their problem of going across one rink to get to the other. I
think it's something that we have to live with and what I'm recommending" is
that we pay closer attention to the way we schedule the rinks to try and
alleviate that as much as possible. Things that they had recommended to be
done in the warming house, remove the TV and put in a vending machine and
that kind of thing, the TV is already out and we've contacted a pop vendor
and they will put a machine in at no cost to the city. We just have to
keep it filled and we have to buy the pop for like 33 cents a can so
whatever we would make on that could go really anywhere.
Lynch: Will you put that in seasonally?
Sietsema: I'm not really sure if they would come and get it or not.
Boyt: I'd like it left there all year so that soccer, baseball and other
sports could use it.
Lynch: Is that open?
Boyt: No, but someone would have a key.
Dale Gregory: You may want to keep in mind too that they store a lot of
~uff in there in the summer.
Boyt: Are the voting machines still there?
Dale Gregory: No the voting polls aren't in there but a lot of that Hockey
Association, they store a lot of stuff in there so whoever would have the
key would be responsible for whatever's there so the kids aren't fooling
around with that stuff.
Mady: We had talked about making available to them a fenced in area or
something so we could store that stuff separate.
Boyt: Maybe they could store that in Bloomberg Arena instead. Are there
some empty storage areas?
Sietsema: Yes, that might be a possibility too.
Boyt: How much league time do the rinks schedule? Is it a lot of pick-up?
Sietsema: There are a lot of pick-up games but there's also a lot of
scheduled practices for the bigger kids in the hockey league because they
can't use the small indoor rink because it's too small. I don't really
know to what extent it is used because there's just a calendar up there and
they wr i te down the times tha t they want to reserve it and they j use use it
that way but we can change that so that it's done by the rink attendant or
~ Todd or something.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 3
......,,'
Boyt: I haven't noticed a lot of games being played up there. I don't
think it's a big problem during practice for someone to cut through.
sietsema: Mr. Hanson's contention is that it would be used a lot more if
it was cleaned more often and there wasn't that problem.
Mady: One thing you might want to do, when you schedule your practices,
schedule for the further hockey rink so that if you're cutting through,
you're just cutting through a pick-up game instead of somebody's practice.
That may eliminate some of that stuff because otherwise you do have the
guys wanting to just go out and shoot some pucks. The only way to get
there is through your practice. I don't know how else we can alleviate
that situation.
Watson: The kids that just want to play, they can have the closer rink and
not be disturbed.
Lynch: Do you want to write a return letter to Mr. Hanson?
Sietsema: Yes, I would need a recommendation from you to deny the request
to turn the hockey rinks and basically what's stated in the last paragraph
of my memo.
~0binson moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
dny the request to turn the rinks 90 degrees as the cost to do so is
prohibitive and to deny the request to build a boardwalk to enter the
hockey rinks from the center as ice maintenance techniques cannot
accomodate the traffic patterns. Also, to direct staff to install vending
machines and take out the TV from the warming house and direct staff to
schedule the use of the rinks to allow disruption of Rink #1 as little as
possible. All voted in favor and motion carried.
......"
CONSIDER REQUEST TO PURCHASE ZAMBONI ~ DONATED FUNDS.
Lynch: I think everybody that's here has been here several times that it
was discussed. If you want to summarize the current offer.
Sietsema: Initially when the Hockey Association came to me and asked if we
would pitch in for the zamboni my initial reaction was somewhat negative
because we don't have the current funds and it would take a budget
amendmen t so I had asked them to wr i te a request and to br i ng it here.
Since that time the Chaska Lion's Club has made another donation to the
Park and Recreation Department of $5,900.00. The zamboni is $5,000.00 so
I called Brad and said I probably can come up with half of the amount and
if you guys can come up with the rest. The Hockey Association couldn't
come up with the whole $2,500.00 on their own this quick. They need the
turn around on the quite quick because somebody else is going to buy the
machine if they can't come up with the money so Bloomberg Companies has
)nated the other $2,500.00 for the zamboni which they would request be
paid back to them if we should ever sell the zamboni. I contacted our '""""'"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~vember 24, 1987 - Page 4
insurance company to make sure that we could insure this machine and they
indicated that it was no problem at all and gave us some safety suggestions
in running the ice rink.
Lynch: Who do they allow to run that machine?
Sietsema: It would be only the ice rink attendant, Dale or the Park
Maintenance Staff. There would not be anybody else allowed to be on it,
play on it. It would not be stored in the small ice arena. It will be
stored in the Instant Webb building and I relayed that to Brad Johnson and
said that I'm going to be real stickler with it. Just because you donated
the money doesn't mean that anybody in the hockey rink has any right to it.
It will be the city's property and I basically told him that if anybody
else gets on it and tried to run it and gets hurt, insurance won't cover
it. Upon your direction I would write a letter to their association so
everybody is aware of that. I don't want dad's with their little kids
thinking it would be cute to get a picture on the zamboni.
Watson: Who pays the person when they are doing that? Who pays the
operator of the zamboni?
Sietsema: The City does. It would be the rink attendant.
~nch: How often do these rink attendants, I've known a number of people
.JO have been hurt around zambon is, that's why I'm a 1 i ttle suspic ious of
them. Is the rink attendant, is that one or two people that do it
consistently? They all get trained?
Sietsema: Yes, Dale would be responsible for training them.
Lynch: So it's not a new kid every week.
Sietsema: No, it's not a new kid every week. It probably would be at the
most, depending on how many hours the rink attendants want, last year I had
one guy who wanted full time hours so there was only two people who worked
out there on a regular basis in that rink. There may be 3 or there be 4
this year. It just depends on how the hours are going to be split up but
we will have specific people that would be only able to run the machine.
Watson: It says here that the Hockey Association said they didn't have the
$2,500.00 for their portion of the zamboni. However, it says the
Association has invested over $10,000.00 thus far in the arena. What have
they done?
Sietsema: They were the ones that went in there and cleared everything
out. Took the walls out. Took all the junk and whatever was left after
the stage crew left because that used to be the scene shop and anything
that they left in there, they hauled all that out and took down walls.
~ey bought and put up all the boards. They made the changing rooms. They
. t in the steps to get up to the upper level and made that upper viewing
Loom with the big window in it to overlook the rink. They are doing the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 5
..."",
other side as well. They have done a lot of work. They've put in all the
lights. They got donations from different organizations to purchase the
lights and they got all the labor to install the lights donated. They've
done a lot of work on it.
Watson: It's just an interesting association between the Hockey
Association and the City and Bloomberg Companies owns half the zamboni and
the Hockey Association puts $10,000.00 in the building only we run the
zamboni and we pay the other half of the zamboni. It's a very strange
relationship we have with these others. I wonder if there's a precedent
for this anywhere.
Lynch: It's the situation where we won't know who's in charge of what.
Watson:
clear.
That's right. You don't really know who.
Bloomberg, they own half of that zamboni.
Here it makes it very
Boyt: And they own the building.
Sietsema: They own an interest in the zamboni. It would be the city's
property.
Watson: And they get their money back when the zamboni is worth $35.00, it
-~unds like they get their $2,500.00 back.
Robinson:
insurance.
I think it was city managed because it would fall under the city
"""""
Sietsema: Right. See the Hockey Association came to the city and said we
have a building and we'll provide all the labor to get it in shape for a
hockey rink but we need somebody to operate it so the City came in and
operated it. Put the ice in and maintained the ice and we have a rink
attendant out there and we schedule all the ice time and we collect all the
fees. It's Bloomberg's building and he gets 50% of the ice rental fees
that we collect as a rent so they have an interest in the building and
they'd like to see the ice time sell more so they would get a higher rent.
Robinson: Do you administer all of this? The rental income and all that?
Sietsema: Yes.
Watson: You just wonder if we would be willing to make any such
complicated arrangement with any other group or organization. I don't know
how it would even work but if some soccer group came in and wanted the same
kind of complicated sort of, the city's involved because they need the city
involved but they don't want the city involved ~here they don't want the
city involved kind of arrangement.
Sietsema: I think if you look at it as a positive thing, we wouldn't have
\e rink without the Hockey Association. Wi.thout all these organizations
1N0rking together to have it and I think it provides a great service for ,...""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~vember 24, 1987 - Page 6
this community because not only hockey people use that. We schedule it
3:00 to 6:00 everyday for open skaters. I also have it scheduled so I can
provide skating lessons inside so it's not just something that's costing
the city money that's only providing a service to the hockey people.
Although they do get top priority in the prime time ice because they have
an investment.
Watson: I don't have any problem with it Lori, it's just that it's a very
strange relationship. I can't imagine where we would ever have had such a
thing before or ever invite such a thing again.
Boyt: I think it's nice of Mr. Bloomberg to provide this to the community.
Sietsema: It's nice that we have an association that's willing to work
that hard for something they want that bad instead of just corning and
saying we want a hockey arena and you can use that building, do it. They
were the ones that got on the ball and went in there and cleaned it out.
It was a lot of work. ~ou wouldn't believe the amount of work that went
into it.
Robinson: I think the real question before us tonight though is very
simply do we want to spend $2,500.00 to $3,000.00 for a zamboni. It is not
the fact that we all of a sudden got a windfall of money from the Lion's
~ub and the fact that Brad Johnson or Bloomberg contributed $2,500.00 for
That's all irrelevant. What we should be dealing with is should we be
spending $2,500.00 for a zamboni?
Mady: I've got some questions. Number one, a brand new zamboni costs
$35,000.00. What I heard rumors, this is about a 1962 zamboni. It's a
smaller one. Is this a pile of junk? Where is it corning from?
Sietsema: It was used on the road by the ice capades. It's the zamboni
they took on the road with them and it's in good shape. The people that
found the machine have looked it over. The people in the ice hockey
association that are proposing that we purchase it have checked it allover
and they feel that it's a good deal. The thing is that we could turn
around and sell it to another city in a minute if we decided that it isn't
what we are looking for. The problems that it will solve, the hockey rink,
the building, is insulated on one side and so there's condensation and
water drips on the ice on the other side so we have to go in there and
shave all these little bubbles of water off before we can go in there and
flood and this zamboni will allow that. For one thing it will take some
pressure off of Dale and the park maintenance crew because they won't have
to go in with the water truck and flood every day. The other thing is it
will put a thinner layer of water on so it will freeze faster so we won't
have the problems of having wet ice at 3:00 when we're ready to open. The
other thi ng is, it does have the sha ver on it so it will take these bumps
off whenever we need them off.
,.....
~ch: Do you have any familiarity with these machines?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 7
....",
Dale Gregory: None at all. Just the little bit I've look at this one down
there and I've been poking around a littel bit but other than that I don't
know.
Lynch: Did you take a look at it mechanically?
Dale Gregory: I haven't really had a chance to yet. Like I say, I just
talked to Lori last week and I heard then that they were talking about
getting involved and the first thing that we would probably do would be to
have the maintenance and everything looked at and I haven't been down there
yet to really look it over. In fact I talked to Todd, I'd like to know
where it came from so we could tal k to somebody who had it bef.ore us. Is
there any records? Is there any books? Is there anything? There's
nothing that I've seen.
Lynch: A manual or something?
Boyt: Yes, I don't think we'd buy a car without test driving it.
Sietsema: We will have all the information from the people.
