The URL can be used to link to this page

PRC 1990 05 08 ~ CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 8, 1990 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Andrews, Jan Lash, Jim Mady, Curt Robinson, Wendy Pemrick and Dawne Erhart MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Schroers STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator APPOINT ACTING CHAIR: Lash moved, Andrews seconded to appoint Curt Robinson as Acting Chair for the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Madymoved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated April 10, 1990 as presented. Mady moved, Andrews seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated April 24, 1990 amended as follows: Jan Lash noted a change on page 1 in Lori Sietsema's comments changing the figure of $3,500.00 to $35,000.00; Jim Mady noted on change on page 8 changing the word "aggressive" to "progressive"; and Dawne Erhart noted a change on page 20 changing the word "property" to "proper". All voted in ~ favor of the Minutes as amended and the motion carried. CONSIDER REQUEST TO AMEND 1990 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET TO INCLUDE PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF CURRY FARMS PARK. ~ Sietsema: I wanted to give a little bit of a history on this item for the benefit of the newer commissioners. Last year the Curry Farms neighborhood came in, they are nearly completed. Filled in their development. Came in and asked what they could likely expect for development in their park and I had indicated that it was likely that in 1990 there would be funds allocated for first phase of development and plans were to be drawn up and approved last year. They organized themselves and asked the developer to do the rough grading and seeding, put in the volleyball and donate $2,500.00 which would be matched by the City for the first phase of tot lot equipment or playground equipment. They did that. The developer did that and the City approved the matching $2,500.00 and the equipment was installed with the border and the pea rock. The volleyball will be installed this spring and it has to be reseeded which will happen this spring. Then again about budget time the neighborhood came in and asked if funds would be allocated in the 1990 budget for further development of that park. The Commission felt that there were other parks that didn't have anything and that they should put the money into other parks and that request went onto City Council and was not acted on at that time either. The budget was sent onto the City Council and they did not amend it or change what the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission was. So the neighborhood has now asked again. The development is filled. There are 80 homes or so in there and there a vast number of children in there and they feel that there is a great need for additional facilities in their park and have asked that we amend the 1990 budget to include funds to provide additional facilities. I took a close look at the budget, which I Park and Rec Commission Meeting JI1""\ May 8, 1990 - Page 2 .",.... included the listed items and at City Center Park there are funds allocated towards City Center Park to improve the park and to install the totlot equipment. We rolled that over from last year. We had allocated the same amount of funds but we rolled that over because we didn't know what was going to happen with the community center. The Community Center Task Force has recently recommended that the City Council approve going to referendum in the fall for a community center and if that happens, if the Council approves that, then we still won't know until November what's going to happen with that park. If there's going to be a community center there or not and that has a significant impact on how those funds could be used. So there are funds available that could be reallocated that won't be spent this year. So I wanted to bring that to your attention. The other thing that I did was I felt that it was important that the neighborhood come to a general consensus as far as what items they felt had a priority in the park, given the park plan that had been approved. The neighborhood met last night and discussed all of the items and they came up with a two phase plan for the park given the facilities again that are in the plan. They feel that the trail and the walking path through the park, the meandering trail that gets you access into the park so you're able to stroller around the park or whatever, was within the first top priority and also phase 2 of the playground equipment. They felt that the tennis court, basketball court and softball field could be a second phase. It's the recommendation of the Curry Farms and the request of the Curry Farms residents to amend the 1990 Capital Improvement Program budget to allow construction of what they've outlined as Phase 1 in 1990. Also have requested that we keep in mind at budget time that Phase 2 be funded in 1991. Lash: How much would phase 2 amount to? Sietsema: Phase 2. Robinson: $25,000.00. Lash: Boy you're quick Curt. Robinson: If you look on the second page, it's the $3,000.00, the list there. Lash: Okay. Sietsema: They had a lot of good conversation last night and discussed 'the facilities at great length. They talked about moving the softball field up because it was less money but given that the seed isn't even growing out there yet, it has to be reseeded, they felt that perhaps they should wait on that to discourage if anything, use of that area until the grass has taken hold. So from the standpoint of what they felt would be most used, this is the recommendation and the request that they have submitted. Bruce and a few others are here. They may want to make comments. Robinson: Did anybody want to comment? "'*'" Bruce Kotziak: I guess I submitted a letter to Lori earlier describing what she said... 11""", Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 3 Robinson: Do we have anything else that we think may not be used in 1990? The tennis court at South Lotus. Sietsema: That's not in the 1990 budget. Robinson: Oh, they ended up taking it out? Sietsema: Sorry Curt. Just the general improvements at South Lotus may not happen this year because we won't know until mid summer what's happening with the TH 101. What the for sure alignment is going to be but I'm keeping right on top of that so that we can get in there and do some work in there and provide something even by late summer or fall so it'd be in place for next spring. That's why I didn't point that one out is because there's still a pos~ibility that that would happen. Everything else I think is going to happen. Erhart: What happens if we go to a referendum in the fall, I should say if we don't go to a referendum in the fall? How does it impact the City Center Park? Sietsema: Then we could go right out there and start. .~ Erhart: I mean would we have any money to do anything? Sietsema: If you take this money? Well there's other funds available. There's funds available for upgrading of the warming house, the master park plan and general development. The $40,000.00 was just for the playground equipment. Erhart: Do you have any idea how many kids would use City Center Park? A lot? A few. Mady: 600 kids in the school there everyday. Erhart: Okay, so in other words it is a pretty important... Sietsema: That's our most used park by the youth. That's really what we consider our youth athletic complex right now. Erhart: Okay, that's what I was wondering. I thought so but I wanted. Lash: Is it possible for the commissioners to get a copy of the I believe the Council had a surveyor had some information or something done on the community center and the financial, according to the paper and I read some of that and I guess I'd be interested in seeing what that report had to say. I think that should impact 'our decision here because if it ends up it doesn't go to referendum, I would just as soon proceed with City Center as soon as possible and try and get some of these things done by fall so it can be done yet this year. ,.... Sietsema: Perhaps then you want to table this decision until the Council has reviewed that recommendation from the Task Force. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 4 Lash: Do you know when that's? Sietsema: June. The first meeting in June. Mady: There are some items I'd like to discuss. Not necessarily, if you want to table Curry Farms until June, that would be fine with me but I think there's some large items that this kind of impacts that we should talk about. That has to do with how do we go about looking at budget amendments? I'd like to talk about how we look at budget amendments and I understand that Curry Farms came in here. Staff found some money. That's wonderful. In the past, since our budget got set up however, we've talked to people from Chan Hills, Pheasant Hills. Numerous different groups have been in front of us asking for differen~ money and just because staff found $40,000.00 this time doesn't mean Curry Farms should get it. I think each one of the groups who's made a request in at least the past year should be told that okay, we found $40,000.00. Now let's see where it goes. Those groups shouldn't be forgotten about just because they're not here today 0, they didn't sent somebody every meeting to make su,e that if some money got found, that they could be he,e. That they wouldn't lose out. So the needs are there. We've got neighborhoods who have been waiting 8-10 years fo, playg,ound equipment and so it's not just, it may not be just Cu"y Fa,ms that needs something. ,.... Lash: And it's not necessarily that we found $40,000.00 that we could use anyway. We don't know that yet. I think City Cente,'s been on hold for a couple of years and it's something that's maybe kind of a top p,io,ity since it's been in the budget and held ove, fo, a couple of yea,s and it's something like you said, that's used extensively. If it's feasible for us to go ahead with it, I'd just as soon get going on that instead of waiting another year so the sooner we get the info,mation on that. If it looks like it's a go, I'd just as soon get going on it. And if that means we need all the money to do that, then I would want to use all the money to do that. Mady: A lot of head shaking. Robinson: Do you have a comment? record? Would you give us you, name fo, the Bruce Kotziak: Sure. B,uce Kotziak at... Jim, what you said earlie, is cor,ect... I guess what we would like to do is get the funding that the other parks have gotten... We're not asking fo, any mo,e than any other pa,k is getting... We had felt this past yea, the,e was $30,000.00 to be divided up between 3 parks... Lash: I think giving that $10,000.00 to those othe, parks kind of brought them to be a little mo,e comparable with YOU guys. They had nothing and basically all we're doing there is grading, seeding and putting in a first phase tot lot aren't we? ~ Sietsema: Right. We're spending $10,000.00 at those parks. