PRC 1989 05 16
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
"...... REGULAR MEET I NG
, MAY 16, 1989
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Curt Robinson, Dawne Erhart, Ed Hasek, Jim Mady, Jan Lash
and Larry Schroers
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Boyt
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHAIR:
Mady moved, Erhart seconded to appoint Ed Hasek as the Acting Chair for the
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Robinson moved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting dated April 11, 1989 with amendments on page
4 by Jim Mady and page 32 by Jan Lash. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
I"""
Robinson moved, Mady seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting dated April 25, 1989 with an amendment on
page 59 by Jan Lash of changing the word "public" to "Council". All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST BY CENTEX TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO CURRY FARMS PARK.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Alea Dye
Kathi Clarke
Peggy Thompson
Bruce A. Katzian
Jon Thornberg
Craig Carlson
Joe Cook
Kathi Huntington
George Brower
John Speiss
Maddie Hickey
6621 Arlington Court
6510 Devonshire Drive
1330 Stratton Court
1340 Stratton Court
1320 Stratton Court
1341 Stratton Court
1291 Stratton Court
1291 Stratton Court
6611 Arlington Court
6610 Arlington Court
6990 Utica Lane
Sietsema: We received a letter from Centex Homes, Tom Boyce. One of the
~employees from Centex Homes was at our last meeting when we talked about
the development and the different parks and they called me the next day and
were interested in doing some of the work that needed to be done in the
area. Specifically they would like to regrade and seed the park area. Dig
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 2
"""""
out the volleyball court and also the totlot area and donate $2,500.00 to
the City for playground equipment. This offer is for the 1989 season. In
return for this and I remind you that they don't have any obligation to do
anymore park improvements there because their park requirements were
satisfied with the dedication of the land, they would like the City to take
care of the grass. To reseed it if it doesn't take this summer. Reseed it
in the fall. To put up the volleyball net and poles and to match the
$2,500.00 for totlot equipment. As I stated in my memo, you may recall
that we recently had the City Council revise the 1989 capital improvement
program to take out the Bluff Creek access road which was $10,000.00 and to
leave the remaining in for incidentals that would come up. It still has to
be approved by the Council to spend those funds but we could use a portion
of that money for the matching amount of money and get a first phase of
totlot equipment in there and the volleyball in that area as well. That
would be one way to accomplish this. Staff feels that we'd be money saved
ahead if we recommend approval of this request.
Robinson: Your memo says install tennis nets and poles.
Sietsema: I meant volleyball.
Erhart: How much do those cost, do you know?
Sietsema: I'm not really sure? Do you have a clue?
Hoffman: A volleyball net and poles would be $400.00 installed.
..J
Erhart: So the $400.00 plus the $2,500.00 would be our cost?
Sietsema: Right.
Resident: Can Dale work it into his schedule to get it done?
Sietsema: Yes, I think so.
Hasek: We're using $3,000.00 of how much?
Sietsema: $6,800.00.
Hasek: And we're got one other submission in here for part of that too.
Sietsema: Right. Which was $300.00.
Lash: $900.00.
Robinson: Who installs the totlot?
Sietsema: We would. We could have the company install it but it costs us
about 20% of the cost and we typically do that ourselves.
Lash: One of the conditions was if the seed doesn't take that we would ~
have to reseed it in the fall. Does anybody have any idea how much that
could cost?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 3
,"""
Sietsema: I asked Dale about that, or I actually asked Gary about it and
he said that would not be a problem to come out of the general park
maintenance fund.
Mady:
staff?
The grass cutting question. Do we have sufficient park maintenance
They've got to do the downtown now.
Sietsema: They have added an extra person to do the downtown and they have
2 temporary full-times coming on in June so by the time that grass would
need to be cut I would think they would have, some other things might not
get cut as quickly or as often but it's got to be worked in there
eventually.
Hasek: Are they proposing to regrade the whole park or just a portion of
the park?
Sietsema: The whole park.
Hasek: And they're going to seed the whole park?
Sietsema: Well whatever needs to be graded. I'm not sure that the whole
thing needs to be graded. I did call them and say that there was standing
~ater a couple days after our last rain and that that wouldn't be
acceptable. He agreed and said that they'd get somebody out there, if it
had already been redone, to redo it. Is someone from Centex here?
Schroers: They are grading the whole park right now. In the last couple
days they've been putting down black dirt and grading and taking up the
area that the area had said was full and I gather they're putting grading
stakes in and then they're going to seed after that. The whole park is
6.4 acres.
Sietsema:
decide to
grass and
match it.
They indicated they'd do the grading regardless of what we
do but they would like a commitment that we'd take care of the
put up, they won't dedicate the $2,500.00 for totlot if we don't
Mady: We had at one point in time last year extra totlot equipment sitting
over in the maintenance garage because it hasn't been installed. The
Greenwood Shores Park we had purchased. Is that still available?
Sietsema: You had made a tentative commitment to put that in the area of
Pheasant Hills on an outlot.
Schroers: For the $5,000.00 amount, can we get an adequate totlot
equipment?
~Sietsema: It's not large but it's a first phase.
Schroers: And it's something we can add onto as needed?
Sietsema: Right.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 4
--'
Hasek: What is the timing? The first phase obviously is going in now but
when it goes to the second phase, is that going to be ours. It says phase
1 and phase 2 here.
Sietsema: This was just an idea of what they would have.
Hasek: Is this stuff compatible with what we've been buying?
Sietsema: Yes.
Mady: We would do the selection of the equipment.
Sietsema: Right.
Robinson: Would it be $5,000.00 worth exactly?
Sietsema: $5,000.00 is a tunnel slide, a platform and a tire swing and
border.
Hasek: That's not $3,3l0.00?
Sietsema: The border is about, for phase 1 is about $1,000.00 so you could
probably get a fire pole and a couple other things. Maybe a backhoe digger
thing.
--'
Robinson: Would we get $5,000.00 worth of equipment though?
Sietsema: Yes.
Mady: We'd get $4,000.00 worth of equipment and a $1,000.00 border. I'll
move to approve a recommendation that Centex Homes have the park graded and
seeded and that the City install volleyball poles and net and appropriate
$2,500.00 out of our discretionary budget reserve to be matched by Centex
Homes for totlot equipment.
Erhart: Second.
Hasek: . Any comments? I guess I have just one. Our involvement is roughly
$2,000.00 right at this point approximately.
Sietsema: Right.
Mady moved, Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve that Centex Homes grade and seed the Curry Farms Park
and the City will install the volleyball poles and net. Also to
appropriate $2,500.00 out of the discretionary budget reserve to be matched
by Centex Homes for totlot equipment. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Sietsema: Did anybody from, I don't know if anybody from the audience had ~
comments.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 5
,.....
Mady: I just want to make one last comment. We should be very thankful
that we have a developer who's going to do these kinds of things. Most of
them won't. It's nice to have a developer help us out...instead of just
building homes.
Hasek: I have to believe that somebody of the neighborhood went and
approached them after the meeting.
Joe Cook: Just a quick comment.
plan. There's been some concern
other of the neighbors about the
the appropriate time to bring it
As far as the site, the general site
about, at least on my part and a couple
parking lot plan. I don't know if this is
up or not.
Hasek: It really isn't. We had a public hearing on it the last time
around but if you'd like to make a comment and give us your name and
address. Were you at that public hearing by any chance?
Joe Cook: No I wasn't.
Hasek: I guess I'll open it up for comment. Can we have your name and
address please?
"""Joe Cook: Oh sure. Joe Cook. Address is 1291 Stratton Court. I guess
with that parking lot right across there, there was concern because myself
and the adjoing neighbor across from us really are kind of concerned about
that parking lot being there. I know it's a 6 stall parking lot but it's
kind of, as far as I can see, it'd be kind of an eyesore for myself. I'm
directly across the street from this parking lot. There's a house directly
east of that parking lot and then, actually there's 4 of us that surround
the park there that would be affected by that parking lot. I realize it's
a city park and there has to be parking. I do have one suggestion for an
alternative to the parking lot and that would be to take, instead of
having, basically making it a large curb cut, almost the width of that
opening of the area there and make it look less like a parking lot. Just
kind of like an indentation where the cars can come and angle park or
whatever. That way, like I say, it would look less like a parking lot and
all the people around there would be influenced about the same with the
parking facility designed like that. Then if they wanted to put shurbery,
etc. around it, dress it up a little bit, great.
Hasek: I've seen that. I used to live out in Mound and we did a lot of
that out there. If you're going to screen it though, there's no point in
screening it anymore. I think it's a perfectly good solution but when you
screen it you're screening the parking from the park so there's no point in
really putting the screening in. We've got two possibilities. One is to
screen the lot that's there. One is to work with an alternate and I would
suggest maybe we might direct staff to take a second look at that and see
~if that's something that's policy within the City to go with bumpout type
?arking. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to it. The important thing to me
is that we've got the parking in there and it's available for users of the
park. The nice thing about having it in the park is that if people are
there, you're not going to have a neighbor that's likely to park a car in
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 6
...""
the parking stalls. They're reserved for the park if it's within the park.
Joe Cook: Yes. As far as the cost, I don't have a lot of knowledge about
street improvements, parking, etc. but it seems to me that the cost would
be very similar as far as you're talking basically the same thing. It's
just a matter of design so I would like to see myself and adjoining
neighbors, a couple of them anyway, we'd like to see some design such as
that to soften it someway.
Hasek: I guess what I would suggest again is that you maybe work with
staff and the best way to do that is to perhaps get your neighbors to get
together and put a little letter together and ask them to take a look at
it. It will be designed based upon public health, safety and welfare so if
it's the city decision that they don't go with bumpout for some strange
reason, then that will be their reasoning for safety. Is that right?
Sietsema: Yes.
Bruce Katzian: Bruce Katzian, 1340 Stratton Court. Last time I gave some
statistics on Curry Farms to try and encourage you to get moving a little
faster I guess and I know you realize there's 80 home sites there and
they're supposed to be all done by the end of the year. I gave you 57 kids
the last time and now we're up to 60 so it relates to that totlot and the
size that Lori was saying. That maybe you want to take a second look at
maybe increasing that now instead of later on because we're talking about,
lot of kids. You've got to be open minded and you've got to think about -'
it.
Mady: Realistically we need probably $400,000.00 of totlot equipment in
the city right now.
Hasek: I'll just throw back the same comment I think I gave you last time.
I've got a neighborhood that's got about 30 kids in it. We don't even have
a park. Our kids are playing in the street.
Bruce Katzian: Let me finish and then we can get on I guess. Right now
there's 70 kids there. I said development was going to be done by the end
of the year. We have a petition here from 100% of the residents
encouraging you to match the funds of Centex and I'll give you that. I
think it's kind of moot now because you've already matched $2,500.00 but
realizing that Centex is seeding and grading which is a cost of $3,500.00
from Centex plus they're donating $2,500.00 which is a total donation to
the City of $6,000.00.
Hasek: I'm not sure but I'll bet the seeding and grading came with the
grading plan as part of it. Is that true? We asked for grading and
seeding when you put a park together or not necessarily?
Sietsema: Not in this case we did not.
Bruce Katzian: So that's actually an offer by Centex of $6,000.00 that by -'
the way wasn't mentioned earlier but there's a deadline of May 30th on
there too that everything matches. So I guess after going after the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 7
~
petition and all the residents signing it, they're looking at matching
$6,000.00, not matching $2,500.00. Some of the questions that the
residents brought up because in the last meeting you asked me how we felt,
the rest of the neighbors felt about the park so we asked that question.
The first point was, the parking lot, like Joe eluded to earlier, and that
is, one of the suggestions was maybe skimming it down some more and going
to 2 and 2. That's 2 parking spots and 2 handicap. That was one of the
suggestions from more than one resident because that is kind of an eyesore
where it's going to be. Again the concern was keeping it a neighborhood
park and the number of children, 42 of which are under 5 years old, there's
still a big need for a good size totlot. And looking at the plan that
Centex proposed is a good start but I want to go on record as saying we're
going to have a lot of kids fighting over 1 or 2 swings. The next thing in
line was the walking path that people are interested in getting and after
that was a tennis and basketball than a baseball backstop. With work being
done this summer and grading by Centex, I guess our question is, what
impact is that on the overall plan of Curry Farms Park? Does that push it
up a year ahead of schedule? What is the schedule, is a lot of residents
have asked and what is the total cost of the park once it's finished and
when is the projected day of it being finished? I guess that was some of
the questions that we had asked at the last meeting and we're still
concerned and we're still wondering because in talking with Centex after
the last meeting and the generous offer of Tom Boyce towards the park,
~which I think maybe he'd be in line for a letter from the City to the
Duilder because I think that was really something extraordinary, we're just
wondering how much we can push. How much we can do to get that done but we
need to know what the game plan is now. What you're putting in next year?
