Loading...
PRC JOINT 1989 03 27 ~--~ ". .. .. \. ., O. CITY COUNCIL AND ~ARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION ~PECIAL JOINT MEETING MARCH 27, 1989 \ COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Counc ilman Boyt, Counc ilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt, Ed Hasek, Larry Schroers, Dawne Erhart and Curt Robinson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator Jim Mady: We want to kind of make sure we're kind of going in the same direction. We've got the trail going in this spring hopefully on Laredo and Carver Beach Road and that was probably the top two priorities. The third top priority is Minnewashta Parkway. We'll be discussing that tomorrow night and by the sounds of the comments from the Council meeting, that's a priority for you also I think but we want to find out kind of your thoughts on the process and then kind of how we're going to pay for all of these before we even start looking. Councilman Johnson: One thing about Minnewashta Blvd. is it's up on engineering's timetable in 2 years for improvement with State Aid funds, if the State Aid funds are still around. That is the time period, while ~verything's torn up for rebuilding the street, widening the street, that would be the time period that you could most economically put the trails in. We've got all the heavy equipment out there etc.. I want to try to push that particular project up because of all the streets that need State Aid funds, that's one of our higher priority streets personally. , Councilman Boyt: Do we have any money? State Aid. I thought we'd exhausted our State Aid. Councilman Johnson: Not for this year. Next year we have some. Lori Sietsema: I talked to Gary about that and he said that they'd have Bluff Creek paid off and another one paid off so there would be more money available and 1991 was his schedule for Minnewashta Parkway. Councilman Johnson: They've had a couple of other streets in front of it for 199Ø which I didn't think. I think there was something on Audubon South of the railroad bridge and a few things like that that may be moved to 1991 and backwards. But that's something else to look at. Councilman Workman: I talked to, i.f I can jump in because I think the funding, a lot of the funding, if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn't have a problem in the world. All of us would probably be at home. I talked to Gary today. I had a lot of questions for Gary about like the packet for City Council so I just came in and I kind of asked ~him, there were some questions about the funding for Lake Lucy Road. - 'luff Creek and all that other that was kind of goofy and I wanted clarification on it was all going to pan out and if we had lost any money or what the problems were. j '~ _. '" ..' '1'! \,.'; City Council/Park and March 27, 1989 - Page ,...., Rec Joint Meeting 2 Councilman Johnson: Yes, and the State did some goofy things. Councilman Workman: They process these projects differently so it looked like Lake Lucy Road really wasn't paid for in it's final payment or something. But anyway, he clarified everything for me but what I said was, and what kind of my point that I wanted to give to him and maybe I want to give it to the commission here, is that I see the City and maybe I'm wrong and Gary kind of settled me down a little bit, that we're always buying off the future a little bit. How can we get a trail today by sort of taking tomorrow's money a little bit? I told Gary that's not just trails, that's how we do a lot of things, it appears with the City and I'm trying to get a better handle on that. That's something that worries me a little bit particularly in the economic climate that we might be entering in. Who knows. We want all sorts of money to try and take care of possibly an Eckankar size issue but we really don't have it for a community center but our money isn't there and like with the task force Jim, in all honesty, I think a community center's a great idea. I've expressed that to you. One of my problems I had was that the bonding limit, you kept saying well next year we can do more and then the next year we can do more and the next year we can do more. It would be much easier if we could say we could do it all next year but we're kind of looking 6 years down the road at the bonding limit and to me that kind of said, we're going to spend right up and that kind of worried me. Not that ~he community center problem worries me, because I think a lot of people oelieve that we should have that kind of thing but the funding is the underlying worry that I have. I expressed that at the last council meeting that in the memo, there was a $25,ØØØ.Øø estimate on Carver Beach Road and it was now $83,ØØØ.