Loading...
PRC 1993 05 25 ~ CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 25, 1993 The Park and Recreation Commission conducted visits to the following sites from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m: 1. Property west of Lake Minnewashta 2. Song Property, Galpin Boulevard 3. Tandem Properties/Pemtom/Opus. Parcels 4. Rogers/Dolejsi Parcel, Lyman Boulevard 5. Great Plains Golf Estates Chairman Schroers called the regular meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission to order at 8:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Fred Berg, Jim Andrews, Dave Koubsky, Jim Manders, and Ron Roeser MEMBERS ABSENT: Jan Lash STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. ,...., LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT, GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES, DONALD HALLA. Hoffman: ...ravine which cuts through there where that sharp curve was put in. It probably would make most sense to take it on this side and I would assume that's what would happen in the future. It was recommended in the staff report that we look to a 30 foot trail easement. In consultation with the engineering department and the planners today, it is staff's recommendation to reduce that to a 20 foot trail easement. They feel comfortable with that. That has always been our standard easement. I made this recommendation on a day when I did not have the opportunity to discuss it with them. My concern was that TH 101 is a very narrow right-of-way. I wanted to get sufficient room. There is sufficient right-of-way with this 20 foot easement for that trail construction to occur. That would be one amendment to the recommendation. Schroers: 20 foot instead of 307 Hoffman: Correct. """ Schroers: It is specified there on which lots that would affect and that would be Lot 10, 11, 12, 13, Block 1 and 4, 5, 11 and 12, Block 3. And then Outlot A. That easement would be held on file until such time when the trail is constructed. Then the other comments would not be pertinent anymore. Just the 20 foot easement being taken. Therefore it is recommended in regards to trails that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council obtain a 20 foot trail easement along the entire westerly border of State Highway lQl which abuts this plat. Mr. Donald Halla is not here. I called and left a message for him today with that information. The status of the applicant's input. Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 2 ....,," schroers: Okay, thank you Todd. It seems that this is pretty clear, both from the park dedication and the trail portion. Do we have any commission discussion on this? If not, would someone care to entertain a motion? Andrews: the rate easement on Block I move that the City accept full park and trail fees payable at current at application. Also that the City require a 20 foot on Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13 on Block 1, and Lots 4, 5, 11 and 12 3 and Outlot A. Schroers: And along the entire westerly border. Andrews: That's it. Schroers: Okay, is there a second? Berg: Second. Andrews moved. BeTg seconded that the Park and RecTeation Commission Tecommend that the City accept full paTk and tTail fees payable at the Tate cUTTent at application. Also that the City TequiTe a 20 foot easement on Lots 10. 11. 12 and 13 on Block 1. and Lots 4. 5. 11 and 12 on Block 3 and Outlot A. All voted iA favoT and the motion carTied. REQUEST FOR SOCCER KICK WALL. CITY CENTER PARK~ CHAN/CHASKA SOCCER CLUB. ...." Ruegemer: Thank you Chairman Schroers. This item was reviewed at the ApTil 27th Park and Recreation Commission meeting. However, before making a final decision Mr. Maloney did request, here's Mr. Dick Maloney out in the audience with us tonight. Just,to have a few words with the Commission tonight just to possibly sway your decision from last time. Or just to get some feedback fTom the Commission itself. So included with the packet was the memorandum that I wrote last time and a letter and that to Mr. Maloney. At this time I would like to invite Mr. Maloney up to the podium to speak with the commission in regard to the socceT kick wall. schroers: Very good. Dick Maloney: I just thought there was going to be some kind of determination. I just didn't know, you want me to kind of tell you what it is or what we recommend or? Schroers: We would like you to tell us why you want it. How much use would it get. Dick Maloney: Okay. Are you familiar with a soccer kick wall? Schroers: Yes. Dick Maloney: You are? Oh, well that's good. Well the club would put it up themselves, otheT than the fact that we don't have post hole diggers and we don't have a place to put it. I mean you know it's city property, etc. where it should be. And it should be where the kids use it. Preferably .....", close to socceT fields where they're going to be most the time playing ,..... ,-... ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 3 soccer. The good part of it is, is the kids can kick and kick and kick anytime. They don't need any supervision. You don't have to worry about them crawling on the nets. You don't have to worry about them tearing the nets down. All those kinds of things and to kick to wall, it comes back. They're not digging in the nets and almost all the bigger soccer clubs have them. Especially at the complexes, when they have complexes like Coon Rapids and Blaine and Eden Prairie, to mention three. But it's almost to a point where if you don't have it, the young kids just don't get the right idea. So that's why I brought it up originally. As far as where, I don't know, we talked. Todd and I talked and we thought maybe City Center Park where most the kids are right here, would be the best. I guess if there were a soccer complex, I would rather see it there. Hopefully you guys are going to find a place to put a soccer complex right, someplace, please. Schroers: Well we were looking at possibilities earlier this evening as a matter of fact. We don't have to be terribly formal about this but just to let you know what our thinking was from last week. Hoffman: The Bandimere piece. Dick Maloney: Bandimere, great. Great. Great place. Schroers: Okay, we looked at City Center Park and there are some commission members who have had experience with soccer. Their children being in it and so forth. And we thought number one, it's not very aesthetically pleasing. It's not something that looks real nice and also that it might interfere with other activities going on like people trying to maybe enjoy a game of tennis and have to listen to bang, bang, bang, bang. Balls kicking against the wall and that sort of thing so we thought that maybe for City Center Park it wouldn't be something that we would want there and it maybe wouldn't get used enough to justify putting it there and it may be something that would be better incorporated into a soccer, a future soccer complex. What we have this vision of a youth sports facility that's going to contain soccer fields, Little League fields and all the necessary things for youth. And then we would like to facilitate that very well but our thinking was that it really wouldn't compliment City Center Park too well. Correct me or add anything. Dick Maloney: Yeah, if you've already looked at. To me, of course I like certain things but you know, if you've got a big wall and it's painted green, you hardly see it quite honestly. At least that's the way I look at it. Yes, the people playing tennis are going to hear the banging. But by the same token, people using the tennis ball against the other side would hear their own banging so I guess, I don't know where it would go in City Center Park either. I know that we originally talked, Todd and I, and it would probably go right up here or something. Wasn't it? Right up next to the warming house or something. Hoffman: We talked about the back side of the warming house. Or the tennis courts. Dick Maloney: And there's, maybe if I could bring up another point. I mean maybe if you wanted to, and I don't know how many handball players, raquetball players th~re are but you could build a thing nice and have a Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 4 -' three wall court on the back. You know, or hang a basket or a couple of baskets on the other