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 5 Lash: But that's because we got a good deal. Thanks to you guys we got a good deal and you got it in last year and we didn't get a good deal with those guys so it's costing us $10,000.00 to do the same thing in those parks that you guys already have. A Resident made a comment that could not be heard on the tape. Mady: We've got parks like Chanhassen Hills that got nothing this last year. They got nothing last year. We've got North Lotus Lake Park, for 8 years sat there with nothing. They finally got something last year. We don't give, we didn't give $10,000.00 to every park. We didn't give anything but what we try to do is look at where the population is growing and build something there. It'd be wonderful-if we had all the money in the world so we could put everything you need there but we simply don't hae that so you try to do as much as you possibly can keeping in mind that we've got the whole city to deal with. I guess that's what I'm trying to come f,om is we do have a whole, I mean we could fill this room almost every a,ea that wanted something this yea, and didn't get it. It's unfortunate but that's just the way it is. So we've got to budget and we've kind of got to live by it as much as we can. Lash: And you're not being penalized. I mean you've got you, things put in last yea,. If you we,e like the parks this yea, that we,e getting ~ $10,000.00, it will be towards the end of the summer by the time those things, by the time they get thei, things in so you'll have already had yours for almost 2 yea,s. Resident: Well we got it in October. Lash: Well okay. So for a year. But you know that's the bonus that you guys got and you got a year earlier than everybody else and it's costing the City, which is all of us a little more to put it in these other places because they weren't as industrious as you people were to push and get their developer to do the things that you got yours to do. It's tough. Robinson: It is tough. Jim mentioned Pheasant Hills. It's an area that's park deficient. We don't even have the land for a park there so it's tough allover. We got behind here. We're definitely behind... Mady: Lori, I had a question on this specific neighborhood. What, and I don't remember, in Curry Farms, what percentage of park fees and trail fees were paid and how much? Sietsema: They got 100% c,edit for the pa,kland. I think they asked the question last night and I told you that you had paid, your development had paid, your development didn't pay any fees. The developer dedicated the parkland and so there are no fees collected. ,.... Mady: It's a balance. I mean you can get 50% credit. It depends on how much you get so realistically the money that, we didn't get any money so the cash we payout has got to come from other parts of the city to build your park. We don't get any money from property taxes so, to build those things, so it's getting park dedication fees from other neighborhoods to ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 6 build your neighborhood park. That's a problem we've had all along. I don't like it but no one's come up with a better solution at this point in time. I move to table. Pemrick: Second. Mady moved,' Pemrick seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table amending the 1990 Capital Improvement Budget for Curry Farms Park until the second meeting in June, June 26, 1990, until after the City Council decides on the Community Center referendum issue. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Kathy Clark: I'm sorry. My name is Kathy Clark and where the parking lot is intended to be, the hill is so steep and bumpy. ..anyone with a stroller can't get out of the park... Sietsema: I will ask the street department if they can do that and if it's a nominal fee,' for a nominal amount, I'll bring it back to you. Robinson: Would you let us know at the next meeting? Sietsema: Sure. ~ APPROVE JULY 4TH BAND CONTRACT. Sietsema: Todd is not here tonight. He had to be at a banquet in Mankato. I think that his update at the bottom on the staff report is pretty self explanatory. If there's any other questions, I can. Mady: There's no motion? Yes there is. Sietsema: Yes. Lash: Okay, I make a motion that we accept the contract for the Hi-Tops for the 3rd of July with the 4th of July as a back-up. Mady: Second. Lash moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept the contract for the Hi-Tops to perform at the 1990 Fourth of July Celebration street dance in the amount of $1,300.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Sietsema: For the record, that would be a recommendation to the City Council to authorize execution of that. Lash: That's what I meant. REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN. ,.... Sietsema: At our last meeting we talked extensively about the need to relook at the trail plan and make revisions, prioritize or throw it out and start over. So I was directed to schedule this for discussion at this II""" Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 7 meeting. I wanted to make sure that you had the complete document that's included in the trail plan and I don't know if you want to go through from the beginning and start it that way or if you want to go with alignments but anyway you want to do it. For history sake, if you want me to go over how we got to where we are now? Robinson: Yeah, I think that's in here. You might as well. I think it's really in here because you included the March 23rd and February report but would you mind going through that? Sietsema: Well I'm going to go way back. In 1987 the Park and Recreation Commission had the park needs survey. Conducted the park needs survey and as a result of that survey, it was determined that 5 of the top 7 or 7 of the top 10 items that were requested most often as having too few of in the city had to do with trails. And the commission at that time felt that that was a significant number and decided to put a trail plan together. And so staff worked with a consultant or this commission worked with a consultant and staff to come up with the trail plan and the document that was included in that packet. After that, let's see it was the spring, February of 1988 the Council authorized that it would go to referendum with the other big items that we had as long as we were going to referendum, to ask the voters if they would like to fund this trail plan, or the first phase of it. It was I believe $800,000.00. That trail plan, the funding for that failed at ~ that time and in November another referendum was held and funding for the trail plan at that time failed as well. The direction that has been taken by the Council and commission is where we're at to date in trying to accomplish as much of that trail plan. I think what was confusing is that when a subdivision comes in, it's confusing to know why does staff make the recommendations that we do but when the subdivision comes in, what I typically do is look at the comprehensive plan and see what it calls for. Is itin a park deficient area? Does it call for a park to preserve a specific area? Is there some certain amenity that needs to be preserved and then I look at the trail plan as well to see what it calls for in trails in the area. That's what I typically base my recommendation on and other circumstances and then we bring it in here. We discuss it. Determine if we want to go with the comprehensive plan. Go with what has been laid out. Choose not to do it at that time or to not to do it ever. This commission makes a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council makes the final decision. So there was some discussion last time as to well if they don't approve doing it at that time, does that mean that it's still on the trail plan? The trail plan, the comprehensive plan is still intact but it would be up to someone to bring it up again to request that it be done or someone to bring it up to request that it's taken out of the comprehensive plan. So in the instance of the trail that goes across the Erhart property, when they come in for subdivision I recommend that we acquire that trail easement because it's part of the subdivision process and if we truly want it and that's our goal, that's the time that we would acquire it. The commission reacted to it and I don't even remember for sure what they did. I think they recommended that we acquire it as well. ~ Erhart: It wasn't a subdivision though Lori. It was just a mortage we came in with. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,... May 8, 1990 - Page 8 Sietsema: But it was a subdivision. Erhart: One lot split. It was not a subdivision for development. That is now it is written in our plan here. Even in your letter it says at the time of subdivision for development. Does that mean one lot for my own personal use because then if it does, then I do want it off the map? Sietsema: If the lot is being subdivided, I would recommend that we acquire it. Erhart: Why? Why would you make that recommendation at that time? Sietsema: To insure that we get it. And because it's in the plan that we should get it. Erhart: That wasn't the original plan though when it was put on. Sietsema: I don't understand. Erhart: When somebody comes in and does a subdevelopment and you have other homes that are going to use that, I'm creating a need for a trail, then at that time, yeah you want to come in and take it. I wasn't creating any need. It was just for a mortgage. ".,... Sietsema: Right, and I understand that but what I'm trying to say is that because it was on the comprehensive plan, it would typically be my recommendation that anytime it's a lot split or whatever, if we have the opportunity to acquire the things that are on the comprehensive plan, I will always Tecommend that that happen and it's up to this commission to decide if they want to continue that recommendation and ultimately up to the Council if they want to because I have to bring that out to them that that's on the plan. Erhart: I realize that. That's why in my letter that I wrote, I said it becomes a nuisance at that time because every time I come in and I want to do something for my own personal use or build a home in the future, I am going to have to go through that again. I have no problems with having it on and the City taking it and I keep wanting to state that so people don't think I'm taking it away and I don't want to give it. Just for my own personal use, I don't like having to come in every time I go for a mortgage or something. And I don't know why we have to go through that for my own personal use. That's the only reason why I said I wanted it off. If that hadn't been the case, I wouldn't ask to have it off. If we could reach a compromise there, we wouldn't even need to take it off the map. Andrews: ...nuisance because there might be other landowners who aren't as gracious as you are and that may not be as cooperative as you are. The whole object is to make sure that it is brought in front of the Park Board every time a piece of property is altered, it's a part of the plan. ,... Erhart: I understand that. I understand that Jim but that's why it is a nuisance. ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 9 Andrews: But what you have to realize then is that the Park Board is going to look at the merits of the proposal and make a decision at that time. Should we go ahead or should we wait until the next time this property is. . . Erhart: But they still have the right to take it at that time. Andrews: That's true. That's why you've got a board to look at the pros and cons of should we or shouldn't we. Erhart: Okay, I understand that. That's the only reason why I stated in my letter though it was a nuisance because you're going to have me in here every time. Andrews: That's true. Mady: How do you suggest we change the procedure? Erhart: I was just saying, if I wouldn't have to come in here before I were to subdivide my property for a development, we can keep it on the map. Mady: I want to look at the broader issue, not just your property. ,... Erhart: No, no, I know and we weren't supposed to get off into just one little piece of it. Mady: How do we change procedures so that, because all staff is doing is every time a property is subdivided for whatever reason, it's their duty. Their job to bring it in front of us and tell us what's happening and we make a recommendation and the Council makes the decision. I don't know of a way of getting around the problem. Erhart: I don't either and that's why I'm asking to have it removed. I was hoping that we could come up with some solution but I will be a stickler on this and I will push for this to be off the map unless we can come up with something. lash: Well could it be something like, not just a subdivision but when it comes before the City for development? Sietsema: We review every subdivision regardless and typically they don't tell us it's just for mortgage. I mean we review virtually every subdivision. Are you telling me then you don't want to review every subdivision? Andrews: We have to. Erhart: Yeah, I understand that. I don't see a way around it either and like I said, that's the only reason why I'm asking to have it removed and this commission can vote how they want on it but. ,..... Andrews: I think in order to vote we need to have an alternative and that's why we're here now is to discuss are we going to make changes to the Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,.... May 8, 1990 - Page 10 plan which