ØØ and not have anything to do with the eventual problem because I think it's a needed trail but it'd be nice to get a better handle on these kinds of funds. We're not sure where all the funds are comi ng for to pay for it and it's a big mess and that's what we have to sit down and iron out. Jim Mady: On Laredo Trail, that would have been a $25, øøø. øø trail had we been able to put in a 6 foot strip of blacktop and not had to do anything to the streets with the sewers and that. The residents wanted concrete. That doubled the price right there. Councilman Workman: Yes, but the funding is my biggest worry and Bill and I have talked after the council meeting basically stating I'm more conservative with spending and Bill maybe isn't as conservative. Neither being right or wrong but I just get a little more nervous that way and that's why I maybe the reflex a little differently and that's what made me see, and that's a tough thing to change. Councilman Johnson: One thing that I've learned over the last 2 years is that Don is conservative. He's also squirreling a little bit away that he doesn't quite tell you about. When he's going to tell you that he thinks he's going to have so much money, historically he's always had more which ~s the way I want it to be. That's why I have a little better feeling about the financial side of things because it's always been working out. We've always been underestimating our revenues. <' City Council/park and Rec Joint Meeting March 27, 1989 - Page 3 ,...., « Councilman Boyt: Can we take this and maybe you can pull this together in house? Impacts the trail system. The two things that I heard you guys wanted to hear about is the trail system and parks. Sue Boyt: One of the questions I think we had was, will you support us if we recommend the trails be put in a development? Councilman Boyt: On new developments? Sue Boyt: In a new development. Councilman Workman: In any development? Mayor Chmiel: I might have some problems with that. Sue Boyt: That's what we'd like to hear. Mayor Chmiel: ...curbs on TH 1Øl. I can see us supporting a trail system along TH 1Øl because I think that really is a needed area and I've mentioned this before. Minnewashta Parkway. Powers Blvd.. The main areas where there's a lot of activity on the roads and providing a safe place for the people. Kurvers Point of TH 1Øl, I think that...to I thought it was fine. But then to develop a trail system through that ~ew area, I think it just didn't sit too well with me. And I'll tell you why. Some of those people when they buy homes within a developments, they buy them for peace and serenity is what they see. If people want to walk through there, that's... You can't stop them from doing that. But to put a specific trail through that area, I guess I don't see that particular need. I think what we're looking at is trying to serve a system that would one, bring people into the downtown areas. Which TH lØ1, Powers Blvd.. Minnewashta parkway of course wouldn't because that's at the far side...and I think that by planning those kinds of trails, and that's all the ones I really support. Putting sidewalks through residential areas, if the Park and Rec...to put that money into something as you did with these last two, I think that's fine. But I can't see us spending the dollars for putting in sidewalks or assessing the property owners unless those people really want that kind of trail or that kind of sidewalk. The sidewalk situation also leads me as to who really has that jurisdiction. Does the Planning Commission have it or does the Park and Rec Commission? Jim Mady: I think we've been told in the past on that question is that if Park and Rec doesn't...trails, the Planning Commission will. Maybe their thoughts have changed in the last 6 months but that's what we've always been told. To address Kurver's Point... Sue Boyt: I don't think we need to debate. We can just exchange ideas and listen to points of view. Lori Sietsema: Could I interject here. I think that, we only have an ~our. I think basically what the Park and Recreation Commission is looking for, do you support, the referendum failed to fund what was proposed in the trail system and that's what's been approved but generally do you support what's in the trail system or do we need to scale it back? City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting March 27, 1989 - Page 4 ,...., How is the Council feeling about the trail plan altogether? We had talked about it at the Park and Recreation Commission level about taking the sidewalks off the trail plan altogether and asking Planning to make that requirement of subdivisions. To include sidewalks on through streets. That would accomplish what their intent, what the Park and Recreation's goals were with the trail plan and at the same time it would reduce what that overall trail plan looks like. Is that something that's feasible, that the Council would be supportive of? Just as a conflict level, is the trail system still a go or do we need to go back and rework it? Am I right in making this? Jim Mady: I agree with that, yes. Councilman Johnson: Let me throw my point of view out on that. I like what you're saying there. I believe sidewalks within subdivisions are needed. You look at who's coming into this town. You look at Curry Farms. I was out there and couldn't believe how many baby carriages were being pushed along the streets in Curry Farms today. Same thing with Chanhassen Hills and Hidden Valley. All the new subdivisions. It's just amazing the amount of kids out there and where do they have to walk? 28 foot streets. With the curvature we're putting on our streets and stuff, it's hard to see them. That's why I'm all for putting the trails, or sidewalks, not necessarily trails but sidewalks for the people who are no ~onger rural. We need more urban type standards I believe to get the ~eople out to the trail system so they don't have to walk down the narrower streets to get to the trail system pushing their baby buggys or whatever. So I will continue going for trails within subdivisions. Not every street. Your main street that passes through the subdivision. The cul-de-sac going off to the sides, no. We don't need it