side if you wanted to make the wall. The wall doesn't matter. I mean normally they make these walls 8 feet high and 24 feet wide because that's the size of a soccer goal. It doesn't have to be that big or can be bigger. So I guess, if you want to think of something else, boy this area could sure use some outdoor handball/raquetball courts or possibly something else. I don't know. It's just another thought. Berg: I guess I was thinking back when I was a kid, which is not easy. Dick Maloney: Yeah, I know the feeling. Berg: I think I would have much rather been kicking into a goal than a wall. It would have been more of a feeling of accomplishment in terms of even practicing. Dick Maloney: Did you play soccer then? Well, okay. May I suggest you go out and kick one into the goal. What happens is this net falls down and it sags and you've got to go in there and push the net up and you reach in for the ball. About that time, somebody else is kicking one and hitting you in the back. And then I think the worst thing was that the little kids always crawl on the nets. Berg: Don't you think they'd crawl on an 8 foot wail too? Dick Maloney: It'd be tough. It'd be tough. Unless you've got sticky ~ fingers. You know. I mean normally they make them with like 3/4 inch plywood and that's fairly flat, etc. It's pretty hard to grab ahold of anything. I don't know. Schroers: Are they not supported by, what are they generally supported by? Are they backed up against, are they attached to an existing wall or are they on posts? Dick Maloney: Well I think Eden prairie sunk like big posts like this. And they put about 3 or 4 of them and then they back it either side. I mean it's fairly easy to do. Schroers: So is it double sided? Dick Maloney: Yes. Yes. Blaine is the same way. Coon Rapids is the same way. I think I've seen Rosemount, Apple Valley, Burnsville. Burnsville's got a ton of them allover the place and I think Burnsville used 4 x 4's. Treated 4 x 4's. Which is strong enough. I mean you know, nobody's going to kick it over. So they might not get as true a bounce with only. Schroers: And where do they locate these things? I mean do they have it in a complex where there's a number of fields and that sort of thing? Dick Maloney: Yeah. Schroers: And is it in any particular location on the field so it doesn't interfere with the site or the sound of other things that are going on? ~ ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 5 Dick Maloney: Well the sound isn't going to be a big thing, I don't think. Koubsky: I think we were thinking of sound if we put it next to the, or were going to put the kick wall on the tennis courts. Dick Maloney: First off, the kids have been using the side of that school over here for years. Cuts the hell out of the balls though. But at any rate, like let's say Eden prairie has a soccer complex and let's see, what do they have there. They have about 7 or 8 fields and then they have two kick walls kind of where the center of the place is and they're, I don't know, 40 yards apart. Coon Rapids has, they kind of at the start, as you kind of come in to the complex and the fields are out and around, they try to locate them more to the middle and stuff. It's kind of a warm up area. So if we had a complex, which we don't have and we're not going to have for a while, right? Schroers: Oh I wouldn't know about that. I mean I think it's going to happen sooner than people think. It's something that we're working on very hard and there are some real possibilities. I mean we can't make any promises and say that we're going to have something tomorrow but the future's looking good. Dick Maloney:" Well, you're working on Lake Ann. Or going to work on Lake ~ Ann, right? Or somebody is. Ruegemer: Probably within 2 weeks. Dick Maloney: Yeah. Well I see they were starting to lay sprinkler in the softball/baseball. But you're going to grade that down a little bit, am I right? Ruegemer: It's going to be regraded, correct. Take the top... Dick Maloney: And then they're going to push some of that off to the southeast corner. So behind or on the south end of that field, if it were graded nicely, would be a fine place for it. There'd be plenty of room there. Behind that, the south goal. Running perpendicular. I mean that would be a fine place. Schroers: You know it doesn't sound like a big deal. It doesn't sound an expensive deal and it seems reasonable to me to leave that type of an item up to staff. Up to Jerry as being in charge of the recreation programs and if he feels that a soccer kick board is warranted and that it's appropriate to put it down in at Lake Ann, I think we would support that but I think the general feeling of the Commission was that we Just didn't see it sitting very well at City Center Park because things may be changing at City Center Park. Dick Maloney: Sure, I can understand that. ,... Roeser: That's exactly my feeling about it. Putting it at City Center Park would not fly. It Just doesn't seem like it would fit there. It wouldn't look good no matter what color YOU painted it, as far as I'm concerned. Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 6 -' Dick Maloney: Well I mean, I'll be honest with you. I think it would work better at Lake Ann because, hey. That's where the kids go to play soccer. They don't play here anymore unless it's the fall soccer kids and we were kind of, first off gearing it for the real young kids. But you know, the bigger kids, the 10, 12 year olds and stuff could use it probably better. Schroers: I think that if staff feels that it fits into the recreation program and is needed and at that point in time if they need to come back and have us okay a small expenditure or whatever to have that included, or if it can be included into the cost that are being incurred with the regrading and all that sort of thing, fine. We would support that but we just don't want to see it at City Center Park. That's all. Dick Maloney: Good. Fine by me. schroers: motion on your time out. Okay. So then I don't think that we are going to need a formal this item and would like to thank you for coming down and sharing and point of view with us and hope it's something that wrll work Dick Maloney: Thank you for listening to me but you need more soccer fields. You have 4 baseball and only 2 soccer. Schroers: We need more of everything, including open space and money. Dick Maloney: Well, I know. That's the problem isn't it. The fact is, if ~ you go up north, those beautiful flat, hell they can put a field anywhere. Thank you. Schroers: Okay, let's go on to the Park and Recreation Survey. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers. Donald Halla is now here. I would like to allow him the courtesy to go back and review the Commission's recommend to City Council on item number 3. Schroers: On Great Plains Golf Estates. Sure. If Mr. Halla wants to address the Commission, please come forward. GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES. REVISITED. Donald Halla: I don't know what to address... Hoffman: I'll go ahead and brief the applicant. The proposal presented is that a preliminary plat to plat 36 rural single family lots on 46.5 acres. Lots are outside the MUSA line so they require on-site sewer and water... the applicant, the present zoning and all the adjacent zonings are agricultural estates. Regarding the comprhensive plan, the issues of parks and trails. In regard to the recreation section. The City's comprehensive plan identifies this plat as lying in a park deficient area...however, due to the large lot sizes being developed in that area, the proximity to...Bluff Creek, the proximity to the site of that future trail alignments along Bluff Creek...so it's the recommendation of staff that the ,Park and Recreation Commission go ahead and recommend the City Council require full park fees to be paid at the time of building permit application in lieu of ...."., ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 7 ",...., parkland dedication. In regard to the trail easements, the recreation section of the City Comp Plan identifies TH 101, Great Plains Blvd. as a trail alignment. At present that trail has been labeled as a Phase 3 addition during 2000-2010 timeframe. That may be moved up somewhat with the abandoned rail corridor...destination point for people to get down to it and Hennepin County Parks...develop that as a trail. If they're successful in doing that, then people will want to go down TH 101 to that trail... Obviously the future status of Highway 101 is in question so it's imperative that we take every opportunity to guarantee that...The issues which Mr. Halla and I have discussed prior to bringing this back to the Commission centered around the remapping on TH 101. When we were out in the field we talked about that. The easement which is being looked at is the westerly border of the plat. Or excuse me, the westerly border of TH 101, the easterly border of the plat. In this configuration. Mr. Halla, I was aware that Mr. Halla had gone through a preliminary platting process previous to this and at that time he informs me that this right-of-way for this new road was acquired. In speaking with the engineering department today, that has been a true statement. However, they're not so confident that this will ever occur or when it will occur. So the City should certainly protect it's interest in being able to construct this trail along this much more defined curve in this area. So I think Mr. Halla's question is, you already had the additional right-of-way and the additional trail easement in this location. Why do you need it, you know why do you need another one? Well, we're not taking another one but it would simply be an overlay on this one. The additional fees that would be then done along this road alignment. So in your reports to the City Council would be amended to...remapping of TH 101. We don't need additional easements but we do need to... Schroers: And that's in the event that the realignment doesn't occur, we can follow the existing corridor? Hoffman: Correct. Schroers: Seems reasonable. Mr. Halla, do you have anything that you'd like to say about that? ,...., Donald Halla: Well we have one problem. Number one, I think you have an easement over that entire area already. I believe that was granted approximately 4 years ago. There's some stipulations in that easement that it is going through our commercial area, if you want to call it that. Where we have our trucks and bins and so forth. It was not to disturb those areas. There is room to go outside the fence that we have erected there now. If that was to occur. The fence is just inside of our property. The easement in the first 20 feet would be all underneath fairly expensive bins and so forth. A fencing system that was erected with permit for the city. I would have a problem unless the city was going to re-erect those someplace else for us in a feasible method of putting a trail right through the center of them, it wouldn't work. That was discussed 4 years ago and we came to a compromise agreement on that. For that and for the trail system at that time which subsequent to that we were granted a building permit to put in that fencing system and so on. So I don't know how you're going to deal with the fence. If you say now you want a different arrangement than what was done previously, how are you going to deal with Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 8 ...."" the permit that you gave us to build there in the meantime? That's my question mark. If you're going to move it, make it feasible. Schroers: I would say that's a valid question but is staff aware of the previous agreement and easements? Hoffman: I was not aware of the previous discussion on the platting process. In my discussions with Planning, they neglected to bring that to my attention. My files on the property did not indicate that but I think the intent of what we're after is certainly in everybody's mind here. As this goes forward to the Planning Commission and then the City Council, those issues can be clarified. If I. think it's a real stumbling block in that process, I would bring that back to the Park Commission. However, if it was discussed. I don't recall it being discussed at the Park Commission level 4 years ago. I was not in. Donald Halla: I don't think it was. I don't remember any park meetings but it was done at Planning and done at City Council and with staff and all negotiated and worked out. schroers: I think that's why we're sitting here looking kind of dumb founded about this because it's the first time that we heard it. Donald Halla: Well maybe we both are looking dumb founded. Hoffman: It's an issue then that the Par k Commission obviously protects .....,; the interest of trails in the city. Keeps that at heart so we have to take a look at that we're operating. If we operate outside the property in the State right-of-way and obviously as you've recognized in that area, that has very narrow right-of-way and if this trail is going to occur, can it safely occur. Can it occur at all within that right-of-way? I have no knowledge of what discussions or agreements took place at that time so I would like to investigate that. I think it's, I'll take direction from the Commission on how you would like me to handle that and administer that. If we could administer that between staff, before this goes to the Planning Commission. And I can follow it up with an administrative presentation with the commission or if you would like to see this back before the Commission. Andrews: I guess I feel that this needs to be clarified. I don't want to be in a position where if TH 101 is nQt straighten or improved, that we have no way to put a trail through. That's an important segment in our trail system. I think we have an obligation not only to the city, but also to Mr. Halla here to be sure of what we're doing. And there's no need to take two trail easements but there's also no need to do a faulty job of taking an easement because we're not clear of the facts, and I'm certainly not clear on the facts. Donald Halla: May I just show you something on the map here, what does exist so as to maybe help or if you folks would like to drive by the situation you can see it too. Andrews: I feel that I would need better documentation. I mean to point out where it might lie or might not lie isn't the issue to me. It's what ...."" Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,... May 25, 1993 - Page 9 are the agreements? What do we have in our hands now and what do we need to have in our hands to protect the interest of the city? Donald Halla: What we have now, if I may just say, on the outside and it would be the left curve there is the existing roadway. Between the traveled road and our fence, is at least 20 feet. In that area. On the other side of the road, also in that area, is approximately a 20 foot wide driveway that was put in by us for our neighbor when~e bought the property to drive trucks and equipment. That happens also to be on highway property. So on both sides there's quite a distance on that strong curve there that a trail could go in. When it drifts further south, then you have a trail easement on the inside of our fence again as it was in the lower section I guess You'd say there. Because what we had done originally is we came in and did those three lots down below and really what we're doing is subdividing the north half of the nursery or the north third and the south third of the nursery, including replotting those two lots on the bottom is what's happening. But the center core is staying as nursery property. Schroers: Okay, there's two real issues here. We don't want to lose an opportunity to gain a trail easement along TH 101, as Mr. Hoffman stated. That's a very important connection for us. On the other hand, our mission here is not to infringe upon any other...so those issues are going to have to be clarified and brought back to us so we know what it is we're talking about. I"""" Donald Halla: I understand. Okay, thank you. Andrews: Larry, I think we need a motion to rescind our previous recommendation. To be official. I guess I move that we rescind our previous recommendation and that we bring this item up at our next meeting with complete documentation and make our decision at that point. Schroers: Is there a second? Manders: I'll second. Andrews moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission rescind their earlier motion pertaining to Great Plains Golf Estates and table this matter until the next meeting for staff to gather