Because you're putting in a totlot this year and because it's graded and
seeded, what goes in after that and so forth?
Hasek: I'm not exactly sure but I would guess that maybe the schedule
isn't going to change a lot. What's happened is that you are one of the
fortunate neighborhoods who's had a developer that's willing to put some
equipment in and the timeframe will probably remain the same. You're just
getting some of it earlier.
Bruce Katzian: What is that timeframe?
Hasek: I'm not sure. I know it's not in the 1989 budget.
Sietsema: There was nothing in the 1989 budget. The 1990 budget hasn't
been developed yet. Each year we take a look at how much we've got and
where the needs are and what we've got to accomplish. There's not really a
schedule as far as when they dedicate the property that in 5 years it will
be done. We don't know how much money we're going to have in our budget.
We planned tentatively to try to do Phase 1 or something in the park next
year. I would anticipate that probably nothing will happen in your park
next year and that you'll get something the year after because you're
~getting something this year.
Bruce Katzian: That doesn't really make sense. The builder and the
neighbors went after and I guess forced the hand of the City a little to
try to get something moving this year. I don't see how we shouldn't get
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 8
........
our fair share for next year and get involved again just because we went
after and moved it up.
Sietsema: That could happen. I'm not saying that it's not going to
happen.
Bruce Katzian: In any planning capacity there's always room for you know,
how much money is next year and so forth. You don't have all those figures
exact I understand that but you always have to have an overall game plan of
what you're projecting what year and when so at least you have, when you
come to a meeting and you have the funds, you have some idea of where
you're going. I would think you'd have to have a plan overall for the
finished product realizing that that could expand or contract as time goes
on, you're depending on the funds but you have to have a game plan.
Sietsema: Well this is the game plan and the time line was as soon as,
once the master plan is done, that's the first hurdle. After that it's as
soon as we can.
Resident: But what's next?
Sietsema: Typically what would be next would be the ballfield. Then after
that, probably at some point later.
Resident: What did you say that $5,000.00 would buy as far as that
totlot... ?
....",
Sietsema: It will buy more than, $5,000.00 will buy more than that phase
1.
Resident: will it buy that whole picture?
Hasek: No, that's $7,000.00. If you add the numbers together, that's
$7,000.00.
Resident: So when you buy $5,000.00, what aren't you going to buy?
Sietsema: It's hard for me to say because we get different deals than what
Centex does. We buy a lot of equipment from a company and I can work with
them. I can't tell you because I don't really know.
Resident: Could you say by their age of the kids to work on the swing side
of it, especially with tot swings?
Sietsema: Sure.
Resident: Because it's more important to work on the more advance stuff
because a majority of the kids in the neighborhood can't even climb up the
slide right now so really even to have two tot swings would be the right
direction to go.
......",
Sietsema: That's easy to do because we've got tot swings that roam around
the city because one neighborhood outgrows them and we put them in another
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 9
~
and pretty soon that neighborhood has turned around and they need them back
again so that's very doable.
George Brower: George Brower, 6611 Arlington Court. Does the City of
Chanhassen have a matching fund program in that if the community develops
$1,000.00, you'll match the funds?
Sietsema: If the neighborhood comes up with a $1,000.00? We haven't got
anything that's developed to that but make a proposal and it can certainly
be considered. There has been one other case that I know of where it was
the Chaparal neighborhood donated $500.00 toward a basketball court. That
spurred a basketball court much quicker than they normally would have
gotten it. Similar to what is happening here tonight. This by the way
will have to go to City Council for approval and that's happening next
Monday night.
Resident: And then do you start working on it right away then?
Sietsema: Yes. I can order the equipment on Tuesday if they approve it.
Hasek: Obviously anything that you can put together to help us spend our
dollars, ours being the City's dollars, is beneficial. That's why we
jumped on this one. I wasn't really pleased by the May 30th deadline that
.~was given but I guess that's one way of getting it done.
George Brower: Excuse me, actually that was a suggestion of the
neighborhood to put a deadline on it.
Hasek: That's why I made the comment.
Mady: When we tell you things can't get done. Just half a mile down the
road in pheasant Hills, we have input of 70 plus homes in there. They
don't have a park right now. They're battling for a park. We've got to
listen to the people. Those who come here, we'll listen to you but we have
to look at all 10,000 people that live in the City and try and do something
for all 10,000. We don't get any property tax money. We get no property
tax money to build those swingsets and parks.
Jon Thornberg: My name is Jon Thornberg and I live at 1320 Stratton Court.
You challeneged us the last time to do something and we did something.
Don't give us all the garbage on top of it. We're not talking about
Pheasant Hills. We're talking about our place. You did it. We did it
but now we're just saying, hey, let's just not drop the ball after this.
You've got us budgeted in for another two grand, don't give it to Pheasant
Hills next year.
Mady: You're not going to get $2,000.00 next year.
Jon Thornberg: I know. I know what you're saying. Down the road in 1992 I
~can understand it but don't just drop the ball and give it to Pheasant
Hills. We worked hard enough for this one, we got to know our neighbors
awfully well. Ed doesn't even like to see me walking around church
anymore.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 10
"WIll'"
Hasek: Oh, that's not true.
Jon Thornberg: This is the thing.
on us later on. We worked hard.
you can say.
We worked for this. Don't drop the ball
If you want to see harder, I don't want
Mady: We congratulate you on that but recognize, in our 5 year plan, I
don't remember the full total number. It was something like $800,000.00
but we don't have $800,000.00 over 5 years. When we threw numbers at the
board when we did that thing, it's like here's the timeline we'd like to be
able to do these things. When we develop our yearly budget, we start
making cuts and moving things around because we simple don't have the
money.
Resident: How much money...if you have money that you thought you were
going to spend on our park over the next 5 years.
Mady: We just spent it tonight.
Resident: Did you? But it came out of the discretionary fund though.
Mady: It's money we have available this year but when you look at $2,000.0
out of a half million or whatever, it's gone now.
Resident: You have money for an access in...
""""""
Mady: We're going to be putting that access in at a later date. We didn't
say that access is never going to go in. We just aren't putting it in now
because the road is unavailable to put it in now but that's still there and
a very important piece of our park system.
Jon Thornberg: The only thing is with the developers dedicating the land to
the City, the City also takes on a responsibility when they accept that
land. If the City is incapable through funds or inability to do something
with that land, then maybe they city shouldn't take on that land. We as
residents will take on the land ourselves. Private park. All I'm saying
is with something being given, along with that goes responsibility. We're
all understanding the financial situation that you're in. We face that in
our checkbooks all the time but I guess I have problems with cities, we're
to the forefront this year because of money that Centex has donated.
Essentially what Centex has donated is a liability next year for us and
I don't quite understand it. I'm looking at it as if there's a 5 year
projection and we've just moved it up a year and now Curry Farms is a 4
year projection and I'm using projection because I realize funds get
distributed and sometimes you don't have them but now it's a 4 year
projection. Not a 5 year projection anymore. That's I guess is what we're
after. How much does the park and the plan, what's the total cost?
Sietsema: I can give you a real rough idea.
...."""
Jon Thornberg: When the contractor made up the park plan, would they then
come up with x number of dollars it takes to make that?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 11
,...,
Hasek: Not typically.
Sietsema: He hasn't yet.
(There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.)
REQUEST FOR BATTING CAGE AT LAKE ANN PARK.
Brad Johnson: ...As kids move along, the subtlies of it, they need better
equipment to practice and one of the things they need is a pitching mound
to practice pitching. This year we have built a new one at Lake Ann at one
of the parks. They also need a batting cage...to thow a baseball and
finally it would be nice if we had an area not only for the Little League
and not only for the Babe Ruth but pee wees and girls softball and softball
just to hit the ball. What we're proposing is that CAA, who already has a
pitching machine, would also like to purchase a batting cage. A typical
type of batting cage is with the back. They have these over at Bennett
Field and they're basically a large net, 17 feet long and 12 feet wide and
12 feet high and when they're used, they're extended like they are here.
They can be set up and then they just collapse so you can't even see them.
They can be hidden away most of the time... CAA can budget this year for
the purchase of the net itself and a protector where you stand behind it
~and you throw to the kid hitting the ball and the cost of those two is
. about $890.00. What we'd like to request is that the City take care of the
installation. Installation involves using labor...standard package is
$900.00... This particular package, some of them are even portable. Take
them down in the fall and put it back up in the summer so it's not as if it
has to be there for the rest of our lives. It will last probably forever
but we have replace the screening about every 5 to 6 years. And that's in
the proposal so we're kind of matching funds. I know you guys have all
kinds of requests for cash but that was just an idea. If that went ahead
and I think the CAA or somebody would buy a softball type machine also next
year that can be used by men's softball people. Then it would just be a
problem of scheduling but it would work pretty well. Actually it replaces
one field in a way because that's one hour of practice for a whole team and
I guess in our case we have a pitching mound nearby...practice there and
eliminate... We can't raise the funds for thi.s year but we think we can
probably do it next year.
Schroers: You said the CAA has a pitchi.ng machine right now?
Brad Johnson: It's in my car, yes.
Schroers: Does that handle both softballs and baseballs?
Brad Johnson: No, just a baseball. They've had it for years. The high
school uses it in the spring. Babe Ruth primarily uses it for faster pitch
but there is a newer one for softball also is good and it's about $800.00.
~It'd be kind of nice to have and it'd give us a good use, and as I said,
Saginaw Sports charges $40.00 an hour for the use of the same thing.
Hasek: So we could charge $30.00.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 12
~.
Brad Johnson: It's just a very efficient price we're paying. It's not
something just for baseball but could be used for softball...
Hasek: I have a couple of questions about the equipment. Is the netting
UB rated or is that why it deteriorates in 5 years?
Brad Johnson: It's rated and it's also treated but talking just with the
guys over at Bennett Field they said they have to replace it about every 5
years. I don't think they take them down in the winter. I guess if you
took them down in the winter they might last a little longer.
Hasek: Okay, so that's part of it. It sits out in winter.
Brad Johnson: Yes. It all comes down. It can all be put away.
Hasek: Are the poles collapseable or is it simply that the mesh pushes
together?
Brad Johnson: The mesh pushes together. I guess over at Bennett they
actually have just 2 poles. You see in that picture they have 3. Then
they run a guide wire all the way down and then they just shove it up.
Schroers: Are those poles cemented in the ground?
.....-..
Brad Johnson: Yes.
Schroers: Actually what you could do is cement in footings and have the
next larger size to serve as poles and then have the whole thing totally
portable.
Brad Johnson: One of the concerns originally was like a dog cage that's
there forever. Now after investigating, this kind of equipment does exist.
It can be taken down and if it's a righ time it can go over near one of the
Babe Ruth fields or something.
Hasek: One concern that I would have would be for that one resident that
still lives there. I certainly would want their opinion. I'm sure they
would anticipate having this as part of the plan, having this behind them
so I'd like to know what their opinion is before we go ahead.
CAA Representative: Only about 1 or 2 years in this location is all we're
asking for anyhow.
Brad Johnson: It could be someplace else but this is where at this point
in life, they think is the best spot.
Mady: That's where the electricity is.
Brad Johnson: We like this for storage. We're hauling that equipment
around, in my garage and everyday someone comes over and throws it in their-'
car.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 13
,....,
Robinson: Does the CAA still have the generator for the pitching machine?
Brad Johnson: It's in my car.
Robinson: So you don't really need to be close to electricity?
Brad Johnson: Only if the electricity is in a place for it.
Hasek: How often do you think about the machine going into the shed?
Brad Johnson: Every night. I would think it could be as low as $600.00.
I guesstimate labor costs about $300.00 so I've got $900.00. The framework
itself is $600.00. Now the City has done things like made these things
themselves...I don't know if they can do it. If they can do that, it will
be cost of your material.
Schroers: Do you have the dimensions?
Brad Johnson:
there but yes.
I have a whole book. It doesn't corne across real clear in
I just don't have it.
Schroers: If I could get the specifications from you as far as how big the
poles need to be.
,.....,
Lash: Are you looking for us to buy the framework and do the installation
or just the installation?
Brad Johnson: I'm looking for you to buy the framework, we buy the nets.
That's our $700.00.
Lash: You want us to provide the installation?
Brad Johnson: It appears to be a coordination point of view...volunteers.
We would volunteer to do it. Our problem is, what you guys want us to do.
Yes, we can volunteer.
Sietsema:
with Gary.
reason why
working in
Whether they can work on the park or not? I'd have to check
I'm not really sure. I don't know. I can't think of any good
not unless there's equipment being used. We've got Eagle Scouts
the parks all the time.