is come up with an alternative route for your...maybe other areas of the plan that we think need to be changed. Erhart: Well yeah, and that's why it's a real small piece of the whole picture and that's why I said we needed to discuss the whole thing. Andrews: It's sort of like Pandora's box. Erhart: Yeah, I know. Robinson: Do you see any alternative? Erhart: See I'm so new to this whole commission as far as how we got to the trail plan and every~hing. That's why I did bring it up and I was looking to some of the members here to brainstorm with me. And like I said, it's just one small part of the overall trail plan and I do have a problem with the trail left over in Curry Farms too. Where the people asked to have that removed. We never made a motion to take it off the Comprehensive Plan. Lash: I guess because I didn't know that that needed to be done. I guess I was under the assumption that if it was something that was acted on by Council, then it just sort of was taken care of. .,-.. Sietsema: The thing that's in the trail plan that requires, you'd have to go back into the trail plan and take out the statement that sidewalks are iequired along thru streets or the collector streets within a development. That's what made that a stipulation. If you want to take that out or if you want to, I mean I don't know who's going to come in. I can't see the residents in Curry Farms coming in and requesting the trail be put on anytime soon and who else is going to ask for it? So but if you take it out of there, it takes away your ability to require it elsewhere in the future. Robinson: So in Dawne's specific case though, we concluded that every time a proposal is made for subdivision, whether it be for a mortgage or whatever, it has to come before the Park and Rec? Sietsema: It will whether there's a trail located on the comprehensive plan or not. And the commission has done in other instances, you've looked at a subdivision that doesn't have a trail going through that piece of property and required a trail to be on there. That wasn't on the plan. You know it just shows that there was some foresight, there was some reason that that's there but it doesn't limit us to that either. It's just a planning tool. If you take it off and they come in for subdivision... Erhart: You can still ask for it. Sietsema: But if the person that's in my office or this staff person knows that that was originally part of the plan or... ,.... Erhart: But we are asking for trails in areas of development that aren't on the comprehensive plan right now when they come in. And all I'm saying ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 11 is why can't I be treated like those developments? Lash: If and when you decide to subdivide. Erhart: Yeah, you might want to take another trail from me. When I subdivide you may say well I want that trail or I want one over here. You can have one wherever you want. Mady: What we've done though Dawne is we've looked at your spot where you actually live, we now have or were hoping to have a park down there a few years back, we now do have a park there. There is no east/west access through that big square block of land with no roads running through it at this time. So all we did was set a line saying we want a trail through here when the roads and stuff ~o through. It's a planning item. Erhart: Why can't you do that when we come in for a development? Why do I have to keep it on the map? You're going to ask for it... Mady: So we remember. Erhart: You'll remember Jim. Mady: Well no. ,.... Sietsema: But the point is that it's a from now and nobody is still sitting on I'm not in my office any longer, nobody suppose to be an east/west connection. planning tool. If it's 10 years this commission that's here now and will then know that there was It's for planning purposes. Erhart: I don't mean to make a big deal about this but like I said, I am having problems with it because it is a nuisance and that's why I brought it up. I would have just left it alone otherwise. Robinson: Ed? Ed Hasek: When you get a minute. Robinson: Go ahead. ,.... Ed Hasek: I think part of the confusion lies in what the comprehensive plan really is. The comprehensive plan is the basic tool that you folks have... For all practical purposes it's your Bible. The one thing that you should know backwards and forwards when you come to these meetings in order to make decisions. That's what the comprehensive plan is. It's your tool to make decisions and you make your decisions based' upon that. Pass them along to the Council. The Council takes it. They look at it. They throw a bunch of other things at it and make the final decision. That's what the comprehensive plan does. It takes, if you want to change the comprehensive plan, correct me if I'm wrong Don, it takes a public hearing to do that. You can't just simply say that we don't want this in there anymore. Tonight we're going to vote it out and it's gone. It doesn't happen that way because the comprehensive plan also entrusts the City and makes them respond based upon what the citizens have looked at. That th~~g ,.,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 12 was not approved only by you. It was approved by the citizens of Chanhassen as well and that's everybody. Lash: When was that done? Ed Hasek: What, the comprehensive Plan? Erhart: No, when was it approved? Lash: When was it approved by the citizens? Ed Hasek: When was it approved by citizens? When it was approved by the City Council. Lash: So if we made a recommendation to the City Council that it be amended and the City Council voted, basically the citizens are saying then that.. . Sietsema: But it takes a public hearing. Ed Hasek: Yeah, except you've got to have a public hearing at this level in order, that's where it starts. You make a recommendation. The public hearing begins right here before this board and then they go to Council and ~ then they'll hold public hearings at that level. Then it's approved by Met Council . Erhart: I did talk to some of the old Council members and I was told by one of them that when this comprehensive plan went before them to go on for referendum, they said that they would approve it provided that the people voted to fund it but then I was told by this Councilmember, being the people didn't fund it, we should be looking at something that we can amend and bring back to the people because it wipes it out then. And this is a councilmember that told me this. Ed Hasek: But that's not the way the process worked. It was approved by the Council prior to it becoming a referendum. I mean that's a fact. That's a simple fact. I don't know who the Council person is but I'm sure that you could talk to the rest of them and find out that that isn't the case at all. Robinson: Specifically approved. Erhart: Well this what I'm trying to find out. ".... Sietsema: Yeah, it's an approved document and it takes, and we're going through the whole revision of entire comprehensive plan. Planning's doing it with their sections. We've done it through the recreation section. Part of the recreation section was the trail plan and then they'll hold the public hearings and present those changes, revisions and updating of the comprehensive plan to the City Council and go through the public hearing process and it will be approved and then that will stand for another 10 years. The one that we're working under now was developed in the late 70's and adopted in 1980. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 13 Lash: So basically all of the commissions, as they're working on this, if they are making changes would be holding public hearings? Andrews: Does the public hearing process have to be initiated by us or can "a citizen request that we do public hearings...possible amendments to the comprehensive plan? Sietsema: every year years. And changes. Well typically we don't make reV1Slons to the Comprehensive Plan or every other month. We don't do that. We change it every 10 now this is the time that we should be looking to doing those ~1i ke Lynch: If there was sufficient citizen input, I'm sure the Council... Lash: Is it something that the Commission can initiate? I think that's what we're initiating aren't we? Erhart: Yes. Robinson: Right. I think that's what we're asking. We're going through the process. ,.... Lash: We're trying to find out what the process is. Robinson: Of changing it right now I think. That's the process we're going through right? Erhart: That's what I'm trying to understand. Robinson: This is a decade change and we damn well want to do it right. We've got to live with it for 10 years. Lash: Although if we look at these two plans that are in this packet, we have one that's dated 1987 and one that's dated 1988 so I'm assuming that this whole procedure was followed each time that these two changes were made to the comprehensive plan? Sietsema: Right. Lash: There were public hearings? Sietsema: Well when the last one, when the final one was adopted it went through the public hearing process. Andrews: So what we need to do is set a specific to begin public hearings if we want to consider changes? ,..... Sietsema: Well the public hearing process will all go through. That's all in the works. The Planning Commission is reviewing the planning department areas and recreation, the Park and Recreation is to review the recreation and trail section and we've had it on the agenda and last time it came out 1"", Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 14 that you want to look at it again so we're here to look at it again. Whatever decisions, revisions that you make, will be recommendations to the City Council and will be considered at the public hearings in their consideration. ' Lash: So can we, before having public hearings, can we have work sessions to work on this ourselves? Sietsema: Yes, you should be. That's what this is. Lash: Okay. Well I just want to make sure we weren't doing anything illegal here by discussing it without having a public hearing. Sietsema: No. No. You want to have your work sessions and work out all the glitches in it and add everything you want to add and make all the changes and take out everything that's old and not applicable anymore and then staff will retype it all up and put it all together with a pretty little ribbon and present it to Council and they'll hold the public hearings with the rest of the Comp Plan. Lash: Now I thought we had to have public hearings at our level first before it could go to Council? That's what Ed just said. ~ Sietsema: No. The City is going through the whole process. If we were to change something at a non-decade time, then it's likely that the Council would direct us to hold the public hearings. Lash: So we don't have to have public hearings? Sietsema: Not at this time because it happens to fall in. Mayor Chmiel: You could if you so choose... Robinson: Are there any other, or how do we want to approach this? Are there any over and above Dawne's specific one that we want to address on the trail plan or the comprehensive... Erhart: Curry Farms. Lash: I think it needs to have some major revisions and I don't know how we want to go about starting those. Mady: I think you have to propose them. You can't wait for someone else to do it. You've got to do it. We've got a plan now that stands and we keep talking, these things keep talking about...but we've got to change it. We've got to change it. Well, let's get some specific proposals. .