additional documentation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSIDER PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY. I"'*"" Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers. Commission members. We have talked about a survey as part of the update of the Comprehensive Plan. It is the desire of the City Council and the HRA to perform as a part of this community center issue a survey of the community to find out what their thinking about that project. If they would like to see the community center built. And then beyond that, what facilities they would like to see go in there. Currently I'm entertaining discussions with the Assistant City Manager and the City Manager if we could piggyback onto that survey, a more comprehensive city survey. Not only including park related items but Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 10 ""'-' other items in the city. This is an opportunity to do a scientific, full blown survey. Bill Morris with Oecision Resources is the consultant that the City is looking at. They do surveys for many cities in the 5 state area and most of the metropolitan communities and suburbs. A meeting has been set with Todd Gerhardt and Mr. Morris and myself for next Tuesday. So at that time we'll begin formulating what this survey would look like. I would bring back additional information. It would be helpful for me to know if the Commission would like to see that be more comprehensive or if you feel that we should let the community center issue stand alone. Or what are your opinions in that regard? Roeser: One comment I would have is just the length of the survey. If you're going to get, try and accomplish too many things at one time and not get the attention of the people that you're trying to survey and just kind of blow off the end of it. Hoffman: Typically it is a phone survey. They take 20 to 30 minutes and some of them are. Andrews: That's very long. Hoffman: Yeah. Some of them are very comprehensive. It's professionally done. It's done by professional callers that do this as, many of them a full time/part time position. Can they get the people on the line. If they don't have the time then, they'll make an arrangement to call back. ""'-' Berg: What concerns me is, if Larry's been correct all this last year and a half telling me that there's a real strong negative, as far as community center out there. If we hook on to that negativism, they could blast us out of the water with what we want to know too. I don't know if that's even valid in surveys. There must be ways to deal with that but, do you understand what I'm saying? Hoffman: Yeah, I sure do and I can bring that up. Bill will be the expert in that area and he'll be able to tell us. Schroers: I don't think that we want to jeopardize rU1n1ng any possibilities with the new redevelopment of the downtown and community center thing. You know I think that if this is in any way shown to the residents of Chanhassen that it could be another vote or something like that, are we polling, are we soliciting again for support for a community center? That it's going to come back to us just like it did before. A lot of people have said, well things change a lot. People moved in. People moved out. Frame of minds change. All this sort of thing. That's good but I don't want to see this presented to the residents as though here we go again. They're trying to stuff this community thing down our throat. You know the results. I mean we only have to hit ourselves a couple of times to know that it hurts. Hoffman: Being a random survey you're going to call 400 people at random, so you're not just going to get the people who respond at a public meeting or write letters to the editor. You're going to get that entire cross section and I think the commissioners all believe as well. there's a fairly --' large population out there in the middle and that's what this scientific Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~. May 25, 1993 - Page 11 survey reaches. If you send out a survey which people have to mail back, yoU get the real positives. The real negatives. Those are the people that mail them back. Those inbetweeners, those big deal either way, which is most of the times the majority, does not respond at a very high rate. So potentially it would be appropriate to have I think it would be appropriate to have Mr. Morris here to speak with the Commission. To address some of your concerns. To answer some of your questions in this regard. He made a presentation, a 3 hour presentation as part of a class which I took down as part of my Masters program. Very knowledgeable. Very comprehensive in these pursuits. Whatever you want to accomplish, he can tell you if you can do it and how to do it. It does fit hand in hand with the update of the comprehensive plan. If we want to stick, you look in the comprehensive plan. There are survey results in there which say, this is what the city wants. This is what we should be planning for. If we want to have that information, we have to have a survey. This survey will either cost us $5,000.00 if we do it for the community center, or $7,000.00 if we do it more comprehensively. So the return on our dollar is there for the taking. ,....., Andrews: My concerns are that if there are 10 or so park and rec questions that we can put onto the survey, if we can put them as the first 10 questions, I think we'll have very valid answers. If they're the last 10 questions of a 30 minute survey, I think the likelihood of that being useful, reliable survey information declines dramatically. That's it. I mean I agree, if we can piggyback on, that would make a lot of sense. But I'm just concerned that there might be hostility as the length of the survey becomes longer and longer and longer. Schroers: I would like to hear what he has to say. I'd like to look at this in a very positive way and say that if we can take advantage of an opportunity like this, we certainly should. But I think that we would want to insure that our questions, the information that we are looking for is presented in a very positive, unoffensive way to the residents so we can get a true, honest feeling of how they feel about that particular item. And I want to be sure that the survey is not giving the impression that we're trying to sell them something that they don't want. Hoffman: Yeah, Mr. Morris would not do that. It has to be unbiased. And that is one reason you hire a professional because it's very hard to draft those unbiased questions. If you have any additional questions, it would be helpful just to bring them out and then I can provide these Minutes to Bill prior to his coming in and addressing the Park Commission. So then he can have some answers for you up front. Manders: I assume that this survey is intended to be more than just the community center focus. Is there more broader issues beyond that? Hoffman: That is the question at hand. Yeah, the catalyst behind it is the community center. Now do we want to expand it to the planning function, the park function. Other city services. ,,-... Manders: I'm just talking other park and recreation concerns. Hoffman: Yep. Yep, that would be one component. That would be, if we wanted to answer the issues in regard to the comprehensive, recreation Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 12 --' section of the comprehensive plan, we would need to ask those comprehensive questions. Any of those, Larry might recall the last survey which was just on park issues, took 20 minutes on average to answer it so. Schroers: Yeah, we had originally set that up that it was going to take no more than 6 minutes and I think that the average, and this wasn't official but those of us that called, I think the average was, did go up to about 20-25 minutes. And we had originally planned for 6 or 7 minutes. Koubsky: And that was because of the input? Schroers: Yeah. People just had a whole lot to say and they had questions to ask, just like you know, something comes up here that seems pretty cut and dry but then all of a sudden you get these questions and questions themselves are food for thought and it just mushrooms. You could have stayed on one question with some people for 2 hours. Berg: That seems like a good reason to have the survey. Koubsky: And I