Hasek: What is the timeframe? I'm sorry, maybe I'm asking a question...
but what is the timeframe you'd like to see it up? As soon as possible
you'd like to see it up?
Brad Johnson: Yes. We suggest that we do it and we're going through the
process. A lot of the stuff we're doing in baseball this year is the first
time.
~iasek: When does your program start?
Brad Johnson: Two weeks ago.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 14
".",'
Hasek: It did start already?
Brad Johnson: We shift to Lake Ann, we're not at Lake Ann yet. What do
you think Todd, would it be used by softball ultimately?
Hoffman: It certainly could be. Again, it's how many hours in the day.
There's no many hours each evening when those uses could take place.
Brad Johnson: You see what happens is like we'll go, you've got all these
teams playing over there who like to have batting practice just before they
play. For softball or whatever and there's not a place to do it because
the fields are all used up.
Schroers: I know there are several people from the adult league that have
gone over to Braemar and paid to use the batting facilities over there. I
think it's something that I would like to see here and I wonder if we might
ask Dale whether or not he could manufacture these poles for a lot less
than $600.00 and just put them up? I realize that he's really busy and got
plenty of things to do but I think from a maintenance background, I've got
to believe that he could put up these 3 poles for a lot less than $600.00
if we did it ourselves. I think it would be easier, in my opinion it would
be easier for the City to look at it as another project and to do it rather
than to try to coordinate a volunteer effort on it.
Hasek: Or there might be the possibility that we might be able to put the-,
poles out to bids somebody here or simply ask if they can't be manufactured
less expensively than $600.00. I don't know, $600.00 seems like a
reasonable cost for a fair amount of steel to me and putting the stuff that
would go with it so I don't see that you're necessarily going to find. If
you think about volleyball poles being $300.00.
Lash: I have a question as far as, do we generally buy equipment for CAA
and what other types of equipment do we supply the CAA?
Brad Johnson: We're buying the equipment.
Sietsema: We provide facilities and CAA usually equips themselves.
Robinson: We bought a zamboni and it's available to them. We've done some
things on an exception basis I think.
Hasek: That makes good sense. Good economical sense.
Schroers: I think this makes sense so the batting cage does for sure
because there are several of us sitting here right now that knows there's
no practice out at the fields and if you want to get a few swings in and
you happen to have the middle game or the late game, no chance. There's
not a place to do it. That's something that everyone, even if it is
$600.00, that's a pretty small amount as compared to the use that you'd get
out of it. -'
Mady: This is one of those things when you look down the future, if we
were to get a batting machine for softball by hiring somebody to stand out
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 15
,.....
there and take tickets, you could sell 5 minutes worth of time out there. I
don't know what they get for it but Saginaw's is getting $40.00 an hour.
Schroers: I think it's $3.00 for 20 balls.
Mady: My feeling is, I would spend some time out there if it was close by.
Brad Johnson: Everybody needs something out there in the summer because it
is controlled...
Sietsema: Well if you want the maintenance staff to construct this, I'd
say don't look for it before the end of the summer.
Lash: You weren't talking about this year anyway were you Brad?
Brad Johnson: Our funds are here.
whole thing. Pay for both sides.
and CCA so if we provide the net
then that would be for softball.
where you just have a league.
Our funds don't allow us to do the
We also think it's not just for the CAA
and the City could provide the balance,
Softball's not organized like we are
Lash: CAA, would they be open at all to fundraisers to try to raise funds
to do this?
,.....
Brad Johnson: We have.
Lash: You have already?
Brad Johnson: That's how we got the money. By just saying it doesn't
appear, in dealing with this issue we could volunteer to build it which is
a weekend project. What we thought from a funding point of view, it is
like a baseball field. It's a piece of equipment that's going to be used
by the whole city, not just the CAA so that's why we're proposing this.
Hasek: What I'd like to do is to direct staff to just ask a few questions
of the maintenance people to see what can be done and second of all, before
I would be willing to go ahead with it, I would like to hear from the
abutting neighbor there what their opinion is. I don't know what kind of
agreement we had with them when Lake Ann was purchased and when this design
was put through but we're certainly putting something in their backyard
almost that they may not appreciate so I'd like to have I guess their
opinion. At least have their opinion before we locate it there. So I
guess what I'd like to do is just direct staff to answer a few of the
questions we've asked here tonight and bring it to the next meeting.
Sietsema: Is that a motion?
Hasek: If it has to be?
"""Sietsema: It does.
Mady:
You will check with Dale as to building it?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 16
....",
CAA Representative: My suggestion as part of the
the pine framing, $600.00-$700.00 is not going to
I think you're better off just buying the frame.
thing.
old building as part of
be that much money.
It's an all redwood
Brad Johnson: If you guys agree with that.
Sietsema: I know Dale's busy. It's like take a number.
Brad Johnson: We will volunteer to install it if it can be done.
Hasek: That's one of the questions that has to be asked.
Sietsema: I know if he were to build it, it would be a rainy day project
so it would go on the back burner until...
CAA Representative: It'd be a winter project possibly. If we bought the
poles, we could put it in within a couple weeks.
Robinson: When does your league end?
Brad Johnson: End of July.
Hasek moved, Schroers seconded to table action on the batting cage request -'
until staff can get answers from the maintenance department to the
questions asked and get an opinion from the abutting neighbor on the
placement of the batting cage at Lake Ann Park. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mady: Lori, for their information, when is our next meeting?
Sietsema: When would you like it to be?
Hasek: We've got to have another one this month don't we?
Sietsema: You can have it the 23rd or the 30th.
Hasek: Let's have it the 30th.
Robinson: That's the day after Memorial Day.
Sietsema: Do you want to read your packet over Memorial Day?
Hasek: Just don't make it a big meeting.
Sietsema: Is that a motion?
Mady: Yes. So moved.
.....;
Hasek: Seconded.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 17
,.....
Mady moved, Hasek seconded to change the second Park and Recreation
Commission meeting to May 30, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Sietsema: Okay, so this will be back on the agenda on May 30th for Park
and Rec and then if it requires expenditure of money, it will have to go
onto the next City Council for approval which is June 12th.
CLARIFICATION OF BALLFIELD DEVELOPMENT, LAKE ANN PARK.
Sietsema: There's been a lot of discussion about using the ballfields, the
existing field #3 and the new field which would be next to it, #4, for Babe
Ruth and Little League. We have not actually clarified what they're going
to look like. Are we going to have grass infields? Are we going to have
dugouts? Are we going to have the appropriate space behind the batters
box? Are we going to have bonafide baseball fields? Moving everything,
fence lines and baselines are we going to modify them so they are still
useable for softball as well? Field #3, the existing one, if you're going
to make those changes, we need to know what you want to do and then I have
to go back and see how feasible that is. The new field, it has some space
limitations that will not allow for a standard Babe Ruth baseball field.
.~Basically the bottom line is that we can have a grass infield and 300 foot
fence lines with 90 foot baselines. There isn't really enough room for a
the backstop for a bonafide and there's no way we can squeeze it out of
there.
Robinson: For a bonafide Babe Ruth?
Sietsema: For bonafide Babe Ruth. Standard Babe Ruth.
Schroers: What about changing to what would be Field #6 which is going to
have the soccer field? Would there be room to...on that field?
Sietsema: We have more room down there. You're not keeping your youths in
one area then which was something...
Schroers: Would the baseball program and the soccer program overlap so
there would be a scheduling conflict there?
Sietsema: There's going to be a scheduling conflict anyway. You can't
have soccer goals and baseball on the same field and you can't move them
everyday. So in the summer you're only going to have one anyway and that
was another thing, an issue Todd wanted to address later anyway about the
soccer but as far as Field #6 meeting the Babe Ruth.
Hasek: Is that possible?
,....,
Sietsema: I'm not sure.
it's more feasible there.
I think it still will be tight but I think
Definitely dugouts won't fit.
Hasek: Field #1, there's a problem there?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 18
..,."
Sietsema: Well Field #1, that's our...
Hoffman: It's backed up against the dirt already and the outfield is right
against the trees.
Hasek: And that's a 300 foot fence right now?
Hoffman: Yes.
Sietsema: And that's our lighted field for extra softball games.
Hasek: There's a couple of things. First of all there was a mention about
lights. I think that anybody who develops next to this park ought to be
made well aware that eventually those fields are going to have lights on
them. There's a gentleman that was in there this evening who said that he
was opposed to having parking across the street from him even thought that
parking has been on the plan well before he bought his house. He should
have been aware of it.
Sietsema: He was. He called me before he bought it.
Hasek: Okay, let's make sure that they're aware when they buy their house
that there's going to be lights up there.
Sietsema: All three of them called me before they bought their homes and -'
they knew there was going to be parking there.
Hasek: I guess if there's any way we can accommodate a regulation field
out there, I'd like to do it even though it might mean separating the youth
games. I would rather do that than compromise the design of the field
simply because we're too stubborn to move it.
Schroers: I agree with that. I think our goal is to provide facilities
that would make Chanhassen competitive with other cities and if they're
providing regulation fields, then I think we need to provide regulation
fields. It doesn't do us any good to have a ballfield that the leagues
won't sanction.
Robinson: It was my understanding that all along this was going to be the
Babe Ruth field, #3 or #4, one of those.
Sietsema: But in the plan, when we talked about the plan it was always
softball/baseball combination so it was mainly looked at as a softball that
would accommodate baseball similar to what #1 does now. But then when we
started talking more about baseball, I started thinking that we weren't on
the same wavelength so I need that clarificat~on now before they go any
further with the development out there.
Brad Johnson: The Babe Ruth field, if we get the numbers we're going to
get, the park will be field probably 6 days a week by 1991.
....",.,
Schroers: What kind of problems do you run into in Babe Ruth when you
don't have the required distance for the fences, for the backstop and
dugouts?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 19
"...."
'. ~
Brad Johnson: The plan is that Chanhassen will be the home of the
sanctioned Babe Ruth program so that means we've got to have whatever that
is, I'm not familiar myself. The plan is that Chanhassen, it's Chanhassen
and Tonka. Tonka is providing the Little League fields. They're the
primary provider of the Little League fields. This will work out kind of
good. Victoria does have some Babe Ruth fields they're building but the
only problem there is, the battle there is should they merge with Chaska or
us and Chaska's after them because they've got the fields. Right now we
need, we have 4 teams and we're playing 2 nights a week, 4 games. That's
normal and we're doing that only because we have a lighted field. Next
year we'll have 6 teams. The next year after that 8 teams. It's just
going to grow like a son of a gun. It's easy if we don't have lighted
fields that the Babe Ruth thing will be going all the time because we only
play one game a night because it gets dark. You could actually use Lake
Ann Field #1 with the lights fulltime and I know that's not a very good
field so. The next level after that is the Legion wants to sponsor a
legion team. It too needs the same field so that field could be fairly
busy.
Hasek:
longer?
longer?
"...,
Brad Johnson:
Is the 300 foot fence long enough or would you like to see it
If you start getting into Legion ball, don't you want it a little
300 to 320.
I'll check.
Mady: The question I've got on this whole thing, one of them was the
length of the field to the fences. The second one is the primary concern
of safety around backstops. That's got to be fairly large. The third
thing is, how necessary are dugouts themselves?
Brad Johnson: They're requirements.
Mady: But there's a fairly wide range of design and we could work with
those right? They don't have to be concrete block?
Brad Johnson: There's all kinds of temporary systems that people have
designed. You could create a field and take them down except for the mound
and the dirt. I think there is some flexibility. I just don't, now that
I've been out there, I don't see how a softball field and a baseball field
are necessarily totally compatible...
Sietsema: I just want to know how much you want to throw into the baseball
on the Lake Ann fields when we're playing the youth athletic complex down
on the southern and then this will all be taken out and used for softball
again. The plan for that was that those fields would be done in a 5 year
timeframe if we move ahead as we're laid out now.
~rad Johnson: Could I just comment one little comment? The current plan
is that the baseball program will not be with Chaska. It will be with
Shorewood, Excelsior, Tonka Bay which are all communities to the north so I
think you should rethink that whole process. Not that we don't need the
fields but the communities that we're going to be serving, all our baseball
programs if this goes together, will be teams to the north.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 20
.....""
Sietsema: So we don't need a south parkland?
Brad Johnson: You may need a south parkland but I'm just saying, you've
got to think that all out. If you shift all baseball south.
Sietsema: Why didn't you tell us that?
Brad Johnson: We didn't know. You know that one meeting we had here, it
all came clear that our natural baseball community is Tonka Bay, Excelsior,
Shorewood, and Chanhassen and possibly victoria.
Mady: Realistically you're looking at a distance of an extra mile or mile
and a half from Lake Ann.