~ Lash: Well okay. I think if we look back in the Minutes from several meetings ago, it was the one where Todd was doing it and the tape missed a whole bunch of what we said but he basically summarized it at the bottom and I guess I said, he's got that I stated that I would like...certain things and I sort of prioritized the trails as far as what I. I guess what I would like to see done is for us to set our priorities of which roads we " Pa,k and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 15 would like to see done fi,st and basically put all the ,est on the back bu,ne, 0, take them off 0, whateve, has to be done with them, I don't know and basically sta,t getting ou, fees f,om develope,s and get ou,selves a Rlan and whateve, ou, p,io,ity is. If it's TH 101 no,th 0, Minnewashta Pa,kway 0, whateve, we want to say is the fi,st one we'd like to see done. Get a ,ough estimate f,om Lo,i as to what she thinks the fees will be that we'll be collecting next yea, and say okay, we can get 2 miles of this ,oad done next yea,. That's what I want to do next yea, fo, the t,ails so we get something accomplished that someone can walk on fo, a 2 mile st,etch and get f,om Point A to Point Band sta,t collecting the fees. Then as, you know I'd like to feel like we',e accomplishing something. We could see that in a yea,'s time that something, we could look at TH 101 and say look it. We got the trail done on TH 101. Next yea, let's do the one on South TH 101 0, whateve, ou, next p,io,ities a,e. That's something maybe we all need to sit down and figu,e out what ou, p,io,ities are and do it a piece at a time and just chip away at it so we',e accomplishing something instead of spinning our wheels and having a grandiose plan that seems like we',e getting little bits and pieces and when we',e all dead and ou, kids a,e dead, maybe it will be done and maybe it won't. Mady: I think you',e missing a point he,e Jan in that this is the plan. This is a plan. It's not an implementation p,og,am. It is a plan of how we want the City to look 50 yea,s f,om now. I don't think anyplace in he,e .~ you'll find time lines for" anything. What we're going to do next year, the yea, afte, because in a plan that's a 10 yea, plan, there is no way you l~ant to be looking at that every year and saying well gee, 1993 we didn't get the one there so we',e going to ,011 that fo,wa,d. That's not what the idea of the whole plan is. All it is is a grandiose picture of what the City wants to develop into 50 yea,s down the ,oad. And the implementation of that is looked at eve,y year to follow the plan. Okay, we have $50,000.00 next yea,. He,e's the whole plan fo, the next yea" what does this group of people feel you need to do this year to get the plan to whe,e it is fo, 50 yea,s f,om now. That's all this tool does is tell us what we want the city to look like far into the future. It is not meant to be the implementation p,og,am fo, this yea" next yea" 5 yea,s down the ,oad. That's a diffe,ent tool. Lash: Okay, that's something that we can do at our own level is figure out each yea, what we want to accomplish but, the p,oblem and Ed summed it up by sayi ng that the Comprehensive Plan is ou, Bible., It's somethi ng we have to live by. It's something we have to believe in and Lo,i has summed it up by saying that it is her ,esponsibility in he, position to come to us and make a ,ecommendation to go by the Comp,ehensive Plan. Now if we've set a prio,ity of doing TH 101 fi,st and nothing comes along to us on TH 101 whe,e we have an oppo,tunity to do anything with the developer, we are not getting TH 101 done because no develope,s are doing anything on TH 101. We've got to wait until we get some money to do it and we',e never going to get the money to do it if we keep having the develope,s not give us the fees and put in all these othe,s things on ,oads that a,e not ou, top p,iorities right now. Are you following me? ,... Mady: I know what you',e saying. I have a ,eal basic p,oblem though in taking money f,om the people who live in Chanhassen Hills South and putting Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 8, 1990 - Page 16 that money to build a trail along North Lotus Lake Park. Lash: We do that with the parks all the time. Mady: I don't think we can legally do it. I've asked staff to go back to our attorney. I don't think you can take money from the north side of the city and spend it in the south side because the park dedication fee, under the State Supreme Court ruling, was a fee you can charge a developer for the need that he is creating for the city. Lash: Does that work for the parks? Mady: That's how you can legally do it. The trail fee grew out of the park fee. The trail fee has never gone to the State Supreme Court. The park fee did. That was a Bloomington case. And so I have a real problem when Curry Farms comes in here and says they want us to build their playground equipment and they didn't pay a dime into the park program. They didn't pay any money yet we're going to take money out of the park dedication fee program to build their park yet they didn't pay any money into it. Lash: But we're doing it for the parks. ~ Mady: And I don't think we can do it legally. Robinson: That's how we got into trouble in the first place... Mady: Yeah, we were always robbing Peter to pay Paul. Robinson: . ..and now they don't have a park so they're not going to get it any other way. "".... Ed Hasek: I think where the problem came in to start with is that you have a certain amount of existing. homes in the City trying to implement your... and all of a sudden now there's a need there that wasn't being fulfilled anywhere so you had to start someplace. Right? You've got 5,000 people in town here.. .however that works out. Now the new people are coming in and there isn't enough money to pay for that so you're behind the 8 ball to begin with. You're going to continue on being behind the 8 ball unless you want to take the responsibility to ask the City to help catch up like a lot of other cities have done. They simply go through, and that's what the referendum is really all about. Basically saying we've got a need out there. You folks are asking us for these trails...that's the on~ thing that more people than anything else but they did not want to have to pay for them through the referendum. That's what the referendum was about. It wasn't about whether we do or don't want trails in this town. It's how do we pay for them is what the referendum was about. Now you're stuck. The Board is stuck. How do we get what we want? Do you go back again and you try to take some money out of the general fund? Do you up the taxes to pay for trails? Do the people want them that bad or not? No. I would submit to you that if you took the trail plan the way it is to the City and ask them, do you still want this trail plan, they'd probably say yeah. Do you want to pay for it? No. We don't want to pay for it but we want the plan Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 8, 1990 - Page 17 so that's where the dilemma comes in. I don't think you have to hack away at the plan in order to get down to something that's real. I think, I honestly believe that down the road someplace 10-15 years from now when the neighborhoods start going in, they're going to have people asking for sidewalks. The City is growing. It's not going to be a rural community forever. It's the next part of this metropolitan area that really wants to grow. If you talk to any realtor in town they'll say Chanhassen is flying. It's ripe. It's one of the few areas where homes are actually increasing in value. We're going to grow. The problem is that the program that we've had to put these trails in place in through these neighborhoods, it's been so laxidasical over the past 3 or 4 years, getting them into the ground, that when people come in they don't want a trail going in there after they've got their driveway in. After they've started mowing their lawns. Of course they don't want it. I wouldn't want it in then. Do you understand what I'm saying? I don't think the plan is the problem. I think it's the implementation is the problem. The specific issue that you talked about Dawne on your property, that's a line on a piece of paper. Erhart: Yeah, and like I said, when I brought mine up, it was just one .small piece. I didn't even want it to be discussed by itself. There's an overall picture here and it's the trail system as a whole. Lash: They're all just lines on a piece of paper and until we can figure .~ out hOvJ to get some money to do it, they're all going to remain lines on a piece of paper and they're never going to be trails and I'm trying to figure out a way that we can start getting some at least on the roads that we consider to be our top priorities and I don't see that we're getting that done because we're not collecting the fees. We're putting them in roads that I do not consider to be top priorities. Robinson: That's a policy change is it not outside of the comprehensive plan I believe and Lori, can we if we see fit to take trail fees and put them on TH 101 or someplace else? Sietsema: Yeah, as long as they're public trails. As long as it's a public park. The park in Cur,y Fa,ms is open to and North Lotus Lake, they're open public pieces of propelty and serve the whole city. They happen to serve the immediate facility mOle readily. Robinson: Then I think you brought that up 2 weeks ago I think and I think we should talk about that if that's what we want to do. But definitely a change, you're proposing a change... ,.... Lash: If the wordage in this, if it's not shown on the plan. If it's in the verbage as you called it, says that we',e to put sidewalks on 'all thru streets? If that's something that I'm seeing as a hinderance to getting a trail onto a major priority for me than I'd like that removed also. When I see people walking on TH 101 or walking on CR 17 Ol walking on those busy roads and then I see the money that's been spent on a sidewalk in a small development on a very small quiet street, I find that f,ustrating that I can walk for 5 blocks down a street and not see a car go past me and then yet I've got to walk fOl 2 blocks on CR 17 and wor,y about getting run over.. . Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 8, 1990 - Page 18 Ed Hase k: '" t r ai Is on all thru streets. Is the desire still there? Just simply that question. Is the desire still there? Lash: No. The desire is not there for me. And what you're saying, this is our Bible and it's got to be something we can live by. If that is not something we want to live by anymore, it should then be taken out. Ed Hasek: If that's the way you want it for the next 50 years and you don't want to go back... Lash: 10 years. You said it's 10 yea~s. Ed Hasek: It's 10 years until it's next time but you have to have, with the Comprehensive Plan you have to look into the next 10 years and beyond and the next 10 years beyond that. It's like you and your personal goals. You have short term goals and you have long term goals right? This is a long term goal that's put on a short term priority simply because it's mandated by Met Council. Robinson: Is that all true Lori? Sietsema: Yes. ,"'" Lash: What is mandated by Met Council? You lost me. Ed Hasek: That we have to have it updated every 10 years. So that's a State law. So that's why we have to review it but if we had our chioce we'd probably look at it a little bit longer term simply because it gets in the future. You can make all the short term changes you want to. The comprehensive plans for example, if you look at land use. If the land use isn't there when somebody comes up and wants to put something on a piece of property, the City Council's going to change the policy. They're going to change the zoning to accommodate that if they want it there. That's something that's short term that happens that the comprehensive plan... The trail system, there's no question that it wants to happen eventually. There isn't a single community in the metroplitan area that's not trying to develop a trail plan right now. Some of them put them in to begin with and some of them and this community is growing much slower than that but all of a sudden it's going to take a giant leap and unless, we've missed opportunities along Minnewashta Parkway. A month before I joined the Board in 1987 we had two opportunities that were missed to pick up pieces of property simply because it wasn't important then to that particular board. The policy was still there.. .well it wasn't important enough. Lash: Well if this plan is supposed to be our Bible that we're supposed to be living by, then why wasn't the board at that time living by the plan? ~ ~1ady: We had other priorities. Just like we have $40,000.00 to spend and we've got $80,000.00 worth of needs. You've got to prioritize them. You can only spend so much on a short term basis. That doesn't mean that the plan is bad or that it has to be amended. It just means that it's going to take a little bit longer to get to that point that the plan is looking