think if you're going to have a survey and the folks are pretty anxious to talk, or a majority of them. The city's changing. You may as well get as much information as you can upfront because by the time it takes to get money and have another survey and develop questions and all that again, it's another year. The MUSA line's moving out you know in another year. So if the wheels are in motion, roll with them. --' Schroers: I think I hear everybody saying the same thing. We want to jump on the band wagon but we want to be careful not to hurt ourself. Roeser: I think a survey itself would be an indication that we're not trying to jam the recreation thing down their throats. Just the fact that we're doing it. Andrews: I would just like to say that I'm in favor of a survey but I'm personally opposed to tagging onto this survey. I think it's going to be too diluted if we do so. That's my opinion. schroers: Okay, well let's see what Todd brings back then. That would be a more appropr iate time to address the particula'rs of that. Okay, so then there's no further action required on item 5. I see that we have Mr. Zydowsky. So at this point we should probably go back to item 2(b) on the agenda. BOB ZYDOWSKY DISCUSSING CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PETS. Bob Zydowsky: I apologize for being late. I was at a meeting in Waconia where they're giving away, they're presenting the EMS Service awards. Individual and team and what not and Councilman Wing is the Volunteer of the Year so it's pretty proud to have him as the Volunteer of the Year for the EMS within the County. And Scott Harr was going to be here too and they weren't done with that meeting so I broke away to be here and I bet you thought I was going to stand you up again. aut basically what Todd ...", wanted me to do was to kind of give you an idea of what we do as far as II"" ~~ r- Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 13 animal control and as far as what we do as far as enforcing the rules in the parks. I've been here for about 5 years and it's always been one of those things that comes up around this time. Do you want people parking on the grass? Do you want dogs in the parks? And this year we've taken a stance that we're going to enforce the park rules. I've talked to Todd about it and other folks and they want the ordinances and regulations enforced, and that's what we're going to do. Schroers: Sorry to butt in but we've heard your name before but don't know exactly who you are. Who do you work for? Bob Zydowsky: Oh okay. Sure. To give a little background. I started here about 5 years ago and I was a Community Service Officer with the city and basically under a Community Service Officer, they do all the animal control. They do non-law enforcement type duties. And about 6 months ago I was promoted to Public Safety Officer and I'm a licensed police officer with the city but then I've increased responsibility. So I kind of oversee the CSO program now. I still do animal control. I still do enforcement of the parks but now can do more. I can stop speeders. I can do things like that so, that's my background. I'm full time. We've got two part time CSO's, Rob Norland and Adam Stephany. And getting back to the enforcement aspect. We feel that the rules are there to be held by and a brief on animal control. We base most of our animal control on complaints that we get called into the city. We do all of the city of Chanhassen. Victoria contracts with us. Shorewood, Excelsior, Tonka Bay and also Greenwood. So we do 5 additional cities and also Chanhassen. And the patrol there is similar. For instance, Shorewood contracts 10 hours a week with us and those 10 hours are kind of based on where we feel there are problems. People call in and that's where we do our major patrol. And that's the exact same way we do things here in Chan. We're going to go where we get the complaints. We get a lot of calls, people calling, my neighbor dog's been barking for 20 years and I finally decided to call in on it. How come you're never out here? Well, we didn't know we had a problem. We would have been out there. So like I say, we kind of base what we do on the complaints that we get. We're an enforcement, public safety is an enforcement type department right from the permits that the Building Inspectors sign off on to the tickets that I write to the dog ordinances that the CSO's enforce. So basically that's where we're coming from. I know Rob, the other CSO worked evenings last night and I think he wrote about 11 tickets for parking on the grass at Lake Ann Park. So it's our feeling that the rules are there because you want them enforced. With the additions of some of the parking lots in Lake Ann, there's more than ample parking but people are lazy. They don't want to walk from the hill down so, and the feeling I've gotten too with the deputies, they've asked us. What do you want us to do? Do you want us to enforce it and they're going to be, it's going to be top priority on their list too. As far as park patrol, I kind of have a goal of when I work to get through most of the parks every day. Granted, if it's busier you don't do that but that's kind of the goal. Lake Susan, Lake Ann are the big ones that we try to drive through~ At least I do a couple times a night. And then some of the others occasionally as we do patrol but, that's basically where we're coming from. Do you have any questions or concerns? I mean do you want us to enforce these rules? Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 14 ....." Andrews: Anybody make the statement, well I've had my dog in the park for the last few years and nobody's done anything before. Bob Zydowsky: Oh exactly. Two we~ksago I was over in Lake Susan and there were 6 dogs in the park. And there's a guy, he's'got 2 beautiful retrievers and he's doing this, training them. He's got 2 of them standing by him and he tosses the ball and one goes to get it while the other one sits. And you know the dogs are really smart and I went up to him and I said, well you can't have dogs in the park. What? Well, I'm sorry. You can't have dogs in the park. Well, that's ludicrous. On and on and on and on he goes and I kind of explain. I said you know, the rules aren't made for those people who clean up after the dogs. I said, it's made for those people who walk through here and it'~ like a minefield afterwards. And he somewhat understood but he felt the parks is where the dogs should be. I told him, you've got to get lost but. Schroers: I was kind of in on helping to develop some of those dog ordinances and as well as others. I don't know if you were here on that Jim. Andrews: Yeah I was. I'm in support of the rule. Schroers: What we're talking about and what we're hoping is, in order to have an ordinance you've got to have something down and if you don't have an ordinance, you have absolutely nothing. Then anything can go on. So what we're hoping is that we get good responsible, sensible people that use ~ good common sense and logic when they're out interpretting and enforcing the ordinance. And if someone is, for instance you can use Lake Ann. There is actually a trail that goes through Lake Ann Park. If someone is taking their dog through the park by use of the trail system and the dog is not running aorund bothering other people, it's under control and that sort of thing, we wouldn't care to go have someone harrass for that. But on the other hand, if somebody's down there with his pitbull looking for somebody else's little dog to chew up or children or whatever, you know we would definitely want that taken care of. So I think that was really the focus of the whole thing. Was to keep things under control and operate under a reasonable manner. We don't want to harrass decent citizens that are taking their dog out for a walk or run. But on the other hand, we don't want decent citizens harrassed by unruly dogs. Bob Zydowsky: Right, e~actly. The problem we run into is this police officer mentality. Their cop mentality is, cops see it either black or they see it white. And hopefully through the training that I've developed with the CSO's, that they can go out there and you know it says no dogs in the park. And it means no dogs in the park but I've tried to convey to them, you know it's the 4th of July evening. There's a visitor here from st. Paul who came to see the Lake Ann fireworks and they've got their retriever. You tell them to leave because they've got a dog. Well, do you want to do that? On the other hand too, the deputies that enforce it are pretty hard core. It's either going to be, there's a dog. No dogs. You know, it's tough. Schroers: Here's the other issue. Are you in the park or are you on the trail? We've got trails going through Lake Susan Park as well. Okay, so ...."" ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 15 are we hanging around the park being a nuisance or are we passing through on the trail? Are you going to give me a ticket for being in the park while I'm on the trail? Bob Zydowsky: Exactly. Hoffman: That's a policy question for the Park Commission to deal with. Schroers: Yeah, it really is. I think that it's unreasonable to provide a trail and say that people can use a trail and the trail passes through the park and you can take your dog on the trail until you get to the park. But you can't continue through the park and continue on the trail on the other side. I mean that doesn't make sense. Hoffman: The Commission wouldn't want to amend the ordinance to allow for leashed animals on trails and then just sign the trail corridors which go through the parks and say, dogs only on trails? Schroers: Well, I think if that amendment is actually necessary to accommodate accurate interpretation of the ordinance, then staff should bring that up on a future agenda and we'll make that recommendation. Bob Zydowsky: Sure. Yeah, that would be great. ,..... Koubsky: Does that make your life easier Bob? Bob Zydowsky: Well you know, it would. Some of the other cities too, they've got and I've tried to fight for a pooper scooper ordinance. If I see a guy in the park, he's got his dog leashed, he's got his little baggy, well. I think the main reason they don't want dogs in the parks, from what I've gathered, is what's left behind; It's not so much that the dogs are in the park, but it's what's being left behind. So I don't know if that would be something that we could pursue but. Manders: I think down on the beach too is really bad. It's a bad place for dogs because of the little kids that are running around there and stuff like that. I mean there's no question, they should be asked to leave. Bob zydowsky: Right, exactly. Manders: But walking through the park, no. I can't see where that would be a real problem. Andrews: I do think that dogs should be on leashes. I think under control is a total fallacy. And in our personal experience, there's a dog at our neighbors that supposedly is under voice control but it's attacked our dog at least a dozen times. All 12 times it was under voice control so. Bob Zydowsky: And we'll write very few tickets for dogs in the parks, to be honest because it's such a, when you go up to the person and say, you ~ know can't have your dog in here. Their mouth drops to the ground and it's more of an educational type thing. Do what you've got to do but then head out and. Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 16 ....", Roeser: In that same vein, talking about the education thing, I don't recall seeing anything in the paper of late about this whole thing. You know just publicizing the fact that there shouldn't be dogs in the park. I mean that could be put in the paper more than once. For that matter, every week during the summer. Bob zydowsky: Right. It's real visible on all the signs as you come into the parks. Roeser: It is, I agree. I mean if you're looking for that. Bob zydowsky: It's a good point. You know I think a lot of people just assume that animals in the parks are fine and it might be something that we want to do together~ Do a joint rules in the parks, animal type article so people know. If you're going to be in the parks, you know you've got to have your baggy and you've got to have it on a leash. Or no dogs in the parks. Berg: I'd like to see us pursue the baggy. The scooper ordinance. Bob zydowsky: We get a lot of complaints too, Chan Pond Park. Right off of Laredo. Boy, it's just the snow melts and it's, that's a mess. But the other ordinance, as far as parking on the grass, we've had some problems in the past with, especially in Lake Ann there's that path that goes up to the shelter up on the hill there. And we'll see vehicles up there and it says authorized vehicles only. Well you go up there and you're supposed to be """'" here. oh yeah, Todd said I could. Well, who am I to believe. Okay, fine. Berg: The tonight is to death. right next other one that scares me, we talked about this a little it UP here on Kerber during softball games and whatever. Scares You see these little kids running in and out. They're parked to the no parking signs. me Bob Zydowsky: Right, exactly. And well this last go around, they had a big open house back here and it was just, and this was like 10:00-11:00 in the morning. And Scott Harr, the Public Safety Director and Charles Folch, the City Engineer, I guess sat down and they're going to rework that. It's something's got to be done. Manders: It's either enforce it or take the signs down. Bob zydowsky: Exactly. Berg: Somebody's going to get hurt. Bob zydowsky: Right. I think the initial kind of development of that parking was that it was to be no parking within that crosswalk. Well, way that some of the signs are, it's kind of different messages. So I don't know if they're going to do all no parking or. no the Berg: Maybe some reduced speed limits too. Just to encourage people to drop down to 20 mph when there's kids present. ....", """" Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 17 Schroers: I think the education process in all facets of park use. I like the fact that warning tickets were issued for parking on the grass. I also like the idea of when you see someone misusing the park, a real pet peeve of mine is broken glass in the parking lots. Intentional broken glass in the parking lots. Thoughtless litter. People just drive in the park, have their McDonald's and whip the bag out the window. I would like to see people educated on how to properly use the park as far as that is concerned. That's just as much of an offense as anything else. Throwing your garbage around ~nd breaking your glass and that sort of thing. We hope, and I'm pretty sure that you take all those things into consideration when you're out there and kind of look for everything. Bob Zydowsky: I think too for quite a few years, a lot of these things were, I don't know if they were ignored or if it just wasn't a priority. But now that we've got 3 people out, there's people working from 7:00 in the morning until 11:00 at night in the city going through the parks, some of these things can be addressed and I think it's going to take, you know you can't just turn overnight and say all the dogs out. Get your glass out of here. You're out of the park. You can't do that but like I say, it's a learning process and we try to make it that too. It's not one of these harrassing the people because their dog is there or because they've got glass. You try to explain. Okay, these are the rules that are set forth. Next time bring cans or whatever it might be. And we get a lot of support too from the lifeguards. I was just talkin about that the other day. .