Mady: The City of Coon Rapids when through i.t last year with their
zamboni. They're being sued when a number of hockey players got physically
!1l from a malfunctioning zamboni.
-"
Sietsema: And that's the very reason I called the insurance company. The
insurance companies realize that that was a fluke. It was a weird deal.
Mady: Not really because it's an LP propaned fuel machine. Working in a
warehouse I know, I worked in a garage, that propane fuel items just can
cause problems. Isn't it? It's gasoline.
Sietsema: There were a lot of other things that went on with that. They
didn't have their fans on and what not but we would not operate this
without the garage doors on the end being open and we do have fans too.
Watson: Just open the whole thing up and run it.
Lynch: Let me ask you another question too, since you administer the
programs there, you said half the receipts go to Bloomberg to cover the
building and the other half of the receipts go to the City?
Sietsema: To cover our operation costs.
Lynch: And how well do we cover it? Is it a write off? It is a loser?
Is it a winner?
sietsema: So far it's been a loser because like last year with the weather
that we had, it was impossible to keep ice so we had a lot of problems with
'st trying to skate on water. The year before, because it was the first
.rear that we had done it, it takes a lot of selling and to make sure that
....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~vember 24, 1987 - Page 8
the people know that you have good quality ice and that they can depend on
it being there so it has the potential for being a money maker or at least
to break even. So far we've been down about $1,000.00 the last two years
in running the ice arena.
Mady: It sounds like when reading through Brad Johnson's letter from
CHADDA, it looks like Herb Bloomberg is basically loaning the city
$2,500.00. That's all he's doing. He's not donating anything. He's
giving an interest free loan to the city, keeping a secured interest and
the way it sounds, when the machine is sold he gets half the proceeds.
Hasek: Does he get half the proceeds or does he get his $2,500.00 back?
Mady: I don't like the arrangement. To me, if the city is going to own
it, they're going to own the whole thing. If this causes a problem and it
goes to court, they're going to sue us, they're going to sue Herb, they're
going to sue CHADDA, they're going to sue everybody and it's going to get
real messy. From Herb's standpoint, I don't believe he would want to do
this. I don't see why we need to get this, this whole situation as Carol
is saing with three different parties involved and now we're going to make
it even worse. If they were giving an actual donation or if CHADDA was
getting the money borrowed from Bloomberg and they were going to pay him
back, that's great but what this is, the City is borrowing $2,500.00 from
~oomberg Companies and I don't think it's a wise transaction from that
andpoint.
Sietsema: So are you saying you would rather have the city purchase the
whole thing?
Mady: I'd rather see us buy the whole thing. I'd like to see the Hockey
Association come up with the money because every hockey association in the
State of Minnesota does this type of thing. It's very expensive to belong
to a hockey association and to have your kids skate in it. You're required
to put a lot of money into it and a lot of time into it and every parent
that gets their kid involved in hockey knows that going in. Although they
probably put a lot of money into it, what I'm looking for them to do is put
it in. If they want to get a zamboni in there and if the staff doesn't
thinkg they need one right now, then they've got to come up with a way of
doing it. If you guys think we need one to make the ice good, then the
City should buy the whole thing lock, stock and barrel and not get a third,
fourth and fifth party involved in that. I've got a concern wi th that.
I'm still concerned with buying an older machine especially is it's
gasoline powered, that we're going to have that thing certified as being
safe to operate in a closed building. If you can get those things covered,
then I don't mind owning the whole thing.
Hasek: I think what I'd like to see is a lot of what Jim said with maybe
just a few exceptions. I guess I'm not sure whether gas is or isn't any
better or worse than an LP machine so as long as there are some very strict
~ stringent performance standards put on whoever operates that thing and
JW it's operated so we don't run into those problems. If they're written
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 9
down and understood as policy, then I guess that's one thing. The second
thing is that if, I agree with Jim, either it's completely purchased by the
City or at least it's a 50-50 deal with City owning the zamboni. It's
going to be ours in the end. If we're going to take a donation, that
donation should come from the Hockey Association and it should be a
donation, not a retainer if you you will. I don't see the point in doing
that so I guess I would much rather spend $5,000.00 if it's felt that it's
a good investment and we can turn what to date has been a marginally losing
proposition into a very winning proposition for the City, I'd rather invest
the money and do it right.
Robinson: Can I remind you again that youth hockey and adult hockey rated
17th and 18th in the survey out of 18 possible programs and I take
exception to, I'm quoting Chaska and Minnetonka hockey, that has nothing to
do with that. I realize they rent it and if we want this for income,
that's fine but I think we should be concerned about the residents of
Chanhassen.
....,;I
Sietsema: The Chaska and Minnetonka Hockey Associations are Chanhassen as
well.
Watson: Our kids play with those leagues.
~ietsema: That's why he names those two because you could say Chaska-Chan
.ld Chanhassen-Minnetonka.
......,
Robinson: Lori, can you tell me what's happened with the Chaska Lion's
contributions in the past? The $12,000.00 in the previous years.
Sietsema: The $12,000.00 went into the matching grant fund for the LAWCON
grants to build the funds so we would have the matching funds if and when
we got a LAWCON grant. We needed to do that because in our LAWCON
applications we need letters of cooperation from other organizations and
associations that say they support our projects so I was able to deposit
that into that fund and indicate to the grant people that we were getting
support in that way.
Robinson: I'd almost like to continue that instead of using it for
whatever happens to be a hot button at the time.
Sietsema: I talked to Luke Melcher today and he's the one who sends us the
money and I asked him how he felt about us using the money for a zamboni
and he said basically what the Lion's Club wants to see with the money is
us to do projects with it. They don't want it put into the general fund to
be put towards maintenance or the regular operational budget. They don't
want us to say we can count on $15,000.00 from the Lion's Club so they'll
cut our budget by that much. They want us to be able to say we bought you
a zamboni and we bought you $10,000.00 worth of totlot equipment or we did
the grading project at North Lotus Lake. They want to have something that
'ey can go and say that's what our money did.
.....,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~vember 24, 1987 - Page 10
Lynch: The other thing is to make sure that something gets done within the
year that's got their name on it.
Boyt: Today I wanted to take my kids to a playground. I went to Eden
prairie because we don't have a playground they can go to in Chanhassen.
We don't. They're nothing special and I would like to see us put some
money into building a special playground, maybe on the school property.
The school/city jointly owned property. Something the kids can use year
round. The stuff they have now here can only be used when the ground is
not wet and that's not much of the school year.
Lynch: Let's go beat up on the zamboni here some more. I agree with Ed
and Jim. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Hockey Association
makes a deal with Bloomberg Companies where they borrow the $2,500.00 and
pay them back but the big catch here is if let's say this machine is in bad
condition and 5 years from now we can't get $5,000.00 for it. Say we can't
but $1,000.00. Then we get the old Catch-22. If we sell it, we've got to
give Bloomberg $2,500.00 so it winds up molding in the back of their garage
out here someplace. It's one of these borrow back insurance policies that
you can't end. You get stuck in them. I guess I have no philosophical
problem with putting a zamboni over there as long as it's well monitored
and the people are trained. The one iffy I'd like on it, because I've seen
enough used equipment in my day to be a little worried, I would like
~ecifically, and I'd like to get this in the order of a motion we make if
decide to buy it is if Dale could find somebody around with another city
that maintains one and give the guy $50.00 or something to corne out with
you and go through that and point out to you what your general maintenance
problems are to try and get an assessment of what kind of condition it's
in.
Watson: And what does it cost a year to maintain. What are the normal
maintenance costs for upkeep.
Lynch: I always get a little nervous when the seller has this other buyer
in the wings that's just hanging allover you and you've got to quick make
your decision. That's called high pressure sales. Sometimes it's real and
sometimes it's not.
Sietsema: It would be our hockey association selling it to Austin because
we've got the machine here. We just haven't given the guy the money yet.
Schroers: Lori, what are yours and Dale's feelings about the machine?
What it would use? Would you guys like to have it here?
Sietsema: I'm not sure how Dale feels.
Dale Gregory: It would probably help out in the indoor rink. Like Lori
was saying, we do have a problem down there with the condensation and that.
Whether the zambon i is the right thi ng to do, it may be a ma tter of me
~ulating or what has to be done to take care of condensation. I don't
- .ow. The other cities don't have this condensation problem and I agree.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 11
It really does ruin the ice on the one end of the rink because we've got
pumps on a dead night and we're scrapping it before we can do anything with
it. It possibly would be a good idea down there. Now, whether this is the
right one or not, I really don't know. I haven't had a chance to look at
it this much. I would like to find out who owned it so we could really go
back to them and talk to them.
"""'"
Schroers: I'm under the impression, just cosmetically that the machine on
the outside looked as though it had been taken care of or did it look like
it was pretty beat up?
Dale Gregory: The outside looks fairly good. It needs a paint job. It
looks old. There's no doubt about it. It does have a tag on it that says
zamboni made.
Mady: Because they do have field representatives who come out and will
tell you about the machine. They will explain what has to be done with it.
They probably have trained service guys that will come in and tell you
whether or not it's in good condition. I would want to find out from them.
Explain the situation we have with the rink because I know the bumps can
get about an inch high on this end of the rink. It may not be capable of
shaving those done.
~~le Gregory: I've got a sprinkler behind our tractor. We put the weights
1 and we've got a shaving blade on there like a zamboni blade and we can't
take them off all the way with that. ~
Mady: Because if that's the case, I'd rather see us put the $2,500.00 to
$5,000.00 into insulating that ceiling because that will solve that
problem. Because where it's insulated you don't have the problem with the
ice dripping. I think that's the problem we're trying to solve in that
rink is the bumps on the far end because it does make it very difficult to
skate on that end. If that's the situation, we should solve that problem
first. The zamboni may help the problem but it's not going to solve the
problem.
Dale Gregory: Even with the zamboni you've got to take into consideration
that when you're going to be doing this because it's condensation all day
long and the kids come in there and skate at 3:00. That's when your
problem is. You're not going to go in with the zamboni at 3:00 so you've
got a problem with this condensation all day long. You can go in there
tonight and take care of your rink and by tomorrow afternoon when you want
to use it, it's going to bumpy.
Schroer s: In tha t case then it would seem to me it would make a lot more
sense to try and solve the problem with the condensation rather than to
just get the machine to try fix things when we need it fixed.
Hasek: I'm not a real hockey advocate. I hope my kid never plays it
cause I can't afford it but there are children who like to play and I
~uess parents that allow their kids to do it. On their behalf there may be
"-'"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~vember 24, 1987 - Page 12
another solution. If we could get a commitment from the Hockey Association
to donate $2,500.00 to fix the roof or make a commitment to fix the roof,
would we as a city be willing then to buy the zamboni outright and make a
commitment to the $5,000.00. Then it would be ours and we wouldn't have a
problem. We'd have both things solved then. We'd have the ice surface
basically clean for what apparently is somewhat of the zamboni but we'd
still have the opportunity to provide a good surface for the public.
Sietsema: In talking to the people that have been fixing up the ice arena,
I asked them at one point how much it would cost to insulate the rest of
that and they indicated it was going to be a lot of money. Like $15,000.00
to $20,000.00.
Schroers: Also, if we spent the time that it took to correct that problem,
will we miss the deal in this particular zamboni?