Brad Johnson: Yes, but why do you have to...a good Babe Ruth program?
Mady: Mainly because we need 6 softball fields and since Lake Ann already
is a softball complex, we might as well make it a softball complex and make
the baseball complex someplace else..
Hasek: Okay, what do you need from us?
Sietsema: I need to know what you want to do with these fields because thf
guy out there has got the grader moving and he's got to know. .....""
Hasek: I'd like to make a motion that we reconsider our plans for this and
make what I'm going to call Field #6 or the southeastern field in this 6
field complex, the Babe Ruth field and try to design it to Babe Ruth
standards. That is my motion.
Schroers: I'd like to ask for a little input from Todd on that. Can you
enlighten us Todd?
Sietsema: Was there a second? We need a second.
Schroers: I will second it.
Mady: I've got a question too. Number 6 on the plan has a soccer field
overlaid on it. If we put a fenced field there, we may lose the soccer
right?
Hoffman: That's been my problem with that design all along. My problem
with that design all the way along, just jogging past it this morning
looking at the earth movers out there, there's no way we can use those 2
fields in compatible use. One will get overbeared by the other and the one
design, most likely the soccer design will just not be used. It will be a
design with good intention but not coming to realize any type of use so
it's really a moot design point. When you say 2 soccer fields, it just
gets the soccer people excited over something that is not going to come
true. The second comment, Field #6, I don't believe is going to be any
larger of an area to work with for a regulation size Babe Ruth field than
the new field #4 because the left field foul line does go down pretty close
to the sideline of that soccer field down in that area from my recollection
...."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 21
,....
of looking at the design itself. I just don't think we're going to be able
to fit in any regulation size Babe Ruth field...
Hasek: So the comment really is drop the soccer fields, put the fence in
and consider a ballfield as opposed to a soccer field. What other soccer
facilities do we have? Obviously the one overlaid on Field #1 is a bogus
plan as well?
Hoffman: Currently summer soccer uses the field inside the track at Chaska
High School. They use the south field at Minnetonka Intermediate which
they have threatened to take out of youth use each year because they would
like to redo that area. Then the 10 and under group uses the Bandimere
field. So once we acquire a new field at Lake Ann in two years, the
program will probably be large enough at that time where we won't be able
to drop the Minnetonka, the Chaska field. This will just absorb the
increase in soccer, summer soccer participants.
Hasek: And then there might be some possibility of providing some program
isn't growing too large as some other cities?
Hoffman: It currently is Chanhassen/Chaska.
Hasek: Shorewood's got some soccer fields up there as well or some areas
.~for soccer fields. They're in south Tonka right?
Robinson: The soccer fields are a problem. The field out at Bandimere is
very small. You can get by with small fields. Anybody who comes out to
play at Bandimere Heights laughs at those fields.
Hasek: I think my son is currently playing in a hockey rink so there's
different possibilities.
Hoffman: Different game.
Sietsema: But those constraints are going to be greatly relieved when the
south parkland is built. I think we might be making a compromise that we
don't want to live with. I think that's what your point was by not having
the fence and keeping that soccer field.
Schroers: I have question, on them developing the fields and not meeting
the criteria that the league specifications set out. It seems to me, my
personal opinion would be that the baseball players in this town have got
to get something. Have really been on the back burner and haven't had a
good place to play ball and I think 5 years from now when the proposed
south park comes on line, is really too long to ask them to wait and I
would like to see one of our fields meet the specifications to accommodate
sanctioned league ball.
~Hasek: That's what you seconded.
Hoffman: I think we have every intention of doing that if possible. Just
another side comment. The league which we currently participate in is not
sanctioned in a sanctioned league per se but would always be nice to have
that field to the general overall accepted standards to a sanctioned Babe
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 22
-'
Ruth field.
Erhart: I kind of thought that you made it sound Todd like we could
accommodate...
Hoffman: That's what I'm saying. We certainly have the intention to look
into it and if it can we'll do that but if it can not, do you still want to
go ahead and develop it the best it can be?
Hasek: I think if she takes a close enough look at it, it might take a
little bit of redesigning for parking spaces and stuff but, you've build 3
fields on the side of a mountain so far.
Sietsema: How much do you want to change the plan though with the grader
already out there?
Mady: We would like to accommodate the field.
Sietsema: How much money do you want to compromise?
Hasek: Grading costs?
Hoffman: Change in plan. Change in surveying.
Sietsema: Change orders. Surveying. The whole ball of wax. We're -'
talking about, it's not minor. I can go back and see what can be done and
bring it back to you.
Hasek: Yes, I think that's what the motion is. To try our hardest to shoe
horn in a legal sized regulation size field. It seems like all we need is,
we're looking at about 20 feet someplace.
Hoffman: 40.
Schroers: And an area for dugouts.
Sietsema: I think you're going to have to live without dugouts. I just
can't see how you're going to put dugouts out there.
Hasek: We'll put up a sign and call it a dugout for them if we have to.
Robinson: Is that a Babe Ruth standard?
Hasek: Yes.
Robinson: But again the motion is to look at making it to a Babe Ruth
standard field even at the expense of the soccer field.
Hoffman: At the expense of the overlay soccer field.
field which is by itself.
Not the one soccer
.....""
Lash: Is that going to meet our soccer needs?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 23
""'"
Hasek: Yes. That's what he was just saying. He thought perhaps it would
until...
Hoffman: Yes, the overlay field is, that could either be used as soccer
and take out the softball field because it could only be used then as a
practice field when it be available or you can eliminate soccer and use it
as a softball field. I don't think the two uses can be used.
Mady: We had talked about making the field grass on that one field.
Eventually it would be...
Hoffman: Again, just the logistics of doing that and it's just.
Mady: You're right...
Sietsema: We don't feel the crunch though in the fall like we do in the
summer when we need it.
Hoffman: And fall softball as well as on the girl's splurge.
Sietsema: The motion that I have is to recommend revising the plan to make
Field #6 to a standard Babe Ruth field.
~Lash: We've got to have boundaries naturally. We're not going to do it at
just any cost.
Hasek:
we do?
Well we're going to have to find out what the cost is but what do
Do you have any idea what it might cost?
Lash: No. I have no idea that's why I wouldn't want to vote for it if I
don't have any idea.
Erhart: Lori, wast that to actually revise it?
Sietsema: That was the motion. The motion was to do it. If you want me
to bring something back.
Erhart: I think we want you to bring something back.
Hasek: Do we have time for you to bring it back? I guess I got the
impression from your discussion that the grader's out there and going and
if we don't give him direction, we're going to get something we don't want.
Sietsema: It may compromise our completion date which is July 1.
Mady: But that July 1 completion date, if we had to move that 2 weeks,
that would not compromise the date we could start using the fields at Lake
Ann. No matter what we won't be using them this year?
~Sietsema: No.
Mady: There's an outside chance they might be ready next year but with 2
weeks in the middle of the summer is not going to make or break. It might
be . . .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 24
".
~.
Sietsema: I'm not really sure of all of the implications.
to bring something back to you.
I'll just have
Hoffman: Again, I wouldn't be real hopeful because the design again is to
back those backstops right up into a hole just like they are on the fields
which are currently there. In order to get an extra 20 or 30 feet, if there
is very minimal room in the outfield, you're just going to totally change
the grading plan and the whole design of the park. I'm just not real
optimistic about doing that.
Sietsema: Then you're into your soccer field. If you push this out 20
feet.
Hoffman: It's more than that. It's 30 feet.
Sietsema: Then you're into 50.
Hasek: Maybe this dimension can come down 10 or 15 feet. Really the 20
feet that we need right here which is going to put this fence out. I don't
know, I think it's worth a look. It's either that or we compromise and put
it here. Now if we're going to compromise, why not still put it there.
Hoffman:
though.
20 feet here is not going to get you 20 feet behind the plate
With that angle it's going to be about 30 feet.
""""'"
Sietsema: I'll have Laurie look at it. That's all I can do. I'll have to
bring it back to you.
Hasek: So I guess the motion is revised to have you come back with cost
estimates and possibilities for doing that. Second over there still Larry?
Schroers: Yes.
Hasek moved, Schroers seconded to direct staff to look into reviewing the
Lake Ann Park expansion plan for the ball fields to make Field #6 into a
standard Babe Ruth field. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL USES FOR ECKANKAR PROPERTY.
Sietsema: The City Council at their last night meeting directed the
commissions and the community center task force to look at potential uses
of the Eckankar property should it come under the City's ownership or
should we decide to go to referendum. I beli~ve that the intention was to
figure out how a referendum could be put together. The item was tabled
for environmental reasons. It's going back to the City Council to be
addressed on Monday night. In looking at the question that's being
proposed, we need to know what kind of park needs are in the area of Lake
Ann Park which goes beyond just Lake Ann Park. We had to look at the whol~
city. I directed Mark to research our Comprehensive Plan. Look at what
our needs are going to be ultimately and that report is attached. I'd like
to ask Mark to just kind of summarize at this point. I think most of you
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 25
,....
have read through it so you can highlight.
Mark Koegler: We started with the little question. Should any of that
land be part of Lake Ann park...which really took us back to looking at a
number of areas of the City's currently adopted Comp Plan. Doing some
extrapolation from that, and from the existing land development pattern in
the city right now we come up with what we called in the report a target
population. That doesn't mean maximum population but it means a number we
were using somewhere in the future and I don't know whether that's 20 years
or 30 years later. That's really somewhat irrelevent because the City will
get there at some point in time. We utilized that number then and combined
that with standards that are in the plan for community parks. Combined
that with some programming information I extracted from programs that the
City is now operating specfically with the land intensive uses such as
softball, baseball, soccer. How many fields are on line now? How well are
they reasonably meeting demands? Then we took those basically as a
standard and applied those as you saw in that report to the future
differential of population between what the City has now, which for the
purpose of this report was a little over 9,200 up to the target number of
36,150. That gave us a barometer if you will to measure how many
additional fields you'll be needing if you're going to be programming the
services basically at the present level they're at now. Bear in mind as
~you go through this obviously there's a lot of assumptions and I think Lori
and I went through there. We think they're very reasonable. Certainly
they can be argued. We think it's consistent based on what's in the
Comp Plan. Out of that then looking at the additional fields that will be
required between now and the time Chanhassen hits that target number, we
then applied some acreage projections. We know that a ball diamond and the
corresponding parking or a soccer field and corresponding parking takes say
2.4-2.5 acres. We can then extract that out and say okay, we're going to
need roughly 150 acres of additional land sometime in the future to
accommodate the active needs of the City of Chanhassen. That is kind of
compared to the overall community park standard which says the City will
need about 190 acres of land. So you can argue that okay, 150 will serve
as passive or active and the other 40, whatever it might be, will serve as
passive uses. Getting that far then in working through some of this
argument, the next logical question you come to is, if you've got a need
for 150 acre portion maybe, you're well aware that the City has taken a
postive step towards acquiring a second community park in the southern
portion of the city. Again I'll go back to the Comp Plan, to the standards
that have been adopted by the City. A community park...2 to 3 mile service
area. Applying that to simply the geography and shape of the City of
Chanhassen, they city effectively can be served by probably 3 community
parks in the long term. Certainly Lake Ann is the first. The new south
park will be the second and at some point in time there undoubtedly will be
a third one. My own personal thought is that it will be in the western
part of the city or maybe somewhat southwestern. We've also made the
assumption that I think it's being consistent with what the City's trying
~to do in providing the same level of services to virtually every resident
. in the city wherever they may be. To say that the most effective way to
continue that policy is to set those 3 parks up so they're located in such
a manner as to provide reasonably consistent service areas. That led us
then to saying, okay they should be approximately this size. It will have
x number of facilities one of these which will be serving the people that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 26
...."."
live in the corresponding neighborhoods. If you do that, Lake Ann park at
the present time has about 40 acres of the 98 acres that's what we define
as active. Active is the very intensive uses. Baseball. Soccer.
Softball. parking. That type of thing. It does not include the beach
area. It does not include the trails. It does not include the woods. It
does not include picnic space. Taking our 150 additional acres number
needed above and beyond the 40 that's presently used at Lake Ann Park, you
can start assume...size. You're looking at an acquisition somewhere in the
neighborhood of say, let's say 30 acres in the south. That 30 acres has
the potential to roughly double to the north in the future to about a 60
acre piece. If you were to supply another 60 acre piece somewhere in the
future in perhaps the western part of the City and then correspondingly
increase the acreage at Lake Ann by roughly 25 + or - acres, that gives you
that roughly even dispersal that I just referenced. Now you're familiar
with Lake Ann Park and the development pattern that has taken place there.