running up there but at least one side of that main street so that people have someplace so they don't have to walk with small children in streets. And they don't have to walk this time of year in mud on the sides if they don't want to walk on the street. Chanhassen used to be a lot different. They didn't even put curbs in. Along Frontier Trail, there's no curbs. Lori Sietsema: It was the feeling of the Commission at the time that they had that discussion that if they took the sidewalks off the plan, because without the referendum it's going to be very difficult to do sidewalks and trails and everything with the trail dedication fund. So if they took the sidewalks off and they had that a condition of approval through the subdivision process, that would free up the trail dedication money to do the trails that's Don talking about along TH lØl, Powers, Minnewashta parkway. ,:~ Councilman Johnson: That's a zoning ordinance amendment basically to require sidewalks on main through streets in subdivisions. Sue Boyt: I would like to hear from each member of the Council myself. ~ouncilman Boyt: I think the Park and Rec Commission knows how I feel about this. I'd rather spend the time listening to how you all feel. City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting March 27, 1989 - Page 5 " Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I was going to offer, I don't want to really get into specifics but I do agree with Don that I don't want to force sidewalks on a subdivision that doesn't want them. I would like to kind of study each one as it comes up and let the residents decide. Sue Boyt: How would they decide? Councilwoman Dimler: It would be approval of the site plan. Sue Boyt: The developer? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. And then when they buy they know that that's there. But generally speaking and I remember when both Dawne and Curt came in to reapply, or you reapplied and she applied for the Commission, one thing that they said that really impressed. That was a very general statement that, and this is where I'm coming from, I believe the purpose of the commission is to go over the information and to recommend to the Council. I think as long as we understand that it's only a recommendation and it doesn't always have to be a fight of your way and our way. It's a recommendation and we'll work together and to me, that's what the commission is there for. Curt Robinson: And I think that's why we ~e're not totally off base all the time. want, then we can recommend at least... wanted this to get your ideas so If we can understand what you Councilwoman Dimler: And I wouldn't be opposed if you're planning something, if you want to check with for my opinion about it. Give me a call. I've never had a call and I would like to see that kind of working really going rather than surprises at the moment of crisis. That's the way we have been operating. I don't like that. Mayor Chmiel: Communication channel has...I think everybody is putting their time into the City to do what we feel is really best for the City. We have to look at it from a Council's side on it...from the dollar aspect because we're charged with that total amount and we have to be sure that those dollars... That they can be expedited. I'm sure each and everyone on the Council feels that. Where they go through the development, I sort of have in my own mind a priority which I see the downtown really coming together. Getting that moving along before we start jumping things into other different areas because once that gets pulled together, it's in place and that's going to be a couple yet, a few more years but good share of it. We're starting to get businesses to move into town. The community to patronize those people by either driving in or walking in. Trails or no trails. One way or the other. But there is a safety factor and I realize that safety factor. There again, you can't sit back the safety factor and weigh dollars against a life because it doesn't work. So I guess what we really have to come up with, how do we pull this all together as a group. Not just one individual saying I need this, I want ~hat. Work together as a group so we know what we're going to have the -::ity look like. We sat down...one of the most open public forums you've probably ever seen because that's just the way to get it done. I think we owe it to the residents, we owe a certain amount of responsibility to City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting March 27, 1989 - Page 6 ,...., listening to them, knowing what they want and one part of the plan that was developed by the Park and Rec was saying we would consult with the individual people to see what their likings are, what their dislikes are. Some of those cases, you've done that. Sue Boyt: We won't always respond to the needs of one small group. Mayor Chmiel: No, I'm not saying that. But we have to be listeners. Sue Boyt: Sure. That's what we're here to do. Mayor Chmiel: We're a sounder, everyone of us here. Councilwoman Dimler: can respond. I think you should respond to the extent that you Jim Mady: That's basically how we handled the Lake Lucy Road thing. This is all well and good and fine but dollarwise we just can't. $8Ø,ØØØ.øø... Mayor Chmiel: And I feel the City doesn't have the $8Ø,ØØØ.