Watson: If we said we're committed, we'd go ahead and buy. If they commit
to working on that other...
Schroers: What kind of a time frame do we have?
Sietsema: We have ice normally on the 15th of December.
~roers: But I mean what kind of a time frame do we have in which to
:chase this zamboni?
Sietsema: Let's put it this way. Brad called them last week and said the
financing was going through because the guy was going to come and pick it
up and he bought about 3 more days so we have to know tonight.
Hasek: How much, Jim if you had to estimate how much of that, I have no
idea what we're even talking about here.
Mady: It's about one-third of the ice surface that needs to be scrapped.
From about the blue line down. I can't imagine it would be $20,000.00 to
spray that ceiling with a little bit of insulation.
Dale Gregory: You're looking at just under half the rink.
Watson: I guess I'm uncomfortable with the fact that we have to decide
tonight when we don't know anything about this machine.
Lynch: I wanted to ask that question, is this do or die tonight?
Sietsema: I don't know if you can buy anymore time or not. I really don't
know.
Lynch: My opinion is, if it was do or die tonight, I'm against it, flat.
I've got three problems. I would like the Hockey Association to come up
~h the $2,500.00. Two, I want the condition of the machine
L vfessionally checked. Three, I want a zamboni rep to take a look at the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 13
problem we have and tell us if the machine can handle that problem.
"",
Sietsema: Would you like to make a motion with those conditions?
Lynch: It depends on if this is generally accepted.
Mady: And that's going to take some time.
Boyt: Then we'll look at it.
things are...
I don't to say tonight that if all these
Schroers: I would like to add one more thing and that is look at the
insulation, the re-insulating of the building to solve the problem to begin
with. I think we should throw that in.
Mady: I don't have any problems making a decision tonight based on
qualifying everything.
Lynch: I don't think that $2,500.00, that's really what they will go for.
If what we're talking about is half a hockey rink.
Mady: It's not a full rink.
nch: Even at that, you're not going to get much insulation done for
that. Would we mind if we put a fourth on there and said number 4, have an
insulation contractor look at the building and tell us what it would take.
"",
Hasek: Give us a solution. Maybe it's not poor insulation. Maybe a
temporary solution like heavy mil plastic to direct that water down to the
edges or something would work in the interim.
Watson: Some commitment that the Hockey Association is going to begin to
deal with that problem and not turn up here next fall with, they've got to
be invOlved in insulating.
Sietsema: We need to finish the motion. You've got to purchase it for
$5,000.00. Number one condition was to check it out by a zamboni rep.
Number two was for the Hockey Association to donate $2,500.00.
Mady: I'd like to see the Hockey Association donate $2,500.00 toward
solving the problem of condensation dripping down to the rink. Be that by
using a vapor barrier or having the whole thing insulated, however but I'd
like to see that done. It is Herb's building and Herb is wanting to donate
$2,500.00 toward, rather an interest free loan toward the association for
purchasing something, I'd like to see him invest his money interest free in
his own building in solving the problem we have. I'd also like to see the
city have a strict rules governing who can be on the machine. Who can
operate it. We should have an operation schedule on it. It shouldn't be
. . to individual coaches determining I'd like to have the ice cleaned now.
_ think it needs to be done probably more than one a day but I'm not sure
....."I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 14
~.
it needs to be done every hour on the hours like they'd like to have it
done probably. I want to make sure the city staff is the one taking care
of this and not some coach.
Lynch: On the condition of the machine, I'd also like the zamboni
representative to tell us that it will handle the problem that does exist
because it may be a while before that.
Mady: Also, have the zamboni representative review the problem we're
having with the bumps on the ice caused by the condensation and indicate
whether or not the machine is capable of handling that problem or will the
problem cause a deterioration of the equipment.
Watson: And if Bloomberg decides to put the $2,500.00 towards helping the
problem in the building itself, it's the Hockey Association that pays that
back to Bloomberg. The city doesn't have anything to do with donations
that Bloomberg makes towards his building. The Hockey Association is
responsible for repayment of anything.
Hasek: The question I have is, is the $2,500.00 donation by the Hockey
Association exactly what we want to say or do we want them to make a
commi tment to just the general...of the problem irregardless of how much it
costs. $2,500.00 may not be in their budget and might do anything but back
~ of it. It might completely cover it and won't have to do the whole or
'be they'll push Bloomberg to fix the problem and they won't have to
Ovnate any money.
Lynch: The thing that bothers me about the motion is I don't think I'm
ready to say I recommend the purchase if these things are taken care of
because some of these are subjective judgments.
Robinson: I share the same concern.
Lynch: I would like to see these things done, find out the answers and
then tell you whether.
Sietsema: Do we have a second to the motion?
Hasek: We don't have to second it because he still has time to amend it so
I'd like to leave the motion with Jim for right now. How about if we just
have Jim simply say something like we woule recommend the purchase based on
findings, based on these conditions?
Lynch: Even better, before we recommend the purchase find these things
out.
Mady: The only concern I have and I'm really disappointed that Brad
Johnson's not here or someone from the Hockey Association because the way
it sounds, we don't have the time.
~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 15
Boyt: Brad has had that thing since last year. He's had all this time to
come to us. He had it last year. Now with only three days to go, we have
the information.
-'
Watson: I'm not comfortable with the time we've been given to do this
because obviously we have questions.
Mady: We meet on the 8th of December again.
Schroers: I like Mike's suggestion that we word it, before we make the
recommendation we want to see these things happen.
Mady: I'd like to see us make a comm i tment towards the purchase if we can
get the stuff done.
Hasek: So just amend it to make the commitment to make the purchase if we
get positive information concerning these four points.
Mady: This is a last one, I'd like to see somebody from the Hockey
Association.
Watson: I'm surprised there isn't anybody here. They have major interest
in what occurred here and nobody showed up. I don't know if they presumed.
etsema: Jim amended the motion that this Commission will make a
commitment towards purchase upon the conditions being met and until then ~
the item is tabled.
Mady moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to make a commitment to purchase the zamboni upon the following
conditions being met and until that time the item is tabled:
1. The zamboni will be checked out by a zamboni representative who
will indicate that it's in good shape and worth $5,909.00 and who
will also verify that it will handle the existing problems of the
condensation dripping from the roof.
2. The Hockey Association will donate $2,500.00 toward solving the
dripping of the condensation problem.
3. Strict operational policy and operational schedules will be made
by city staff and implemented by staff.
4. Reject the security interest of Bloomberg Companies.
All voted in favor except Robinson and Boyt who opposed and motion carried.
"'dy: Do we need to send out a thank-you to the Lion's Club?
-"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~vember 24, 1987 - Page 16
Sietsema: I will send out a thank you to them when you've decided what you
want to do with the money so I can tell them at that time what we're doing
with it.
Robinson: Will that be on the next agenda?
Sietsema: This item will be on the next agenda.
Robi nson: I mean wha t we're goi ng to do with the money so we can get a
thank you out to them before they've got another check into us.
Sietsema: Yes.
RECONSIDER TRAIL EASEMENT REQUEST ALONG THREE LOTS l! T BAR K DEVELOPMENT.
Sietsema: What I put on the table is just a copy of the trail plan that
shows how the trail plan is affected by this subdivision.
Al Klingelhutz: I'm a realtor in town here. This is Karen Slater who owns
the 10 acre tract that was subdivided into three lots south of Lyman Blvd.
by the south side of TH 101 where it T's. We are having quite a problem
with the fact that there is a 20 foot trailway on the road side of the
~perty and an additional trailway system on the backside of the property
ich actually severs the lot from the low lying area and the high land.
Twice these lots have been sold with the understanding that is was just a
conservation easement and wouldn't be a trailway and in checking with the
city, the people had found out and this is my understanding that it was
just a conservation easement to protect the wetland. People checking with
the city found that it was through trailway system and the lots have been
cancelled out. The purchase of the lots has been cancelled out. The lady
who purchased one of the lots was going to be here tonight. I think I was
supposed to be notified of this meeting. Karen came to my house tonight
and said the meeting is tonight and I was a little bit surprised that I
wasn't notified.
Sietsema: I thought you were going to be out of town so I sent it to her.
Al Klingelhutz: And Cheryl Grant who was purchasing one of the lots
definitely said she'd like to be here at the meeting to testify saying that
she really feels that seing there is a 20 foot trailway system along the
road should be sufficient and in order to have two trailway systems on the
same piece of property, one in front of you and one if back of you, I
wouldn't like it and I think if I questioned anyone of you in that same
thing, I don't you would like that because it takes away so much of your
privacy. You've got people walking in front of you. You've got people
walking in back of you. You build your house in the middle, what do you
have left for your own private property? Karen here is not capable of
~lding a job and she is pret ty much depending on the money from these lots
make a living. They aren't going to bring that big a dollars but they
~ c going to be real helpful in her making it. Far be it for me to say
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 17
--"
anything against trailway systems because I think the original trailway
system in Chanhassen was started when I was Mayor of this town. I don't
know if you've seen tha t plan or not but there was qu i te a comprehens i ve
trailway system and I think we took great care in not being detrimental to
property. Virtually when you put two trailway systems like this on a piece
of property, one in front and one in back, it's almost like a payment
without compensation. The value of that property detriorates so much that
you almost have to sell it for half of what it's worth because of the fact
that the people who are buying these lots, they buy a lot of this size and
nature for privacy and not to have people running past your front door and
past your back door. Thank you.
Hasek: What happens if we eliminate the trail system on Lyman Blvd. and
leave the one in the rear?
Al Klingelhutz: The rear one is really the one that's causing the problem.
The front one along Lyman I think is more important for the total trail
system of this city than the one in the rear because actually right now,
it's this piece of property that would have a trail on it so it would
probably be another 20 years before that trail would be completed on the
rear of the property.
Hasek: I guess
""=ime concern as
necessarily.
there anyone on
just in looking at the trail plan here, I have perhaps the
the owner does, that we surrounded a piece of property
I'm not familiar with the lay of the land out there. Is
this commission who is?
...."".
Lynch: I've seen it about a year ago.
Hasek: Adjacent property to the west and to the east?
Al Klingelhutz: Adjacent property to the west was all a cornfield this
year. Part of the slough is on the adjacent property, a wetland. The
adjacent property to the east is a 10 acre parcel and only one individual,
one owner of the total farm to the south and east there.
Watson: And he has a private residence there?
Al Klingelhutz:
south you have a
there now and it
down some of the
to shape up.
He has his own private residence on the property. To the
nursery that has been bought. There's a growing range
looks they've done a lot of improvements on it. They tore
old buildings and they painted the barn and it's starting
Hasek: Is the 60 acre parcel that's to the west, is that owned by one
person?
Al Klingelhutz: That's owned by Earl Olasic, yes.
.-'sek: And that's the parcel that's being farmed right now?
......",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 18
,......
Al Klingelhutz: Yes.
Hasek: Is that that real high cornfield that's out there. It si ts kind of
up in the woods back off the road a little bit?
Al Klingelhutz: No, it's a fairly flat piece of land. The east end is a
slough area or the wetland and the corn did come up to his property line
right along Lyman Blvd.. It's actually the site for the proposed landfill.
Hasek: I think the intent was to try and get, I don't remember this one?
Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission did not see this. It was the
Planning Commission that recommended these trails. It was not brought to
us.
Al Klingelhutz: I think you're looking at a trailway system on each side
of this property right now.
Hasek: I guess the question that I had in looking at the detail on this,
it's very broad and I'm wondering if maybe one possibility wouldn't be to
exchange an easement in the back or maybe an easement on the west property
line. That would at least make the connection to Lyman Blvd..
~y: You're talking a nature trail to a nature trail. A nature trail is
. going to be paved.
Hasek: That's true. However, there are going to be people on that trail
and we've got one in the front. If I remember correctly, we looked at a
parcel that wasn't dissimilar to this that was in the northwest corner of
CR 117.
Schroers: Lori, the trail that runs along the back of the property, are
you familiar with that?
Sietsema: I haven't walked it myself but this is one that Tim Erhart has
walked this whole area and it connects up to the trails that he's building
along his property that would potentially connect this area to the Bluff
Creek trail system that is on the plan.
Wa tson: It looks like it's forked.
property line and along the south?
of forked right in there.
Are we actually running along the west
The nature trail looks like it's kind
Al Klingelhutz: As far as I know, there is no easement along the west
property line at this time and I think that was after...
Watson: Before it gets up to CR 18 doesn't really have the easements so
we're only concerned about the southerly portion?
~Klingelhutz: Actually when you look at this, it doesn't look like that
.ure trail goes completely around too because when you get over by TH
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 19
101, it doesn't really show it again.
......,r
Sietsema: There's a portion of it that needs to go in along with road
improvements. It's still the preliminary one but there is a nature trail
that would go all the way down to connect those two pieces.
Al Klingelhutz: You mentioned Tim Erhart and I sort of discussed this with
him and he kind of realized the problem he was creating there when I told
him what was happening and I'm just wondering if I shouldn't have asked him
up here tonight to talk to you about it too.
Karen Slater: That swamp area, if you want to see swamp, go to the
Arboretum. That's not far away.
Mady: That's not the issue. We need to have trails and we're not going to
tell our people they have to go to Eden prairie to use the trail and we're
not going to tell them to go someplace else. I have a problem that the
trail that we're asking for on the bottom part of this property is 32 feet
below where you're going to be putting your house. That's a long ways.
You're not going to be seeing these people. This is no different than any
other trail easement we're putting in any other place. We're doing it at
Chan Ponds. They're selling those parcels. I don't see the problem. I
really don't. I'm sorry but we're asking for a nature trail on the bottom
r-~cause the nature area exists down there and we want to preserve it.
ople want nature areas because they're there.
Al Klingelhutz: Can you tell me why people are cancelling out of their ,"""'"
purchase agreements if it's no problem.
Lynch: I have a hard time with that Al because I know people in
Minneapolis that have paid extra money to get a house that was on the
Minneapolis trail system.
Al Klingelhutz: This would be on the trail system. Here we've got two
trail systems on the same piece of property and that's the problem. I
don't think there would be an objection if there was only one trail system
on the piece of property.
Watson: But the trail along the road though, along CR 18, it's not going
to much different than people just moving along.
Mady: It's just sidewalk. This is no different than look at the ones in
Eden Prairie. They're being built basically as sidewalks 8 feet wide.
A1 K1ingelhutz: I don't see any problem with the one along the highway.
Mady: And the one on the bottom is not going to be paved. It's basically
for families going down there. It's not going to be kids tearing up and
down with the dirt bikes and skateboards.
~_ Klingelhutz: Are you sure?
-'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 20
,......
Mady: It's not going to be paved so there will be dirt bikes but not
skateboards. They won't be able to do it.
Karen Slater: A real nice quiet little place down there.
Mady: Well, the whole place is a quiet place.
Boyt: I don't think we can have a developer coming in here and saying we
decided we don't like your trails when we have our trail system developed
and ask us to take them out.
Al Klingelhutz: This carne in after the fact. Because of the fact that the
preliminary plat showed nothing about a trail system on the lower side of
this property. When it carne to final plat Mrs. Slater and her son Dan were
not even here to defend the issue and I guess this is one thing that's
bothered me to change horses after the middle of the stream had been
crossed. The preliminary plat there were seven issues I believe and this
trail system was something that was added to it after the preliminary plat
was approved.
Hasek: Was the trail added by the Park Board or by the Planning
Commission?
~Klingelhutz: I'm not sure who added it but it did corne up before the
ncil?
Hasek: Do we know who added it?
Mady: I don't have a problem with it whether it was us or somebody else.
Sietsema: I think it was added at the Planning Commission level. I do not
believe that the Park and Recreation Commission saw this.
Watson: There's no mention of this body as a part of that.
Hasek: I have another question.
pipeline across this property.
It says there's a 12 inch underground
What is that?
Al Klingelhutz: William's Pipeline Company. That was actually before Mrs.
Slater bought it. There is a telephone easement on the property but those
easements are both blanket easements and are being taken care of and
reduced to a definite easement on the property.
Schroers: Are you have problems right now Mrs. Slater with people running
through there with vehicles of any type or kind?
Karen Slater: Only my own use of it right now. My son has been helping me
take care of it because I have to have the money. You see this is my
problem.
""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 21
Mady: That's all fine and well. However, the thing in front of us is -'
whether or not we should have a developer come in front of us and ask us to
remove a trail easement and that's what we have to look at. I'll tell you
right now, I'd say no. Trails are there, the easement's there and I don't
see any reason why not to have it.
Karen Slater: I want to get the lots sold.
Mady: You have the opportunity to sell that whole parcel also. The City
has no responsibility as far as I'm concerned making sure that you can
sell your piece of property for the money you want to sell it for.
Karen Slater: I can't sell it for what I want.
Mady: That's the problem you have.
Al Klingelhutz: I think you're wrong in that Jim. I think the latest
Supreme Court decision said that if there is a taking of property without
just compensation, the property owner has the right to sue that
municipality or whatever jurisdiction.
Boyt: You need to bring that up with the City Council and City Attorney.
We're park developers.
Klingelhutz: It is devaluing that property because I know for a fact
that it is devaluing the property. We can bring with us the planned -'
purchase agreements on the property and because of the fact that the trail
easement is on the lower side of that property, they are cancelling out
their purchase agreements.
Mady: How was it presented to them AI? We've got developers coming in
here, the guy came in here from Chan ponds, he's happy with that thing now
that he's seen how it's going to be developed.
Al Klingelhutz: I think Chan Ponds is a Ii ttle different. You've got a
wider trail system there. You've got a total park area there. You haven't
got this 12 foot easement across your property just for people to walk on.
I think by Kerber Pond is all together different things than this is
because you've got a total area of land that the city has jurisdiction over
where here you've got a 12 foot easement that the city is going to have
jurisdiction over. It doesn't say providing for foot travel. It doesn't
say snowmobiles can't travel on it. It doesn't say three wheel or
motorcycles can't travel on it.
Lynch: I'm stuck on the same thing. As far as a property owner
effectively, inconvenienced or not inconvenienced, the builder over here
really seems to think that those are his premium lots now because we did
considerable negotiation with him.
,- Klingelhutz: Because they're overlooking a nice big pond.
--'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 22
"'"'"
Lynch: Not a big pond, it's a very small pond but if it was a slough like
Rice Lake Marsh or whatever, I don't think that's exactly the point. We
have a situation there where they do have on-street trails through that
neighborhood. You do have a situation where, if it's planned right, the
trail in Chan Pond's area is about the same distance from the hill as what
you have here and the hill, your elevation is a little greater than what it
is there even and there's no intervening cover over here. On those, the
whole operation is seen as a positive thing. Now I can understand where
you may have purchasers of a piece of property that as part of their ideal
of a piece of a property required absolute, total isolation. I have
friends that wouldn't live any other way but they're in a minority. Most
of the people I know, myself included, if you say would any of you like to
have the trail, yes I'd like to have to the trail very much. I have public
street on both sides of my property. It spans a circle and that's always
been used by everybody in the neighborhood as the pathway because we were
lucky enough to have that neighborhood develop where there should have been
pathways so we have a narrow residential road with a fairly high traffic
level on both sides of our property and I don't feel that it detracts at
all from the value of my house or the liveability of the property or the
aesthetics of the property. I think if everything is known up front, there
are buyers that will be attracted to the property. Maybe perhaps just the
ones that were in there this time...
~~hroers: Is there any other solution? Is there a way of rerouting the
~il a little bit further away so that it wouldn't be inconvenient to the
~ _spective buyer?
Sietsema: The reason that the 886 contour line was chosen is to make sure
that it would be on dry ground because there are cattails and wet areas
below that.
Lynch: I can't tell you for sure on this one but generally the city staff
picks a contour that's above high water mark. The traditional high water
mark.
Schroers: I think that we already talked about that in our previous
meeting didn't we about this particular area and keeping it up?
Hasek: Not this one. We talked about another one.
Schroers: But the same situation.
Watson: AI, do you think this trail would be less threatening to people
who were developed? Is it because it's kind of ambigious exactly where it
is or whatever it is that's part of the problem?
Al Klingelhutz: I don't know. The people I've been dealing with, it's
like he said. They want absolute privacy and want to build back onto the
bank overlooking the low area which would be right above the trailway
r"tem.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 23
...."
Hasek: Just another question. If the trail were along the back property
line, a 20 foot easement there, how would that effect it?
Al Klingelhutz: If the trail were completely on the back property line I
don't think there would be any problem with it. It could never be used.
Hasek: But is that why you're saying it would be problem because you know
that it couldn't exist or if there was high ground there and had a trail
system. . .
Al Klingelhutz: I don't think it has near the effect on the property
because this is that much more from where the house is.
Hasek: So really in your mind it's kind of a question of the degree of the
effect on the property.
Al Klingelhutz: That's going to shorten the property line up. Most of the
people are going to try to get back as far away from the highway as
possible so it really brings it close to where this easement is.
Hasek: I guess they're going to try not only to get away from the highway
but if I were building on this, if I bought one of these things with a 12
inch William's Pipeline going through it, I'd want to build as far away
f~om that too and I'm thinking that what's happening here is maybe not so
ch the trail but the lay of the land and everything and also the pipeline '--'
wanting to push people towards the back of the property. I guess it's like
Jim said, we're a Park Board. I don't know that this body, I know that I
had nothing to do with it. I understand the connection now. It seems to
make some sense to me and just based on the graphic here and knowing that
you had the opportunity to take this to the Planning Commission and
Council both, I would recommend that the trail easement remain in place at
the elevation 886.
Hasek moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to deny the request for reconsideration of the trail easement
along three lots in the T Bar K development and that it remain in place at
the 886 elevation. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Watson: On Friday I guess it was, my son and his friend walked on the
trail between Greenwood Shores Park and Lake Ann Park. There is barbed
wire allover on the ground within 2 feet of that trail all on city
property.
Dale Gregory: It just came up to us and Dean when down there today. Are
you talking about the barbed wire that's on the ground or the fence that
runs along the lake?
y ~son: No, it's between Eckankar's property, most of it, and the trail
L_': it's a flat area. It's in the city's property. ...."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 24
""
L _e Gregory: But it's not the fence between the trail and the lake?
Watson: No.
Dale Gregory:
fence.
