Loading...
PRC 1989 07 11 ,...... ,...... ,J1I"" PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 1989 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt, Ed Hasek, Curt Robinson, Jan Lash, Dawne Erhart and Larry Schroers STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Schroers seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June 27, 1989 as amended by Jan Lash on page 14, where it says Lash, to change it to Jeanne Hanely. All voted in favor except Hasek who abstained and the motion carried. REVIEW PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS FOR OAKVIEW HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUMS. Sietsema: At the last meeting the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed their previous recommendation to require recreational facilities that would be private facilities to meet the immediate needs of this development and to accept the park dedication fees. That recommendation was overturned with the recommendation to require 4 acres of active parkland. In discussion since with the developer, he's unable to do the project with the dedication of 4 acres of parkland. Given the cost of the property and that if he dedicates, takes that 4 acres of parkland out of the proposal, then he no longer gets the density that the property is zoned for and he's purchasing the property based on that density. It's reflected in the price. Therefore it renders the project unfeasible. Even if the project were feasible with the land dedication, I wanted to bring to your attention that 4 acres of parkland, we would have to compensate the developer for the price of the property, the same amount as he pays for the property. That would be $160,000.00 for that property and the park dedication fee, even with the sliding scale would amount to approximately $120,000.00. That would bring the cost of the property, that piece of parkland above and beyond the park dedication fee upwards of $40,000.00. In addition to that, we'd have to pay our share of the street improve ents that would abut that property. Staff feels, I feel that by accepting the previous recommendation to require the private recreational facilities, we do meet the immediate needs of that neighborhood and it would allow us to accept the park dedication fee where we could purchase property in another site or improve an existing piece of property. If we purchase something different, say we went across Powers Blvd., the Eckankar property is valued at somewhere between $20,000.00 and $24,000.00 and acre. We could buy 5 acres of more useable land than what this is given the topography of this site. Therefore, given all of the facts, putting it all together, it was my recommendation then to go back to the previous recommendation to require the recreational facilities and the park dedication fees. Robinson: So what we had seen 2 weeks ago, or whenever, the totlot, the basketball court and volleyball court, will remain? Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 2 Sietsema: Would if that's what you decided to do. If the motion is reconsidered and passes on what I'm proposing, then we would go back to ~ of the scenarios. Mady: Do we need a motion to reconsider before we even start discussing it? This is a closed item so we need a motion to reconsider before we discuss it. Sietsema: I just wanted to respond to his question. If you don't want me to, I won't. Mady: Go ahead. Sietsema: I was just going to show the previous site plan where he showed the different totlot, where the totlot and the basketball and volleyball would fit in. Schroers: I have a question Lori. When you're talking about going over to the Eckankar property and getting 5 acres, now do we know that Eckankar will sell us 5 acres? Sietsema: No, we don't at this time know that they will although they have indicated in previous conversations with them that they'd be willing to sell a portion for other park purposes, community center type purposes. I don't know if they'd be willing right adjacent, I have not contacted them to find out their willingness. It's just an example that that's another piece of property that's almost half the price of this that we could tak~ the fees from this development and meet the park needs that this development is going to generate and meet those needs on another site. Schroers: That is the bottom line no matter what we decide to do here. We wouldn't be being responsible or doing our job if we ended up with something less than what's going to be adequate for the new residents. It wouldn't be fair to them. Sietsema: Or we could take those fees and put it towards the purchase of the Hanson property that's north of the school and redesign the City Center Park to be more efficient and accommodate more users. That would also be another option. Schroers: And in both of those options, they would require that the people in that neighborhood would have to cross a major road in order to get to that? Sietsema: Right, they'd have to cross either Kerber Blvd. or Powers. Mady: Is there a motion to reconsider? Hasek: Can I just ask, I'll just...stand right now. I wasn't here at the last meeting. What is the motion on the floor? Sietsema: There is no motion on the floor. Staff was just bringing, I ~ just bringing back the previous motion to, the recommendation was to ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 3 ,...... require 4 acres of parkland from the Oak View Heights proposal. Prior to that, at the meeting that you were at prior to that was to require the recreational facilities and the park fees. Hasek: The only comment I have I guess, and just a basic understanding of what happened last time, I apologize for not being here, where would the 4 acres come from? What 4 acres would we get on the site? Schroers: Well we can't get the 4 acres. The developer is saying that if we take 4 acres from his development, he'll scratch the project. Hasek: Okay, and that is what you're recommending then? Still you want 4 acres as of right now? There hasn't been an alternate motion? Sietsema: Right. Hasek: What are the alternatives that have been discussed so far? Sietsema: To take the park dedication fee and purchase another piece of property that would be in the service area of this site or to use it to redesign and add to the City Center Park. Hasek: And the developer says if we ask for 4 acres, he's obviously going to go to Council with it beyond this. """""" Sietsema: Right. Hasek: Do we have any feel for what Council feels on this? What do they think? Boyt: They might support what we're asking. Hasek: 4 acres? Is there a compromise between the two someplace? I'm just asking. What I'm afriad of out there is, I know that there's a big chunk of property. Let's just assume that the developer goes ahead and plats it and he decides to give us 4 acres. Out of that 12 acre piece, or 18 acres I guess it was, can we assume that that 4 acres is going to be all useable? Boyt: For us to accept it, it would have to be. Hasek: So then we're asking him at that point to somehow manage to develop or to crowd the development for the unuseable parts of that into the remaining 14 acres and not cutting any trees down either. Boyt: If we have a motion to reconsider, I will then make a motion to ask for more acreage because 4 acres is the low... I don't think we're being responsible in asking for less than what's. required. Hasek: That's why I'm wondering if there's a compromise in there someplace ,..... that we might ask for? Schroers: I think 4 acres was a compromise. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 4 Boyt: It was. It was going way down. ..."". Hasek: What I'm suggesting is going back up again in a different way. Taking a chunk of ground and a chunk of cash. Lash: Well if he'll settle for 4 acres, we're still looking at some cash. Sietsema: No. We'd have to pay an addition. Hasek: Have you done this anywhere else in the City? Is there any precedent for having taken a chunk of ground for one particular project? Sietsema: Where we've taken property? Parkland? Hasek: Yes, for example where we've got an apartment complex that went in, that we've got a high density development going in and we ask them to... Boyt: We've seen a high density project go in next door that didn't require it but now we're asking for it and now they're putting it in anyway because they see the demand there. They're putting in little totlots throughout and we didn't ask for it. Mady: At Lake Susan Hills West, the high density portion of that, we required that they put their parkland in adjacent to that high density development because we knew there would be a lot of people there. Hasek: I've worked on a number of cities where they basically, when a project like this comes in, the City will say that this is kind of above and beyond the burden that's supposed to be born by the regular policies of the City and they'll require a fairly substantial amount of open space and parkland specifically to serve that particular development. If we did take 4 acres here, it would be 4 acres that basically would serve this development and that's what I'm saying. We would have to provide other areas within another service area around this. This is kind of an island right? They're serving themselves. They're building this park basically for themselves and they're being cut off... """'" Boyt: The road cuts them off and the topography. Hasek: Effectively it makes a park for them within their own area. Sietsema: That we would have to develop though. We would have to bear the cost of development. Boyt: And maintaining. One of the things you know we've seen, every week we've been in here there's people coming in here saying, we didn't plan for our park needs and now we want something. What are you going to do about it? Hasek: All I'm doing I guess is asking questions. ......, Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 5 JlII'" Robinson: At what point in time would we have to come up with the extra $40,000.00? Sietsema: As soon as they're ready to deed it over to us. for final plat. Have the plat signed. It would be soon. would say either buy it or don't take it. When they go I'm sure they Robinson: And the development obligation would be ours then also? Sietsema: Right. Hasek: What's the discussion here now? I don't understand the $40,000.00. Sietsema: If we decide to take the 4 acres of property, it's $40,000.00 per acre so it's $160,000.00. The park dedication fee would credit that amount $120,000.00 so we would have to come up with the $40,000.00 above and beyond the park dedication fee plus our share of the street improvements and for development of the park. Erhart: Have we ever had to do that in the past? Boyt: No. Never. JlII'" Sietsema: Typically the park fee is higher than the property that we've asked for but this property is so expensive that it's working the other way on us. Hasek: I was just going to say, is it really prudent? $40,000.00 an acre it is? Sietsema: That's what he told me he paid for it. Schroers: Even if we had these 4 acres, would it be reasonable to assume that we'd have to put another $80,000.00 into it to develop it? Boyt: That's not good for us. Schroers: Where's the $80,000.00 going to come from? Sietsema: Park dedication fees from someplace else or the general fund. We talked about different funding last night at our joint meeting. It comes out of the same fund as the rest of the park improvements. Hasek: So not only would we be paying top buck for the land but we'd have to come out of...and develop the propert after that. Boyt: It probably wouldn't be developed for a while. It's not in our budget for this year or next year. .