for. II""'- Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 19 Lash: Okay, and if it's Lori's responsibility to make recommendations based on the comprehensive plan yet it's something that say we may the decision that we didn't want to live by that anymore, it just seems foolish to not take it out because then she'll be making a recQmmendation to us all the time of something we already know that we don't want to do. Robinson: Oh I agree with you on some of it. I think we've got to address that. That's a hard point. Ed Hasek: I think related to the sidewalks what you need to do and what we tried to do. ..when we set that whole thing up when I first joined this board, was to figure out which ones were necessary to accomplish some of the greater goals. To connect parks to each other. The downtown to the parks. The schools. From shopping areas. Roads of residential areas. If you can accomplish that without doing all those side streets...but imagine what. ..would be like and the problems that would have been eliminated if 30 years ago when that was developing that had put a sidewalk down that road. I mean the people that live there now would be absolutely thrilled because they couldn't imagine that road ever not having a trail on it but it ~as something that when that ar-ea was developed, that hadn't been considered. Robinson: Have you got a specific, do you want to make a specific recommendation Jan in regards to sidewalks? II""'- Lash: Well yes. I'd like to make a recommendation that the verbage. Sietsema: That's a word Jan. Lash: It's just a new word to me, be remDved from the comprehensive plan. Sietsema: That was a motion? Andrews: I'd like that more specific on what you want removed. Lash: Okay, I'd have to find it in here. Where is it Lori? Can you tell me that? Off the top of your head which page. Sietsema: No. Lash: Sidewalks, page 27. Sidewalks are required by the City to be constructed by the developers. Sidewalks are to be placed along thru streets. Any street that is not a cul-de-sac for the purpose of moving residents within the development to the walkways, bikeways and on collectors. I'd like to see that removed. That paragraph. Sietsema: Did you want to leave something in there as to easements instead of construction? ,... Lash: Yeah, I guess I would think that the Park and Rec should, it should be up to their discretion as to asking for easements in the areas that they think would be appropriate. If in the future those things need to be added. Now I don't know exactly how you want that worded. Does it have to be more specific than that? IfI""'. Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 20 Sietsema: I think so. Lash: Well. Mike Lynch: How about saying easements for the construction of. Easements for the construction of with a description of where you want them and what you want and when you want them. So you have a choice. Lash: But it says sidewalks and that doesn't necessarily mean that down certain roads that we're going to want sidewalks. We may ~Jant a trail of some sort or another but it may not be a sidewalk. It may be bituminous. Robinson: By sidewalk do you mean cement? Concrete? Lash: Yes. Well I mean we've got here bikeways, walkways and nature trails and sidewalks. Mike Lynch: Okay, that could be a walkway. That could be a trail Of... Lash: Well I think we've got to put in there someway that Park and Rec still has the option of requiring easements on any thru street. Mike Lynch: Easement for the construction of. .,..... Lash: For potential or future. Okay, so we take that out and include in there, or replace it with that the Park and Recreation Commission would continue to have the option of requiring trail easements on all thru streets for future construction. Ed Hasek: I think that's a may require leaves you an option. Robinson: So would you go through the whole thing? Delete that whole section on sidewalks and start over? Lash: Right. And we may Just want to take that out and put in easements are required by the City for the purpose of moving on any street that is not a cul-de-sac. On any thru street. Sietsema: So you're taking out the first sentence altogether. That sidewalks are required by the City to be constructed by the developer and you're saying sidewalk easements are to be placed along thru streets for the purpose of... Lash: Not sidewalk easement. Why don't we just put trail easements and then it will be up to the discretion of the commission at the time whether they want it to be concrete or bituminous. .,..... Mady: I guess what you're saying is you're leaving us open to putting blacktop in front of a person's house. This was worded this way so that we were telling the people in the City that we were going to put cement in front of homes. If it goes in front of your house on your front yard, we wanted to put cement in there because it was aesthetic. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 21 Lash: have. Well it's leaving us open to either. Maybe they don't care. If they don't care, which they Mady: I guess every meeting here we've had in the last 3 years they've said they care. That's why the plan was written the way it was beca~se they said they cared. Sietsema: I can put sidewalks/trail easement or walkway easement. Why don't we do that? Pedestrian easement? Mady: What this does is effectively removes the burden from the developer ever constructing a sidewalk. Sietsema: That's correct. Mady: You can't ever require a sidewalk to be required because we're saying all he has to do is provide an easement. Robinson: It says we're going to get fees from them. Mady: See what I'm saying right now is it's the City who has the power now to do it. You're taking the power away from the City. The power now becomes in the hands of the developer. ,... Lash: We can require. Can we not require instead of the fee, we can require. That's the same thing with property for a park. We can either require the property or we can require the park or we can take part and give credit. It's the same as now. What this is doing is this is requiring us.to ask that the sidewalk construction be done if we live by the plan. If we don't want to live by the plan, then change the plan. The plan is too inflexible for what we want to accomplish, then the plan needs to be more flexible. Basically right now Lori's required to come to us every time a development goes in with a thru street and recommend that a sidewalk go in and if we want to live by the plan, we make the recommendation to City Council that the sidewalk goes in whether we think it's. . . Sietsema: You're not obligated to. Lash: If we're going to live by the plan. Sietsema: But I mean we don't always live by the plan. Lash: But generally that's the way it goes. Mady: See what you want to do is tie us down. You want to tie our hands dO~'Jn . Lash: No, I want to untie our hands. I feel our hands are tied right now. "... Mady: We've been flexible on every development that's come in though. Lash: No, I've been flexible. Not all of us have been flexible. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ",...... t1ay 8, 1990 - Page 22 Mady: I'm saying the City's been flexible. I think you're wrong. Personally I think you're wrong because what you're doing is saying is that any child in this city is safe being on a street. Lash: No, that's not what I'm saying Jim. That's what you're interpretting what I'm saying and that's wrong. Mady: See that's where I'm coming from. I have a real serious problem telling kids that they have to be in the street if they're going to go from Point A to Point B. Robinson: I really don't see how you could possibly interpret that from her proposal Jim. I really don't. Lash: What I'm trying to say is that if a kid is going to go from Point A to Point 8 and they're going to be on a busy road, I would like to provide them a trail to get there and I can't provide that trail to get them there now because we're putting it on the streets that aren't that busy. ,.... Mady: I think then what you have to do in the planning process is define your terms. You haven't defined busy and you haven't defined non-busy. What we did is we looked at it and said we could define that term and so we put it on all thru streets because when this city gets to the point where it's full, and it will, everyone of those streets will be considered fairly busy by my definition. Lash: Fairly busy by your definition. Mady: Yeah. That's why you have every major city in the country has got sidewalks on all their streets. They all took a look at it. I mean back in the frontier days they put boardwalks along all the roads. There's reasons for that. Because you want to separate uncontrollable vehicles from people. That's fine. In your plan of the City you don't need them apparently. My plan of the City we need them and we have a difference there. What I'm seeing here is we're weakening the City's ability. We're saying, all of a sudden we're putting a may require in here. Right now we don't may require. Right now a developer comes in here and says, he knows right now by looking at this that he's going to have to do that and that if he asks the City otherwise, he may get out of it. But what you're doing is he's going to come in and say, well gee I don't even have to do this. I'm not even going to try to and that's, we've been weakened. Lash: Well then when he comes before us we'll tell him if he has to or he doesn't. And if he has misperceived to this part of the plan, that's his problem. Mady: How do you make the judgment without being arbitrary and capricious? Lash: I don't know. Where do you make the Judgment on what's... ,..., t1ady: plan. I look at the plan. I can point to the plan and say this is our This is how we do it. ,...., Pa,k and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 23 " Robinson: But that's what she's t,ying, she thinks it's tying us down too much. ..flexibility in there. Pi ndr- ews : them the costs for sidewalks Isn't it easier though when a developer comes before us to offer option of reducing his development costs than to try to incur more the developer? It's much easier to say we don't need to do the than it would be to require them as a change. Lash: It isn't going to change how much he pays if he's putting in a sidewalk or he's giving us the fee. Sietsema: They would all rather pay you the fee. All of them would rather pay you the fee. Lash: But at that point in time it's our option to say we want the sidewalk or we want the fee. ,...,. Mady: I guess I'd like to be able to talk to a developer who's trying to get away with the minimum, to argue from a side of strength instead of from the side of weakness which is saying well it's either or and we're going to say this another time where when he comes in here he knows from the start where it is and he's going to try to get something less instead of coming in and saying, knowing that he may get something less right from the beginning. That's what you're doing with the plan is giving him something less. Lash: I'm not really looking at this from the developer's point of view. I'm not. I don't really care what the developer thinks when he looks at this. I'm trying to look at this from the point of view that something that I think that we can live with, something that's flexible that gives us the freedom of living by the plan and giving us the option of putting them where we think they need to be and that leaves it up to 7 individual people to decide and we have the option of making our own decision. We don't have . it written here telling us, we're going to live by the plan. We must do it this way and Lori's recommendations must come to us saying that we should do it because that's her job. ,.... Ed Hasek: Jim, I think there's one thing that needs to be considered and that is.. .greatest extent there is...7 people and they can decide whatever they want to and that's called arbitrary and capricious. That's what you have to be careful with because that's where a developer with enough money can stick it to you. We haven't had any big developers in town here but that potential is going to corne if this city grows over and starts developing like I think it's going to. I think that you have to be very careful in putting policies and goals in place that accomplish a plan that you have. It