Right along the lake there's a fence, it's not a barbed wire
Watson: No, this is on the other side of the trail. This is on the field
side of the trail and it's buried in the grass and some of it sticks up
here and some it's in rolls on the edge. The boys found it and kids slide
down there. Well, Eckankar is going to ruin that because they fenced that
property but even on the other side of the trail, on the lake side of the
trail there's a thing of barbed wire that sticks up out of the ground,
straight up about this high and it comes up out of the dirt and there it
is. It's just a great big barbed wire.
Dale Gregory: We'll go down there and go through the whole thing tomorrow
and make sure.
Watson: Yes, because it runs all along there. Some places it comes up and
it kind of rolls in the snow. To a cross country skier or anybody who
happens to get off the path.
['I::> Ie Gregory: I know tha t was the fence
~ake Ann side and we went down and we
hought if I'm going to get that out.
go down tomorrow and make sure.
from Greenwood Shores all the way
just took a quick look at that and
What you're talking about, we'll
Watson: It I S one of those old fences. It's a pasture is really what it is
but I really think...
Mady: I asked Lori about, there's some barbed wire around...
Dale Gregory: There's only two of us and we're so dog gone busy right now.
Like I told Lori, we didn't get everything done this year that we had to
get done and we really were hurting this year because we didn't get any
CEDA help for one thing and we hired one part-time guy. That guy who works
for me, his brother, he's 16 or 17 this year so he was able to drive but
we're getting to the point now where we've got to have at least two people
in the summer who can drive besides the two who are working there now
because we've got enough grass right now and enough maintenance that we can
keep two guys cutting grass during the week at all the parks and that
doesn't leave us any time for playground equipment maintenance or any of
that other stuff. Like I say, if we had had a rain that the grass would
have really grown, we'd really be in trouble. I'm expressing the fact that
we need young kids or high school kids that can drive. We get these CEDA
kids and that and they can't drive.
Watson: The reality of the situation is, we can't continue to develop
r ~ks and build trail systems and stuff unless there are people to maintain
~ because we're going to get into trouble when we can't maintain them.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - page 25
.",.
Hasek: Isn't that also supposed to be figured into the budget.
Watson: Not our budget.
Sietsema: If there's not anything else for Dale we'll move on.
Lynch: I wondered why because we did this years ago, Dale probably
remembers this. Dale used to come in once a year and we'd say Dale, this
is your spot, how are things? And he'd say well. That's how he got that
shed out at Lake Ann. It took 2 or 3 years for it to happen but that's how
he got i,t and he'd say this is going well and that's going well. I'm
having a problem here. We need to do something with this place. It wasn't
all of it all wasn't always accepted but nobody here has more hands on
experience than Dale does. what do the rest of you guys think about
inviting Dale in at a certain once a year.
Sietsema: Budget time would be good.
Schroers: Let's extend an invitation to Dale to come in any time he feels
like it. Any time that he's got a concern or especially if there's some
way that he thinks that we could help him, that he should be able to come
in here and address us any time he wants to.
r "nch: I thi nk tha t should al ways be open but I would 1 i ke to see us once
, :fear, as sort of a stated maintenance update......."
Mady: I would have liked to have heard from him prior to the budget being
passed so we could have made a recommendation to Council that they increase
his budget if he's got maintenance problems. We need to start doing that.
REVIEW PRE-CONCEPT PLANS OF PARK PARCELS IN LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST TO
DETERMINE IF THE RIME PROPERTY IS NEEDED TO SERVE ESTIMATED NEEDS.--
Mark Koegler: I think you're probably generally familiar with Lake Susan
Hills West. Some of us are real familiar with it. We've seen it for over
10 years. The purpose of the discussion this evening is to take a look at
this early on, relatively early on the in the review process of the whole
thing and to assess whether or not the park that is being shown is adequate
for neighborhood park purposes. Specifically looking at Outlots G, H, E
and F down in this location. Those are the ones that have been dedicated
or will be dedicated as a part of this proposal. The overall subdivision
has a little over 1,000 units which has the capability of adding basically
25% of the city's current population. Approximately 2,700 additional
people so there is obviously very substantial park impact that comes out of
this project and it probably comes as no surprise. What we discussed the
need to do is to assess the overall park demand and I think the best way to
do that is to look at a couple of things. First of all some discussion on
your park about the level of facilities that you thing are going to be
required for neighborhood park purposes and indicate now that realistically
· ~ Park Commission is in a good position to do that judging from
E:..t>er ience that you have with other parks around town. I think a ...",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 26
"
relation you could draw is that Chanhassen right now has about four
tlmes as many people in population and you can look at where your short
comings are right now in the neighborhood park basis or your long suits,
and take that information and take it down to this level where the
development is about 25% of the present population of the City. To also
assist in looking at these sites, we put together some real quick
hypothetical, and I underscored that, sketches of the types of facilities
that could go in there. It's not an advocate that those will go in there
but just to give some overview of these are the numbers and kinds of things
that could go in to service that population level. Those are in the packet
and I don't know that we need to go through those. Basically Outlot G,
which is 9.8 acres, there is strong potential there for some active
facili ties. I'll get into the use of those in a few minutes but we've got
industrial property across the street so I think it's conceivable to get a
variety of users. Presumably it will be a mix of residential users and
possibly some industrial users. Either on a noon hour basis or after work
or those kinds of things. It is possible on that site to get a variety of
active facilities in there including full size softball field if the need
was felt to be there. Hockey, picnic, tennis, whatever it might be.
Outlot H over on this side which is a relatively small parcel, 3.9 acres,
does have some slope which is the result of the road construction that's
gone on in the past, is very limited for any active facilities. It's
possible to use that for some facilities and we've shown hypothetically a
~~uple of tennis courts and a small ball diamond which would really just
~ve neighborhood pick-up kind of purposes. Nothing more. That is not a
~e that is going to accomodate much activity really of any variety. The
~_~lot down in the southeast portion, Outlot E, I think you can see quite a
bit of that is in the dot pattern which is designated wetlands. I think
you're familiar enough with the City's wetlands ordinances that there's not
a great deal that you can or want to do potentially with that. There is an
area in the center here that may have some potential. However, I indicate
that it really is fairly well removed from convenient public access. You
have to get in at one of these trail points and traverse around to get to
that. There's no immediate penetration from the surrounding neighborhood
and I don't know if that's changeable or not but there may be some
potential there for some facilities to service a portion of the acreage
there on this side of the site. The final outlot that is proposed is this
18.1 acre piece down here that is labeled Outlot F which is a irregularly
shaped piece which consistent with your last discussion has a William's
Pipeline that runs right through it. Portions of that site certainly are
suitable for active park purposes. There's a sketch in there that we can
get a couple of ball diamonds and tennis courts and picnic and a full sized
soccer if you desire. There is a holding pond that's shown up in this area
for storm water purposes. That limits access at the mouth of the park.
That doesn't present any major constraints. The biggest constraint is the
steep slope area that runs through kind of the center portion which divides
it through almost two useable spaces. One being this upper portion and the
other primarily being this portion up in here. This slope does begin to
drop off again as you proceed on down. It's important I think in your
c ~ments and deliberations this evening to address several facets of the
~rall park issue. One certainly has to be the distribution of facilities
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 27
~
just beyond the total numbers. If we get five softball fields down in
here, how well does that service somebody that lives up here? Not very
well obviously so we need to get some kind of a random dispersal through
here and I think geographically at least the sights work fairly well for
that. The other thing I think you need to assess, and maybe this is clear
in your minds, is how are these parks going to be used? Who are the users?
Are they for neighborhood purposes or when the ballfields at Lake Ann
continue to get busier and busier, are you on a "interim" measure going to
start schedule activities in some of these kinds of parks? If so, that has
some implications on demand and on the kinds of facilities that you might
have down there. The only feasible alternative right now is that if you
determine there are shortcomings in the amount of land or the amount of
useful land here, there's a piece of property immediately to the west and I
think Lori probably could give more information on that, that presumably is
available for acquisition by the City. It's about 400 or 500 feet of that,
you can see the shaded areas here where the contours get fairly steep but
there is a quite an amount of useable space up in this portion that when
combined with that useable area does have the potential for some strong,
active oriented areas, should you feel that be needed. Access to that,
there may be some potential to come in from Audubon with some kind of an
access over here for that purpose. Presumably you wouldn't want to
establish much of a major facility here and bring all the traffic in
through the surrounding neighborhood. So in summary, I think you need to
?~dress the facilities that you think are going to be needed to support
1s level of population, 2,500 to 2,700 people. Do those facilities serve
those needs, do they serve it from convenience standpoint so you don't have
to cross Powers Blvd. for example to get to the only tennis court in this
area or whatever. I think that's an important consideration. Then the
aspect of how it will be used. will you be having industrial users in
there? Will you be having league scheduled activities. Scheduled
practices or simply for neighborhood purposes. So the intent tonight is to
just kind of give you an overview and maybe lead towards some discussion
about whether or not the land area is adequate? It's useable enough. If
it can accomodate the facilities and if the answer to that question is no,
should that property immediately west be looked at for acquisition.
Mady: The orange area higher up is high densi ty as well as the brown area
is smaller density. I'd like to know how many units are we talking about
in each of those areas?
"""""
Mark Koegler: I'm not that familiar with the operation. The multiple
which is in the R-12, which is the highest density in this category,
there's 375 units in that area. These areas through here that are labeled
mid-density, we've got 35, 95 and 91 units here so 240, roughly 230.
Lynch: How does this, you've surely evaluated it enough to know, how does
it meet our normal standards for parkland per 1,000?
Mark Koegler: It meets the ordinance requirements. That's such a blanket
, 1tement so from there.
--'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 28
If/I'"
Lynch: It's a place to start.
Mark Koegler: It is the place to start. Obviously you have to consider
that and just like what you were talking about tonight, you want to be on
firm legal ground and that's the best instrument you have but beyond simply
that the ordinance says they have to give so many acres, are the acres that
they are proposing to give appropriate? I think that's what needs to be
addressed. There certainly is a sustantial amount of useable land there
and it gets back again to the issue of will it accomodate the facilities as
you want to see? Is the distribution adequate and if not, what remedies
should be looked at?
Robinson: As I read through your memo, boy I really felt good about this.
Yes, that's a lot of facilities until I got to your last paragraph and then
I sort of got confused with the industrial area right next door and the
high residential. I'm sure the park facility there and the facilities you
can strike in them, is plenty good for 2,700 people or 1,007 dwelling units
but like you say, the overflow from Lake Ann, will it corne down here.
That's the question in my mind.
Mady: One thing you've got to remember, mostly I wasn't aware, underneath
Powers Blvd., approximately where the park is, there is a viaduct
underneath there. The City does own and people can get underneath the road
~hout going above the road.
Mark Koegler: There's a 12 foot box culvert under there.
Lynch: That was 8-10 years ago?
Mark Koegler: It was about 1979 when that went in.
Mady: So we can get underneath the road without having kids go across
Powers Blvd..
Mark Koegler: Yes. It carries drainage also but normally is dry.