~ Schroers: Then we've got to prioritize some other things. Hasek: The potential still exists that if the project does go, it would be developed out in just a couple years and then we'd have these people in Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 6 .....", here screaming at us again. We've got a ton of other areas in the city that are screaming. Robinson: But this is a clear cut deal where it isn't supporting, it's not a...like here. We're $80,000.00 down on one specific development. The rest you can say, yes we got behind a few years ago and now we're robbing Peter to pay Paul or whatever. Here, we say this is 4 acres for this development and it's going to cost us $80,000.00 from someplace else. Schroers: It'd be like you have to... Boyt: There's got to be another alternative that maybe Roger would know. We've never had to do this before. Sietsema: We gave Rosemount the credit for the amount of money that they paid for the property. Lake Susan Hills West was different because it was a PUD. They had to give above and beyond the ordinance. Mady: Is this a PUD as well? Sietsema: No. It's not. Boyt: It was my impression that this hadn't been purchased yet. That the final purchase hadn't gone through. Applicant's Representative: It won't be purchased of course until the project is approved. That's the way you do that. -' Boyt: We ran into a deal a few years ago where someone purchased a piece of property that was known that we wanted it to be parkland and then doubled the price on us or tripled the price on us so we had to pay it. Sietsema: It's not to his advantage to double the price because that would only mean that he'd have to pay that much more in park dedication fees if you choose that route because it's 17% to 20% of the value of the property is what the park dedication fee is. Boyt: I guess I'd still ask for the land. Mady: Is there a motion to reconsider? Hasek: I think there has to be a motion to reconsider. The question is what to reconsider. Mady: Until there's a motion to reconsider, all this discussion is out of order. If there's not a motion on the floor to reconsider, we have nothing to discuss. Hasek: How did it get open? Mady: Staff brought it forward. .....", Hasek: So then we can discuss it? Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 7 ".... Mady: No. I've asked for a motion. Robinson: To reconsider. Hasek: Okay, then I'll just make some sort of a motion so we get it back on the floor again to discuss it. Mady: It has to be by a person who voted in favor of the motion previously. Hasek: Let's get .on it guys. Mady: Is there a motion? It dies for lack of a motion. EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT PRESENTATION, MARTIN SCHMIDT. Sietsema: I saw Martin get out of his car. I don't know where he is. He was here. I saw him get out of his car at 7:00. An hour ago. We can corne back to it though if you want to. Mady: We'll come back to it. ~. Sietsema: Because he has to present it to get his points. 1990 BUDGET, FINAL REVIEW AND CLARIFICATION. Sietsema: At the time that we put together our final Capital Improvement Program budget, I don't know if you recall we were over in the banquet room at Filly's and there was discussion regarding the money that we were going to take out of the reserve fund and put it towards different projects for next year. We discussed putting $10,000.00 of it at the Curry Farms site. I was under the impression that was part of the motion and that was the direction given but I relayed that to the residents there and in reading the Minutes that wasn't the case and it wasn't clearly stated. I wanted to make sure to bring that back to you to make sure, find out exactly what your intentions were on that motion. Lash: As I recall, Larry you were the one who gave the small talk on why you thought it shouldn't... Schroers: Why it shouldn't? Lash: Yes. Schroers: I remember that, yes. ".... Lash: I remember that too. I think it was intentional. Sietsema: If that is the case, then I guess I'm asking you to reconsider another motion in that there's $10,000.00 that was put toward Lake Susan Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 8 ..."", Park for totlot equipment. Given that that park will not be open to the public and really useable next year because the fields will be all dirt yet and nothing's growing, there probably will still be construction going on on the park site itself out there, I would ask you to consider moving that $10,000.00 to Curry Farms given the amount of people that are in that development wishing for park equipment and facilities. It was asked of me to ask you that. Robinson: Maybe we should, I guess I agree with you on taking it out of the Lake Susan Park. I'm not sure if I agree with you on putting it in Curry Farms. Maybe we should talk about some alternatives as to where that ten grand should go if it doesn't belong to Lake Susan Park. Schroers: possibly Pheasant Hills. Mady: Can I ask a question? The money for Lake Susan Park, community park, where did that come from? Was that not part of the grant application process? Sietsema: Part of it was the grant and part of it is our matching funds. Mady: So what we're doing is taking $10,000.00 that we put in the matching fund for that park and taking it out of there. It's a community park fund and now we're putting it in a neighborhood park. Last night we were say' "1 that we can't use neighborhood park funds for community parks. -'" Sietsema: No, no, no. I misunderstood your question. I thought you meant where did the funds come to develop Lake Susan Park. The $10,000.00 was taken out of the reserve. I believe that it was either the Lake Lucy access or the Carrico and you decided that you did not want to spend that kind of money in Carrico for Carrico property. Took $30,000.00 away from that project and put it toward park development rather than acquisition. Mady: I'm just trying to remember from previous years. The Lake Susan Park has always had, we've always had a reserve for Lake Susan Park. Community Park development. Sietsema: The last 2 years we have. We've made application twice for that park. Mady: So now the grant's been accepted and we have everything there and now we're stealing money away from it to build a community park? Sietsema: No. This money was out of the Carrico fund. Originally was put aside for Carrico and because we didn't, remember that we originally had, one of the revisions showed that there would be $180,000.00 put aside for Carrico acquisition. You wanted to move that back down to $100,000.00 because you were not willing to pay more than $100,000.00 for that, if even that. $50,000.00 of that went back towards the City Center Park because we were going to rollover that and do something different and then there " ended up being $30,000.00. We put $10,000.00 at Lake Susan, $10,000.00 ~ Chanhassen Hills and $10,000.00 for the second phase of playground equipment at Lake Ann. It didn't alter what's involved with the grant at Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 9 "...., all. We couldn't take money away from that at this point. Lash: I think this goes back to kind of what we were talking about last night as far as having a priority list and people who've been patiently waiting a lot longer than a year for some things should be looked at and I would be in favor of putting it for someone else. Mady: This is one of those parks that I would personally question at least 3 years now as to why we can't even get to it. So now next year we will have a street there. There's a street going this year. The park will be open finally. We have this nice shelter down there and people have been screaming trying to get into and use and now we're going to take away one of the items that should be there next year because the park will finally be open. You're right, you won't be able to play baseball there next year but the volleyball court's up, the beach is there, everything is there in place. Let's put the play structure up now too. People have been asking for this park a lot longer than Curry Farms. Schroers: I agree with both Curt and Jim. I think if you feel that we can take that money out of Lake Susan Park without hurting the development of Lake Susan Park, that's one thing but I do agree with Curt in that we should be taking a real close and careful look at who's been waiting longer and who's more needy. And if in fact it is Curry Farms, then I have no problem spending the money there but if someone like Pheasant Hills who ~ still basically has got nothing, if we could do some good with $10,000.00 there, I think that's worth looking at also. Robinson: Or can we give them a couple of 5 grand each? Schroers: 5 grand does very little. Robinson: But it would do a totlot. Schroers: But then there's a lot of validity to what Jim is saying too. Lake Susan Park should have happened a long time ago and we're still waiting and it would be unethical I think to take money away from there that would further hinder it's development. Boyt: There's another question. I sure don't know what the answer is but we could look at it as to whether or not we should keep that $30,000.00 together and do one of them more extensively rather than little bits here and there. That's what some of the people have asked us to do. Come in and do it, get it done. Schroers: There's something to be said for that too because it's much more efficient to operate and do it all at one time rather than having to reorganize and bring equipment back and do. things in phases. It tends to be more expensive even though it's easier to afford. It's still more expensive in the long run, the bottom line. ,.... Lash: Speading a little bit around although makes a lot more people happy. Boyt: Yes, because they're happy with one little piece of totlot. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 10 ...."c Sietsema: The facilities are so varied and we'd have different contractors doing different things if we did tennis courts or if we did a ballfield or if we did a volleyball ourselves or the totlot equipment that in some cases, in a big overall project where you're having a lot of the same thing done that's true but in the neighborhood parks, I don't know that that's really true. If the fine grading, all the grading and the seeding all the way up to the fine grading is done, to plunk the things in one at a time really isn't, the cost isn't that much different in a neighborhood park situation I don't think. Lash: What about Herman Field? Have you gotten...would that be an option? We've got $35,000.00 that was donated to the City... Sietsema: I haven't seen a revised plan or the cost of what the revisions are going to be but that's a consideration. Lash: Because those people have been waiting for a long time. Schroers: They've been waiting, I really think if anyone has a legitinate gripe is Pheasant Hills. They're just about fully developed and families are living there and they have a lot of kids that could use facilities right now. Lash: But we don't have a place to put it. ----' Schroers: I know. Boyt: I wasn't at the meeting where you were rearranging the money but the $30,000.00 was from the Carrico property funds? Sietsema: Money that had been, staff carne with a proposal and that's one of the things that they cut out so it's really just money that's estimated or anticipated that we'll take in next year. Lash: At that point in time we were talking $180,000.00 for 11 acres wasn't it? For a neighborhood park. That's not that much less then we spent down south. Mady: Right now or by the end of this year in Curry Farms we've have the final grading... (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Lash: Okay, I make the motion that we keep the $10,000.90 in the Lake Susan Park budget. Schroers: I'll second it. Hasek: The only discussion I have is if we do decide that we want to mc it next year, will we have time to do that? ~ Mady: Yes, we can respend it next year before we spend it. ,.... ,...., ,.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 11 Sietsema: We've had budget adjustments three times this year so far in doing the basketball, taking out the Bluff Creek access and doing some other stuff. There were 3 other things, I can't remember what they are. So that is definitely possible. The only flaw in that is that it doesn't show the Council that this is a priority for you and they may choose not to approve it then if it's not something that you really need. Mady: Well we need as much as we can. There's always a fire burning hotter somewhere else it seems like. Lash moved, Schroers seconded to keep the 1990 Capital Improvement Project budget as proposed with $10,000.00 allocated for Lake Susan Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSIDER INCLUDING PARK PATROL PERSONNEL IN THE 1989 BUDGET. Boyt: Should we have done number 7 at the same time? Mady: That's a different budget. Sietsema: No, this is different. Because it's different budget. I recently was talking to Jim Chaffee, the Public Safety Director, in talking about different vandalism things that are occurring in the parks and ordinances that are being abused. The times when CSO officers have been in the parks and talked to people, especially during the 4th of July celebration when deputies were there and talked to people, people weren't aware of what our ordinances are. What it says on the signs and may not have been abusing them on purpose but things are happening in the parks that shouldn't be going on. We discussed the possibility of hiring part time seasonal park patrol which would come out of the public safety budget but I felt that it should maybe go by this Board for endorsement or either freer discussion at any rate if you wanted to make a recommendation one way or the other that such personnel would be included in their budget. Robinson: How does the public safety feel about it? Have you talked to them? Sietsema: Jim? He brought it up to me. Robinson: Oh, he brought it up to you? Sietsema: Yes. He's suggesting it and from the recreation staff, I would endorse it simply because you go into the parks at any time and you see dogs in the parks that are not allowed. You see bottles in the beach. You see people smoking in the sand area. You see hard liquor in the parks. There's a number of things that aren't, one person individually violating that ordinance doesn't create a big ruckus or any problems but you have a whole bunch of dogs and a whole bunch of hard liquor and a whole bunch of cigarette butts in the sand and you've got burnt feet and broken glass and you've got injuries. You've got people being rowdy and causing problems Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 12 -" and vandalism. Vandalism has increased this year alone in the parks. We've had some... Hasek: Where has it increased the most? Sietsema: Lake Ann and in the neighborhood parks as well with trees getting cut down and just 3 feet off the ground, just cutting the green part off. With people spray painting profranity on park equipment, playground equipment. Boyt: rules right stop. don't One of the things that I noticed at Lake Ann was the sign with the is 30 feet beyond the gate house where you stop and it should be there at the gate house or right in front of it and that's where you They should be stopping there too and that's where you read it. You read it 30 feet beyond. Lash: Do we have a printed thing that has all the rules? Is that something that could be given to every person when they buy a parking permit? When they stop to pay for admission, they could be handed one. Boyt: And we need more signage at the parks too. At the boat launch with the rules. Schroers: There is no shortage of broken glass either. I guess I woulo make a recommendation or a motion that we would encourage public safety ~ consider putting on park patrol personnel in 1990. Mady: I'll second that. This is an item that I talked to one of the Public Safety commissioner about a couple years about. It's the way, you don't have to arrest people or issue citations, anything of that nature. It's just a way of informing people. It's a way of having someone there that can demonstrate what our ordinances are. What is acceptable behaviour in the park. Until people are made aware of what they can and can't do, you can't expect them to be always doing the right things so it's just a step the City is getting closer to insuring that it's public facilities are being properly utilized. Sietsema: It's a public relations move for us too. To have people there to assist people and to tell people, answer questions about the parks or whatever. It's not only the negative to enforce and to tell people what they're doing wrong but it's also a benefit in that you have someone there who has answers to some of your questions. It's a public relations thing. Boyt: In here it says 1989. Is that a typo? Sietsema: That's a typo. Boyt: So you don't want to give them out yet this year? Sietsema: No. ......" Schroers: There is a little gray area concerning dogs in the park and Lake Ann. That's on my normal jogging route. I go through there with my dog Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 13 ,.... all the time. I went through there today. One time a gate person told me, hey you can't be in the park with a dog. I said, hey I'm not in the park. I'm just going through on the trail. Boyt: Did they call you a jerk? Schroers: No, they didn't call me a jerk but I mean, that is a connecting route of the trail now is right down when you corne off of the trail from Greenwood Shores and go around to the boat access, you just follow the road out and then hook onto the trail here by the highway so she probably thought I was crazy telling her that I wasn't in the park. I was on the trail. Sietsema: As it has alway, it has been discussed, that has corne up before and when the full trail system is all put in in that whole area, there would be a trail that would be so you could run your dog through the park but it's when the dog is up by the ba11fie1ds and down by the beach and they're not being cleaned up after that it becomes a problem. That's what needs to be enforced. Even if we were to change the ordinance to allow pets, we need someone to enforce the clean-up after your pet ordinance. Robinson: Do you know Lori if Eden prairie has park patrol personnel? ~ Hasek: I think they do. Sietsema: I'm pretty sure that they do and it might be associated with their maintenance too but I don't know if it's public safety or again as part of their maintenance. Mady: Last year they captured a rapist in Round Lake Park and I believe that was a park person who spotted the situation first and gave chase and the apprehension carne from an Eden prairie police officer but I think that's how that happened. I do believe they do have one. I know Bloomington does. Hasek: That relates to the question I have. What is the age and experience of these people that will be? Sietsema: I don't know that. I'm sure they'd have to have some kind of training. Hasek: Are we talking high school or teenage kids? Sietsema: No. ,.... Schroers: We hire seasonal park rangers and they have basically the same responsibilities as if they're to enforce or try to enforce littering, parking, unacceptable behavior, that sort of thing but they're really not fully accredited to issue a citation. They can issue a warning citation or if the problem develops to a point where they can't deal with it, then they have a radio and know how to contact the regular rangers who can handle the situation and I'd have to believe that it would be the same thing here. It would be someone who has probably a college type person that has a little Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 14 -' bit of training in introductory and a good explanation of what we want and expect out of them and then equip them with a radio or some means of getting a hold of the police if there is a question. Sietsema: It may be a college student who's in the public safety or criminal major. Police enforcement, that they're looking for a job that's in that area for the summer and therefore they'd have some background. Schroers: You're right. That's exactly what we have. Mady: There are a number of schools in the metropolitan area, high schools in the metropolitan area, I believe they're called Explorer groups. These are fully uniformed high school students who are basically junior police officers. Brooklyn Center has it. Edina has it. Hopkins has them and these guys are very professional. We use them every year for the Minnesota Deer Classic as our security and they do an excellent job. I don't know if it's the Explorer Scouts program or how but these guys are very serious. I wouldn't shy away from high school kids...make sure they're a mature individual but they are there. We use them every year and have for the last 3 or 4 years and they've done an excellent job for us all weekend. Hasek: I think I got that question answered in length and again and again and again. Mady: Larry motioned to recommend the Public Safety to go ahead. Is tt~ any further discussion? Schroers moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that Public Safety include park patrol personnel salaries in their 1990 budget. All voted in favor and the motion carried. EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT PRESENTATION, MARTIN SCHMIDT. Sietsema: He's not here. He had to go to work but we can review it without him. Mady: We just want to approve it...right? Sietsema: Yes, we can. Mady: I have a question on it. The material is excellent in here. The question I have deals with the nesting platforms. Since the City of Chanhassen is spending money to get rid of geese allover the place, the metropolitan area is having a goose hunt every year to try to get rid of all of these geese, should we be encouraging them to nest? They'll be nesting there anyway. Boyt: This is one place where they can survive and not be a terrible nuisance to people. I really enjoy listening to them fly into that park-' and out of that park. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 15 ~ Sietsema: I was just going to say that if they nest at Chan Pond, they're not the same geese that we're removing from Lake Ann or Lake Lucy. They go back to the same place. Mady: Within reason. You're going to get an overlap on parks. Sietsema: Well there's going to be over. Schroers: What you're talking about here is 2 nesting platforms. If they're both used, you could be talking about an additional dozen birds. Mady: But the birds are going to nest naturally there anyway? Boyt: They do. Schroers: Yes. I think that they would. I think that there will be a couple pairs of geese nesting there naturally anyway whether or not they choose to use the platform. I don't think the platform is going to mean that there will be 2 additional pairs nesting and they may decide that the platform is a better place then wherever else they would have picked and choose to use the platform but I really don't think that it's going to add to the population problem. ~ Mady: It's not going to change my vote one way or the other. It's just a question I thought should be brought up. Sietsema: I thought about that myself and Todd kind of took this project under his wing because this was his ~rea of real interest and we discussed it to some extent in that the geese that we're removing won't be the same as the geese that will be at this site because they do go back to the same waters area that they were previously. Boyt: Do you know how he decided where he was putting the platforms? Sietsema: No. Boyt: Because right now they nest right here. Schroers: Where? Boyt: Here. On this point of land and it's a protected area. It seems like we'd want to, this isn't a good area. This is by the bridge and there's a lot of kids around there and this is very open down here by the other bridge. I think in this area would be better. Sietsema: He wanted them far away from eaeh other but I think that where they do exactly, it just shows one on each end pretty much is his idea. ~ Mady: Yes, you could put one on that side of the point and one on the other shoreline. It's one of those things that can be moved. They're just anchored down and you just pick up the rock and the chain and move it. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 16 Sietsema: like best. -' Right, put it at a different site every year and see what they Hasek: I have to assume that if he's going to do this, he must have done some research into where the nests should go. Sietsema: I know he did a lot of, he's talked to a lot of different people from Hennepin Parks and from some of the State parks on the types of materials and things that he needs. I didn't ask him that question. If we have a lot of questions, we can table this to the next meeting and have him come back. Mady: I think he has to come here before us anyway doesn't he? Sietsema: Well he'll have to go before Council. Mady: There was one other question I had is, the height. What is our pOlicy? There are standards...how high up above the ground and they do need to be considerably higher than... Hasek: That's related exactly to the question that I asked. Has he done any research on where this should go? Do we assume that he has or do we want to see... Mady: Maybe what we can do is pass along our comments, forward them u~~ the Council and approve it or disapprove it depending upon. Sietsema: The other thing is, Todd is his consultant on staff pretty much and he's put a number of wood duck houses and goose platforms together and bluebird houses too I believe so yes he has, out at his cabin he said, so he's got some experience in that area and I can have those questions referred to him to make sure that he's doing that correctly also. Schroers: It seems that in general that his program here definitely coincides with what we would like to have happen in the park. Have it kind of a nature area and enhance it and make it a little bit more interesting. Sietsema: What I could do also is make sure that he has those questions answered for the Council. Mady: That's exactly. Hasek: I guess with the discussion, the comments that we just made, I'd like to move to approve. Schroers: Second. Hasek moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to approve the Eagle Scout project to construct 2 Canadian Go, nesting platforms, 4 blue bird houses and 4 wood duck houses as proposed~ Martin Schmidt. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 17 JII"". Mady: I'd like to wish him luck. It looks like a nice project and I really appreciate getting the wood duck plans because I need to build a couple houses myself. Hasek: Has anyone been out to Carver Park, the Lowery Nature Center in the last 6 months? There's about 6 sets of blue birds that fly around the edge of that thing. Schroers: I don't know anywhere else in the parks where the blue birds are more predominant than there. Hasek: It's incredible. They sit on the lines and they fly over the cars. I've seen one blue bird in my entire life prior to going out there this year. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: Hasek: I just had a couple of questions but if we want to do this Dawne and Jan deal here first we can go ahead. I just had a couple of questions for Lori. I wondered how the sales of parking stickers out at Lake Ann has gone this year compared to last year and the year before? ~ Sietsema: It's a lot less than last year but I think it's pretty similar to the year before. Hasek: A lot less? Sietsema: Yes. Like opening day, Memorial weekend, we took in over $1,000.00 over the weekend. Like maybe $2,000.00 and I don't think we hit $1,000.00 over the 3 days. Mady: So we typically take in about $7,000.00 in a year? We have previously? Sietsema: Oh we'll hit 10 for sure. Mady: But last year we were like 15 or something. Sietsema: We were up to $20,000.00 that we took in last year but that was astronomical due to the hot weather. Everybody was out at the park. Boyt: The citations written in our parks, the money paid comes back to Chanhassen. Where does that go then? To Public Safety? General Fund? Sietsema: I think it goes to the general fund. ,...... Hasek: Have the people that have been at the gate met with much resistance about purchasing stickers or not? Sietsema: more too. No. Not that I've heard. I can get that information for you I haven't heard any real problems. I've had two calls this Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 18 week about, Little League parents that got charged that didn't want to be' but I just think that was a miscommunication with the attendant on duty there. Hasek: I've been out to the park a couple of tImes for ball games and so forth when there have been cars parked allover those access drives to the parking area, on the grass and allover the place and there's also been Carver County policing the park. Are they supposed to ticket for that or do they let it go for some reason? Sietsema: They let it go and I can't... Mady: Is it because we were parking short but I thought it was our understanding that the people who were blocking access, basically parking in those driveways, were going to be at least warned. Boyt: They're not letting it go at our other parks. We ran into Deb at the South Lotus boat launch and she talked about the number of citations she had issued at Ann, Carver and South Lotus and Bill drove by Carver and noticed any car that was parked inappropriately had a citation. She issues them often at South Lotus so if they're not doing it at Lake Ann... Sietsema: Let me check into it. I'm not sure what their policy is. Hasek: The only time I've been out there has when it's been for the ole guy's league. I'm just a little curious as to why they're maybe not -' tagging for some events out there and staying away from other just because of the hassle or if they're being consistent about it. That upper parking lot is half... Robinson: Even the 4th of July and it's just not right. The 4th of July which I understand was maybe an exception because it was so busy but there were cars parked right next to the no parking on the grass sign. Now they did that, the guy that said oh, I can't park on the grass. He drives way up to the overflow lot because the sign is there, I can't park on the grass so either we got to take the signs down or enforce it I think. One way or the other. Mady: Maybe this year we won't be able to enforce it. What we'll have to do for next year though, and we talk about this every year I think, is to inform all the coaches prior to the season as to how we're going to handle parking so they can tell their teams or at least they can't come in and say we didn't because then we'll say we told your coach this is the way it's going to be done. I know we have severe parking problems at Lake Ann. Until something gets done to change that, we're going to have to allow some overflow parking on grass. Boyt: There's overflow parking in the industrial park. Mady: But to have people parking in the driveways is unacceptable. Soro~ of those are so dog gone narrow you can barely squeeze through there goi~ 1-2 mph. You don't feel safe. Then you've got kids running every which way and people walking back and forth to the Satellites. We need to clear Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 19 "....., those roads out. Hasek: I've seen where there are parking stalls back by the biffies that are by the woodline there. Parking stalls open there. I've seen people pull in to that parking lot there because that's closer to the ballfield. Move the garbage cans