doesn't matter how that's done. I fully understand where you're corning from about the sidewalks being built and developments that may not be consistent with specific areas. I fully agree with you that the plan addresses the major trails. The policies and goals address the minor . ..and so forth and I think you want to be very careful and you want to have designs that identify exactly what it is you want to do so that like what Jim says, you're coming from the position of power. Because as soon as you put a may in there, that's an out for the developer and what he's Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~, May 8, 1990 - Page 24 going to do with a may is he's going to go back to the last development that came through and he's going to come in here and he's going to say, my traffic volumes are the same as on that road there. You don't have a trail on that road. The distance is the same from the highway. The houses are the same range. He's going to bring in the proof to say that he doesn't have to do it which puts it back on you to say yes you do and here's the reasons why. So the more you can tie it down to what it is you really \~ant, the easier it's going to be to get the developer through here and in the ground and get the taxes out of whatever it is that you want to do. You just have to be a little more careful...we want the option because as soon as you start manipulating options, that's where the figures... Robinson: Your reason for this change I think is still that you would like to see a trail someplace and not little pieces allover. Lash: Yes. I'd like to see the trails being constructed on the major corridors and I cannot see that that is going to be done as long as these things are being approved by this commission or by the City Council because the funds are then all being eaten up. Robinson: But do we then have to go by, I mean it will come before us every time. That's your job and we say hey, that's what the comprehensive plan says and that's what we've got to do or do we have the option? "" Sietsema: Yes, you have the option. You have the option because you've laid out what your plan is and you may decide that this isn't our priority and we want to do it differently. But I would still always come to you and point out that... Lash: .~ .doesn't happen. Mady: Well see you're just disagreeing with how these 7 people up here have set up a recommendation to the 5 people at Council. You're having a problem with how we have dealt with specific items in the past couple years and now you're saying let's deal with the whole plan of the City. Lash: But that's what in the plan. People think they are under the assumption, and I don't think it's that difficult to understand why, that if this is our Bible, we're supposed to be living by it. We're supposed to be doing what it says in there and so every time we make a recommendation that does not go along with Lori's recommendation from the comprehensive plan, then we're sort of internally saying well gee, I'm not really going along with the plan and there can be the big argument made by people, but it says it's in the plan and I've heard that before. ,.... Mady: Let's take it to the next step then. If we're going to always live by what's in the plan, there's no need to have this commission but once every 10 years. You need people up here every 10 years to look at the plan and then that's it. From that point forward all you need is a few people in City Hall who follow the plan to the letter and that's it. You don't need a City Council. You don't need nothing. You have a plan nailed down and that's the way it is, period. ",..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 25 Robinson: But if you're going to deviate every time. Mady: I don't think we've deviated every time. We've looked at different pieces. Robinson: She's saying we've never deviated. Lash: We've very seldom deviate. I mean occasionally it's happened but very seldom. Most people tend to go along with what's in the plan. Robinson: So it's an understanding of that plan and what it takes to deviate. Sietsema: It's an understanding by you that you have the flexibility to deviate from the plan. It's like when the Pheasant Hills development came in, that was within the last 10 years. That area was marked as a park deficient area. It was determined at that time by whoever that the topography in the area was too rolling. Wouldn't accommodate an active playfield and that this was not the spot to acquire a piece of property. And therefore it was deviated from. Ed Hasek: The basic reasons why you deviate from the plan... ",..... Lash: That' s pretty vague. Robinson: What about financial? Ed Hasek: The plan is supposed to put together and the zoning ordinance will... but there's always things that come up that aren't existing. ..and it just doesn't develop that way. That is your option and your option... limitations and I beg to differ with you Jan. I think we've deviated from the plan an awful lot, at least in the 3 years I was here. We did it a lot. Sietsema: Well and the other thing to consider is that the plan gives you the best, having a comprehensive plan gives you the best of both worlds as a city. You can say, yeah it's not a priority for us right now and we'd rather have the fees and we'll come back and build those later if the people that end up moving in there come in and ask for them and the funds are available or if they want to be assessed for them, we can do it then. But on the other hand, if it is something that you need, you know you're going to need right away, whether it's a part or whatever, you can show the developer, this is part of our plan. We require this. We've always counted on it. We've always looked to this and so it gives you kind of the best of both worlds. We can always ask for less but it's hard to ask for more if it's not in here. Lash: Well there's got to be a way that this can be reworded that does not tie everyone so much or make people feel compelled to do things that maybe they aren't thrilled with just because it's in the plan. I""'" Mady: To be honest with you Jan, I don't take the Bible down every day and look at it to see if I'm suppose to on this development do this or do that ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 26 ,.... because I have staff that points things out and I have in my own mind what, whe)"e personal priorities are just as you have. They're seen in all of our decisions. If the other were the case, we wouldn't have to be here but we always have to look at everything that's happening in the City f,om eve,y angle. I mean the trail plan has evolved over the last 10 years. Maybe it needs some wo,k. Maybe it needs no work. I'm fai,ly ce,tain that the,e is a majority of the people in this city like it just the way it is. I mean when we lost on funding, we lost by 3 votes one time and 6 votes the othe, time and that was strictly on do you want to raise your taxes to do this. So there's a la,ge segment of the population who wants to do it and are willing to pay to do it but when we get down to the point of paying is whe,e the problem has. It's not whether or not we',e going to do it on thru streets or not. You don't want to do it on thru st,eets at this time because you want to major thoroughfares. That's fine. That's your point of view. Other people on the commission have felt that we want to be able to do it as we can do it. When the opportunity's the,e, let's take them because they may never come back again. We've seen what happens when Pheasant Hills didn't get a pa,k. It doesn't have a park now. We saw what happened when North Lotus Lake didn't get a park. It took them 8 years to get a pa,k. We didn't get a park in South Chanhassen ,ight away. We should have. They should have done that 20 years ago but they didn't. l~e always are being penalized because what didn't happen previously. Now we have a plan, an idea of how we want the City to look like 20-30-40-50 years in the future and that's what this is trying to do is p,event those mistakes from happening. To me the way you prevent those mistakes from happening is doing them ,ight away when you have the opportunity. I don't think you go by rectifying your errors in the past by doing away with what you can do right now. Put off what you can do today until tomor,ow so you can solve what you didn't do yesterday. What I think you need to do is do what you can do today to p,event you, problems in the futu,e and also deal with your problems from the past but you don't just take a sliding scale and move you, problems down the road and hope that they'll go away. You've got to deal with the present now so they don't cause the problems in the futu,e and you've got to deal with you, p,oblems f,om the past as you can do them in a fiscally responsible way. That's where I come from. I'm trying to p,event the problems in the futu,e. Robinson: But all that I believe is an implementation or a funding issue. It's not a plan issue. And I don't know if you',e still not satisfied ~Jith the plan and we should add,ess the funding issue I think 0, the implementation issue late,. Maybe you',e exactly right. We'll conclude that we can't have the developments do them in small chunks. We've got to just do the major pieces...but I think what Lo,i is saying, we can still leave this in the plan and make those decisions as they come up. Is that co)',ect? Sietsema: Yes you can. Now you may want to, if you',e uncomfo,table with the wo,dage of it so you have mo,e flexibility or it indicates you have more flexibility, I can go back and ,eword it. Taking into conside,ations of othe, pending p,io,ities. .,... Lash: And giving us the option of, I still think we need to just have the option of taking the easement if that is what we choose to do. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ May 8, 1990 - Page 27 Sietsema: And that's easily, I think we could accomplish that satisfactorily. Lash: Because right now it's just hard for me to live with. Maybe I was raised too much to live by the rules and do what I was told but when I look at this and it says to me that sidewalks are to be placed along all thru streets, that sounds to me like they're supposed to be placed along all th'ru streets. Sietsema: Well you know what we could do is there's verbage in the ordinance requiring that we require the park dedication. It requires that the developer dedicate parkland or fees in lieu of or a combination of both. We can word this so that sidewalks are required by the City to be constructed by the developer or a payment of fee or a combination of both you know depending. That gives you as much flexibility as you ~an get. Mike Lynch: . ..commission on 1979 I think. I've observed a number of things. ..when we thought we were catching up, we still weren't moving far enough ahead. When I first joined the commission we were establishing nature preserves because that was the condition of the town at that time. That's where the interest of the citizenry was and the people that were active in the commission and the people that were active in the city, that's where their interest were. We're ~~eren't looking at 20 or 30 years ~ down the line and we said oh, oh. We need active play areas. One of the reasons why I got involved...and we really have an instant need right now and we have to be looking 20 years down the line or 10 years down the line. Now that we needed a trail system. So we beat ourselves to death...active play areas. Develop Lake Ann. Develop City Center and these other things and see the trails. Now we got some easements. We got nothing done. That's just history for you. Another piece of history or piece of experience that I picked up is that you cannot economically expect the City to develop large chunks of major thoroughfare into trails because there's going to be condemnations involved. We don't have, no one would happier than me to see a trail on north TH 101 but the highway plans are up in the air. Perpetually. Forever. We don't know what they're going to do with the highway and we don't have the easements. We don't have easements so if you give up all these major chunks and you don't have all the easements, mark my words you're not going to develop trails along there. Last but not least is that