Watson: Do you feel, let's face it, there appears to be a lot of
facilities. If we're taking the facilities and taking just this group of
houses and saying is this enough park and are these enough facilities for
these people and isolating it, there is enough for them. They provided
enough parkland. Certainly a lot of it is land they couldn't have used
anyway. They weren't going to be able to build houses in that park down
along there anyway. It was nice but there was no tremendous amount of
generosity there. They knew they weren't losing lots when they gave us
that land. But like when you talk about using this overflow from Lake Ann
or something, does it suddenly seem inadequate?
Mark Koegler: Let's me address that in a couple of ways. First of all,
the thing that's not referenced here that I think I'd be the first one to
~ should have been, is you've got to consider the other park that's here
~ well. It has obviously excellent access potential to substantial
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 29
.....",
portion of the development. When I looked at it my reaction I think Carol
was kind of the same as yours that it will accomodate quite a range of
facilities and that's just a sampling. I think you can get as creative as
you want to in what you want to put in there and how you want to put it in.
I think the land that's shown is adequate to handle the demand that's going
to be generated by these immediate neighborhoods. My concern is one of
more of a practical nature and I don't know that it's the developer's
responsibility. I'd probably have to argue that but in cities like
Chanhassen that are growing so rapidly and you have such demands for Lake
Ann Park in the ball diamonds that are there and the problems in expanding
that within the next few years, we naturally look to neighborhood areas to
relieve that pressure. And I think that will happen here. If you do that,
it puts more pressure on this and it makes it more difficult for the
abutting neighbors certainly to either use or fully enjoy just because they
don't like the scheduled league activities behind their house. If there
are ball diamonds in here or here or whatever.
Lynch: The same thing was happening when I was coaching which was before
the school was completed. The elementary school fields were completed and
we had to go down to Rice Marsh Lake area. I've got a number of things
here I guess. I'd like to certainly see an access to the city park on the
north from Rice Marsh Lake.
P~yt: There is. There's a trail along there.
...."",
Lynch: That's fine, how do you get on the neighborhood end of that?
Mark Koegler: Right there. There's one point heie. Otherwise you'd have
to come from either a private lot or all the way through.
Lynch: Right, now shouldn't there be something that would be then more
directly from the northern most streets?
Mady: We talked about that. We can't get across that.
Sietsema: We're not getting anymore than what you see right there. It's
written in stone.
Lynch: The second thing is, normally when we develop these as neighborhood
parks, we don't have sufficient parking to encourage any kind of team
parking...for ballfields around you can go practice on if you wanted. You
don't anticipate scheduling into these neighborhoods?
Sietsema: I would see more run over of the little kids. We're out of
space up here at the elementary school where the little kids play. I see
them playing here before big people playas a run over from Lake Ann.
Schroers: Are you looking at this as just a temporary thing until that
proposed sports area in the southern part of the city gets built?
b_dtsema: That's kind of what I'm asking you.
....."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 30
,......
Hasek: When I was reading through the Minutes, I apologize for missing the
last few meetings but I was working, the thing that got me going was the
perceived need for ballfields other than the men's slow pitch fields that
we've got started up there. One of them is being used for a Babe Ruth
field I understand and I didn't know that. The big field. It makes a
dynamite softball field as well. What I've heard and read in the Minutes
from that particular meeting was some discussion about changing the uses of
some of the fields up there. I thing that's completely inappropriate. The
reason is we have started a location which in my mind can compete with just
about anyplace in this city for league play for softball. Women's, men's,
industrial leagues, whatever and I think that that particular facility
should be directed in that direction. What we have started here now
perhaps is an opportunity to catch and to begin to build a second level of
fields for the children that are coming up. There is the possibility with
the additions of land in there to build four fields on that flat area right
here. One, two, three and four with soccer fields adjoining them and I
think that that's an opportunity that we should probably be taking a look
at. What I would hate to see is the fragmentation of something that we've
got started just for the sake of doing it. If you're going to do
something, we ought to be thinking about doing it like Minnetonka has done.
Put their uses together. Beyond the softball complex you've got a Little
League complex. You've got a hockey complex. That's really the way to do
it rather than having things allover the place. Lake Ann will never be a
~tle League complex. The city I don't think will ever be able to support
t particular location in a Little League sense. We've already started
tu build a league out there that's working and functioning. I think we
should let that one go in the direction it wants to go. We can put in, if
necessary, another legion type of ballfield, baseball type of field and
still play softball on it but to consider taking one of the three fields or
one of the potential for six, which may never happen, fields and changing
it's use so it's not useable for something else doesn't make any sense to
me whatsoever.
Mady: If I can explain what we did previously, the discussion centered
around we have a need for Little League fields and Babe Ruth fields as well
as softball fields and we have a shortage of money to do what we want to do
but the idea is to put Little League/Babe Ruth type of facilities in a
southern community based park and expand that with nature areas. However,
we have a money shortage and to be able to do that we've already requested
of the City Council in a resolution to expand Lake Ann. To add three more
fields out there and by doing that we'll take two fields and make them into
a Little League and a Babe Ruth field because you can not play sanctioned
Babe Ruth or Little League on a field that's used for anything else because
you have to have a grass infield for Babe Ruth and Little League both. If
you do that, softball is going to ruin it. We just do so what we're trying
to do is we're going to add a field for softball and two for others and
then 5 years, 8 years, whatever it is, once we get the southern field built
for Little League and Babe Ruth functions, we'll convert those fields back
so all it will be is ripping the sod out and moving the fences to where
"""""y ha ve to be moved to and it will be done very i nexpens i vel y. We ha ve
~ At short term problem so we want to meet that problem right away.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 31
.."""
Hasek: I guess that's one approach to it. I think in 5 years that you do
what you're intending on doing, you can very well kill something that
you've got going already and perhaps to look at that one complex as serving
all your needs is not necess~rily the way that it wants to be done. The
Little League, you're obviously going to have to pull the fences in because
260 feet is way too far for Little League. Those fences have to come in.
Mady: We do that on the one of the new fields. Conv~rt the existing Babe
Ruth field by basically improving the dugout area and putting grass in.
That's what you have to do.
Hasek: Right and then what about field 3 that's closest to the lake?
Mady: We'd leave it as is until we get...
Hasek: Then what is the projection for the fields that are going to happen
in the southern part of town?
Mady: We've got a money problem.
Hasek: That's what I'm talking about. What you've done now is you've
accomodated, I guess what I'm saying is, if you need two fields for Legion
or if you need two fields for Little League, if that's the perceived need
T~ght now, I think that this spot right here, if you take the soccer field
;, would very easily serve those two fields and we could build a dynamite
little set of two fields there.
,.;<
Mady: But we have no access to it. We can't get access to it right now.
Hasek: You can access anything if you want to. Maybe this isn't the spot.
Maybe Outlot G is a better location for two fields. I don't know what the
topography looks like.
Mady: The other things we talked about when we discussed this was that
this is so close to Lake Ann, we have not put it actually in the southern
part of the city which is what we were thinking of. We wanted to put it on
the other side of Lyman and possibly the other side of TH 212. Wherever
that is so that it actually does the people in the southern part of the
city something.
Hasek: That's where you're going to put Little League? That's what you're
thinking about.
Mady: It would also be closer to Chaska.
Hasek: What is the commitment on that MUSA line for development in the
southern part of town?
Lynch: Right now that's forever.
..."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 32
,....
Hasek: Yes. Aren't we trying to develop, I guess what I'm thinking. When
I played Little League in Minnetonka, I rode my bike a mile to the fields.
If we develop Little League out in the middle of God's country and it's
never going to be developed out there for a while, are we forcing the
parents then to have to monitor all of this? Is it absolutely necessary?
If we put it here, if this is 25% of the population, we've at least put it
within walking distance of 25% of the current population of our city.
Doesn't that make a little bit more sense than to try and relocate it out
someplace? I understand fully the full development potential of the city
sometime down the road is absolutely going to demand that we have a big
park. The question that I'm asking is, is that the place to develop uses
like Little League, specifically Little League I guess is the thing that
I'm addressing, unless the population is out there and the population by
that MUSA line and how fast things are happening and what land we have
available above that, that's really going to have to develop to this
potential before we're allowed to flow over that line is incredible. What
we would be doing is we'd be building kind of an outpost.
Mady: That's what we did with Lake Ann though. Lake Ann was a mile and a
half from the city 10 years ago when they put it in and really we're at
1988 right now. The way it sounds, the MUSA line, the City is working to
try and get it moved. It probably won't happen for 10 years but in 10
years it moves, it's going to be there and...
""..., .
ek: That MUSA llne, they've strung that out on us a long ways because
tney're doing that in Inver Grove Heights right now too. They're basically
saying yes, we'll move it for you if you want but everything beyond that is
going to stay that way until forever. We're one of the two cities that
they're working on that right now.
Lynch: That was my understanding too. They said don't ask us for a date
and don't ask us to change it.
Boyt: How much of a park fee are we getting?
Sietsema: 50%.
Hasek: How much can that build for us? I'm looking at this I guess really
from two points. One, is rather a selfish one and that's because I play
softball. Even though I'm done, I've played my last year of softball but I
know there's a population of people out there that really put that park to
use and it's excellent. I've had friends from town come out and play in
tournaments and they said, why is it so small? Why don't you make it
bigger? Bloomington, we could take business away from Bloomington on
league night and having tournaments and renting that thing out. It's
dynamite. The only people that could possibly, I think beat that
particular site for that use would be if Excelsior could all of a sudden
buy up half the city and make a ballpark on the lake. That would be the
only place in town that could beat it. It's a dynamite spot for that use
,-.. I guess I have a very hard time seeing the rationale behind changing
\. ~ use for a short period of time and rearranging things the way they
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 33
...""
appear to be working so well only to try and come back to it perhaps at a
later time. Maybe what we should be thinking about doing is saying okay,
we have a need for Legion, let's build those facilities.
Mady: The trouble is we don't have the money. In the next five years
we'll be able to spend hopefully 3.5 million dollars. The needs in the
city right now, we're asking the city probably Monday night, for the
community center task force, they're asking for about 2.6 million dollars.
For five years of trails, we're looking for $899,999.99. The city wants to
expand city hall. I don't even remember how much that is. We need to do
something up at the fire station for a million dollars. We've got probably
a wish list of about 6+ million dollars and we can only spend 3.5 of that
so we're looking 19 years down the road before we'll be able to do anything
with Little League and baseball. What we recommended, I think it was last
meeting to the Council, was that when they reviewed resolutions to vote for
the referendum, that we would like the City to put on the referendum a half
million dollars to expand Lake Ann and with that we'll be able to buy
Little League and Babe Ruth as well as another softball field. It will at
least be able to handle something until the city grows sufficiently so we
can afford to do something because right now we just can't afford to do it
and we won't be able to for 5 or plus years. We just know we have a big
need right now in baseball.
l-'~sek: So your immediate short range plans over the next year or two are
add one field to Lake Ann? It would be three fields.
""""'"
Mady: It costs us roughly $599,999.99 to grade the whole facility. You
can't just grade part of it so you might as well put it all in.
Hasek: So you're going to add three fields? And you're going to convert
one to a Babe Ruth field, that's field 1. You're going to leave 2 and 3 as
softball fields. You're going to add three fields, one of which is a
softball. One of which is a Little League?
Mady: Two softball fields and a Little League plus a soccer field.