I think simply by historical pattern, more recently with what we're just
going through with planning, the active part is on the east side of that
park. I think it's easy to argue that it should continue to be that way.
If the City ever acquires any land around the lake or around the west and
then sets up...passive use area. As you're well aware, when we go to the
east we run right into the Eckankar site which has been proposed since the
lake 70's for a variety of uses. Probably more residential than non-
residential. The City certainly has in it's ordinance structure, as you
well know, dedication requirements for not only residential but commercial
properties. Looking at that piece on the surface, it's about 175 acres. Ir~
round numbers, the city typically is looking for about 10% of the land. The
ability is there to acquire 17 or 18 acres through dedication in the future
which is a significant chunk of that from the 25 that we're talking about.
So the differential there might be required in cash might be to require...
The fact that the property is owned by a non-profit, in this case a church
entity certainly complicates it because they're developing it right now or
proposing to as one tract that can not be subdivided. ...collected until
subdivision occurs. I think the problem...churches typically require a 175
acres. I think presumably you can assume that something will happen with
the balance of that property. Whether that will be 150 or 100 acres or
whatever that might be. The City will have the opportunity I think to
acquire land there at some point in the future. So the charge really of
looking at community park supply, just to answer a basic question, is
property needed adjacent to Lake Ann Park and I think in going through this
rationale, we answer that question yes. To pin down to scale how much you
think is required, we would suggest that somewhere in 25 to 30... I
realize there are lots of complicated issues... I know there's lot of
numbers and things in that report and I'd be happy to address any of that
you might have questions on.
Hasek: I guess just a real quick question. Opinion question. Having
worked in park and recs to a certain degree and being a planner, landscape
architect as you are, if we could get the land by dedication, it seems a
prudent way to acquire a piece of property. If we were to buy the land or
have to purchase the land, would it be necessarily prudent to add to this ~
parcel knowing that the land to be acquired is within the MUSA line and
I guess from a practical standpoint, know that the seller hasn't the desire
at this point to sell, that the price of the land can only go up. An
alternative could potentially be to acquire land to the east even though it
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 27
.,...
may be somewhat segregated and separated from the active parcel. Make a
connection through there. Acquire the land at perhaps a lot lower cost, if
we do have to buy it. I don't know what the size of the parcel is going to
be so I guess from an opinion standpoint only, I don't really even want to
ask you. If we can get the land for nothing, through dedication, it seems
to me to be the prudent thing to do. If we have to pay top dollar for the
land, are there other alternatives?
Koegler: Well there undoubtedly are a range of alternatives. I think to
tell you there isn't wouldn't be realistic. In this summary report...
conclude that if for some reason that that property can be acquired,
whether it's economics or whatever it is, certainly that difference in
acreage, that 30 acres plus or minus needs to be acquired somewhere and
should be acquired either in the south piece, whether that's Bandimere or
something else, or in a future western piece or southwestern piece. We
talked in the report a little bit about land costs. That almost ended up
being a teaser because as I sat here and put this report together, I don't
really know what the land costs are which makes it hard to provide a...
response to that question but it's a very valid question. It's one that
ultimately I think the Council may have to wrestle with. In my mind,
speaking from a land use/planning perspective, I can't begin to imagine
that the City can't acquire some of that property in the future as part of
dedication. It simply is unrealistic to me to think that a church is going
~to retain 175 acres of prime developable property. Whether they will
ultimately sell some of that to the City or sell that to a private
development interest or whatever, the property is zoned residential in
varying intensities which you have from north to south throughout the site
and I think someday that the balance of that property will be developed in
accordance with the zoning regulations. I think you will have the
approvals to acquire that but I can't say yes, do this or don't do this
with regards to cost because we don't know what the costs are.
Hasek: I guess one other question I have. You're talking about acquiring
property and the potential for that... Is there anything, my understanding
is that there's nothing to preclude them from cutting off 40 acre chunks of
that and not having to go through our subdivision process to do that. They
can subdivide through the County and not have to actually go through the
City in order to acomplish that.
Koegler: I think that's conceiveable...in the last number of years. They
can't do a meets and bounds description under State law as long as they are
of that size potential. Again though I don't think long term, again we're
playing with terms that I don't know what is realistic. Maybe it's 2
years. Maybe it 10 years. The property is prime property. It's not going
to stay in 40 acre tracts. It's going to be subdivided. It's just a
question of when. I still would stand that, my reaction working with the
City for 11 years now, that there will be property available that you can
acquire through dedication. It may not be quite as much as what you can
~get. It may not be as much as if this was subdivided right now as a
residential PUD.
Hasek: Lori, a question. Is this a public hearing?
Sietsema: No it's not.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 28
-"
Hasek: It's just a discussion and looking for direction?
Sietsema: Right. That doesn't mean you can't hear from the public though.
It's not a formal public hearing, no.
Hasek: Maybe what we should do is go right down the line and get your
comments or questions that anybody on the commission has. Curt do you want
to start?
Robinson: I've just got a couple comments. One I thought this was really
a good plan considering you had what, 2 weeks to put it together.
Koegler: 2 days.
Robinson: Not very much time and it was looking at something that we've
been talking about for years or a long term plan for the park and I could
follow it through. Yes, there's a lot of assumptions but I thought to
myself what approach would I take and I thought the approach you took was
good. Everybody's got their personal opinions about the Eckankar situation
if you've lived in Chanhassen for more than a week or 2 and I'm going to
try and keep mine out of here. It's probably hard to but I'm going to try
to keep it a park and rec issue. I guess I've just got a problem with the
fact that we are even looking at this piece of property considering how
expensive it is. How expensive it's got to be. If we're going to look at -'
acquiring it. If there's some other means like a developer goes in there
and there is 150 acres left, that means we get 15, sure, I really think we
can use 15 acres there. I don't have anymore comments.
Hasek: Curt, I think you're keeping it to the issue and that is the
parkland. I'd like to encourage us all to do that.
Sietsema: I'd like to encourage you all to talk louder.
Hasek: That's usually not a problem. I guess I'd like to encourage
everyone to keep the issue of the church out of it. The fact is we're
looking at parkland and how it might affect our plans and the Comprehensive
Plan adopted by the City so keep the issue to a parkland issue.
Erhart: I've got a question for you Mark. In your report here you say
that the general rural use area, there's approximately 7,300 acres of
developable land. How does the freeway affect that? Did you take into
consideration, subtracting that?
Koegler: Yes. The rural area right now has some major land uses that the
northern urban area does not have which obviously...the Arboretum.
Virtually the entire area south of TH 212 which is part of the Minnesota
River Wildlife Area, the alignment for the proposed TH 2l2...so those
larger pieces have been thrown out. Those numbers were numbers that we had
generated as part of the Comprehensive Plan updates so they were current. J-,
feel reasonably comfortable with.
Hasek:
that.
With the same topic, excuse me, just a question in relation to
Assume the 1990-2000 MUSA line then is kind of a fixed line?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 29
,....,
Koegler: No, we really have ignored the MUSA line to a large degree. What
we did is we looked internally with the MUSA line right now. We've got
detailed acreage counts. We know how much of that is single family. How
much of that is industrial and so forth and for gross extrapolation of the
rest of the community, said okay, if that development pattern and that
relationship between the amount of the industrial base in the city, the
amount of residential land which includes the sites that will be developed,
let's extract that and put it into the southern part of the community and
let's see what happens. That's where we come up with this target number
after we pullout of those acreages so that's assuming the same density the
city is essentially at right now in the developed areas. Not overall.
Ultimately obviously the City will continue to become more and more dense
as redevelopment occurs.
Hasek: But it is a sewered number?
Koegler: Yes, that's basically a sewered number and have kind of
neighborhood distribution that you have now spinning down into the southern
part.
Erhart: I would be very interested in yes, having a ballfield out there.
A community center but there again, I concur. I think the cost is an issue
.,....,here. I guess to me, yes there's a need but it's up to the City and
community if they want to spend that kind of money. That's a Council
decision the way I see it. That's all.
Mady: A couple comments. Ed asked the comment about the developability or
potential for that site being further developed. With our work with the
community center task force, talking with the church over the past year I
guess, they've always indicated that the desire or willingness rather to
sell whatever land we felt necessary for a community center. Potentially a
school. Always their big concern...site so with a community center you're
talking 10 to 20 acres of land if that's indeed the site. In talking about
another 25 acres for the park. They've indicated a willingness to talk to
the City and sell that at fair market value. Whatever that comes and I
agree with you, my belief is that it may not happen in the next 5 years, 10
years but ultimately that whole parcel will develop. The church will
become a normal church size, whatever that is. I'm not an expert but it's
going to become, my gut feeling is it's ultimately become a residential
area and we will have the opportunity to expand Lake Ann at that time. I
think it'd be prudent for us to indicate what we're looking for in the Comp
Plan at this time. 25, maybe 30 acres of land there. We can always work
with the developer and if we only get 15 because of money, budgetary
considerations, what have you, I think we can compromise at that point in
time. I think the study was...showing us what our potential growth
potential was because I've never known that number. Now I have a feeling
for where the ballpark is anyway. I never knew the ballpark before was 20
JlI"'"" to 2 5 . . .
Lash: I agree with the comments. I think this is nice for us to have this
report for future references. This is going to be really helpful for us
and I think we would be real foolish if we have the opportunity to acquire
some property there, to not jump on it. I can certainly see the ballfield
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 30
~
problems we were just looking at tonight. We can't overlap. We can't meet
regulations so it'd be nice to have some property there to expand on. I
have one comment on the cost. I don't believe it would be $40,000.00 an
acre but I can't say. I'm not in real estate but I did have a conversation
with Jay Johnson one day about that. I think I understood him but I can't
guarantee this. He gave me the impression that there's some type of a
possibility of removing some of your sewered areas if they're not developed
and moving the MUSA line to another area that you wish to service and that
would then lower the cost for land acquisition back down to your basic
agricultural price which would be what it is in southern Chanhassen. Does
that sound?
Koegler: It's probably dangerous right now to... My reaction to that
would be, if you had a land owner who voluntarily wanted to do that, that's
a possibility. Within the City I don't believe you have the authority to
do that...to be artificially controlling the price of land... When you've
got kind of a donut hole and the middle of the donut with sewer all the way
around the middle but if the property owner, yes I think that has been done
in the City of Blaine. They actually pulled some of their properties out
in exchange for some other lands to be put within the MUSA line.
Lash: Okay. Well, I'll still go back to, I guess I agree with Dawne
saying that it'd be foolish to pass up an opportunity to acquire something
if the Council said for the Commission to go ahead and pursue this. I
would certainly say we had a need for the park. -'
Schroers: I have a general comment and question for either Mark or staff
or anyone that might know the answer. First of all, being a park and rec
commissioner and a park person at heart, I am in favor of acquiring park
property by any reasonable means, no matter what it is. If it's through
dedication or private donation or purchase or in some cases even
condemnation. If that's the only way to get the available space that we
need, let's get it. Secondly, my question is that if, I have heard that
more prominent communities to the east of us have a percentage, an
ordinance that says a church or a non-profit organization in their
community needs to develop, the figure that I heard was 80% of their
property. I heard that this was set up as a safety measure to prevent
large tracts of land within the city to become absent from the tax rolls.
Does anybody know anything about this and is it impossible to adopt an
ordinance of that type?
Sietsema: I think we could probably adopt an ordinance like that but
anybody who came in before that ordinance would not have to apply to it.
You can't change the rules in midstream.
Hasek: Just if I can address that. That's e~actly true. A lot of
communities have done that. I guess if you remember correctly, way back
when Eckankar first, when we first heard wind that that project was coming
in, Mayor Chmiel was sitting in the audience and I mentioned to him at that
time that would be something to look at. I don't know if he chose not to
act on it or if it was something that was looked at and it was too late at ~.
that point but that was brought up here about 3 months ago.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 31
I"""
Schroers: My personal intention is to stay neutral on the Eckankar
situation as such but I'm just saying any religious organization or non-
profit organization, if we don't have an ordinance to that effect in the
city right now, I would definitely support looking at it to prevent
problems like this in the future. I think if we have something like this,
the land that the group does not develop, could probably be purchased at a
more reasonable price then also. That's all I have.
Maddie Hickey: Can I please add in a comment?
Hasek: No, not yet.
Mady: I just had one other comment to add in. Mark's study indicates that
our need is 25 acres roughly. With our planning process that we've done in
the southern acquisition, we should be meeting our needs for the next 5
years or so. So I just hope the city doesn't just rush out and do
something that's going to be very, very expensive when the potential is
there, the real legitimate potential is there to get to the same point a
lot cheaper when the need starts to arise through the development process
and dedication process. We can probably actually acquire 17 acres.
Lash: We don't know that for sure.