~ They're real supportive and real positive about calling us when they see something. Not so much to get somebody in trouble to say hey, these are the rules. This is what's got to be done. Manders: I think the reality though is that you're just touching on a very small segment of the numbers and you have to have some other way to communicate these issues. Bob Zydowsky: Yeah, yeah. I think the article in the paper would be great. It would be super and just highlight some of the ordinances and it'd be a great article. Schroers: Well I think we're on the right track, the way it sounds to me. Appreciate your taking the time. Bob Zydowsky: Sure, and I apologize for the last meeting too. There was some misunderstanding there but, and if you ever have any questions, whatever, just give a call. Or if there's a problem area. I know there was a problem with a dog issue that came up and that was addressed and taken care of. Manders: Just as one example. I run through Lake Ann Park and I kind of run along the beach there and there were a couple of dogs along the beach. They're chasing frisbees and as soon as they see me, they start chasing me. You know it was like, I did say well there's no pets in the park allowed and then just kind of left it at that but it's a real hot collar incident for me. ,...., Bob Zydowsky: Exactly. And we go through that all the time. You know the ordinance says, on a leash or either under voice command. Well like you Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 18 ...."". said, my dog obeys me by voice but if he sees another dog or another person, that's down the drain. It doesn't work. So we might want to amend it so it says you can have animals in the park as long as they're on the leash. And the baggy. So, any other questions? Great, thanks. Hoffman: Just to back up one moment on Commissioner Manders concerns. The paper, we run that article and then we also put it in the city newsletter so that will come out. Park rules is a big, it's actually a rules sign which is planted on a little piece of grass on a sign so when you get the newsletter, either at the end of this week or beginning of next week, it will be in there as well. You can understand a public safety officer's position. when you put those people in those gray areas. They're almost apt to let it slide every time because you put them in a difficult situation. They've allowed some people to get off. Where do you draw that line. I've personally educated well over 500.people in the times that I've been in the parks. Again, the majority of the time, unless they're going to the beach, I will ask them to, if they're at the ballfields and their dogs are well behaved, I will inform them of the ordinance and ask them that next time they leave their pets. But it is a difficult situation and I understand why the...either black or white. ,And we instruct the gate attendants as well to turn those cars away. First off, when they're coming to a park, they're either going to take the dog out of their car, which is against city ordinances, or if they leave it in the car, it's not a healthy thing for the animals. So we ask them to turn around and leave. Take their dog home and come back. So I understand your comments and your concerns but it is tough out there in the field when you have to talk to these people. They are very, they get very upset. When you're faced with that type of situation and you have received the message that well, maybe you should slack off. You're going to slack off. It's just a natural human response. You're not going to want to confront that person and say, no. You have to leave the park so, we have to send a clear message. If we send a mixed message, you're not going to get the results you're after. ..."" Manders: What type of a mixed message are you suggesting? Is there one now or potentially? Hoffman: Well I think as Bob stated. It's pretty easy to have a dog in the park in the city but yet we have a rule which says no dogs in the park. So he stated that they don't write citations for it. They inform the people. Rules are well documented if they're enforced just by people talking to people. So if people talk to people and say, well I take may dog to Lake Ann or I take him there and I've been talked to once and that type of thing. I mean it's almost every time I'm in the parks, I can probably talk to somebody about their dog. So I need to know what the commission would like to see. Do you want them to go? Do you want us to talk to them. Inform them of the ordinance and then allow their dogs to stay. I stated what I've done to date but everybody here in the city, Jerry, Dawn, all the park personnel, we talk to them about those ordinances and they're out there enforcing them on a daily basis. People on the lawnmowers, if they see people pull up to a picnic station with glass bottles, they should get off and talk to the folks about that. Or dogs. The lifeguards, the same thing. We need to send that message out there and start that culture of trying to keep our parks the place, in the condition ~ we want to see them. And this is where it starts. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 19 schroers: We need to amend and refine the ordinance to make it reasonable. That's what we need to do. Koubsky: One suggestion. There are two different types of parks too. There's neighborhood parks and community parks. I guess just as a thought when you do work on amending this, is you may be a little stricter in a community park than you are in a neighborhood park. Maybe a community park they can walk on a parkway. Where you're in a neighborhood park, I think you have a lot more people out for shorter walks, if they have a baggy and a leash. Andrews: That's asking a lot of the citizen. Roeser: I think it's almost got to be, if you're going to ban dogs from parks, they should be banned from all the parks rather than, because the potential for a kid getting bit in a community park is the same as it is in anything else. Koubsky: Then I would think about not banning them and put them on a leash and a baggy. Andrews: Let's talk about it another time. schroers: Let's bring that up on the agenda. To refine and amend the dog ~ ordinance to make it reasonable. I don't think it's reasonable to totally say, you can't have a dog in the park when we run our trails right through the park. I mean that doesn't make any sense. We just have to make sense out of the ordinance. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A. ROGERS/DOLEJSI/BANDIMERE PARK ISSUE. Hoffman: 6(a), unless there's any additional information which the commission would like to forward to me, I have sufficient direction to continue the investigation of this possibility of the swap of the property and to bring the commission back a full report. Andrews: Were you going to kind of float the idea of a little land grading in exchange for a little acreage loss? Hoffman: Not acreage loss, I don't think. We talked about the fact that the Bandimere site has nicer sight lines to the lake. That's a selling point. Andrews: I think you misunderstood my point. The proposal that Lundgren Bros gave us was less land than Bandimere. Because of that, that we would expect additional services. Hoffman: It would be my position that we would not accept anything less, only equal or more. I""" Roeser: Accept at least as much plus the services. Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 20 ....,,; Koubsky: Yeah, I'd go for more. Put in your extra 2 soccer fields. Hoffman: You have the plan before which shows the additional 7 acres. The Bandimere site. So it would be my position that we would, when you're developing a community park, this is going to need to meet the needs for a long time. We're short on that soccer area. The plan by Hoisington- Koegler there which shows the additional soccer field, the additional 7 acres to the existing Bandimere site would allow for that additional soccer field. I would recommend that the commission take a position that it either be an equal trade or in excess. Koubsky: I would ask for more because of your lake view. That would be my position is to ask for as much as you can and negotiate down. Schroers: Also in the form of grading too. I mean acquisition of property and any grading or progress we can make towards developing the site. So that we can get, I think that is our focus. I was overhearing what people were saying when we were out there this evening. I was just kind of sitting and listening and everybody was saying yeah. Good. We want it and this might get us off the ground a lot faster than we thought we would. That seems to be the consensus. Let's take every opportunity on this to acquire the area that we need and accomplish as much in the way of development and site preparation as possible. As soon as possible. So that we're really rolling on this. We don~t want to give up portions of the property for the purpose of development but we would like to incorporate as much of that into whatever, into the negotiation process as is practical. As much as they would buy. ~ Hoffman: I'm sure it's obvious to everyone as well that houses on that corner are not going to be as valuable as the houses on the interioy of that property. Schroers: Yeah, that gives us a good position to bargain. A good position to bargain from so if we can stay the same on acreage, or even increase in acreage and then get some site preparation as well, I think that's what we would be shooting for. Berg: Good to shoot for it. Koubsky: Get as much as you can. B. REDEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN/COMMUNITY CENTER. Hoffman: Item 6(b), the redevelopment of the downtown/community center. That was brought up to the HRA as an item last Thursday evening. They made good progress in the eyes of Todd Gerhardt, the Assistant City Manager and Executive Director to the HRA. Curt Green basically...go through byiefly. It was the general consensus agreement that this design gives them a base upon which they could proceed with their negotiating activities and that being the negotiations with Bloomberg Companies" There's the issue of land swapping now. The property on the corner, which is in the ownership of the bowling alley but will probably in the owernship in the city, would be swapped to Bloomberg Company for...on the interior of the Dinner Theatre and then the community center would go there. As we talked, the City will ....", ,...., Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 21 hire Bill Morris of Decision Resources to conduct a feasibility study. And then again we will be negotiating with Clayton Johnson and Bloomberg Companies for that land swap. A member of the Planning Commission spoke indicating that they will be submitting some statement indicating their reactions to the program and plan. Recreational center versus community center. Members of tnePlanning Commission have some strong feelings in regard to, they don't want this just to be a community center. They want it to be, or a recreation center. They want it to be more than that. Then it was Curt's...city completes negotiations and evaluations. That is where we're at. HG will not perform any additional work until this newsletter is that the city is an issue. Informing the residents about this concept. About the proposal. About the idea. All of those things will be incorporated in the newsletter that will be distributed city wide in 2 to 3 weeks. After that the survey will be conducted and then an additional committee meeting amongst all of the Boards and Commissions and Councils will be held sometime within that timeframe to talk about the most current, the most favorable plan which is scheme number, or alternative number 12. Berg: Is this recreational center versus community center in the fact that the HRA wants, or the Planning Commission wants to combine the two? Getting back to the original problem we had of trying to do too much with too little? " Hoffman: It brings some of those, too much with too little questions back into the realm but not back to the original conference center type of theme. They want to see open space and meeting rooms. Something which can be more than recreation. You can have all sorts of community functions. The music, the theatrical, those type of things. Berg: Something like Shoreview? Hoffman: Essentially. But more open. I think the commission member they're speaking of talked about the real open vestibule feeling and that all cost money and there are some other resources here, as the commission is aware. Any questions I can respond to in that regard? Andrews: I have one question. Where did the $5 million figure come from? Who came up with that as the number? Hoffman: The $5.5 million, or whatever? Andrews: That seems to be the new number that's just always tossed around as the target figure. Is that somebody said this is our budget and that's it or is this just a coincidence of planning. ,...., Hoffman: No, it's not a coincidence of planning. The City Manager, the HRA. The City Manager, acting as the Executive Administrator of the HRA, Don Ashworth and Todd Gerhardt, the Assistant City Manager and Assistant Executive Director work through the calculations of how much tax increment will be generated in that district during the life of the district. Then there was a figure came out which was about $10 million and the Planning Commission, HRA started, really the HRA with input from the Planning Commission and staff members, started taking a look at a priority list and those were identified with the Council about over the last 3 years and it Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 22 .....,; came down to senior housing at about $2 1/2 million, City Center Park is an option. Or Central Park, excuse me, at a million. Some redevelopment of the West 78th Street with the realignment and the improvements, lane widening and those type of things. And the community center is included in that list. Budget figures were broken out and that's where it comes from. Andrews: Okay. That's fine. That answers my question. c. LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC SHELTER GRAND OPENING. Hoffman: If there's any questions, Dawn has provided you a report on the, have you received your invitation? Got your invitation for the open house of the shelter? ...again wit~all the given problems out there, the shelter is going to be a structure which the city can be quite proud of. And then the public celebration, the grand opening of the building will be on June 12th. Promote that as a pretty big deal. I think the community thinks it's a big deal and they will welcome it with open arms. schroers: Okay, can we Jus~ open this up then for D, E, F, G and H. Is there any commission members that have any particular questions or comments on those or is there something that staff particularly wants to address on any of those subjects? Hoffman: I'll take questions first from the commission. Berg: Are we going to sign up next month for our duties? """""" Hoffman: Yeah, the shirts are here. If there's no other questions, the Lake Ann irrigation situation is an irritant to me. I've discussed that with the contractor. It's unfortunate that he comes into a timeframe where we've Just gone through 2 to 3 projects which have run over schedule for him. There are no excuses which are being taken in that.regard and he is well informed... Special June 8th meeting, again that's tentative at this point. Mark it on your calendars. There are a number of site plan reviews or land development reviews which are in but they are incomplete at this time and if they become complete within time, the city has the obligation to review them. However if not, we will not schedule that meeting. Schroers: Okay. I heard other than the weather that Arbor Day went well and was received pretty well by the Tree Board and what we have some ideas of what we would like to do a little bit different next time around but I think it's real doable and could turn into being a real nice event that people will look forward to every year. So that's good. Okay, are there any presentations from commission members? COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Andrews: Two really quick ones. For those of you who have not heard, much to the shock I think and surprise and excitement of the city, the ISTEA grant for the bridge overpass was received by the city. They got approval for that which I thought was cool. The other thing, I attended the City Council meeting last night. The City Council voted to approve a feasibility study of the Highway 101 trail link so I think that's a positive step too. That's it. """""" ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 25, 1993 - Page 23 Schroers: Great. Okay, anything on the Administrative Packet? If not, a motion to adjourn. Hoffman: Two comments Larry. I would like to thank Commissioner Andrews for his attendance at the meeting last night. It was his scheduled night but I neglected to call... And secondly, Commissioner Koubsky is departing. This is his last evening so we thank him for his time. He will be acknowledged at the City Council level for his service to the city and the commission. We'll miss him. r believe he's been a valuable member of the commission and we've got some, a meat and cheese tray and a little bit of hor d'oevres out in the lobby which we can join now just to celebrate his involvement and to mourn his departure. Andrews moved, Manders seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim "..... ,.....