ØØ to do it either. You're right. Sue Boyt: ~ou to talk ctbout that. Speaking of open communications, this might be a good time for to us about rotating chair. I think you have some concerns Mayor Chmiel: Yes I did and I still do. My concerns are normally in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order. You have a chair and a vice chair and each within each of their commissions has specifics spelled out as to what you do and how you set it up. My major concern is that, if you have a chair one week and that particular item is carried over to the next week or it might be carried over to two, you then reappoint another chair person for the next meeting. To me there isn't consistency when we do that. I think we should stick with a chair or the vice chair, if that chair is not there. Because it just sometimes will confuse people to come back into those particular meetings and see sometime else sitting there and that opinion might not be the same as what the previous chair. Sue Boyt: So you're saying that the chair has more power over what's happening with that subject or that topic? Mayor Chmiel: No. and that same kind I guess what I'm saying of. .. is there. is that there's consistency . Sue Boyt: So we could, if we had rotating chair and we were going to continue an i·ssue, continue that chair to the next meeting. We don't continue that much. Councilman Johnson: I kind of like rotating chair personally. In that it ~ives experience to people who otherwise, getting into the City business. A lot of times they may be moving on and eventually they may be running for councilor mayor and whatever if they want. There's a lot of things but it's also helps their own personal skills and helps I think training Þ. City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting March 27, 1989 - Page 7 ,...., ~ people to attempt this chore. What I've seen of it, it's worked very well in the meetings I've seen and various people have done it. I think it's a good idea personally. Just from a training aspect of the people and the better person they will be for having that experience. I don't think it will work on the Council level. Councilwoman Dimler: Does the chair have other responsibilities then all the other commissioners do? Are there added responsibilities? Sue Boyt: Outside of our meetings? Jim Mady: No. We just run the meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Outside attending the City Council meetings that you come to. Jim Mady: No, that's not a responsibility. That's just something I do. The chair's position in our group is simply there to run the meeting. Councilman Boyt: I we clearly want the Sometimes I suspect agenda. ,.... Sue Boyt: don't think that would have to change Ursula. I think commissions to have a chair, an official chair. that staff would probably talk to the chair about the And Jim is our official chair. Councilwoman Dimler: And does the chair ever make decisions in an emergency that is not... Jim Mady: No. We've never had that. Lori's called me up from time to time and said, what are your thoughts on this but it wasn't... Lori Sietsema: On whether the weather was bad enough that we should cancel the meeting. Jim Mady: That's the extent of it. Councilwoman Dimler: I can see the point of continuity but I can also see Jay's point of giving everyone experience. But in my own experience I've found that if I'm leading a meeting, it takes me about a year to really get comfortable with it and to know what's going on and then to pass it on to somebody else. Jim Mady: How this all came about is last year I attended a couple Planning Commission meetings and I don't usually go to those and Steve was running the meeting. I as~ed Ladd about it, I saw him about a month later. He said they do it from time to time. It seems to work well. Ladd was able to sit back instead of making sure this person, that person. ~e was able to sit back and just operate as a commissioner and listen to ~;hings and keep just what he wanted on his mind and not have to make sure that everything happened. Then I started thinking about it and we talked about it on the Commission, would you like to do this because it gives each individual an opportunity to run the meeting and...so it's been nice ,¡ ,~ City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting March 27, 1989 - Page 8 ,.... for us I fel t. Councilwoman Dimler: And how often are you talking about changing? Every meeting? Jim Mady: We do it once every meeting is a new chair. We rotate it. Now we've gone through it once. Councilman Johnson: You start the meeting as the chair. Then they elect who they're going to have as their chair that day. Then they take over and do it. Sue Boyt: One of the things that happened last year and I don't know if it bothered Jim or not but he was the figure head of Park and Rec and we had some pretty controversial items come up and Jim was the person who was hated in the community because of those decisions or recommendations that were made. With the rotating chair, I think it's less likely that they're going to pick one person to hate. Councilman Johnson: Actually it wouldn't be a bad idea even on our level, as Tom being the vice chair, is to give Tom some up front experience in case you get sick. He's done it once or twice with you there. ~ouncilman Workman: I don't have an opinion as far as who should chair ~he meeting. I'd be happy to letting the commissions decide amonst themselves how they want to mess up their meeting. I will say, while I have the floor and I've been sitting here thinking about which is dangerous also. We kind of switched gears a little bit but in