Lynch: And at a later date when we can afford the Little League, then the
Babe Ruth will be converted over. Now on a Babe Ruth, all you do is scarf
the infield and the mound to put it into a softball and back again. The
Little League you have to wipe the infield and move the bases out but
that's relatively inexpensive. Now some of the historical perspective on
that, you're a relative newcomer. I was out there with T-ball and Little
League, Babe Ruth before there was softball leagues. That was the original
use for Lake Ann.
Hasek: Let's look just a little bit farther then. We did a survey, where
did the ballfields place on the survey?
Mady: Baseball fields were 24th. Softball, 46% of the people played.
r-- ~n you go to baseball, it's 42%. They are roughly the same but we don't
1._ITe baseball really available. We don't have Little League available. ......tIll
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 34
,....
leis got to be played in a non-sanctioned league.
Hasek: Don't misunderstand my comments, I'm not fighting against it. I
think it's a heck of a recreation for children and also I wish I could have
played Legion ball myself so I'm not fighting that. I guess if the need is
there for those facilities, if we're not just kind of making and saying we
know some kids that want to play, let's build some fields for them, then I
think we have to find a spot. I still wonder if Lake Ann is the
appropriate place to do that. If it takes us a half a million dollars to
build three fields there and for perhaps substantially less we could
relocate those, I guess I would really like to really take a look at that
consideration. The numbers are kind of dancing for me right now and I'm
not exactly sure what might be our best bang for the buck.
Sietsema: Can I interject there? In talking to Don and Don is the numbers
wiz, if we were to look at purchasing additional property right here, right
now this is one big chunk. It's outside the MUSA line so there's a one
unit per 10 acres limit on that with a minimum size of 2 1/2 acres so Don
said that he was thinking that he would propose we work out a deal with the
person that owns that property. Let them develop the property at 2 1/2
acres a piece and instead of paying taxes on the rest of that property,
they dedicate it to the city to build a park. Instead of having 10 acre
lots because they can only put in so many lots within that. They can put
i.... on 2 1/2 acre parcel s. We give them the same number of lots and they
~e us the rest of it for park property and an access out to Audubon Road
we have a bigger sized park down there. I think that it makes sense.
I'm hearing what Ed is saying. It may be a better idea to have your adults
all playing in one complex and your youth all playing in another complex.
There is some logic to that. Definitely the school is getting more use
than it can handle right now so we do need to look at how we can take some
of the pressure off that park.
Lynch: Does that parcel extend all the way to whatever the road is there?
Is that all owned by one individual?
Sietsema: Yes, I think so.
Lynch: Now wouldn't we, if we took the back parcel and we developed a
fairly complete youth facility there, we're still going to be routing a lot
of traffic right through the middle of his neighborhood aren't we?
Mady: We're still going to go through neighborhoods though. We'll go by
all those houses.
Sietsema: You've got to understand that these are 2 1/2 acre lots. You're
not talking about the 15,000 square foot lots. They're big lots.
Lynch: There's two ways to get at that. Through the planned subdivision
here or the future subdivision there, we're still going to be right smack
j,-..,the middle of two subdivisions. One thing, it always makes me a little
vous when Don starts saying, what if you know? He knows a lot more than
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 35
""""'"
I do already. Don never says what if unless he's got a lot of things going
that I don't know about.
Sietsema: This is the road here and they're talking about putting the lots
up here close to the road so they would have access and leaving the city
with this flat parcel here. I don't know if it's workable deal. I just
know that Don and I were brainstorming and he came up with that.
Hasek: The other thing to me is if you are thinking about redeveloping Lake
Ann Park, I would consider taking all of the softball fields out of there
and turning that into a league complex for Little League and baseball if
you wanted to do that. I think it would function better that way and
simply say for right now maybe we're going to leave two fields but the
ultimate intent is to take the softball that's being played there and move
it into the southern part when we have a chance to develop that. That's
another option. It's not that I'm fighting for that specific location for
softball. I think to try and throw all those uses together in one
complex...
Schroers: Aren't we getting a little bit off the subject here? I think
we're kind of dealing with a neighborhood proposal here and it seems to me
that we could for the short term incorporate into this neighborhood park
system a softball field and a Little League field. The Little League field
c~uld serve the anticipated young people of the people moving into the
lelopment here and also a softball field that could possibly catch some ~
overflow from Lake Ann. Not necessarily encouraged but if we got into that
situation, we could go there to play softball. Make it a quality enough
field that it would be acceptable for an overflow use but basically it
would just be a neighborhood ballfield.
Mady: I'll tell you what Eden prairie is doing right now. They have a
problem where they are growing so much in their park facilities, they've
been playing league games for both baseball and softball in neighborhood
parks. They've come to the decision this year that next year they're going
to cut it out. They're going to restrict their access. They're going to
put the leagues where they belong and they're not going to use them in
neighborhood parks. I think we need to do that. In this particular
development we've got roughly 2,700 people that want to use it as a
neighborhood park. That means at night if a couple of guys want to get
together and throw a football around, they should have a flat piece of
ground to do it. The kids are out of school in the summer, they should be
able to find a flat piece of ground and have a pick-up game of baseball,
touch football, soccer, whatever they want to do so to me, you've got a lot
of land here. Anything that's available that can be flat, it should be as
flat as possible so they can do that. Put in backstops where we can put
them in but even like in the outlot along the lake, we need some flat
parcels in there. The developer has already agreed to grade the entire
facility to what we want as part of his park credit. He should probably
make that level area flat. That way the kids on that part of Powers Blvd.,
t - ~y know it's there. If they see that the park up by the high density is
L_lng used all the time, they'll get on their bikes and they'll ride down -'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ember 24, 1987 - Page 36
there with their half dozen friends and play their game down there because
it will be available to them and they'll know it's there. They're willing
to go a couple of blocks to get to it on their bikes so to me it makes more
sense to make sure that what we do have, and I think we have enough land
here to do for this particular development that it's useable land to them.
Since the developer is going to grade it, let's make sure he grades
everything we can grade flat and then we'll develop as we can.
Boyt: Are you talking about grading Outlot F?
Schroers: The one that could be accessible from Audubon.
Mady: Since he's going to grade the thing.
Boyt: Well, this has a sledding hill. We don't have many sledding hills.
Mady: That's fine. We can leave the sledding hill but I'm saying, let's
make sure that we grade the two ball fields as Mark has shown in his plan.
Make sure they're there.
Boyt: When I looked at Outlot H, the 2.9 acre piece surrounded by higher
density, to me that looked like a good playground for little children.
It's so small. To concentrate a big play area there. They would have to
~ss Powers Blvd..
Mady: Powers Blvd. should be fenced along there anyway because the viaduct
is there and you want kids to go through the viaduct and not over the road.
Boyt: There's no parking shown on that one on that sketch and I know the
City Council likes us to have parking at our parks.
Watson: If we're going to put any facilities there at all, there must be
parking spaces.
Sietsema: We're not deciding what exactly is going to be going in any of
these for sure right now. This is just to give you an idea of what could
potentially fit in these. We will definitely look at these a lot closer
once it's all cut and dry that it's going to be developed.
Lynch: Let's go through some of the points here. It appears as though the
land that's available and some of the things can that be done with this is
sufficient to handle a neighborhood in itself. According to our polls and
according to our past practices. Two, if there is some land available
contiguous to some of the existing parcels there, I think we'll always look
at a proposal that comes in. What if's at this point aren't worth kicking
around. It's a waste of time. If somebody has a proposal out there in the
world that they'd like to make to us in response to this, fine. The third
one is, I guess I agree with Jim in that before the turf starts getting
~hed out there, we better decide what does go in those places and where
3 going to sit so we get the dirt pushed in the right place. The
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 37
...."
question is, maybe Mark or our staff here knows, when is dirt going to get
pushed?
Sietsema: The first phase is going to start moving earth maybe next week.
Mady:
We're
It doesn't even include the smallest park parcel in that phase.
safe right now.
Lynch:
Isn't that the one by-pass road that's all the way around?
Sietsema: Phase 1 included this section right in here and then some of
these homes along this road and then it also included this. It doesn't
inlcude any of the high density.
Lynch: Is there anything else further to discuss about this?
Boyt: It looks like we needed, like Mark has a hockey field, three
ballfields, two soccer fields and six tennis courts. Is that enough to
serve this size community. I think that's what we're looking at.
Sietsema: Basically what I would like to come away with is the feeling of
whether you want staff to go to the person who owns that property and get
the ball rolling on proposing some kind of acquisition for the city or do
Yf'\U want to just let it lay and when they decide to develop it next year,
years, whenever they get around to it and then look at it at that time.
'""'"'"
Mady: We have right now a resolution up to the City Council asking for
funds to take a study of the entire southern area to plot a community park
and that's what we're looking for is a community park. What I'm hearing
here is we need to put another facility in and I think that's what we need
to do.
Sietsema: Right Jim but what I'm wondering, for neighborhood needs, do you
want me to get the ball rolling on looking at acquiring more parkland
adjacent to Outlot F. That's really what I'm looking for tonight. Based
on what you can see potentially going into these parcels, do you want more
neighborhood parkland than that?
Mady: If we did we should have asked for it in the PUD.
Robinson: That's right, this is a PUD neighborhood but I sure like the
idea for some other neigborhood down there.
Boyt: What is the person per acre recommendation?
Mady: 1 per 75.
Boyt: What is this?
f"1tsema: It's 1 per 75 roughly. It's within that standard.
-"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ember 24, 1987 - Page 38
Boyt: I don't think that's barely enough to serve this community.
Lynch: We have the two ne ighborhoods right to the nor th of there and they
have only Rice Marsh Lake parks so it's the same thing.
Hasek: Mark, let me ask your professional opinion. What do you think?
Mark Koegler: Your discussion is hitting right along the lines of my
concern and that's when Lori and I talked about this, our action was that
these park parcels were suitable to meet the neighborhood need. I don't
know if that's on a minimum threshhold but I think it realistically would
meet it and my concern was, how do you handle the interim problems that you
have with stress for more fields and so forth and if you're looking at
thi s, I d idn' t think it was needed on a neighborhood basis but if you're
looking at that as an interim solution to some of your problems, I think
it's worth looking at and having it investigated. That doesn't preclude
the southern development I don't think. There may be strong potential
there...in the southern area so this is getting as far south as you're
going to see the development pattern of the city for quite a number of
years. I think Ed's comment is well taken in terms of your thinking of a
Little League complex, do you want those so remote or do you want them in
the way many of us grew up and be able to ride your bike to some of them.
~ek~ The way Minnetonka's developed now, it's exactly like that. You
. y In the neighborhood that you're in. The way my kid played soccer this
summer, we had to drive allover the city to go to soccer fields because we
had to go to the home field of everybody else. There wasn't a single one
complex that was large enough to be divided up to be played on so that
everyone could just go on one and maybe just rotate fields or something.
Robinson: I think we should address that we pursue that area.
Sietsema: It would be similar to the Herman Field acquisition. The North
Lotus Lake acquisition. We did the same kind of deals. The Herman family
dedicated 13 acres of parkland and gave us $35,000.00 to develop it.
Lynch: It only costs a nickle to ask.
Mady: If you asking for the donation route which we discussed previously,
that's fine. I really see this as two different deals. We're talking
about the Rime property on one thing and we also got whether we've got
adequate parkland in this development.