out of the way to park on the grass with the stalls open. I think the simple fact is, either you line the thing and let them know where to park and you control it or you just forget about it and let them park wherever the heck they want to. That's the choice. It can't be a wishy washy deal. Boyt: Our park is too nice to let them park wherever they want. Everyone who was out there on the 4th of July was saying what a beautiful park you have here. Hasek: I think another thing is, if it was lined, I don't know that the lines are out there. I think it was resurfaced and the lines are gone. Sietsema: I think you're right. It's going to be resurfaced and lined with the improvements out there. Hasek: And if you're going to line it, we've got a problem out there, consider the possibility of lining it so that you can put some smaller cars in certain areas. The way it is now, a lot of times there's 2 cars parked ~ in 3 stalls simply because there aren't any lines out there and that creates more of a problem. But if you've got the 10 foot ordinance or whatever it is and you can reduce it to a 9, then consider starting with it there. Or 8 1/2 even is plenty for these cars nowadays and we can get some extra spaces. Schroers: I have one other thing. It just a quick question. Do we want to do anything about what we discussed last night? Mady: We need to start thinking about it I think. Schroers: Do we want to make any recommendations to Council on anything that we talked about? Mady: Discuss something more concrete. Schroers: Just for instance, requiring the developer... (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Mady: One question before we turn this thing over. Ed, you mentioned something about Minnewashta west, some land. Where is that? ,.... Hasek: Just south of the development that went in. Actually it's a little bit further south and several blocks of where we looked last year. ...as it comes off Leaches there. It's just north of that so it's almost dead center between. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 2~ Mady: It's on the west side? -' Hasek: The west side. It abuts on Minnewashta Parkway and extends back and I think it was, it wasn't a lot of acreage. 8 I think. Mady: 8 we'll take. Sietsema: It was how many acres? Hasek: I say, don't quote me but I think it was 8 acres. Sietsema: 8~? Hasek: 8. There was a sign. Schroers: With 8, we could do something with that. Hasek: The thing that caught me about it, and like I said I read the sign just in passing here because it hasn't been up that long and I don't use that road much anymore because you can't walk or ride a bike on it because it's too dangerous. I think that it's coming in for development. I think that there's a sign up saying proposed development coming in so I think we're going to see it in here that's why I mentioned it. Mady: Lori, if I make a recommendation for staff to go out there and review that. To drive out there tomorrow and checking it out, if we mak~ motion do you have the time to do it? Si.etsema: Sure. Mady: I move that we recommend to staff tomorrow drive out to Minnewashta Parkway and check out the sign and contact the seller of the land and find out what is available and what the asking price is and if necessary even call an emergency meeting for us if we need to move quickly. Boyt: Second. Mady: Discussion. Hasek: Why don't you let me take a look and see what the sign says and give you a call? Mady: She needs to go around and see what's going on around there. Sietsema: I need to get out of the office. Mady: That's such a bad road, maybe she'll come back with a recommendation. Robinson: Did the Council last night talk about Lake Lucy boat access? Mady: Let's get this point here. ..",,' Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 21 ,..... Sietsema: Do you want to vote on this one first. Mady moved, Boyt seconded to direct staff to drive out to Minnewashta Parkway and check out the sign and contact the seller of the land and find out what is available, what the asking price is and if necessary call an emergency meeting if there is a need to move quickly. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mady: Okay, Curt. Sietsema: Yes, it was on the agenda. Do you want me to go through that now? That was one I was going to bring up for adminstrative presentation or do you want to go through? Mady: You're on last so why don't we go on the how to run seminar meeting first. Lash: Wait, I have something first. I was kind of thinking, would it be possible for us to get some bike racks to put in some of these parks, especially Lake Ann? Mady: Let's procure the bike racks up here that don't get used much in the summer. Take one of them or two of them from up here and bring them back ~ again when school starts. The Jaycees donated those 10 years ago up here. Lash: Could that be a temporary thing but then maybe in the future kind of keep that in mind? I'd like to see them pretty much everywhere. Schroers: How do we discriminate between bikes and cars? Sietsema: Cars already have places to park. Boyt: We don't have car racks. Lash: Does that have to be stated more officially then that? Sietsema: No, I can go ahead and check and see if we can move that. Otherwise, if you want to put some in somplace, you have to either budget for it or amend this year's budget to do it because it's not in our... Lash: It can come out of our Lake Susan slush fund. I have one more question about Minutes. As I read the Minutes in their entirety. I was wondering, I noticed in the last couple of months that there seems to be different comments that I recall that have been said that are not shown in the Minutes and I'm wondering is that something, who's doing that? Is it not being picked up on the tape because I can't believe some of them are picked up or is it a thing where the person transcribes them or do you edit them? "'" Sietsema: I don't edit them. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 22 Lash: Is she told that things that she thinks are unnecessary just to..~ Sietsema: I don't think that she, like do you know what specifically? I know if she doesn't hear it it doesn't get in there. Lash: I can't off hand think of anything but I know reading through different things, I have a pretty good memory and I remember certain comments that were made. Nothing important and a lot of times it may just be... Sietsema: If it just seems to be bantor back and forth, she might cut that stuff out because it's not pertinent to anything. Mady: We do do that. Lash: We do a lot of that but I wonder if it should be shown. Sietsema: It can be if you want everything but I think if it's not pertinent to anything that we're... Mady: It also makes it very difficult when, and we do have a tendency, at least I do, to speak while someone else is speaking. I'm sure what Nann does is what I'm saying is totally off the point and just some kind of innane comment that she just takes with what's actually happening with the flow and the side comment that really is there for just one other person ~0 hear, just let's that go because it really didn't affect the meeting. ~ Lash: I just thought I wanted, and not that it was that important a comment or anything and I'm sure it was done in a helpful manner but at the last meeting when there was a vote and I had a negative vote and Sue suggested that I make comments for the record, which I did but her comment was not there and I thought well that was probably a good thing for that to be on there so they could see that someone thought that I should make the comment. And it's a very unimportant thing but I think in the overall picture of things, if Council reads these minutes, and I assume they do, that they would get a good feeling for the interaction. How people are working together. Someone said something that wasn't picked up on tape. Lash: Sure, and whether it's a wisecrack or whether it's whatever it is, I guess I feel like if it's said here, it should be in the Minutes. If that's...minutes and it should be a public record. I have no idea of how it was being handled. I don't know if you went through and read them and took out the bantoring or if Nann took out the bantoring or if she was given direction, if she thought it was irrelevant to not put it in or how it was handled. Sietsema: I don't really know how she does it with the other ones. I think she just does it the same way that she does with the Planning Commission and the City Council. I've not given her direction to cut anything out except when we said whack it. When we were doing budget and we didn't d--, that. That's the only time that I changed it because I didn't think that Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 23 ,..., was really appropriate wordage and we were just being silly. Robinson: I think your point's well taken, especially what you said, if we say it here, it should probably be in there. Lash: I think it makes people more careful of what they say also if it's going to be on, accountable. Hasek: I have one related comment to that. I have been watching the Council meetings on a regular basis because I can't make it over here for most of them and the quality of those needs to be drastically improved if the public's supposed to get anything out of them. I would like to see us, whoever's in charge of that, if it needs equipment or if it means that we have to have more carmeras, there's a lot of things that happen off camera. A lot of things that happen in the audience that don't get said or don't get shown. If the vehicle is supposed to be an information vehicle for the public, then I think it needs to be improved upon. Sietsema: I know they just got more cameras to show the screen here and one up there to show the speaker and they've improved the sound quality, or the sound system in here. Hasek: Since the last meeting? ,....... Mady: No, this is in the last 6 months. Hasek: Yes, because I'm talking about the last 2 meetings that I've watched. There was so much that just didn't, you couldn't hear what was going on. Boyt: Do they ask the people to corne to the podium? Hasek: They ask the people to corne to the podium but the microphone only picks it up if they're standing behind it and you've got to be within a certain range. You can't expect a person to stand there with his mouth against that microphone so I think the equipment has to be changed. There should be some sort of a better pick-up device for those people. Those are the main ones. The other thing that happens is that, Council, a lot of the Council leans back and sits away from the table and a lot of their comments don't get heard as well. I don't think that the Council has to lean forward to talk into the microphones. I think that microphones need to be able to pick up the Council. Sietsema: I relay that to the people that