regards to should we go with the trails or shouldn't we go with the trails, I am going to be honest and say that the failed referendum, twice failed referendum had an affect on me. In the positive aspect of the commission members, the positive commission members say, hey it only failed by 4 or it only failed by 8 but the people who voted against it said, we beat it. It didn't matter by how many. We beat it. So that does have an affect on me. Do I want to throw up a counter plan and everything? No, I don't want to do that. Again, the pie in the sky is that we have a sidewalk, a safe sidewalk on every street but again I get back to the dollars and how to do that. The voters have said no to the big chunk and so we have to be creative and figure out a way to do that. I think the current council has passed the Carver Beach, Laredo thing so far. I think that was a strong signal. I think we didn't argue on it other than the money which we always cry about. The trail down in the pond, Chanhassen Pond, I think we didn't really have a whole lot of discussion on that other than Bill wants asphalt. I'm not sure I want asphalt. I didn't say that at the meeting. That will come. I guess when I read through my packet, the most fun I get is when I read the Park and Rec Minutes. I just love them. I don't love it. I mean it's just exciting. I don't know if I'm going to be called a bum or what. It's exciting yes but I guess I wish we could get rid of a little bit of the confrontation. I'm not bringing those up as criticisms I'\ther than there's obviously a lot of energy and emotion with the Park and Rec issue which I think can be used to the City's advantage which is an advantage to us. But at this point, I think the biggest run with the Council is the Park and Rec issues or am I wrong? " City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting March 27, 1989 - Page 9 ,.... Sue Boyt: We don't know what your biggest issue is. Councilman Workman: What I'm saying is, we spend the most time arguing the Park and Rec issues at the Council meetings. And again, I'd say that I don't have a problem with reading any other problems but when I get to the Park and Rec Minutes, I never know what's going to pop out. Sue Boyt: I think you understand though what we're talking about. That many of us worked for the trail referendum and you three campaigned against it so of course, until we get together and discuss it, there's going to be some hard feelings. Councilwoman Dimler: Well it's time to let it go. Sue Boyt: Well that's why we're here but you understand that there is something behind that. Councilman Workman: Maybe I said no trails never ever. ever said that. I don't think I Mayor Chmiel: I didn't either. ,.councilman Workman: I'll be honest, I'm all for an open voting booth. I ~oted no to the referendum for my own reasons. As a councilmember, I voted for the trails. I think there were again some misperceptions and things with the whole referendum and what people saw and what they thought was happening. How that happened, I don't know but maybe I was a part of it. Councilwoman Dimler: ...1 think you have to realize that we have the ability to still work at our own concerns as a citizen. So if you have hard feelings about that, then those are things that you have to resolve. Sue Boyt: What I was trying to say to Tom was, he said there's arguing going on back and forth. We have a history that we need to come to terms with. Councilwoman Dimler: That's fine but realizing that you have the freedom to do that and... And getting back onto the Minutes, I was just shocked when I read that I almost lost the bike trail on Lake Lucy Road. I just went what? What I said that the simple solution that the residents had proposed is that you take down the parking signs, leave the bike trail in. The people parking and then the bikes can go around the cars. Very simple. probably too simple for most people. Out of that I was accused of having taken down the bike trails. I just thought, what! Sue Boyt: If that's someone's point of view, and they also have a point of view. 1"'. Councilwoman Dimler: That's true but...if you believe that, call us up and tell us that. City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting March 27, 1989 - Page lØ ,..,. Sue Boyt: Everything we say? Councilwoman Dimler: that's what you were the next meeting? No. saying. But if that's the way Jim felt, I really felt Is that really what you meant before I go to Councilman Johnson: It seemed pretty straight forward to me. Just take down the signs. That means there's no trail. Councilwoman Dimler: No, the bike trail stays. Counc i lman Johnson: It can't. Councilwoman Dimler: Why not? Councilman Boyt: Legally it can't. Jim Mady: Now it's just another regular street. Councilman Workman: What I was getting at, to maybe wrap it up, and maybe this is what Ursula is getting at. You don't like to be sitting on the Council and say that the meeting before, we meet tonight. Tomorrow night you guys meet and maybe react to what we've done tonight. You don't like ~etting tossed back up into the...and again this was something that was daid that I looked at twice one. Did you know that they're going to get rid of your trails on Lake Lucy Road? There's a certain group of people who are adamant and then they organize and then they get allover backs because, did you hear they're going to remove the trails. Sue Boyt: ...speak about what you spoke about the night before. You