Sietsema: The reason is tha t tha t would have given us just a vaca ti on for
pursuing the Rime property. That was a potential reason for pursuing that.
Mady: I recall when we talked about this PUD we had looked at that and we
felt at that time that this was enough parkland, we didn't need to ask for
~more for this developer.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 39
-".
Hasek: If I recall correctly, we talked about this particular park right
here and we're looking at the boundaries of the property that he purchased
and he gave us everything that he had and I think when we walked out there,
it was disgust. I know when I ran across that field with the possibility
of putting something out there but I don't think that the potential for the
suggestion of the 2 1/2 acre lots and maybe just getting land free had even
entered into it at that point. We were thinking about buying it and really
it had fallen out of the woodwork at that time because it was just out of
the realm of feasibility but now maybe we've got an alternative that we can
consider.
Boyt: I think if we wait we might run into the same problem we had with
Chan Pond Park where we had to pay $80,000.00 to acquire a tiny little
piece. If we had acted sooner, we could have gotten it for less money.
Schroers: I agree. I think we should go for it.
Watson: We should really find out if they're interested.
Mady: What reason are we using here? We're saying we don't have enough
parkland in this PUD?
Boyt: 32 acres for 2,700 people.
3y: What you're saying though is this development doesn't have enough -'
parkland and we need to get some more so we're going to buy it but we just
said less than six months ago that there's enough parkland for this PUD.
Boyt: And there was a battle over that too from what I heard. That maybe
the Council didn't think so...
Mady: The Council didn't think so but we felt comfortable.
Sietsema: We could divorce ourselves from the PUD and just say do we need
additional parkland for...
Hasek: I think the motion should be made in the form of two things.
Perhaps that we consider that this development contains enough parkland
dedication to service this particular community but the question has now
been asked should we actually be thinking about something perhaps more and
adding to it so that we can serve a larger portion of the community.
Sietsema: If you look at the population, it's going to put a lot more
stress on Lake Ann which is a community park. You may have to address this
population, this neighborhood is going to create a demand for more
community park needs. It meets the neighborhood park needs but does it
meet the community park needs? They're not required to meet community park
needs so we have to look at ways to.
.. 'ek: I guess that's really what I was saying in a little different way.
...".tI'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ember 24, 1987 - Page 40
Boyt: If we go at it from the direction of trying to develop a Little
League complex in the southern portion and trying to get that property to
the west for that reason.
Mady: I'm still going back and we've already told the Council that we want
to get some money so we can find a parcel of land in the southern portion.
Maybe this piece of land is it. Maybe it isn't it but I think we've
already told the Council a month ago that we want to do the southern
portion of the city. I don't know what we need to do yet.
Robinson: All I think we're going to do is pursue this. Maybe if we get
the land and they'll give us $35,000.00 also. It doesn't cost a penny to
ask.
Mady: But what are we doing here? We've already said we want to do it so
let's do it.
Sietsema: I need a motion by this commission to direct staff to pursue
looking into the purchase of additional property next to Outlot F.
Lynch moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct
staff to look into the purchase of additional property next to Outlot F.
~ voted in favor except Mady who opposed and motion carried.
Mady: For the proviso that we directed staff to do that for the southern
portion of the city.
Hasek: My consideration is that this is an interim.
Mady: No, it's an additional facility. I think the big parcel that we're
looking at, we're looking for how many acres?
Sietsema: 15 to 50 is the figure I've heard.
Mady: I think we're going to need another like a Lake Ann someplace in the
southern part of the City.
Robinson: We're not buying anything. We're not doing anything except
asking Lori to look.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION.
Mark Koegler: The intent of putting this on the agenda is really to give
you another forum to comment. Last time we talked about the Comp Plan I
think you said you'd like a little bit more time to read it. I don't know
~ many of you have done that since then. If you're like the normal
j ulation probably most of you haven't. What we're doing is we're in the
~.ocess now of assemblying all of the comments and changes that you offered
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 41
..."".
last time and thought we'd just see if there are anymore right now before
we put those into more of a final form, if not a final form. Those will be
coming back to you so if you don't have comments tonight, you still have
another chance once you have the draft we'll ask you to review and that is
the draft that is in total form.
Mady: One thing that I did recall that I didn't see concerning Bluff
Creek, do we say in there anyplace that we would like Bluff Creek part of
the nature trails throughout that connect into the Minnesota Valley nature
center down along the River?
Sietsema:
section.
It's included in the trail plan. It's shown on the trail plan
Mady:
I just wanted to make sure that was specifically stated in there.
Mark Koegler: That's in graphically. There aren't words in the Plan right
now that say that.
Mady: Should we put words in?
Mark Koegler: If you desire.
M~dy: The words speak almost as much, to the developers anyway.
Lynch: Any other comments on the Comp Plan?
......",
Sietsema: If there's no more changes or revisions or whatever, then we
will go ahead and make all the changes that we've gotten to date and put
graphics along with it and bring the final draft to you to make the final
review.
Hasek: Just a quick question, how was it received at the Planning
Commission and Council level?
Sietsema: It hasn't gone to them yet.
Mark Koegler: The only portion they've seen is the trail plan. That was
updated to both the Planning Commission and City Council. I was at both of
those and I think it was well received by both. There was more indepth
discussion at the Council level than there was at the Planning Commission.
Hasek: Related to specific sections or generalities?
Mark Koegler: Both. I think the Planning Commission was probably thinking
that they'll see the whole thing as a package and probably offer more
comments at a later date. They were quite supportive of the efforts that
this body had put into that.
....,;
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 42
,.....
UPDATE: TENNIS COURTS.
Sietsema: This is just more for information than anything else.
Lynch: I wanted to mention a funny thing I've noticed is that we had some
input from the neighborhood, I can't remember the name right behind the
tennis court, the fact of what they were looking for and now that the road
is through to Pleasant View, you wouldn't believe the foot traffic that
road takes. That is constant. I can drive by there anytime and there are
two or three people out in the field going different directions between
that and the number of joggers and so forth in my neighborhood gets is neat
because I think those people all felt kind of trapped in that neighborhood.
Nobody wants to go to TH un and they just sort of pour out of the back of
that thing about 4:30 in the afternoon. Little kids, big people, joggers,
bicyclers, guys with wagons.
Watson: Mark did a great job too. It's a pain in the neck to drive it.
It really is. If you've ever driven it, you do it once and you think, if
this is a shortcut I think I'll skip it and so that purpose was served too
because you do see people walking through there but you don't see cars.
Lynch: For those of you who don't get up in that neighborhood anymore, the
entire block to the north of Lotus Lake is completely built up now. They
~ extending over into part of Shorewood and they're starting to get the
buck stuff back in the woods. $350,000.00 stuff, there's got to be
aoout 15 to 20 of those up. The Bloomberg property that we traded for has
2 or 3 houses right now that will be ready for occupancy probably in a
month or two so I expect that will be full in the spring. That will mean
that actually every piece of developable property around that park will be
developed except for that piece that Bob Stevens has got that he's been
dumping dirt in for about 10 years trying to get it to float.
Hasek: We have four minutes here and I have just one thing that I wanted
to talk about just real briefly and that is our attendance record and I'm
going to preface this with a little bit of discussion. When I first talked
to the Mayor when I asked him if there was the possibility of me being on
this board I asked him specifically when do we meet. How many times do we
meet. I explained to him what my job was and that there would maybe be
some conflict with that. The opportunity with 12 meetings a year and that
75%, I didn't know anything about the 75%. It was never mentioned to me
and I figured well I'm going to be missing a few because I do go to
Planning Commission and Council meetings and Park Board meetings as a part
of my job. When you've got 12 meetings that you have to make a year, that
means in order to maintain 75% you have to make 9 of those meetings. 9 is
very realistic when they only come once a month. I plan vacations around
them and all kinds of things. The chances of being sick for one of those
1 in 12, not 1 in 4. The more you increase that, let me just take for
example if you met every single night, how many of those would you have to
make in order to maintain 75% or the chances are of your missing those
~ed on sickness, vacation, etc. If you had a night time job that only
1. ...Int you had to work one month nights a year. You could potentially miss
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 43
--'
your 75% deadline if you had to make one meeting every single week. I'm
wondering I guess if 75% is realistic for twice a month. If perhaps that
should be looked at as maybe 60%. What's rational for that amount? I'm
not defending myself because I can't change. I'm going to be down around
70% to 65% no matter what. There's nothing I can do about that but I'm
wondering if it's rational to expect a person to dedicate that much more
time based on two meetings a month than it was for one meeting a month.
Mady: I think it is because we have people waiting in line to get on
commissions in this city now. It wasn't before when we were begging for
people to be here. You had to be flexible.
Hasek: If that's the case, let's make it 100%.
Boyt: I think what it's gone to is it's hard on people if you're not here,
you don't know what we've done unless you read the Minutes and you don't
know what's behind it. I don't know what's behind it if I miss a meeting.
I think it helps the continuity of the commission.
Hasek: I think then it should be increased.
is 75% enough?
If that's really the intent,
Lynch: I've always had a little problem with these 75% thing because you
t"""u1d be at 90% and we've had members like that that weren't worth a damm.
is thing came down from the mayor some time ago Ed and said this is in
the By-laws or in the City Charter someplace or something we had never
heard about it before. It's not something that we're particularly
concerned about.
....""
Hasek: I'm not concerned about it for myself because there's absolutely
nothing I can do about it. I'll be absolutely every time I can possibly be
here but I'm not going to cancel a Planning Commission meeting for a
developer when I'm standing out there talking to you guys over here because
that's my business so I can't do that. I guess what I'm wondering is, is
the 75% absolutely mandatory or is it one of those things where maybe all
of a sudden in the course the year the person doesn't show for the last two
months. They're gone for months straight and completely lose touch with
reality with what's going on in the board. Is that more unrealistic? I'm
wondering if the way that it's set up is actually appropriate. To me, when
I keep getting these little things in the mail, what it reminded me of was
a report card and I'm an adult and I don't need a report card on my
attendance at these meetings.
Sietsema: If I could just respond. I think that they originally put the
attendance policy in the by-laws or whatever so they have a guideline. If
you deviate from that a little above or below, if you're contributing I
don't think that anybody is going to. We all work and everybody
understands that everybody works but there have been cases on different
commissions where people show up, they might or they might not and they
( lit call and they don't have a lot of input when they get there. They
uvn't read their packets. They aren't prepared and you have to have .~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 24, 1987 - Page 44
,.....
something to fall back on and say you're not even here 75% of the time.
We're going to have to ask you to step down to either contribute more. If
your. heart isn't in it, what are you doing here. We've got people that
want to be here.
Mady: One thing I want to add that is really important here. I've had two
meetings cancelled in the last two months because we showed up here and
didn't have a quorum. It was once here and once for the task force and
that bugs me because some people didn't have enough gumption to call Lori
up and say they weren't going to be here and all of a sudden we've got four
people showed up. One meeting we had a guy from Eden prairie coming to
talk to us and we couldn't have a quorum. We couldn't hold the meeting.
We went through and did some things anyway but they weren't official.
Sietsema: I don't think that at the end of the year the Council is going
to say, Ed you've only been here 65% of the time, hit the road Jack but
it also gives them something to have some control.
Robinson moved, Watson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m..
~'bmitted by Lori Sietsema
k and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
,....