,~Mady: There's no for sures but we can put it in the Comp Plan.
Lash: I would think that there would be other methods. That there would
be grants and things like that available to this commission. To the city,
to acquire land. Was that not used to get the original property at Lake
Ann?
Sietsema: We could apply for LAWCON grants to acquire property, yes.
Mady:
this.
But they are no longer providing grants for active park uses like
That's basically what we've found.
Sietsema: No. They're not granting any more grants at Lake Ann park
because we've hit the ceiling for active facilities. Acquisition is a
different type of a grant.
Mady: Through LAWCON?
Sietsema: Through LAWCON.
Schroers: If there is a possibility of acquiring a grant or the
acquisition of park property in Chanhassen, I think we should pursue that
also.
Robinson: Does that mean that this Eckankar property would be adjoining
~Lake Ann and therefore not eligible for LAWCON?
Sietsema: No. There used to be the traditional grant which was the LAWCON
grant to build outdoor recreational facilities. Typically trails, boat
accesses, that kind of thing. Then they developed an active facility grant
which was for active uses. Baseball, softball, soccer, hockey rinks, that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 32
--'
kind of thing. And they had a ceiling, you couldn't get more than
$40,000.00 worth of grants from that 1n one park site. We hit that when we
got a grant for the ballfield lights at Lake Ann and then we got for the
Lake Ann expansion but they only funded a very small amount of that because
there was that ceiling. So now they've joined the two. They've basically
gotten rid of this facility grant and it's not your basic LAWCON which is
for land acquisition and development. Outdoor recreation facilities. Park
facilities. I do not believe that they have a ceiling, if we wanted to
acquire additional property. I don't think there's a ceiling on that
portion. It was just the active facilities portion.
Hasek: Okay, just a couple of quick questions. What does our
Comprehensive Plan, the recreational portion, target as a size for Lake Ann
currently? Does it have a size in it?
Koegler: No. It recognizes the expansion that's occurring now and really
doesn't address expansion in the form that it's in now which as you know is
under revision. It doesn't address specifically additional expansion of
that site. There's text in there that talks about active side of the park
and I think that sets up the tone for the expansion. ...this type of
thinking, that that should be reflected in the plan update.
Hasek: Is there a minimum and a maximum set up in these size facilities in
the comprehensive plan? Is there a minimum and maximum size set for a
community size park in the comprehensive plan? ~
Koegler: No there is not. The only standards that are set in the plan
typically, if the plan called for a minimum of about 5 acres for a
neighborhood park. The plan does speak generally to the philosophy that
I referenced before about providing equal services and facilities to all
residents which in neighborhood situations...certain size and pretty much
stamp that around. To a similar degree you do that in a community park
also.
Hasek: A couple of quick comments here and I'm going to try to limit this
whole thing for the public to a quarter to ten so we can get out of here by
10:00 tonight which is our normal getting out time. As seems to be the
case with the current officials in the city, I've done some investigation
myself. Called a few cities and I'm sure we've got capable people on staff
that could have done it but I didn't feel I wanted to impose on them so I
made the phone calls myself. I called 6 different cities. Plymouth, Eden
Prairie, Minnetonka, Burnsville, Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove to find out
what kind of size facilities they have. How many they have over a certain
size and so forth. The bottom line is that we are only on our way to
developing parkland. I think that's fairly obviously. In talking with the
park's director of parks and recreation for the 6 cities, to a person they
agreed that the acquisition of parkland is crucial early on in the game but
they also said that prudent acquisition of parkland is critical
economically to a city. Simply you don't go out and buy the top dollar
land just because you want a park. Eden prairie is going through some of -'
that hassle right now I think. They've got a park spotted and the land
costs are continuing to rise. The owner knows the city wants the property
and the value continues to rise with every lack of decision that they make.
If we have the opportunity to expand this park, I think we should take that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 33
,....
opportunity. The question that I have is, how that happens? Do we need
more activity out there? Do we consider expanding activity in other areas
of the city? Do we need another active park? Will we need another active
park if this city should develop? Is it prudent to put a very large park
in basically the downtown area when we've got a very large part of the city
that has yet to develop? The second question I have in my own mind is, if
we can acquire land or we're going to spend money, is this the place to
spend it? We've got a number of areas in this city that are developed that
don't have parks at all. We have a number of things corning on board that
we want to do to acquire parkland. Acquire parkland out on the west side
of Lake Minnewashta. Put a trail in out there. If we're going to spend
the money from the city...spending money to putting that trail in for the
city as opposed to what I think is going to happen out there. Expect that
the neighborhood is going to have to bear the burden of a big chunk of that
because it's going to be a major project. One last comment before I get to
the bottom line is I think that if we do acquire land out here, I think
that the land that we should acquire would be just across the northern part
or the northeastern part of the lake. I think that we should increase the
depth up there and if we acquire land it should be looked at in that area.
We've got another beach up there that is being under utilized from a
community standpoint. It's a portion of this park, connected to this park
but actually separated from this park and I would like to see, if we should
happen to acquire land, that we acquire land that would expand the depth of
~ownership for the city around Lake Ann as opposed to simply a trail. The
high end development of the Eckankar parcel, the higher density
developments are along TH 5. The lower densities are along the back part
of the property. It seems to me the prudent thing to do is to put it back
against the lake as opposed to using up higher density development along
TH 5. So I guess the bottom line, what I'm saying is, yes I think if we
can acquire that property through dedication or at a reasonable cost
compared to what we can purchase land for in other areas of the city which
are undeveloped, I think we should go ahead and do it. I don't think that
we should recommend to the Council necessarily that the City go ahead and
pay top dollar for the land. I think that's an issue that the citizens
have to decide. Those are my comments. Any further comments from the
commission? Public comments.
Maddie Hickey: I have really felt treated very rudely by you tonight. My
name is Maddie Hickey. I live at 6990 Utica Lane. I respect your opinion.
However, I'm a citizen and I guess I'm requesting that you respect mine. I
respect that you did a lot of research today. I likewise have done a lot
of research and this is my city as well as yours. It's our city. I was
appalled over the small park. I was appalled last week, or 2 weeks ago
when this little group, Curry Farms, got up and their needs are not being
met yet they were promised. My feeling is then the City should borrow
money and if they're going to go out and make promises, then by god, follow
them through. I don't agree with having all these little parks. Lake Ann
happens to be the only clean park we have left in Chanhassen. I listened 2
~weeks ago to the Lake Susan residents. They do not want anymore access on
that lake. I have talked to many legislators today and last week. They
all say Chanhassen, don't be stupid. Hang on to your prime land. We will
assist you. You mentioned the grants today. There's that grant available.
This gentleman back here is part of Eckankar, I respect your religion.
However, I've lived here for 17 years. You are not a religion that is
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 34
--'
going to give back to our community. You're going to come in and make it
your headquarters.
Hasek: Maddie, I ask you to keep Eckankar out of this. What we're talking
about is parkland.
Maddie Hickey: Alright. It is parkland but he's here for one reason.
Just to bring out the religious issue. It isn't a religious issue with me.
It's a land use issue and the issue is, they are not going to be giving to
us. They are going to be taki.ng from us and that's when you get in and you
fight. You fight for your own land. There are people out there that have
promised they would aid us. Becky Kelso. Our State Senator. There are
funds out there available. Hennepin County would be more than happy to
make it a regional park. They say if it's your only clean lake left, don't
be foolish enough to let it go. We're so threatened by Eckankar because
their religion hiding under the First Amendment, that we can't even fight
for our own land. It's stupid. It's absolutely stupid and if we're going
to be a community that's going to balk in a corner and say we're not going
to fight, there's monies out there.
Hasek: I don't understand how that addresses the issue of parkland Maddie.
Let's get back to parkland.
Maddie Hickey: 100% parkland. It's been a parkland issue. Had I known
that that land was available and in a foreclosure, I would have been up at -'
City Hall a long time ago. I wasn't aware. How many of us were and all of
a sudden, now it's sold, tax free and we've lost this prime land next
to Lake Ann. That has made it become an issue. There's no way Eckankar
has not made it become an issue. That's just logical but there are ways to
hang onto the land for our own community use. Hennepin County, they'd come
in and make it a regional center. We can use the LAWCON method of
acquiring the land. We went out, we got our petition. We all worked
really hard. We have over 2,500 people that say acquire the land but when
it came right down to bottom line, can we afford it? No, we can't. But we
certainly can afford it if we can get funding from other areas for park
development. That's the only thing they'll give us funding for. One
reason. Park development but we could slice off 50 acres for schools and
condemn that part ourselves and use that school part.
Hasek: 50 acres?
Maddie Hickey: That's what they told us. All we'd need for a school and
community center...
Leneda Rahe: Was that the commissioner that you spoke to tonight?
Maddie Hickey: No, that was at the last Council meeting. They said 50
acres was a reasonable amount of land for a community center, a school, the
whole schebang and you were the one who said...or do you mean ballfields
and he said including ballfields. And that can be done.
....",
Hasek: I have a quick question for you. You mentioned that Hennepin
County would be willing to help us or you thought they would. First of
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 35
,....
all, who was it that you talked to and second of all, how could that be
accommodated?
Maddie Hickey: Alright. I will tell you his name is David Debrowski.
He's on the airport commission. He's also the Chairman of the
Hennepin County Park Board. He says fight for your land. Don't be a bunch
of idiots. That's the word he said. Don't be a bunch of idiots out there.
Fight for your land.
Hasek: Yes, but how would they assist us I guess is the question.
Maddie Hickey: Making it a regional park.
Hasek: But they would have to purchase the land then?
Maddie Hickey: No, they would condemn it.
Hasek: They haven't got condemnation powers yet. That hasn't been proven
in court. That's being fought right now so that's...
Maddie Hickey: They are going to win. They are going to win. They do
have that power just as Chanhassen. Alright I'm going to tell you who else
I've contacted. All the commissioners, they've invited me to come to the
"""State. Make a presentation. They are listening. They are hearing and
Harold Trendy was the assistant chair, told me today, Maddie he said, I
don't think that you're going to...getting State funding going through
Hennepin County. Not that they won't do it. And David Debrowski said he
would definitely help us but he said the smart way to do it, Harold Trendy
said, keep it within the City. Use the LAWCON which means the funding goes
directly to the city. Now I'm going to address them next Tuesday morning.
Becky Kelso said she will do anything in her power to support us. The
assistant to Bob Schmitz who's name is, I didn't write down his name, said
when we get it arranged which way we are going to go, then we contact them
regarding state funding. There is state funding available. I'm appalled
that nobody that was in our government ever knew about this. I dug this
out and I'll give you each a copy. I'm no brilliant warrier but I read the
Sunday paper about all that's happening on Lake Minnetonka. And I'm
reading this and I'm reading the legislature will kick in 6 million in 1986
to finance the Lake Minnetonka is being asked for another 5.2 million in
the current. Now how come our community doesn't know any of this? How
come we've been fighting all this and nobody's got the smarts to know this
money is available?
Hasek: Ask your Council Maddie. That's not our job.
Maddie Hickey: I'm no brilliant warrier. I just have to take what I read
in the paper on Sunday and I checked it out.
~Schroers: Maddie I am aware of some of that funding that's going on and I
. am also aware of the fact that the Hennepin County Park Board has politic
clout with the City of Chanhassen they never obtained in helping to procure
some of these funds and support. What you're saying is great. I don't
think there's anyone sitting here that's going to tell you that we wouldn't
like to have that land out there. But we don't have the kind of political
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 36
clout just to go out and grab it. That's not going to happen. We could
try. We could work towards procuring a grant or maybe looking
realistically at some point in time down the road of getting a parcel of it
through dedication or maybe even trying to persuade Eckankar to make a
donation of a portion of it for parkland but to try to compare us to the
Hennepin County Board is like trying to compare Chanhassen to the whole
city of Minneapolis. You can't do it.
--'
Maddie Hickey: I know the clout they hold. My thing is how come nobody
was aware that these kind of funds were available? I didn't know about it
but I'm not on any of the commissions and they're very available. And he
almost guaranteed me he would help us. He said granted I'm tied up right
now in this Minnetonka. When we win it, he said call me immediately. I'll
be there to help you. Now the commissioner is out. We shouldn't go that
route. It was his opinion we should go the other route. I have no idea
which is the best way. I'm just saying, I read the paper Sunday and all of
a sudden I'm finding money coming from heaven that's just there for the
grabbing.
Schroers: I don't think it's quite that way. I think that there is some
funding available provided that you can qualify for it and there is certain
criteria that you have to meet in order to qualify for the funding that's
available. I think that if we were in a position that we could qualify for
funding, that I hope we would know about it and we would pursue it.