are a public meeting, open to the public. It's alright if we bring up issues that you brought up the night before and that's not... Councilman Workman: But again, that's going to create animosity. Sue Boyt: If we bring up subjects that you discuss Monday night, if we bring them up Tuesday night, it will create animosity? Councilman Workman: If in fact a councilmember feels that it was improperly. . . Councilwoman Dimler: It's in the tone and stuff. Sue Boyt: You weren't there. Larry Schroers: We need to talk about parks yet. Councilwoman Dimler: Af the way. Councilman Johnson: This is also carried over and the council before that. Park and Rec has good relationship with Council as long as I've I think that first we have to get these feelings out from the previous council never really had a very been associated, even City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting March 27, 1989 - Page 11 ,...., before. Long before and I think the commissions need to stay blue sky. They're making the recommendations for Park and Rec, what is the best possible. The Council then has to put that into the perspective of the real world. I like the commissions to stay blue sky and this is the best. This is our issue. We're not looking at business issues. We're not looking at planning issues or water issues, we're looking at park issues. Other people look ab other issues and then we get all the issues and put them together and so~etimes override the common sense issues that you brought up and that ~s' created animosity in the past. You work real hard to get something you think is just perfect and then the Council with 14 other issues coming in at us, overrides you and says, no it's not going to work in this case. That has been a sore point for years but I do think we have to get to discussing pack acquisition and park deficient neighborhoods and what do we think about that. I think that's on the agenda. Dawne Erhart: That's the one that's kind of near and dear to my heart. Specifically the one in the southern part of Chanhassen that people voted in the referendum. To go ahead and sell bonds. $3ØØ,ØØØ.øø. Where do you people sit on that? Is that something you'd like to see a couple years wait on because I don't think we have it? Councilman Johnson: If we wait 2 years, we're going to buy lØ acres. ,.. ~ouncilman Boyt: I can tell you that the referendum was approved and that money should be allocated. We're doing the community, in my opinion, we're doing them a disservice to basically veto that by not spending the money. Councilman Johnson: I really liked Al's presentation he made at Park and Rec last week on those issues. Dawne Erhart: He's the one that's making us nervous. Telling us land values are going up and there's not much out there. Councilman Boyt: I don't know why we couldn't take out, make some sort of commitment on the ability to buy the property if you guy would just identity the property. I guess I'm pretty disappointed that over a year ago the referendum passed and you have, in my opinion, done nothing. Councilman Johnson: The day after that referendum we should have been pushing. Land prices in this town are only soaring. Larry Schroers: Basically when you're talking parks, you're talking acquisition. That's the key. If you don't get the acquisition, you're not going to have a park so that is definitely the first step and the biggest, most important thing. The system that I work for, it's a big system and their focus for the first 2Ø years was acquisition and then ~. l.'t's development after that. We wouldn't have nearly the system that we ~'~ave right now if they would have been acquire and then develop, then acquire, then develop. You've got to get it now while it's there. Councilman Workman: How about the Carrico site? City Council/park and Rec Joint Meeting March 27, 1989 - Page 12 ,..,. Councilman Boyt: That got approved. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that was approved. Where's it at Lori? Lori Sietsema: Roger met wi th the person who owns it and they're swapping their appraisals so the appraisers can look at each other's appraisals and see where the differences were. Their appraisal came in at $33Ø,ØØØ.øø. Ours was $57,5ØØ.ØØ so there are definitely some differences. Councilman Johnson: Their's assumes the MUSA line is going to move. They're giving a sewered cost. Lor i Sietsema: There's a lot of assumptions in there. So they're going to each look at each other's appraisals and they're holding a meeting again with them. Sue Boyt: Have you looked at that point of land on Lake Lucy? Remember the neighbors told us they thought the woman would donate it to the City. She hasn't paid taxes in 2 years. Lori Sietsema: Well she has and she won't. She has paid the taxes. She paid $3Ø,ØØØ.øø for the property and she's thinking about listing it. ~here are some people that are interested in buying it because they don't want it developed and I'm not sure what their asking price is. I think it was in the 4Ø's. I'm not sure. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that part of what the City seems to be going through is Park and Rec two years ago met once a month and nobody showed up outside of the commission. Now Park and Rec meets twice a month and they get a roomful I gather with some frequency and things have changed. The former City Council was certainly not in sync with necessarily the requests that Park and Rec made. I think this City Council has a great opportunity to do some good things with the trail system and the park system and how we use them and so far I would say we've done a pretty good job. We clearly disagree and part of that is I guess maybe where we've come from. The experience we've had and what we want to see happen in Chanhassen and that's why there's 5 spots and not 1. I would agree with Tom in that kind of looking for the guilty party here is not serving either group very well. I think we have to come to grips with, out of 12 people we probably have 12 different opinions about how we'd really like to see the community develop. From my part, I'd like to see every development grant easements for trails. I'd like to see us have a lot more kind of vest pocket parks where people can go 2 to 3 blocks and maybe there's a swingset there or it's just an open piece of property that's bigger than their backyard for them to congregate and play in. I think this Council might be open to that kind of stuff. I know the former Council wasn't. So I think as we evolve there's a lot of good opportunity .pnd the Park and Rec Commission, I'd like to see us hold a few more of F'hese meetings, particularly before maybe you wade into how we're going to put an access on Lake Lucy for instance. The Park and Rec Commission really absorbs a tremendous amount of information from the public and then we sit back and read it and we're all the smarter for having done that. " i -~ ~ ! j City Council/park and Rec Joint Meeting March 27, 1989 - Page 13 ~ I think that if you can just get some of these emotional issues out of the way, but it's very natural. If I had spent the time, I have spent some time on this but if I had spent the time that Park and Rec has spent on many of these issues, I'd be very emotionally committed to their point of view and we all know what emotions can do to us. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a good idea what you're bringing up Bill. The fact that we probably should meet a little more often. I think the perfect time would be prior to your commission meetings. Or even a discussion during the commission meetings and have the Council at those meetings. Larry Schroers: I think one reason that there are so many emotional issues lùver park and rec is because parks and trails are what's happening in communities these days. There's a lot of people that are very concerned about it and it's definitely going to contribute to the richness of the whole overall community if we develop a good park and trail system so it is something that that's real important and people do get emotional about. As Bill said, things change as time goes on. 2Ø years ago, did you even hear people talking about parks and trails? very little but it's becoming more of a pressing thing every day and that's why I think this is the third meeting that I've been to in a week on it and we're just going to have to deal with it. I would really like to see the Park and Rec and ~he Council develop as good of working relationship as possible because I ~feel that we do need to pull together in order to get things done. I just wanted to make one comment on the trails. I think the trails have to be a system. It has to be just like our roads and highways. We have to have feeders and collectors and it all has to work together. I would be in favor of seeing the developers putting in some of the key feeders that would connect us to the main trails. Prioritize where we need them. If we can work together towards that end, I think we can develop something very nice for the city. Sue Boyt: Are you discussing Carol's replacement tonight? Is that on the agenda? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, it's on the agenda. Well, it looks like we have just a couple minutes left. Maybe we'd best wind this down right now. Hope that everybody at least has the feeling of knowing a little better where we're coming from. I think we're looking at some of those things rather strongly. Dollars are the important factor and they're going to be the important factor for the city as long as I'm here.. .achieve some of these things without those dollar expenditures... Maybe what we should do is set another meeting right now for 3 months? Couple months? Councilman Boyt: When do they consider Lake Lucy? When is that up? Lori Sietsema: I think it got scheduled for the 11th of April or the ~7th. As far as the public hearing, bringing back the information that , JNR had and a feasibility on the outlot site. Councilman Boyt: We should meet before they do that because we need to discuss what we know. - i~.. . \ City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting March 27, 1989 - Page 14 ,... Mayor Chmiel: Your meetings are? Lori Sietsema: The second and fourth Tuesday. Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion would be that probably your next Tuesday meeting. What does that agenda look like? Do you have any idea? Lori Sietsema: It's starting to fill up. I think the Lake Lucy issue will be on the meeting after that and I will have figures from the feasibility done by then. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we can do is start that meeting prior to your meeting by an hour and if it goes beyond that, then you can open your meeting and consider discussion. Lori Sietsema: On the 11th then? Mayor Chmiel: On the 11th. will you send notices? The meeting was adjourned at 7:3Ø p.m.. ~ . Submltted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim ¥ ¡A.