are in charge of that. Hasek: I think if they just watched a few of them, and maybe they do, but it's real frustrating when you're trying to catch a point and all of a sudden it just kind of disappears and you're going wait a minute. What happened here? Why did we get to where we're at? What happened over there that I couldn't catch. ,..., Boyt: I have another topic that I'd like us to discuss sometime and that's how accessible do we want our parks to handicap? I told you about the Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 24 handicap man who plays tennis up here. He has to crawl out of his chaix and through the gravel and squeeze through the gate and then his friends-' has to fold his chair up and slide it through. That's not accessible. That's something we talked to the people at, was it Curry Farms, about their parking lot. We make their parking lot accessible so it's a topic I think we should discuss. Hasek: I agreee. It's a platform that I maintain that we've forgotten. Boyt: Some of our trails we're talking about and I forget it all the time. We talk about turf trails and sand trails. Maybe we need to talk about the percentage of our trails that we want accessible. It sounds like we're not going to get 100% but what percentage of those trails? Hasek: Maybe what we could ask staff to do is just to pull together some research on what accessible really means when it comes to handicap. I know there's a number of books that can be purchased but there must be some standards that are being looked at by various agencies. Met Council perhaps has some, that we could start looking at more closely and it may in fact help us get some of the things that we want done too. The more accessible you make them, there might be other fundings available. Boyt: And the next time we do a budget, we need to put drinking fountains in, like Jim was saying, put in the parks. Mady: We requested it anyway. I don't know if the Council was too keep , that when we gave them that. Okay, let's move onto the workshop -' presentation. Erhart: I'll go ahead and start first. First of all the workshop was very interesting. I was very happy to attend. They gave us an awful lot of information and I just picked out a few items here that were important to me and might be of interest to the group here. One item was team building. It was presented by Karen Rahe and she has a lot of experience with working with commissions and also working with attorneys and prosecutors and defense attorneys and the victims. So under her team building she said that there are 3 stages. The first stage for team building was inclusion. That everyone should be included. The second stage was control and this should not be misinterpretted with power. Control being collecting data. Decision making. Setting goals and then whoever the leader was in the group or the chairman, that they would help build trust within this group. Under this same area she said that it was important that you avoid personalities and you stay on the subject. She also recommended that one person be picked out of the group to be the chair person. I asked her about the rotation of chairs and there were other commissions there. Nobody else rotates chairs. She thought it was a bad idea because you should pick a person out of the group that is best able to take this control stage. That it helps the group collect data and it directs the group to decision making and at the same time helps build trust within this group and she said that if you rotated the chair, that it looked like nobody wanted to take responsibility. That you should have one person t is strong in these areas and she did not believe, even though it's -' ~ ~ Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 25 practice, that everybody should be chairing a meeting. This is some information you can pass on there. The other thing that she works a lot with are groups in conflict. She said that there will always be conflict. You'll never be able to get rid of it but each organization needs to be able to manage conflict. The way you do this is, she gave us 4 stages that you have to go through first. The first stage was each side, each person in the conflict should be able to ventilate or she called it, which I thought was kind of cute, Jan's already laughing, verbal vomitting. For the rest of you, to just step aside and not get any on you. Then she said that the second stage was each party has to take some ownership in this conflict. Recognize that we each own a part of the problem. Then the third stage was be willing to walk a mile in the other person's shoes. Then hopefully the fourth stage in conflict would be starting to solve the problem. So those two areas were of interest to me and hopefully we're not going to overlap here. Lash: No, because after I typed this up I threw away all my notes. Erhart: Yes, these are mine before. I should have presented this 2 weeks ago. Lash: It's interesting because we kind of zeroed in on different things and I guess one of the most important things that I got out of it was the idea of figuring what your goal is as a commission and coming up with a mission statement jointly with Council because ultimately they'll have to be making the final decision on what we discuss. She said it helps you to keep control of the meeting when heated topics come up because you can always refer to your mission statement and that can diffuse the situation. They said that way it eliminates arguing at the meetings because you're arguing beforehand to come up with your mission statement. Ultimately it directs everyone into the same, hopefully the outlook is the same and it isn't always going to be total agreement when you make your mission statement but it should be a consensus. Something that everyone can live with so it involves a lot of compromises from a lot of people but she talked quite at length about more heads are better than one and that's the purpose for having all of these commissions. So I thought that was a very interesting piece of information. They said that all major corporations, Dayton-Hudson, a lot of big places have it and they redo it each year. It's very short. It should be no more than one page and we were all given the assignment of putting our heads together and coming up with one in 10 minutes. So I mean that was an impossible task but then different people had the courage to stand up and read theirs to the whole group. Dawne and I did not have the courage to do that. Erhart: They didn't ask us. Or we didn't raise our hand. Boyt: Isn't that on page 2? Lash: Right, but anyway roughly, I typed up roughly what we had come up with and we'd like, well I put in parenthesis it was very roughly done. ~. Basically it answers the questions that I have on the front page about who are we. What are our needs? What do we need to do to accomplish our needs? What are our responsibilities for our major shareholders and I Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 26 didn't exactly understand who our shareholders were and they explained t that would be the people we would answer to as far as the citizen and th~ Council. And coming up with our philosophy and our core of values and that would be the thing that probably would be the hardest for most people to be able to agree on and what makes us unique. I really don't know for. sure what that means but those are some of the questions and it's a very difficult task to do but it helps a lot in keeping everyone on track and heading towards the same goals. Once you decide what your goals are, it's a whole lot easier. Another thing that I included in here is just basically what the roles are of the different members as far as the leader and the members. Another helpful tip that they gave was, in time of an especially heated discussion and I don't think they were referring to heated amongst commission members, they were talking during the public hearing, that a lot of times it's a good idea, and I notice Larry's done it a couple of times, is to take it, it wasn't during it was after but to take a recess just to let a lot of people cool off. Collect their thoughts. She said you go into the bathroom, you never know who you'll bump into in there and people can come back to the meeting a little fresher and maybe will understand your point of view a little more and it just diffuses the situation quite a bit. I thought that was a real helpful tip. Another thing, to try and stay into the length of the meeting. We don't usually have too much trouble with that but they said many, many commissions set before the meeting starts an amount of time that they think is a fair amount of time to allot for a certain, say a public hearing. They said after a certain point it just ends up being people getting up and repeating the same things over and over so then you can say in a respectful manner that we have now reached the end of our discussion time that we previou~-, set or you can announce it before you start. Say we're going to discuss this item for 30 minutes and then move on. If there are people who have fresh comments to make or if the commission doesn't have enough time to make their decision, to table it to the next meeting instead of trying to hear it all at once and make a snap decision. So those are some of the important things that I got and then I did copy some of these or Lori copied some of these handouts that they gave us that I thought were helpful. Erhart: So would it be possible to work on a mission statement sometime when we don't have a lot on our agenda? They said it would be real helpful for new people coming in. Lash: I did ask the question how much input Council should have and I think she said a lot because they said you can make up whatever mission statement you want and if Council doesn't support it, you're dead before you start. Sietsema: So did they suggest having a joint meeting to come up with something? Lash: Yes. It's something you need to work on but it is very time consumming. Boyt: I worked with Mac on developing the mission statement for Chan Elementary. Each school was required to do that and we had a group of -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 27 "" about 4 or 5 people and it took us 4 morning meetings. Erhart: It's not easy to come up with one. I'm sure it does take a lot of time but it would be very helpful. Boyt: One page sounds extremely long. Normally they're a paragraph. Lash: They said to be no more than one page. Erhart: And most of them weren't a page. Boyt: Ours should be pretty easy. It's pretty much what Jan wrote down. We're park oriented. Park and recreation oriented so that gives us our parameters. Schroers: And that's why we should have absolute rule and not have to answer to anybody. Erhart: Sue, do I hear that you want to adopt our mission statement? Boyt: No. I think it's a good idea to sit down with the Councilor maybe sit down first and come up with one and send it to them or ask them to send us one. ,..... Lash: Maybe it would be a good idea for everyone to try to write one and then pull them together. Sietsema: There is a mission statement in the Comprehensive Plan in the Recreation Section that you might want to pull that out and I think, I don't know if I can put my hand right on it but the mission is something to do with providing recreation and park opportunities for all ages and different groups of interest. Something like that. I can pull that for you too. Hasek: I think it's good to review the one that we've already got to work with because it's one that we're supposed to be using to do what we're doing. If you haven't read it, it'd be a good idea to read it. Sietsema: It's vague. Hasek: They usually are vague. They're made obviously to cover a parameter because if you change it, you have to change the Comprehensive Plan. Change your mission statement so that's why their intention was on that. We can one I think that's related to that one that's more detailed and not published but it has to be at least relatively close to that so there can be no question about what our intentions are. Lash: Now they were talking about updating it every, they said corporations do it every year. ,..... Boyt: Our Comp Plan is... Lash: That's 10 years old. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 28 Sietsema: Our section isn't. Our section is 2 years. -' Hasek: 1 year. Didn't the trail plan get approved last year? Sietsema: 1988. Yes, you're right. 1988. Hasek: So it's only 1 year old at this point but again, it can be changed. Maybe it's not changed every year but maybe it's changed with rotation of Councilor whatever, some how it can be done that way. Every 2 years it's looked at or every 5 years. They're supposed to change, aren't they supposed to evaluate comprehensive plans every 5 years? Sietsema: I think so yes. It's an ongoing thing. And you could be something just really open and vague in the comprehensive plan that we just work on a little more and discuss each year and just as a policy statement that we adopt at the beginning of each year. Lash: Were there any feelings as to Dawne's thing about the rotating chair? One of the guys who was from the Park and Rec in Andover was with us. He was the chairman. The way they do it, and I don't think this is the way Chan does it but I can't say for sure, the Council appoints who the Chairman is. Erhart: It was split within the commission that were represented at this workshop. Half of them were appointed by City Council but the other hal- were appointed by the commission. -' Sietsema: The chair here is elected by the commission. Erhart: It goes either way. Lash: Which makes sense because it's got to be someone that everyone is comfortable with. Boyt: I have liked the way it's worked out with us so far. I feel comfortable. Hasek: I understand exactly what they're talking about. I think what it does for me is it gives me, or it gave me the opportunity to see not myself in this role but other people in this role. The question is, if you're dissatisfied with the person that is the chair, who do you appoint instead of them and unless you've seen somebody in that role for at least a little period of time, what are you using to evaluate them? Simple discussion in the meetings. I think there's a lot more to that and I think also when you are the chair you take a little bit more responsibility. You do read the Minutes. You're in charge of the meeting and you don't have to do it. You absolutely do not have to do it if you don't want to. I tell you what, 90% of the people that I've talked in the planning community absolutely agree with the idea of rotating the chair. Not forcing people to do it but the idea of rotation, in fact another comment is, basically it's too bad that Council's and Planning Commission's don't or can't do that. ....,., Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 29 ,..... Erhart: To stand up here, I'm not making a recommendation that we rotate chair. You sent me a workshop. She works with groups. Her opinion was that you appoint one person and that be the one that would be the strongest and capable of leading you through these four stages but not everybody will have that ability. She did say that if you were new, she did not think you should be chairing a meeting and I asked her what new was and she said anything less than a year. Well, I may feel comfortable at 6 months, and I may want to chair a meeting so it all depends but so far we've had a lot of meetings where there's been a lot of conflict with the public and I would not be able to handle that. Very inexperienced. Boyt: seen, be. I think our group has a lot of strong personalities, from what I've who can handle...the situation because of the group that we happen to Hasek: I think just over the course of the last year that I've been here, I've realized that there's a lot, it's like I've said, when you have a discussion on something, it's one thing but when you're in charge of something, it reveals something entirely different about your personality. (There was a tape change at this point is the discussion.) Schroers: ...it's worked fairly well for us. Boyt: But thanks for bringing the information back. ,.... Erhart: Thanks for sending us. Hasek: I think the mission statement is important and I don't think we should drop that. That we really consider. A mission statement for each section of the comprehensive plan should be more than just a simple statement. It should basically set the tone not only for the existing group of people but for the next group of people that come in to at least make them read it and understand and if they don't agree with it, make them make the conscience decision to do something about it. Perhaps that's just not happening. Comprehensive Plans have a lot of weight. They have as much strength as the zoning ordinance and in a lot of cases even more and they should be a document that's totally defendable and guide not only this group but also the Council and the Planning Commission and the Public Safety. It is the document that's supposed to be running things and that's why it was implemented. Actually the Met Council in the metropolitan area here is one of the premiere groups that has implemented that type of thing. Lash: It would maybe help people when they're making a tough decision to I think, the last couple of meetings with the development across the road, I think it's been a tough decision for a lot of people and if we would have something more specific to look at and to set your sights on, what is it that we're supposed to be doing here. We're supposed to be looking for people in the parks or for the developer and you know we get stopped in traffic. JIll'" Mady: The very first meeting of the year as we're setting up the chair for the year and setting up the commission. Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - page 30 Sietsema: I think it's something that needs to be worked on prior to th~ meeting. Mady: Oh yes. Well, actually after you have it for one year. After you've done it and you're comfortable with it the next year and you feel that we could adjust it, then it could become a major project but the first year, the first time through it is a major project. Trying to be all encompassing yet narrow focus. Okay, thanks for that information. Hasek: It sounds like it was worthwhile. Lash: It was. It was a lot of information crammed into a very short period of time. Hasek: Did they give you the opportunity to take another extended course? A more extended course? I guess I'm not aware of... Was it Government Training Services? Lash: Yes. Oh, another thing I just thought of. Remember when we talking about that lap top computer. This Karen Rahe, I don't know still have the brochure but she's the one who said we could contact get the information as to what she was talking about. How it works. much it costs and that's what takes minutes and the way I understood, transcribed them too. were if we her to How Mady: To me it sounds like a court reporter type of thing where you ha\~ somebody actually doing it as it transcribes it. It's something to look into because we probably need something a little better than what we've got. Not just for us but I know the Council has problems with it. I don't know how...they used to write down theirs. Sietsema: They're going with this. ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Sietsema: Last night, Lake Lucy access was on the City Council agenda for site selection alternatives or consider alternatives. Prior to last night's meeting, last Thursday we called a meeting with the City Council, representatives from the DNR, different departments within the DNR, PCA, State Representative and Senator for our area. It was a big group. To talk about what we need to do to accomplish access on Lake Lucy given the alternatives that we have. Kind of taking a step back from what Park and Rec has done but just elaborating further so everyone was clear that everything that's come to pass so far is the way it is. What it came down to is that the lift over idea between the two lakes would not be acceptable by DNR. They did n6t feel that was equal access. portaging would not be acceptable. The bottom line, the two alternatives that there were was to put in a boat access at the outlot or at Greenwood Shores Park. Since that time also I've also gotten a price for the Lake Lucy outlot and they're asking price is $15,600.00 per acre. They'd like to split it and keep t 2 dry acres and sell us the wet acres for that price. -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 31 ,..., Boyt: How many acres? sietsema: It's 7 acres. So we would keep 5 wet acres and they would keep 2 dry acres. They feel that that's a reasonable price and they've had appraisals done and they feel they could get that for the property. They said they were willing to consider selling the entire piece but it would still go for that amount per acre which brings it to $110,000.00 or something like that for 7 acres. There were some questions that came out of the Thursday meeting, the big summit meeting with all the powers that be. One was that if we apply for a LAWCON grant money and we condemn the outlot, will LAWCON kick into the project if we've already extended funds before final approval? Typically they don't. We need to find out that if that's the case in a condemnation instance. The other is to find out from our Attorney what our legal binding is to everything. The PCA has indicated that they would be willing to wait until we.got the LAWCON money to build the access next year if they were reasonably assured that we won't unresolve to do something and