Maddie Hickey: Well according to Debrowski, we would qualify especially -'
because it's our only clean lake.
Hasek: We've got about 5 minutes left so.
Leneda Rahe: That's what I was going to ask you. Because I represent
about 30 families, I'd like to beg your permission to take more than 5
minutes so that I can go back to the committee and relay some things that I
would like clarified and I do have a few questions. If I could just have
maybe 15 more minutes of your time. My name is Leneda Rahe and I live at
1021 Carver Beach Road.
Hasek: Leneda, what I would like to do, we do have a time limit and I'd
like to adhere to it tonight. That was my intention when I started this
meeting.
Leneda Rahe: Is that posted in the paper that there's a limit on the
meeting?
Hasek: We have in our rules adopted a 10:00 time limit on this particular
meeting.
Leneda Rahe: Is there another issue after this?
Sietsema: Yes.
Hasek: There are several other issues that have to be addressed tonight so-'
what I'd like to be able to do is to limit your comments, if you would
please, to 5 minutes. If you'd like to submit your questions. We're not
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 37
,...,
the ones that are probably going to answer your questions. It would
probably be staff.
Leneda Rahe: I'd like to address Mark Koegler. The comprehensive plan
which was presented to the Planning Commission approximately one month ago
stated that the Eckankar property adjacent to TH 5 and CR 17 was looking at
that being used for commercial use. Is that still going to be written up
in the Comprehensive Plan and that would take away our potential park?
Koegler: There's been no decision by the Planning Commission at all.
Leneda Rahe: I know there hasn't.
Koegler: You referenced the plan was addressed by the Planning Commission
one month ago. In actuality it's been addressed by them periodically for
the last 18 months.
Leneda Rahe:
commercial.
When I was there, they had one of them that was written in
Is that still being looked at as a possibility?
Koegler: I don't know what you're referencing. I honestly don't recall a
map that said that because the City's land use map which is in accordance
with the zoning which shows that property is residential right now. The
~property, there was reference that historically that site was at one time
shown as commercial. That's maybe what you're referencing.
Leneda Rahe: Okay, the other question that I have was that if you're
looking at parkland that goes beyond to the west, which is the tree
nursery, they are looking at extending the MUSA line by the year 2000 are
they not? So then we're not looking at tying up property that is
MUSA really because they're going to extend it right if we look at Lake
Ann?
Hasek: I guess that's a question of whether it is or isn't done.
Koegler: 6 to 7 years ago, this line was going to be moved in 1990. Now
it's not going to be until the year 2000. The City is certainly advocating
moving by 2000 but that really was again...
Leneda Rahe: I don't know if you can answer this question but Eckankar has
stated that they will not make any agreements with us until we pass the
conditional use permit. Is that their right legally? Does anybody here
know? I feel if it's not legal or necessary, we should try to make sure
that we get the parkland before the conditional use permit and since you're
making a recommendation to the City Council, I was wondering if this could
be part of that recommendation. That we make sure that we say we want a
certain amount of land before the conditional use permit is granted. I'd
like to know how you feel, what your comments are on that being a
~recommendation to the Council.
Sietsema: Can I respond to that?
Hasek: Sure.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 38
-'
Sietsema: Because they're not subdividing, they have no requirements to
make any park dedication...
(There was a tape change at this point.)
Schroers: It'd be like the City corning in and saying we want to buy your
front yard. You can sell it to us or you don't have to sell it to us.
Leneda Rahe: Alright, I didn't realize there was a time limit on the
meetings so if we have further meetings, should we just call staff?
Sietsema: Sure.
Leneda Rahe: And will it be corning before the Park and Rec again?
Sietsema: If it comes in writing, I will present it to the Park and
Recreation Commission. I can address your questions over the phone but if
you want the Park and Recreation Commission to address something
specifically, you should write me a letter requesting what you want them to
act on.
Leneda Rahe: I would also like just for the record say that I felt too
that we were treated very rudely tonight by Mr. Ed Hasek. We didn't corne
here to fight. We just wanted to ask questions and to be heard.
Hasek: I guess just in my own defense. I shouldn't even be doing this
I guess because...if there was an argument, I didn't understand what the
argument was if there was one.
....."
Maddie Hickey: There wasn't an argument but I just said could I speak and
you just very rudely went not now. I immediately interpretted it, I'm
limited to what it's going to be.
Hasek: Maddie, it's being run like a meeting.
If you want to look at, indicate that once the
their comments, I do have the right to keep it
and then take other comments.
Robert's Rules of Order.
commission begins making
to the commission's comments
Maddie Hickey: But maybe nicer.
Hasek: Nicely? I thought I was being nice. I guess I was being direct.
Maddie Hickey: You were being rude.
Hasek: We need a recommendation. Would anyone like to formulate one?
Sietsema: I don't know that a recommendation is needed. They wanted your
comments. They wanted to know how you felt about it. Unless you have
something to add, I don't really need a motion.
Schroers: I would just like to say thank you to Van Doren, Hazard, ~
Stallings and Mark Koegler for being consistent and doing a good job in the
short time. It's nice to be able to count on someone like Mark and Van
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 39
"....
Doren, Hazard and Stallings. Thanks very much Mark.
WORK SESSION ON 1990 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET.
Sietsema: At the last meeting, if you want to look at the second page
under 1990 proposed capital improvement program. What I have is what was
proposed as of our last meeting. What you had cut out and whittled it down
to was $384,000.00 to capital improvement. No, that was the original.
Your wish list. The second is the revised which you got it down to was
$204,000.00. Then I have proposed an additional revised which brings it
down to $106,500.00. You turn to the next page, it shows the reserved
amount. The revised, the bottom line was $275,000.00. The proposed is
$465,000.00. Then on the third page I tried to outline exactly how we got
to the bottom line of how much money we have to deal with. At the end of
1988, we had $460,000.00. In 1989 our expected revenue is $173,000.00
which brings our starting 1989 balance to $263,000.00. After expenditures
that are expected in 1989, we'll have a year end balance of $383,770.00.
That's our year end balance. Our expected 1990 revenue is $173,000.00 with
a starting balance of $556,000.00. With the proposed expenditures of what
I have as the proposed revised and the proposed revised reserve, we still
need to cut $15,000.00 of the budget to come to zero which means there is
no leftovers. Keep in mind that the reserve also takes out $100,000.00 of
~bonding capacity and you have to determine whether you think this is
something we should use or not. The referendum that was passed for the
parkland acquisition was $300,000.00. Bandimere property, is everything
goes through on that, is $200,000.00. That leaves $100,000.00. We had
discussed in all of our discussions that the park property would be in the
southern part of Chanhassen. The question asked on the ballot was not in
southern Chanhassen so we could use that $100,000.00 of bonding capacity to
purchase other parkland in the city. So that could take and purchase the
Lake Lucy outlot if we need to put an access there or the Carrico property
or other areas of the city. The west side of Lake Minnewashta. Other park
deficient areas.
Mady: You said that the referendum wasn't specifically the southern area?
Sietsema: Right.
Robinson: Legally we could do that. We all knew that we were talking
about I think the southern part of Chanhassen.
Mady: We're also not talking $100,000.00 because the property was about
$200,000.00 right?
Sietsema: Yes.
Mady: We've got $300,000.00 in referendum dollars and then we have to have
~10% of that coming out just in referendum costs. Bonding costs so it's
~ack to maybe $70,000.00. Typically it's about 10% of the referendum has
to go to bonding costs.
Erhart: How would that change too if we get Bandimere's property...
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 40
Sietsema: It's still there. It's still available until we spend it on
something else and we will know this year if that happens before we get
into the 1990 budget.
Erhart: If we spent $210,000.00.
Sietsema: $200,000.00. The asking price was $210,000.00 and we got it for
$200,000.00.
....."
Robinson: But if that falls through, we've got $270,000.00 that we can go
somewhere else.
Sietsema: Anywhere else, right.
Robinson: Legally.
Mady: But we have commitments.
Sietsema: Ethically, that's another question. That's your determination.
The bottom line is that we need to cut, if you agree with what my proposed
revised is and I have to, going through this I'm taking out the picnic
shelter at Lake Ann. I put that on the reserve. Combined the two that we
had been talking about. I cut down the trail at Chan Pond down to
$3,000.00 from $9,000.00. I took out part of the South Lotus Lake park
development and did it as a phased development. I took out part of the
City Center totlot equipment and park development and made that into a ~
phased development. That's about it. That brings it down to $106,000.00.
Lash: A question on the picnic shelter. You moved that to reserve right?
Sietsema: Right.
Lash: Is that supposed to be Lake Ann's shelter?
Sietsema: Right.
Lash: How come it's $100,000.00. What did we have before?
Sietsema: We had $55,000.00 in there before.
Lash: That was that boathouse thing wasn't it?
Sietsema: That's the community room on top and the boat rental and the
changing rooms. The other one that you were talking about was an open air
shelter on top of the hill that was $30,000.00.
Lash: So actually this would be Lake Ann shelters?
Sietsema: Lake Ann shelters, combining those two because it becomes, if
something's got to go, I think we can live with one shelter.
....."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 41
"'"
Mady: I had a question Lori on the Carrico reserve. Where do we stand
right now with that park purchase?
Sietsema: The City Council is being asked to approve another appraisal on
it.
Mady: I'm real concerned at this point in time that the first appraisal
came in at $55,eee.ee to $57,eee.ee. Now we're being told to reserve
$lSe,ee0.ee for 11 acres of land in the non-sewered area of the city. I
think we've got to start looking, we can go maybe across the road and find
land a little cheaper. I'm real concerned that we can maybe go into Lake
Lucy Highlands right across the street there and use the Corps of Engineers
to move those hills down a little bit and have a heck of a lot cheaper
land. I'm real concerned with spending $lSe,eee.ee for 11 acres of land.
That's an outrageous price.
Sietsema: That's why we've asked for the second appraisal.
Mady: But we're still in a situation that they own the land. You have to
go through condemnation to prove that our appraisal is better than his
appraisal, correct?
"",Sietsema: Correct.
Lash: His came in at $33e,eee.ee right?
Mady: Yes.
Robinson: Lori, I'm still on the back page and I can follow it down to the
$571,50e.ee proposed 19ge expenditures. What is that?
Sietsema: That was if you combine what is proposed revised and proposed
reserve.
Robinson: Okay.
Sietsema: So an easy solution then would be to take $15,eee.ee out of the
Carrico. That still would be, if you decide not to purchase that, that
would still not go anywhere.
Mady: My inclination is, on this budget as it sits, just because of the
Carrico situation, if we were to reserve more than $lee,eee.ee for the
Carrico land, that land now is too expensive for a neighborhood park. It's
just outrageous. We have a need there for approximately 5 to 7 acres of
land. We can buy a whole thing if it's nice but now we're spending
$lSe,eee.ee for a neighborhood park, god this is unbelieveable.
Sietsema: Then what I would do is change that from Carrico acquisition to
~Carrico acquisition and development. That's one way to go.
Mady: We've got other needs in the City.
This is my comment.
Lash: Not only that, does this end up being public record?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 42
......"
Sietsema: Eventually. When it goes into the finalized.
Lash: Okay, so this guy who's holding us hostage for this property is
going to see that we're budgeting $180,000.00 Do you think he's ever going
to be willing to come down lower than that? No. He's going to know that
we have budgeted $180,000.00 for his property.
Erhart: I don't think that makes any difference. If he has an idea in
his mind that this property is worth an x amount of dollars, it doesn't
matter what we have.
Lash: No, but he's already saying $330,000.00 and we're saying $60,000.00.
Then all of a sudden if he sees $180,000.00 in our budget.
Sietsema: I think the attorney and Carrico have come to pretty much an
understanding that both of the appraisals were ridiculous and a third one
is needed to find out what a true picture is.
Lash: Maybe what we need to do is put a ceiling on how much we are willing
to spend for park property for that area.
Mady: I guess what we're doing is we're making a lot of compromises in the
revision which we need to do but some of these things, I mean we promised
the City Center Park thing of $40,000.00. We've talked about that number .
all along and we're going to give that to the school. We have APT thinking~
we're going to do that and we've been putting them off all year as it is,
now we're going tell them it's phasing it in. We've got to find something
else.
Robinson: I agree with you Jim. We put off development of the South Lotus
Lake Park a couple years now because we needed to steal the money for other
things.
Sietsema: Do you just want to go down and start doing something?
Robinson: Rewhittle?
Sietsema: Yes.
Mady: I guess my concern is the City Center Park put that back up. We're
getting people yelling and screaming at us down at Chanhassen Hills and
Lake Susan Hills for development and they're not going to be addressed.
Sietsema: We've got people screaming at us at South Lotus now too. I just
got a letter from them.
Mady: Okay, those are all there.