it's never cheaper than right now to do something so if you can require on a thru street a sidewalk, put it in now. It's never going to be cheaper than right now. Your thru street, no matter how quiet it looks, it's never going to be more quiet than today. It's going to be busier next week. The next year. I think Jim used the example of Frontier Trail. When that first went in. We don't need sidewalks. This is not a.. .and that was before the population of that area is what now, 1,500- 2,000 and 2 to 3 cars per house. Now you're taking your life in your hands walking down there so again, it's never cheaper than now. It probably will never seen less useful than now but it's going to be in another 10, probably another 20. That's my observations. "..... Sietsema: If you'd like me to reword that, I'd need a motion to do that. ",...... Pa,k and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 28 Lash: Okay. I made a motion once befo,e but I guess that one's sc,atch ,ight? Sietsema: The,e was no second. Lash: Well we ended up kind of getting. Okay, then I make the motion that we di,ect Lo,i to ,ew,ite the pa,ag,aph ,ega,ding sidewalks in the Comp,ehensive Plan and b,ing that back to the Commission at the next meeting fo, ,eview. Robinson: She knows some of the wo,ds? Sietsema: Yes. E,ha,t: I'll second that. Lash moved, Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to rewrite the paragraph regarding sidewalks in the Comprehensive Plan on page 27 to be more flexible by including that sidewalks are required by the City to be constructed by the developer or a payment of fee or a combination of both, and to bring it back to the next meeting for review. All voted in favor except Jim Mady and Jim Andrews who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. ",.... Sietsema: We,e the,e any othe, changes 0, ,eV1Slons that you wanted to make to the Plan? It sounds to me like there's a lot of implementation and p,io,itizing discussion that still needs to go on and talk about what funding mechanisms the,e a,e available. Whet he, it's th,ough tax increment prog,am 0, the t,ail fund 0, whatever so I can put this back on an agenda if the,e a,en't any othe, ,evisions that you want to make to the actual plan and talk about implementation and p,ioritization again. And,ews: Can we do that next time specifically about funding because that's an a,ea whe,e I don't have any understanding of. Robinson: A,e those things gene,ally in the plan Lo,i? The implementation and the funding? Sietsema: No. It talks about ways that lmplementation can take place. Some funding sou,ces and some options available but it doesn't talk di,ectly about time lines 0, how much is supposed to be gotten f,om which fund 0, anything like that. It doesn't get to that level of detail and that's something we need to look at and see what's available and go f,om the,e. See what we can do with what we've got. I think that you want to know mo,e about that. Robinson: Yeah, we do but yet would we put anything that definitive? Sietsema: In the plan? No. No. This would be policy. This wouldn't be pa,t of the plan. "...... Robinson: Okay. ,-.., Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 29 Sietsema: This would be more for your information to set up kind of a policy of implementation. Robinson: From the discussion, I think that's what we need. Sietsema: Sounds like it. But again, if there are any revisions, any additional changes to the plan, I need to get those back to the Planning Department so they can change the documents. Resident: I have a question. ...is that going to be discussed? Sietsema: That would be more a park issue because it wouldn't be, the overall trail plan has to do with corridors. Getting around the city. It's like the Curry Farms. They were asking the same thing, if the trail fund couldn't fund the trail that's going to be within their park. That's really a park amenity. Different. It's a trail but it's different than... Resident. . . Sietsema: Right. That would be more a park amenity that would be included in the park plan. Lash: I think we need to go back to Dawne's thing too and maybe see if we I"""'- can, do you think we can make a decision on that tonight what we're going to do? Robinson: We talked I think before last time about it briefly and said we've got to look at alternatives and I haven't heard any alternatives. Lash: I have to, since she's sitting next to me, I have to just make sure I understand what you're. Is this what we're talking about right here or are we talking about right here? Erhart: Right here. Lash: Right along here? Okay. Is it a real high priority for us? I mean I'm just throwing this out to see how people feel, that since this segment going on the top part, it's kind of going south. Erhart: To goes west and east. Lash: Yeah okay but not the one you're talking about removing. The one above that. If that's a nature trail and what you're saying is you want this all to connect and to take it out to TH 101, I mean is it really necessary for that to be all nature trail? It looks to me like it connects on both ends here with a regular trail so could we just have that section at the top there be a nature trail and then ending it at both of the regular trails and people could take those trails if they wanted to make a complete circle it would be part nature and part not. ,..... Robinson: I'm not sure we're all following. Do you have an overhead? Sietsema: I don't have an overhead of the trail plan. ,..... '\ Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 30 Lash: This is what she's talking about right now. Right here. So what would be the problem with people walking along here and ending up at this trail... It looks like it starts and ends at a regular trail so I just wanted to know if it's a big deal for us to connect the whole. Because here it ends and they're going to have to walk this way. Erhart: Because you've already told me you don't care if there aren't any natural amenities there. I've already told you there aren't any. Andrews: We're talking about this piece right here? Erhart: Right. Robinson: What's that like out there? Just open field? Erhart: It's just an open field. Now if you want natural amenities, there are some on the other side but if you want it for linking...nature trail. To get you from Point A to Point B. Lash: So if say you were coming... It's not that much further to cut here. ~ Erhart: No it's not. In fact these homes, they can get on these trails... Andrews: Why don't you recommend that we move it to the other location? Lash: I was just trying to find out... Mady: Why don't we change it to being a trail? My concern is getting people out of here. Lash: Right. We can't just have it dead end in there someplace. Mady: And that's what that does is moves people out of there. Erhart: It moves all these people down here onto this trail to take them over here right? Mady: But see we're talking about a plan. A 50 year plan type of thing. Erhart: How come we don't put the trail in over here? Robinson: Like Jan said, I'm not sure that this adds to this piece here. If it's a nature trail and there's nothing there. Andrews: What's on the north side of that parcel? 1'1ady: A swamp. ,.... Erhart: There's a trail right now that we have mowed that goes all the way around. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 31 Mady: We want us to change it to designate you from the south side to "the north side? Erhart; No. Because we've already given you the proposal that we want you to change it to. Ed Hasek: Two things. First of all Dawne, this is personal for you and I would ask that you not vote on this. Erhart: I don't plan on it Ed and I'm not even making a motion. And also, you're a part of the audience right now too. Mady: Well it's just like anybody else. He can at all our meetings. Erhart: Yeah, but I mean I can discuss it too when they're asking me a question. She's just asking me. Ed Hasek: Absolutely. When that was put together, the intent was to have a trail go along with the highway. Off the highway. Erhart: I know what the intent was because I put it on the map. We put it on the map. We came to the City and asked for it to be put on the map. ~ Ed Hasek: Okay, and what has changed in your mind that you're now back here asking that it's taken off the map? Erhart: Because every time I come in here for any personal thing, you want to take it. Otherwise we wouldn't even be discussing this. We'd leave it on the map. Ed Hasek: Dawne, look at it this way. You come in. You divide out 5 acres for mortgage purpose right? Whatever it is. You sell that to somebody now. They can build on that lot without coming in here. They could build on that. We lost that piece of trail. Okay? The next time, you do another split. You want another mortgage. Alright? You split that one off. We haven't got a plan. We haven't taken it. So now you sell that to someone else. They build on it. We've lost two sections of it by now. Do you understand? Erhart: I understand. Ed Hasek: Every single time you subdivide... Erhart: Okay, we're coming up with another alternative and I won't vote on it but... Robinson: We're getting out of oTder here. Erhart: Yeah, I think so. I'll sit down and you and Jan can work it out. ~" Robinson: Do we know why this was put in here in the first place? ,...., Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 32 Mady: Tim came in here and put it on. There's a road. It existed. Tim came to Lori with it. Came in here and told us about it and that's where it got put on. What I'm hearing for the alternative is for the audience to remove that trail segment and tell people to go other places. We're not putting anything else in it's place. We're putting them in other places that already exist on the map. Right? So we're not, all we're doing is removing it. We're not providing anything to get people out of here. This big area. We're just saying, well somehow you get down to Pioneer Trail but somehow you get down to it. Lash: There's a trail. Eventually there's supposed to be a trail. Ed Hasek: Can I ask how that trail is going to function compared to the one that's already on the plan? Would it accommodate a nature trail? . ..would it accommodate horses or is it going to be a paved trail because the people down there are very interested in putting horse trails in. I know that when I was on the Board, we promised that we'd take a look at it and address it if we could. Lash: I think that's something that was discussed along with TH 212 isn't it? .",-.... Sietsema: The horse trail along TH 212? Lash: Yeah. Sue brought that up at one time. Didn't she? Sietsema: I mean it's something we can look at. Depending on how much right-of-way is left over. Lash: I think all that we're asking people to do, before it made sort of a half circle or a three quarter circle nature trail with one side of it being a trail along TH 101. Anyway so it wasn't like they were going to be out walking all through the woods for their whole walk and never seeing a car or never seeing a paved trail anyway so I don't see that it makes really that much difference for them to walk that little extra. Andrews: The alternative is Pioneer Trail then? Is that what you're saying? Lash: I guess it would be yeah and then TH 101. Robinson: Then is there a motion? Lash: Yeah, I'll make a motion that we take that segment of the trail be removed and that the connection for that would then become Lyman Blvd. and the little strip. Robinson: Is that Pioneer Trail? .,.... Lash: Or Pioneer Trail, I'm sorry. And the north/south connection, that's not on a road so I don't know what that's supposed to be right there but the north/south connection of the trail shown on the trail plan. I don't know what's on west. ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 33 Pemrick: TH 101. Lash: No, that's not 101. It's on the west side of that development, whatever that development's called. Robinson: That's got to be 101. Lash: No, on the east side is 101. Sietsema: That's another field road. Mady: That goes around a wetland is what that goes around. Erhart: Where does it go around a wetland Jim? Mady: The wetland's right here. Lash: Do you know where I'm talking about Lori? Sietsema: They're talking about the north/south dark line? Lash: Yes. .IfI1". Sietsema: I believe that's just a field road at this time. Lash: Okay, so that field road. Whatever it is. Lori says it's a field road so the north/south connection right the~e would be the field road and the east/west connection would be Pioneer Trail. That's the motion. Robinson: I'll second that. Mady: So we're taking away, once again we have no east/west, very few east/west connections in this City? It's the same problem we have over by Lake Lucy. We have no, from TH 5 to TH 7, the~e's one east/west connection. Period. And now you're saying for the next 50 year plan, we're not going to put anything else in the middle here. Robinson: There's a motion and it's been seconded. Lash moved, Robinson seconded to change the trail segment along the Erhart property to run as follows: the north/south connection would be the field road and the east/west connection would be along Pioneer Trail. Lash, Pemrick and Robinson voted in favor, Mady voted in opposition and Erhart and Andrews abstained and the motion carried. Sietsema: Is that two nays or one? Andl-ews: I didn't say anything. 1'1ady: 2 to 1 with 2 abstentions? I"""'" Lash: I think it 3 to 1. was ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 34 Sietsema: If he didn't say anything, that's a yes and she abstained? Andrews: I will abstain... Erhart: So it's 3 to 1. Mady: Did you vote yes? Pemrick: We can have the east/west on Pioneer Trail. Mady: Well why don't we just leave it east/west on Pioneer Trail and this thing east/west on TH 7 and east/west on TH 5. I mean there's only 3 miles to get to them. Robinson: To the contrary, why don't l~e put 5 more east/west roads across there. . . Mady: What we're saying is someone who came in front of us and gave us the opportunity to do it and we did it. Now they want to take that off and they're not providing us with another opportunity. That's a mile between there and there. There's no way of getting people out of the middle of that section. .~ Robinson: Are there any other issues with the trail plan? Any other changes we want to make? Anybody? Tim Collins: I guess I'd just like to bring up a little about tr~il plans. I see three fundamental issues. My name is Tim Collins. Three fundamental issues. It seems like they're kind of hard to define but I was just thinking if we said the three fundamental issue, (a) the first meeting would be to prioritize the trails based on how busy they are... Number two, after you've done that set up a time line for those trails after they've been prioritized and then number 3, look at funding after you've planned what trails and the timeline. You also have to look at long term at the same time. What neat about doing this every 10 years is a good point in time in which to define a 10 year plan. Instead of looking at one major chunk or 3 major chunks, let's look at 10 small chunks or even smaller than that but anyway, because that's what Eden Prairie's doing. Every year they just go to the next phase. They add it. There's also a little more.. .to prepare. Something that they could. ..but they Just keep on doing it. Mady: Just to bring you up to date. Separate from this document is our 5 year budget. I mean we do, we try to prioritize out to the future. We probably need to do a better job of that but that is a completely separate document that this commission works with and staff works with so we do have basically an implementation plan. How hard set it is and has been in the past,' maybe it hasn't been good enough but the tool is there. We just maybe have to use that better but it is a tool that's probably distinct from the Comp Plan itself. "..., Lash: It's been hard for us to do that because we haven't had any money. ,..... Pa,k and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 35 Robinson: We would like you, help though if you want to sit down and do that. We ,eally would. Tim Collins: I have a lot of f,ust,ations with Chanhassen. ..and so do the ,esidents the,e. Ve,y disappointed in finding out afte, a lot of us moved in that nothing's... We we,e all told that we we,e going to have a t,ail right behind the pa,kland that was donated by.. .Development Company. That would be put in within this next 2 yea,s. Well I find that's not even close. Okay. Then Joe Mille" he's got on down in Lake Susan Hills and that segment, whet he, he was fo,ced to put that in along Lake Susan and of cou,se Chanhassen Hills was supposed to do that and it's like light yea,s away. Eve,yone in that community was unde, the imp,ession that so... I used to live in Eden P,ai,ie and I lived ,ight on a t,ail system and the ,eason I moved out he,e is because Chanhassen was on the move and I was excited about having some of the same things the Eden P,ai,ie... Lash: What was his develope, ,equi,ed to do? Sietsema: The,e was no t,ail plan in place when Chanhassen Hills went th,ough. Lash: So they didn't have to pay any fees eithe,? ~ Sietsema: Yeah, they did pay. What came in afte, the plan was put in place has to pay fees. Robinson: If the community center.. .and I say if. Maybe we want to conside, a t,ail plan the,e again. Ed Hasek: Not unless the,e's a lot bette, info,mation that goes out. Robinson: Well I think that's what we've got to do. ~Je've got to get, like he says, get ve,y specific and p,io,itize and talk about funding and specific dolla,s and what we',e going to put in exactly fo, those dolla,s. Mady: I guess we did that the last time Cu,t and I know because I did a lot of those meetings. I didn't do the t,ail segment on most of them but I was at most of those meetings and it was ve,y specific. I mean it showed Phase 1. Phase 2. phase 3. Phase 1 was the next 5 yea,s. Phase 2 was 5 to 10 yea,s. Phase 3 was 10 to 20 yea,s. We we,e ve,y open and up f,ont to people with that. It was in the b,ochu,es that way. We told people that yet when I come to this meeting in the last 3 months, all the new people up he,e keep talking about how it was we we,e going to fund the whole thing. It was neve, that way. The pape, said it wasn't that way. Everything said it that way. I don't know how you teach people things. I ,eally don't. We t,ied everything we could do and we still wouldn't get it done. Lash: Maybe if it was scaled down to just a Phase 1 and that's it. This is what we want to do and this is how much it's going to cost and not talk "" about down the ,oad. That just gets everybody all worked up and confused. ,... Park and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 36 t1ike Lynch: You have a problem with small phases because the small phase affects only a very small percentage of the residents and the other residents are not going to vote for it. L_ash: Well if we made it encompass the, I mean we'd have to sit down and look at it. I'm not going to start trying to figure out tonight how we would do that but it's something that we can certainly look at. Sietsema: And we can put that together prioritization and the implementation. we're going to implement this thing and of them would be referendum. when we talk about the I mean definitely funding is how creative ways to finance this. One Ed Hasek: Without raising taxes. Curt I have a request. before you get off of this. I've got a list of.. .very interested in staying abreast of what's going on with the trails allover town and they represent various groups. I'd like to give that list to Lori and get it on your mailing so we get any information. ..if that's possible. Robinson: Can we do that? Sietsema: Yeah. ~ Lash: At the last meeting you said there were quite a few people who wanted to be involved in this. Were they all contacted? Sietsema: Yep. A lot of them were here. Are here. Robinson: Good. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: Andrews: I don't know if this is a presentation but I had somebody approach me from North Lotus wanting to know what procedures there are if they want to use the soccer fields for team practices. If they have to contact the office or if they can just use them? Sietsema: The soccer fields at North Lotus? Andrews: Yeah. At North Lotus. It's not a league used area. Sietsema: That is being scheduled for Little League practices so if they want to have organized things, they need to call Jerry or Todd. Andrews: Okay, the other thing was that the one tennis net is still broken. The cable, the steel cable. All the wind screens are put back up to be blown down again. Mady: I had a question on the Adminstrative packet. ,..... Robinson: I had a comment. ,.,.., Park and Rec Commission Meeting ) May 8, 1990 - Page 37 Andrews: I've got one more thing on commission presentations if it's okay. Just a comment about commission presentations. I guess I'd appreciate as a Board if we more formally dealt with our agenda items so that we did, like tonight we took specific action with specific follow-up dates on items that were tabled. That would be helpful so we don't have.. .or some emergencies jump on us like we've had. Most what the people are telling us if they're frustrated because things are discussed and no action taken. It would help me.. .if staff knows when it's coming so they can be prepared. The way I see it if proper board action should be, if there's a motion it should be approved or rejected and if it's tabled, it should be a specific date of reconsideration. Mady: Good idea. Lori, on your memo to Gary Warren on Lake Ann Park. Have you had any feedback from Imperial Developers? Sietsema: Yes. We sent them a letter, a registered letter declaring them that if they don't have seed in by this week they'll be default of their contract and we'll have someone else do it and take it out of their bonding. When we met with them on Monday morning, they indicated that the biggest concern is who's going to pay for the reseeding. The seeder felt that it was an act of Mother Nature that was beyond anybody, nobody could have stabilized that enough to get seed in the ground last fall with no snow cover. With the winds that we had in January and with the amount of .~ rain we had in March. Everything just washed away. So we came to the agreement that we would pay for the materials and he would provide the labor to redo it and equipment to redo it. And he was out there I understand picking up some dust on Monday night, last night and someone else said that, well I don't know. He may have been out there today but since it rained this morning, I don't think that he got a whole lot done and then it takes, if any moisture, it takes at least 3 days to dry that clay soil out so then we're behind again. But the impetus is on them and it's very much to their benefit to get that thing seeded. Lash: Basically they'll be out money right? Sietsema: Their bonding. Lash: And I have a question about Lake Ann and I don't want to sound like a broken record but did the playground equipment come in? Sietsema: No. Lash: It didn't come in? Sietsema: No, it's not here yet. lash: 2 weeks ago you said it was going to be any minute. Sietsema: It should be any minute. I'll give them a call. ~ Lash: Good. I was there Sunday and I was disappointed because I thought it would maybe be there. I""" Pa,k and Rec Commission Meeting May 8, 1990 - Page 38 Robinson: I just wanted to say that this lette,... Sietsema: I talked to Laurie last week and said if tge,e's not seed in the ground by F,iday I'm going to have a hissy fit and the,~ wasn't. Robinson: Does anybody have anything else? And,ews: Yes I do. I'd like to have a list of what fees we cha,ge fa, the.. .and an idea of how we',e ,aising ou, funds because it seems like ou, funding is au, c,isis he,e and maybe, I'd like to see what we a,e cha,ging and maybe iecommend that we inciease OUi fees. ~1ady: Most of au, fees, outside of like entrance fee at Lake Ann. That's about it. All the iest either go thiough CAA Oi community seivices. Sietsema: Well we have a lot mo,e piog,ams than what CAA does and I can get you what those budgets are. Andrews: I'd be inteiested because I feel if we can't raise it th,ough taxation, then usei fees is an option. And if we have... E,ha,t: Good idea. I'd like one too. ,.... Sietsema: I'll put it on the agenda. Mady moved. Lash seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9=27 p.m.. Submitted by LOii Sietsema Park and Rec Cooidinator P,epared by Nann Opheim r-