what legal implications the resolution we committed to the project have. We need to find that out. We also need, before considering, staff has some major reservations about putting access in through Greenwood Shores and how it would conflict with existing uses and the small acres of the park. DNR did say that they would consider and improve a scaled down version, being a gravel access with the concrete planks and only four boat trailer parking spaces and it wouldn't have to be the big turn around thing that you see at South Lotus but I indicated to the Council last night that ,before we consider that further, we really need ~ to see a sketch plan on how that would all work and how that could co- exist. If we would need more property than we currently own. If we need to look to Prince for additional property or how everything is all involved. So they tabled action on the item last night. It's scheduled for the 24th. In the meantime we're asking that the Watershed District extend their deadline of July 15th so that we can get these questions asked. I talked to Bob Obermeyer today and he indicated that that would not be a problem since they won't be meeting until August sometime anyway. Their board of managers. So that's where we're at. Staff is going back to find out these last few questions. I can't imagine that there would be any more questions after that that we wouldn't be able to make a decision one way or the other on which site would be selected, if any. Then after that, there will be time for public input on the work plan and all those questions that were asked at this meeting will be addressed by either Watershed or PCA. Hasek: Questions asked at our meeting by the public? Sietsema: If you remember all the questions that were asked, those are just some of the questions that have been asked. And in the adminstrative section that I gave you, at the very end there's a letter from Mr. Haik, the Attorney from Watershed that is asking the peA to be the agency that responds to those questions and works in conjunction with the Watershed. Work with the public. They want public input and the more public input there is, the more visible which means that people are more aware that this non-point pollution needs to be addressed and that's the whole object is public education is ultimately the bottom line. So it's tabled but I""'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 32 progress is being made. made to date. I think that some healthy steps that have been ......" Schroers: Do you know when it's going to come before Council again? Sietsema: The 24th of July. Schroers: Is that going to be a public hearing or will it be... Sietsema: It will be a public meeting. I don't know if it will be a formal public hearing or not but anybody is welcome to come. They haven't told anybody they can't speak at a public meeting yet that I know of on this issue. Hasek: Have you got a feeling for the position of the Planning Commission and Council on this issue? I know that they want to respond to a lot of the questions that were asked because a lot of the questions were good questions. Sietsema: Well Planning Commission isn't really involved at this point. Do you mean regarding the work plan or the access? Hasek: The work plan I guess is the question. Sietsema: The Council has questions. They want those questions that have been asked to be answered and some of them have been in a document, a bunch of documents about that thick but they need to be more addressed in a public format and this letter indicates that the Watershed is requesting-' and PCA has said in meetings that I've been with them, that they welcome public hearings so that it's as visible as possible and people do understand. Boyt: Will we be holding any more public hearings or is it all at the Council level? .Sietsema: No. We're pretty much done with it. Unless they send something back about the access but as far as the work plan, that's not our part of the project at all. Jo Ann will be working with that from here on out. Lash: Is 5 acres enough to do it? Can we do it without those other 2 acres? Sietsema: The thing is on that particular 5, we could do it on 5 acres no problem but on that particular 5 acres, we wouldn't be able to get a permit from DNR or a Corps of Engineers to do the dredging and the filling and the alterations that would have to be done to that wetland much less from ourselves, from Planning and Council to approve a Wetland Alteration to that extent. I don't think that... Hasek: It would be a precedent that they wouldn't want to set. Sietsema: They haven't let anybody else get by with that and why should -'e be able to? ...", Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 33 ~. Lash: So ultimately we... Sietsema: Right. Schroers: I think the bottom line, what it comes down to is you're going to ruin the environment on one side of the lake or you're going to ruin a park on the other. All that dredging, 400 feet of dredging to make the lake accessible, I don't know. That just seems like it's overkill. Erhart: ...dredging too Lori? Sietsema: No. The DNR has indicated that they would participate in the construction if we were to purchase the property. Provide the land and own it, they will come in and put the access in for us. It would be a scaled down version of what Mark had presented. It won't have curb and gutter and be paved like the one at Lotus Lake which is not necessarily bad because you don't have other problems then but the biggest problem right now is finding the actual site. The construction is almost secondary if we can overcome the obstacle of choosing a site. Erhart: I know they said the portage was out but why did they say that lift station would be out? ,.... Sietsema: They did not feel that that would be equal access. If the guy that lives on Lake Lucy can go from utica Lane, launch his boat directly into the lake by going 100 feet, backing his car 100 feet, then the person who does not live on the lake should have at least that much of an equal access. To launch your boat at Lake Ann and have to paddle across or use an electric motor and then get your boat on the lift and lift over and then be in the lake and then lift over and have to paddle all back, is not equal access according to them. Schroers: That's where we missed the boat. We should have worked hard to try and get Lake Lucy designated as a quiet lake. Sietsema: We could consider that at any time if that's really something that we thought was necessary. Schroers: I think that seems like a more reasonable option to me. Sietsema: But even if it was a quiet lake, the lift over wouldn't be equal access. Boyt: Bill's impression was it was out even if by levitation you could lift the boat over and put it onto the next lake. Lask: If the lake was quiet, could DNR still come back, you mentioned that you thought the DNR ultimately would put a~ access in somewhere, anywhere? If it was a quiet lake, would they... ,..... Sietsema: It's still on their list of priorities, yes. It's within, there's a Metro Waters Area Active Task Force or some name like that that Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 34 has members from the LAWCON State level, people from LAWCON office, the M~t Council, the DNR and Fish and Wildlife I think. All members of that Tas Force that have determined the lakes in the Metro area that are priority-' and Lake Lucy is one of them. It's not a top priority. It's like a Fourth Class priority but eventually someday it's going to move up to the top and they're going to want to put access on there. Last night they also looked at the south parkland study and acted to go along with the Park and Recreation's recommendation to proceed with the Bandimere property and have asked Planning Commission to consider the Land Use Amendment for the other Parcel D. Site 0 if you remember was on the south side of Pioneer, for a natural area at some point in time in the future. Any questions on that? My last item was that the 4th of July I think was a success. I think we heard a lot of positive things. Todd's to be commended for his planning abilities and his attention to detail and his ability to, execution is a breeze if you've planned it properly and he really did a good job. He was on a vacation this week trying to get acquainted with his baby. Lash: I heard a lot of positive comments about having fireworks... Sietsema: Yes, that was great wasn't it? Boyt: And parking worked out really well. People just zipped out there. Mady: Yes, I didn't have any problems getting out of there and I kept coming back. Sietsema: Do you know how long it took me to get from Lake Ann Park at 11:00 to CR 4 in Eden prairie where Driskill's is? At least 20 minutes.-, Traffic was backed up because Eden Prairie's fireworks got out at the same time. Mady: I was going to say, it takes me 20 minutes to get from Chanhassen McDonald's to Driskills some mornings now so that's no big deal. Sietsema: I come the other direction so I just zip in here. Hasek: How are we coming with the construction out at Lake Ann? Is it on schedule? Sietsema: No. It was supposed to be done July 1st and they're not done and the biggest problem out there is that they keep cutting the phone line to the beach and the beach can't operate without a phone. I think 4 if not 5 times they've cut the line. Hasek: Why don't they move it? Sietsema: Move the line? They did and then they marked it and then they came and cut it again. Robinson: What's the penalty for not being done July l? Sietsema: They had so many rain days that they absolutely couldn't work in July, I was going to check as a matter of fact with Gary and find out wh --' Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 35 ,..... if it moves but because of the number of rain days, it's just impossible. Robinson: There's something in there that they couldn't put it off a year and a half? Sietsema: No, and they don't want to. They've got all their equipment out there. They don't want to haul it off and haul it back on. Mady: They seem to be getting close though? You can kind of see how how things are going to... Sietsema: I would anticipate that it would be done August 1st. I think that that's a reasonable timeline but I can get back to you on that. In fact I'll write it down. Schroers: Well they didn't have 30 rain days in June. Lash: Or July. Just thinking about Lake Ann. Remember that night when Brad Johnson was in and he talked about having a fence put along the benches of the edge of... Sietsema: Yes. That was another one of the budget adjustment items for this year. Lash: So did that get done? ~ Sietsema: That became part of the project. So when they do the fencing for the rest of the fields, they'll be putting fencing in on that. Mady moved, Hasek 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 ,.....