Sietsema: Take a number.
Mady: Yes, that's exactly it. Take a number. I would like to see us
limit the reserve of Carrico to $100,000.00, or rather for Pheasant Hills
"""""""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 43
""
Park. Not Carrico but the Pheasant Hills area park. Lake Lucy Highlands/
Pheasant Hills park area $100,000.00. We can spread some of it out but we
need to have at $10,000.00 sitting as a discretionary thing for thing~ like
we have like today with Curry Farms coming in here and asking for $3,000.00
because of a match. When the CAA comes in here with a match and anybody
else that does that or an opportunity that presents itself that's not cheap
and not expensive so we can do something. We need that flexibility there.
Robinson: I totally agree and I'm not sure we've come down far enough Jim.
That's still on a 5 acre parcel is $20,000.00 an acre.
Sietsema: Carrico, it's 11 acres.
Hasek: We're talking about the total purchase.
Mady: We're talking about a 5 acre park.
Robinson: We can survive with 5 acres. They'd at least have something
there.
Hasek: So if we are going to suggest that we limit the purchase of that
property to 5 acres, or if it comes down it, condemn only 5 acres of that
~parcel, and we put a figure on it, I'd be in favor of that. We can put a
figure on it here. I guess Council's got the ultimate decision as to
whether they accept or reject any kind... It's entirely possible that the
value of the land is going to be, the commission that reviews this thing on
condemnation might say yes, it's worth $15,000.00-$20,000.00 an acre but
because it is adjacent to the MUSA line it will potentially develop at some
point and that is the ultimate value of land. If you put a ceiling on it,
I guess the question is where is the ceiling? Do we want the park at
whatever the cost or not?
Mady: I guess I'm looking at pain threshold. When I get over $100,000.00
for a neighborhood park, I hit my pain threshold. At that point in time in
supposedly still a rural area, we're paying top dollar.
Hasek: We knew that going in.
Mady: Yes, but I think the top is maybe...
Robinson: That's fine. I don't have a problem with $100,000.00 I guess.
It's better than where we were.
Schroers: 5 acres is the minimum that we have set for a neighborhood park.
We're talking about spending $100,000.00 on a minimum amount of land.
Robinson: That's fine. So like Jan said, we've now got $65,000.00.
~Hasek: So we're back to the positive, back to what plus? Discretionary
$10,000.00? Is that what you want to put? Are you going to put $20,000.00
back into South Lotus?
Mady: I want to see the City Center get bumped up to $44,000.00.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 44
-"
Sietsema: If you take the $80,000.00 out of the reserve and you take
$24,000.00 back onto City Center Park and you have the $10,000.00
discretionary, you have $44,000.00 minus the $15,000.00, you're back down
to $30,000.00.
Hasek: We have $30,000.00 left.
Lash: South Lotus for $25,000.00. What can you do for $25,000.00?
Hasek: South Lotus is the one we're having problems with because of the
alignment right?
Sietsema: Right. $25,000.00 will get you two tennis courts or it will get
you the softball, tot lot and the grading.
Lash: Can they live with that?
Sietsema: I think so. I think they'd be happy with something. Or we
could go with one tennis court.
Robinson: I think as long as you put the tennis court in, you might as
well do none or two.
Hasek: Did we or did we not try and start an acquisition...
-'
Schroers: How many tennis courts do you really want?
Robinson: We rolled that over. We had that in our 1988 budget. We said
no, we'll take it out of 1988 and put it into 1989. Now we're rolling a
portion of it to 1990.
Sietsema: And we started two acquisition funds.
Erhart: Curt can be looking out for his park over there. We should go
back to Bandimere Heights now for the totlot.
Robinson: No, but some little amount like that.
Hasek: But Bandimere is being developed hopefully.
Erhart: But if we have to wait 5 years.
Mady: We should at least know if we're going to purchase it or not before
we make a decision on it. We need a good plan.
Sietsema: Until the new facilities are in place, we don't have room for
more totlot with what's down there. We don't.
Lash: I guess I would be in favor of putting a little bit back into as
many things as we can. Not put one big chunk into...
-'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 45
If1""'"
Erhart: Yes, and the neighbors would be happy with just a couple swings
they told me.
Lash: If you put on the list to look at North Lotus, this is phase 2? So
they already have something?
Mady: They already have something there.
Sietsema: If we've got $3@,@@@.@@, why don't we put $l@,@@@.@@ at
Chanhassen Hills and $l@,@@@.@@ at Curry Farms and $l@,@@@.@@...
Schroers: Pheasant Hills, what can we do there?
Sietsema: And pheasant Hills if we get property there.
Mady: We've already committed the extra playground equipment that we have
sitting in storage to them so they have, we've addressed their immediate
concern.
Hasek: What can we do for l@ at Curry Farms?
Sietsema: Second phase totlot equipment and we could do a half court
basketball court.
,....
Schroers: Is the second phase going to accommodate a lot more of those
children that are under 5 years old?
Sietsema: Yes.
Schroers: You know I'm in favor of doing that and I would like to see the
kids have a place to play there but I felt that they didn't seem very
respectful of our agreeing to match the funds from Centex. It was like, I
got the impression that they said okay, that's good. We expect you to do
that but we want more besides. We have other areas of the city that have
been patiently waiting for something and we sort of went out of our way to
try to do something here and then they acted like gee that's just expected
and we want a lot more real soon too.
Erhart: I think they're just putting the pressure on us because that's
what they asked us for last meeting and we told them to just keeping
voicing their opinions. So maybe they didn't mean to be disrespectful but
they were putting the pressure on us Larry.
Hasek: It's the nature of the politics at this point. Getting a lot of
people out and interested in pOlitics. I think what's being misunderstood
is that you don't have feelings...
Mady: Making such a problem with Curry Farms and Centex Homes, they never
were promised anything. The City didn't promise them a park. We didn't
~?romise them we were going to develop something right away. We never did
that. The developer may have said that when he sold their land. We don't
control that. That happens all the time with us. Developers come in here
and say, we're going to have this beautiful park for you. Well, yes maybe.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 46
....,.,
Schroers: The last meeting we told them we would try to get some weeds cut
down so they had an open area for the kids to play. Now look at how far
we've come since then. Then they're sitting here telling us that we
better do some more besides. I guess I'm certainly interested in their
comments but I don't think they showed much appreciation for what was
accomplished in a short time.
Mady: You have to respect the fact that we have new neighborhoods in Lake
Susan Hills who are also young families coming in. Chanhassen Hills who
are also young families who are yelling and screaming for parkland.
Schroers:
Pheasant
allover
Pheasant
And Pheasant Hills and I personally rode my bicycle through
Hills the other night on a very nice evening and there were kids
the street. I don't like to see that. I want to see a place in
Hills for the kids to play too.
Hasek: Can I suggest we put that playground equipment back into Lake Ann?
Lash: I agree with that.
Hasek: There is garbage up there. I was there again the other night.
Sietsema: Well, we've got $10,000.00 of new stuff worth this year.
Mady: Turn that out this year if we can.
....,.,
Hasek: Okay, so that's going to.be replaced. The question is, is there a
need for new and where would it go?
Sietsema: Well we're doing phase 1 of 2 phases.
Hasek: Let's do both phases.
Mady: We had the opportunity once we get 2 months down the road, I would
think with the development of Lake Ann, to know where we stand with change
orders. The bid came in a lot less than what we have. Not a lot but
substantially less than what we have so we can fund that potentially
through.
Hasek: Or we could fund the regrading.
Sietsema: You're going to need some money to do that Little League field.
Mady: Right now we have roughly $50,000.00 do we not?
Hasek: Does that include contingencies or can they go over that estimate
by l0%?
Mady: I'm sure they can with change orders.
....."
Hasek: I think legally they can be 10% off.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 47
I"'"
Sietsema: I think so too.
Mady: But we still will potentially have some money.
Sietsema: But that's going to get eaten up in a Babe Ruth field and a
Little League field mighty fast. That fence wasn't in there. The whole
fence.
Hasek: Just to move things on here, we're over the hour already and we
want to make some rational decisions. Rather than say no, let's get some
yeses going. Where would we like to see it? We've still got $30,000.00 to
work with.
Lash: What can we do at Chan Hills? Anything. It's not graded or
anything.
Sietsema: It will be.
Hasek: Chan Hills did get a call. Remember I told you we got a call.
Sietsema: I get calls from Chan Hills.
Hasek: I got a call from someone in Chan Hills that said there was a
~chance that maybe they could put together a deal for grading out there.
They said they were going to call you and ask about getting on this
particular meeting and I told them I didn't think it was possible. Did you
get a chance to talk anybody?
Sietsema: I didn't get a call.
Hasek: Then they're still organizing out there but there is some potential
for a matching situation out there...
Mady: Let's put $10,000.00 in there and make it available and see what we
can do.
Hasek: I still would like, if anybody doesn't object, I'd like to put the
second phase of the playground equipment in at Lake Ann. Then at Lake
Susan Hills West. So that takes care of it then?
Sietsema: Wait a minute. What was the last l0?
Hasek: We had 10 into Lake Ann. We've got 10 into Chan Hills and we had
10 into Lake Susan Hills West and add 24 back into City Center. You had 10
into a discretionary fund.
Sietsema: I don't think that Lake Susan Hills West needs it yet. I'd
rather see you put $10,000.00 at Lake Susan Park. We have no totlot
~equipment at a community park there.
Mady: Can we just say the Lake Susan area then? Do we have to be park
specific?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 48
"""'"
Sietsema: No.
Mady: Maybe we could do it that way so that if they come in here...
Lash: What about Carver Beach? I see there was $3,000.00 there. Is that
clean up thing kind of progressing?
Sietsema: Yes, we're working on it.
Schroers: Now that we've brough that up, can you tell me quickly, is there
a construction date for putting this trail in along Carver Beach?
Sietsema: They're doing the Laredo one now. It's about almost halfway. A
third of the way and as soon as they're done there, they'll be doing Carver
Beach.
Schroers: So you anticipate within a month then?
Sietsema: Oh yeah.
Schroers: I've had some neighbors ask questions.
Sietsema: The revisions were to cut $80,000.00 off of the Carrico
acquisition. Bring the City Center totlot equipment up to $44,000.00. Adc
$10,000.00 for miscellaneous incidentals. Put $10,000.00 for totlot at -'
Chan Hills. $10,000.00 for totlot at Lake Ann and $10,000.00 for totlot at
a Lake Susan area. That brings us to budget.
Lash: I one other quick question too on the budget reserve. Is that west
Minnewashta acquisition $75,000.00? What is it?
Sietsema: It was identified as a park deficient area and you wanted to
develop an acquisition fund so I put that name on it because that seemed to
be . . .
Lash: Is that what we talked about a few weeks ago about putting money
aside?
Sietsema: Right.
Lash: Did we decide that we wanted to classify it as to location?
Sietsema: You can take the classification off if you want. I just had
that down as a park. That's the number one park deficient area, according
to the Comp Plan so I put it on there.
Lash: That doesn't commit us to anything?
Sietsema: But it makes us look more accountable that we have a direction.
That we have identified an area rather than some pie in the sky.
.......,
Hasek: The nice thing about the acquisition fund there, if we do get wind
of a parcel, there's a chance that we can begin to acquire it before it
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 16, 1989 - Page 49
"
becomes apparent that's what we're trying to do and actually get a good
deal on it for a change. If we haven't got the money out there and we have
to go through this whole ball of wax to try and get the money together-, by
that time the landowner knows and the price goes up.
Lash: I understand all that. I just didn't recall we had put a name to
it.
Sietsema: Is there a motion?
Hasek: A motion to approve as revised.
Mady: Second.
Hasek moved, Mady seconded to revise the 1989 Capital Improvement Program
budget as follows: Cut $80,000.00 off of the Carrico acquisition. Bring
the City Center totlot equipment up to $44,000.00. Add $10,000.00 for
miscellaneous incidentals. Put $10,000.00 for totlot at Chan Hills.
$10,000.00 for totlot at Lake Ann and $10,000.00 for totlot at a Lake Susan
area. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
~Erhart: Lori what is going on with the grading out at Bandimere location
there?
Sietsema: The grading?
Erhart: Well, the pipeline.
Sietsema: Mark's working with William's Brothers and they're real hard to
work with is what he's finding. They won't tell you anything. So the
fellow who's supposed to provide a survey, we're working on how it can all
be laid out. I've got Mark working on it.
Hasek: Does Mark see a problem with the pipeline? Was it something we
weren't aware of and should have been made aware of?
Sietsema: possibly. I'm not really sure if that's something to be upset
about or not. Initial indications are it's something we can work around.
Mady moved, Robinson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
~prepared by Nann Opheim